133 Comments

1. Terrye:

I have to say up front that I have not seen the film. But I lived through the times. I actually remember young Naval officer Kerry calling his fellow servicemen war criminals. I know the effect on me was extreme. I believed him.

I will not make that mistake again. I think the point these vets are making is that Kerry’s lies effected them in a profound way because they helped mold public opinion. By making this the cornerstone of his campaign Kerry just reinforced the notion that the suffering of these men means no more to him today than it did then. And before Demcorats begin the complaints about how long it has been just think about the whole AWOL thing.

In so far as the film is concerned I read that Sinclair had never intended to air the whole film, but only excerpts from it. I don’t know if this is true or not, but one thing is for sure more people heard about this film because of the Democrats’ efforts to use their clout with the media to suppress it than otherwise would have. They also reinforced the notion that they own the media and the people only get the part of the news they want us to hear. It is called winning the battle and losing the war.

Oct 23, 2004 - 5:09 am 2. Pablo:

Roger: As a life-long Republican, I know that I have to check myself for unintended bias or credulity when it comes to accepting the reality and/or importance of whatever is being said about the opponent. For example, when Bill Clinton was accused of running drugs through Mena….

This is a different ballgame. Everything about Kerry says “fraud”. And the Winter Soldier stuff in 1971 goes way beyond mere fraudulence and reveals the character of the man. As you say, it is not just that he said these things, knowing that they were not true, but that, having served in state and federal government, having had plenty of opportunities to correct the record and apologize the those whom he slimed, he hasn’t.

I was born in 1964, so Vietnam was, until a college course in 1985, mainly a recollection of newspaper front pages and neighborhood families either worried about their sons going to war or praying for their safe return. I knew these families, and I knew that these were, by and large, good people. I didn’t realize until later in life how profoundly what Kerry and his Band of Liars had done had injured them deeply.

As an example, when I went off to medical school, I formed a friendship with a guy who was originally from my parents’ hometown and who was the brother of one of their friends. He was a Vietnam Vet who, 18 years after having served, would not talk about his experience. Not in any way, He was ashamed. He is a good man; I cannot believe that his shame is over what he himself did. Numerous older relatives and friends who served in WWII wouldn’t talk about details of battles, but they weren’t ashamed to have the topic raised, and they didn’t shy away from being identified as WWII Vets. This, it seems to me, is the residue of the kind of maligning that these men suffered.

Although it comports with my hope that Bush gets reelected, I do believe that it would be shameful should Kerry become President/CIC with this blot on his soul. You have written at length on this guy as a stock figure – the boastful soldier – from Commedia dell’Arte. I tend to think in less highfalutin terms – his is The World of Commander McBragg. But the testimony in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1971 is a bald display of opportunism married to a lack of conscience – not what this country needs in its leader. And not what Commander McBragg would ever do. I am ashamed of the Democrats for having made this choice.

Oct 23, 2004 - 6:14 am 3. legion:

Democrats are outraged–OUTRAGED!–that there should exist any media voice that they do not control. Perhaps democrats control Hollywood, the major newspapers, and most cable and broadcast networks. But that’s not enough. They have to control it all.

The minions of the DNC fear the voices of the people who knew John Kerry, and the voices of those who suffered because of John Kerry. They want to bury all those voices beneath repetitions of “I have a plan,” and “I will bring our allies together to do the job right.”

Warning: Past performance may predict future actions. Caviat voter.

Oct 23, 2004 - 6:44 am 4. syn:

This film must be seen by everyone. In this case, I really do not care about film technique the message is far more important.

John Kerry’s words and actions not only devestated the honor of our US soldiers, his words and actions helped to distort the goodwill of America’s soul.

In addition, I hope all those filmmakers over the past thirty years who used Kerry’s description of America will apologise for perpetuating the myth that America’s soul is evil.

Filmmakers took Kerry’s words and ran rampant with visuals of evil baby-killing, drug-addicted soldiers. They created a vision of the world that really did not exist but one the American public believed.

It is shameful, that for thirty years, the soul of America was abused by such fabrications and lies.

I was twelve when Kerry spoke and grew up with the stain of lies perpetuated by him and the anti-war movement. I suppose this is why I now have such distaste for this movement today and why I abhor John Kerry.

It is also the reason why I am so faithful in honoring the efforts of our service members.

Oct 23, 2004 - 6:59 am 5. Howard:

What web link to see it? Can’t find one on Google.

Oct 23, 2004 - 7:01 am 6. Gabriel Gonzalez:

The Democratic Party has been screaming about the Bush administration’s supposed crushing of dissent for well over a year now: supposed challenges to everybody’s patriotism, the alleged rightwing conspiracy to prevent distribution of Fahrenheit 911, hysterical Hollywood speeches about the inability of Hollywood to make hysterical speeches, etc., etc.

What I seem to see, however, is Democratic (and media) attacks against the free expression rights of the Swift Boat Veterans, court challenges, accusations against the Bush Administration for supposed complicity, more lawsuits against Sinclair and political threats to limit its broadcasting rights, Michael Moore’s threatening critics with libel suits. All of this while CBS invents evidence about Bush’s NG duties thirty years ago and the MSM ignores the charges against Kerry, some of which concern quite recent conduct, such as bogus claims about Christmas in Cambodia even on the Senate floor and in interviews over the past few years.

I do not see the Bush administration filing court challenges to try to suppress Fahrenheit 911, or Moveon’s ads, etc. even as the top ranks of the Democratic party leadership attend private screenings of Moore’s film, give Moore a privileged place at its convention sitting aside an ex-President, and openly coordinate their activities with extremely well-funded 527 organizations. (Even the initial suggestion by some Republican congressmen that hearings be held to investigate the CBS memo reports was quickly opposed by most of the pro-Bush commentariat as a restriction on free speech.)

Is it my imagination that there is an appallingly hypocritical double standard here? Is there some authoritarian streak on the left that wants to restrict speech they don’t like?

Gabriel Gonzalez – Paris

PS – I ordered a DVD copy of Stolen Honor and am going to watch it together with Fahrenhype 911 in an election night double feature (here in Paris).

Oct 23, 2004 - 7:05 am 7. Oyster:

I think it’s important to point out, too, that Kerry’s suporters simply say, “It was 30 years ago and I can forgive him for that.” The problem is …… John Kerry is not asking for anyone’s forgiveness nor has he displayed any remorse for his past. If he cannot own what he did, I cannot therefore forgive.

Until he releases his military records we will never know just how much these people are willing to forgive or forget.

Oct 23, 2004 - 7:08 am 8. Left in Texas:

Are you guys saying that American soldiers didn’t commit atrocities in Vietnam? Everything I’ve ever read acknowledges that some awful things were done in this war by our side.

Now the Winter Soldier testimony exagerrated how common this stuff was, but you seem to be saying that My Lai was the only bad thing that American soldiers did over there.

Vietnam was a dirty war, fought by young men who had been drafted away from their homes, exposed to constant combat stress, without the professionalism of the all volunteer army to protect them from the worst instincts of people under those conditions.

Abu Ghraib wasn’t so bad in comparison, but is an example of what can happen under those kind of conditions even in a much better managed and maintained army unit.

Oct 23, 2004 - 7:17 am 9. Mister Ghost:

OT: Iraqi Terrorist Group: Ansar Al Sunna Praises John Kerry – “terrorism has struck fear into John Kerry’s heart…” Thanks Ladybird, the Iraqi-Kurdish Blogger

Oct 23, 2004 - 7:20 am 10. Pi:

The only apology that Kerry would/could provide for his conduct during this time would be devoid of any contrition, and contrition is an essential component of any meaningful apology. Any attempt by Kerry to vocalize an apology at this late date would just be political mouth noise.

Oct 23, 2004 - 7:23 am 11. Hovig:

Interesting comments, Terrye. I’d bet Sinclair intended to broadcast excerpts all along too. They probably thought they’d be improving its quality by re-editing it.

If so, Sinclair is smarter than we knew. They made it seem as though airing “only” excerpts was giving victory to the anti-film groups, when it may actually have improved and heightened the effect of the film.

I’d be interested to hear from anyone who’s seen both versions.

Oct 23, 2004 - 7:27 am 12. bovious:

It’s disingenuous to bring up My Lai and the possibility of other atrocities to excuse Kerry’s lies and dissembling, at the hearings and beyond.

Yes, atrocities occur in war. But Kerry (and a complicit media) made and have maintained “atrocities” as the defining aspect of the Vietnam war for a generation of people who had nowhere else to get information. Shame on him and on his supporters who don’t want to hear anything else about that war.

Oct 23, 2004 - 7:53 am 13. Cap'n Billy:

Re: Left in Texas at October 23, 2004 07:17 AM

The difference, and one that you lefty dip-sh*ts refuse to acknowledge, is that our side punishes such malefactors when they are discovered. I was a thirty-something 12-year veteran of military service in 1971, and I was astonished that Kerry wasn’t prosecuted under the UCMJ when he made his blanket accusation on national TV and treated with the enemy in Paris. “We guys” are not saying atrocities are not committed in war, but throughout history the American forces have fought wars far more humanely than our adversaries, and have suffered unnecessary casualties as a result. My complaint with Bush is that he has been too restrained, although I can understand why, and that we are not seeing more smoking holes in places like Fallujah and Najaf. I don’t know how many more kidnappings and beheadings we are going to have to see before these kinds of measures are taken. I hope, if Bush is reelected, these kinds of harsh measures will be forthcoming.

Oct 23, 2004 - 7:58 am 14. Lon:

Howard:

Here’s a link I used last night. You can view it for free if you choose.

link

A real eye opener for me. Kerry has to be the most amoral person to run for POTUS ever.

Oct 23, 2004 - 8:06 am 15. David:

I watched the movie yesterday on Windows Media. It’s available free at http://www.buttondepress.com/BostonManifesto/StolenHonor.wmv

I’m not a movie maven like Roger. For me, the shopworn melodrama worked OK, especially since the film is only 42 minutes long.

Everyone should see this movie. It might help to bring closure on Vietnam. Whether or not it was a mistake to go to war there, we weren’t the bad guys. Our military’s conduct was indeed morally superior to the enemy’s.

Oct 23, 2004 - 8:11 am 16. Zachriel:

“our side punishes such malefactors when they are discovered”

Actually, war crimes in Vietnam were knowingly covered up, even until today.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040406/SRTIGERFORCE/40406017

“throughout history the American forces have fought wars far more humanely than our adversaries”

So you set the standard as being better than Nazis or Communists.

The Vietnam war resulted in over 200,000 civilian casualties — per year. We know from documentary history that the war was prosecuted more for domestic political reasons than for any benefit of the Vietnamese people.

Oct 23, 2004 - 8:21 am 17. Ron:

“I was astonished that Kerry wasn’t prosecuted under the UCMJ when he made his blanket accusation on national TV and treated with the enemy in Paris.” From a post by Cap’n Billy above.

Maybe he was and that is the reason the Federal Form #180 won’t be signed. In a New York Sun newspaper article http://www.nysun.com/article/3107 there is a story about that very thing. Mr. Kerry just might have been adjudicated under the UCMJ and been given a BCD; take a look.

Oct 23, 2004 - 8:37 am 18. Rick Z:

The real mystery of Vietnam is not that My Lai took place, but that more such incidents haven’t come to light despite 35 years of intense scholarly and journalistic scrutiny.

With perfect hindsight, it’s easy to see the folly of a strategy that presupposed a holocaust should the one course of action that could have produced victory–invasion of the North–was explicitly ruled out from the very beginning. Similarly, the imposition of rules of engagement that throughout the conflict maximized casualties in a conscript army were dictated more by domestic US politics than tactical conditions would have otherwise demanded. Given the frustrations of such policies, it’s truly amazing–and a testiment to the inherent virtue of our culture–that the conduct of the overwhelming number of American troops was so exemplary.

I was an Air Force enlisted man during the Calley trial, and vividly remember the genuine horror and disgust expressed by my career military colleagues that such things could take place–that such a breakdown in command and discipline could have occured even under the stress of combat. I’ve heard echos of these sentiments from today’soldiers when they speak of Abu Ghraib.

While I didn’t always feel this way, today I look upon my service during the Vietnam era with a deep pride that for once in my life I was part of an honorable institution–the US military–that objectively accomplished so much for the benefit of mankind. I hope that I will live to see the day that this undeniable truth is generally recognized.

Oct 23, 2004 - 8:37 am 19. Y acov:

When I came back to this country last year, I couldn’t believe that Americans could be so easily distracted by peripheral matters. It’s like half the country has attention deficit from years of television and video games. If John McCain understands what John Kerry did in 1971, then that should be enough to put that “issue” to bed. If not, then go back and re-read the story of My Lai.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/Myl_intro.html

It wasn’t the only place something like that happened, and it doesn’t mean all Americans, or even most of them, were war criminals. But the CIA’s covert operation (Phoenix, if my recollection serves) conducted assassinations that were deliberate, not the loss of control that My Lai represented. Vietnam ended for us in 1973, and for S. Vietnam in 1975. It’s 2004. We’ve got people out there who would like to kill us, and every day George W. Bush is in office he is recruiting more to their banner.

And if you think that you can destroy a profoundly held religious belief by killing its adherents, then how is it that Christianity and Judaism still exist? Those of you who think the answer to religious fanatacism is to bomb them are dumb, ignorant, or self-deceiving. Unless you delight in having these kinds of problems upon which you can pontificate. Then you’re just sad and pathetic.

Yesterday I watched 370 men and women get their new paratrooper wings. They are among the best and brightest. They certainly deserve better than the current commander in chief who values their lives and courage not at all. At least Kerry has seen war- he didn’t duck it like Bush did.

Oct 23, 2004 - 8:38 am 20. chuck:

Well,

Skipping for the moment the freedom of speech aspects and Kerry’s testimony, I do have to raise the prospect that some ugly things were done. I base this on talking to a long time Navy diver/submariner who recounted being disgusted by some of stories he heard from swiftboat sailors about the mutilation of bodies.

As I recall, the conversation then drifted to what we would do in the circumstances. The difficulty here is that as part of a group, you depend on the others for your own safety. Make too much trouble, and you just might find yourself out of luck when the chips are down. His own conclusion — Navy guys are eminently practical — was that since the bodies were, well, dead already, it wouldn’t be worth making a big stink.

War is ugly. Professional soldiers help mitigate this, but it almost requires the soldiers on both sides to be professional. In this regard, I could also recount ugly stories I have heard about atrocities committed by the North Vietnamese against villagers, My Lai type stuff, the results witnessed first hand by friends of mine.

So where does that leave us? Beats me. I’m voting for Bush because I think he is the better man, committed to pursuing the WOT and staying the course in Iraq, not because of what happened in Vietnam.

Oct 23, 2004 - 8:38 am 21. Charlie (Colorado):

“throughout history the American forces have fought wars far more humanely than our adversaries”

So you set the standard as being better than Nazis or Communists.

Yes, I think we do set a standard that’s better than the Nazis and Communists.

Oct 23, 2004 - 8:41 am 22. PJ:

Everyone should watch the film, especially boomers like me and Roger, because it puts the events of the time in context. At the time I was a teenager, felt bad for the troops and wanted them home, and went to peace marches because everyone else did.

The most important thing I took away from the film is that people like Kerry deliberately misused this naivete of America’s youth, deliberately lied about fellow soldiers in Vietcong prisons, consorted with the enemy, all for his craven political goals. He was an officer and almost 30 years old! At least Jane Fonda apologized.

His anti-military, anti-American behaviour has persisted thereafter.

I’m no Bush true believer but will enthusiastically vote for him. How on earth can people want a Commander in Chief who took the other side in Vietnam and every war thereafter?

(When viewing the film, go up to the toolbar and check off the 200% viewing size.)

Oct 23, 2004 - 8:44 am 23. reliapundit - the astute blogger:

This doc was good. Like most truly good things, it’s good because its substance good, not because of its style. Sure: Roger is right – if the style of the doc had been better, then the doc wouild’ve been better. But good is good enough.

now … as far as the substance goes…

I think the doc demands more than an apology from Kerry. That would simply NOT balance the scales.

The damage done – to these POW’s, other POW/s, all the Vietnam Vets, all US VETS, to the Vietnamese, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY TO THE ENTIRE US ARMED SERVICES – was severe, AND IS STILL BEING FELT.

It proves that Kerry is UNFIT to command – and the president is after all CINC.

Not just because Kerry SLANDERED the US Armed Forces – and the USA, but because Kerry demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about the Cold War – one that continues until THIS CAMPAIGN! (Only during this campaign has Kerrty priased Reagan.)

I was an anti-war activist at the time of the Vietnam War. Now, looking back, I know I was wrong; I have accepted thsat I was wrong about Vietnam – and the Cold War – since the Fall of Wall and the collapse of the the USSR – (though I must admit that Deng Xiao Pengs’ introduction of captialism and free markets into China beginning in 1975 had SOME effect, too.

These three events – the opening of China, the Fall of the Wall, and the collapse of the USSR – drove home to me that Kerry was WRONG WRONG WRONG when he testified that the Vietnam War “was for nothng;” when he testified that it made “NO DIFFERENCE whether Vietnam went communist, or not;” when he said “you can’t ask a man to be the last to die for a wrong war.”

If we had not abandoned the South Vietnamese – because of Kerry an the anti-war movement – then the South Vietnamese would be living like South KOREANS today – in liberty and in properity; instead, ALL Vietnamese live in poverty and under tyranny – LIKE NORTH KOREANS!

Imagine Roger: you might see people driving a car from Vietnam instead of a Hyundai or Kia!

65 million people were condemned to live the last 35 years under tyranny and the poverty that tyranny creates – becuase of the anti-Vietnam War movement.

Surely a war that can lift 65 million people out of tyranny and poverty – and a war that can HOLD THE LINE against the further growth of tyranny – IS NOT A WAR FOR NOTHING!

YES: Vietnam was a noble cause; a just cause -and every soldier who fought there is a noble soldier who deserves our everlasting respect and our thanks. Them and their families.

As an anti-war protester, I want to apologize to every Vietnam Vet and to their families. I WAS WRONG. YOU AND YOUR FANMILIES WERE RIGHT. I AM SORRY. I WILL TRY TO MAKE IT UP TO YOU.

An apology (like this) from Kerry would be nice, but unless it was accompanied by a deep and thorough change in his political outlook and policies – it would be meaningless.

Kerry’s stance on the Iraq War and his HORRENDOUS treatment of Allawi PROVES that at heart KERRY IS STILL AN ANTI-AMERICAN APPEASER who would SOONER ABANDON OUR ALLIES – WHEN THE GOING GETS TOUGH – than fight the good fight to victory, even if it meant being unpopular in the cafes of Old Europe.

Think about it Roger: if Kerry is elected (God Forbid!)and if-and-when the IDF takes down the Iranian nuke program… do you really think that Kerry would STABND UP FOR ISRAEL!?!? Or would Kerry abandon Israel? Under the SEARING outrage of Old Europe and Kofi at the UNSC – Kerry would cave in.

It’s the single greatest consistentcy in his entire carrer: he caves into tyrants.

His vote FOR the Iraq War was the ONLY TIME he VERE supported miltary action against any tyranny in his entire career! His vote FOR the Iraq War was an aberrant vote. His anti-war moments, and his vacillations since are the Kerry norm.

I wrote a post on it at my blog – The Astute Blogger – on October 7th.

Here’s the link -

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2004/10/my-deep-fear-of-abandonment-or-why.html

Here’s an excerpt:

“[Kerry's position on Vietnam] is a harbinger of future abandonment.”

And the fact that Kerrty would abandon the GWOT as soon as the going gets tough is the reason why the terorists want him elected, and why IF he is elected (God Forbid!) we could count on MORE attacks.

Electing Kerry now, would be like electing Carter in 1980: The Cold War would still be on; the USSR would still be together.

It took Reagan’s resoluteness to defeat the communist tyrants – and their sycophants in Europe. Reagan was resolute in the face of the Nuclear Freeze Movement – a movement LED BY KERRY (among other anti-Vietnam war folks) – and the protests against Reagan DWARF the ones against Bush; (I know; I was there!).

But Reagan was right, and Reagan held his ground.

And that’s why and how Reagan defeated the USSR.

And liberated 500 millio people.

James Earl Carter would’ve continued to CAVE IN to tyrants – as he had with the USSR, the Ayatollahs, and the Sandinistas.

James Earl Cater was a disaster for human freedom.

James Earl Kerry would be a distser too.

Jams Earl Kerry is unfit for office.

Oct 23, 2004 - 8:45 am 24. Y acov:

Gabriel Gonzalez: I hope you don’t have any preconceived notions of Bush’s character. If you do, watching both movies back to back could be deeply disturbing. But notice one thing in Fahrenheit 9-11: when Bush is bird hunting in the 1980’s- no Texas accent! He was already in his 40’s. And if you watch any videos of Bush in his younger days, he was able to speak in complete sentences. I guess all the Jack Daniels finally caught up to him.

If both movies were shown on network TV back to back on October 31st, I think the Kerry camp would be thrilled and Bush’s camp would be screaming. Roger- you’ve got an “in” there. Call up Mehlman or Rove or whoever and ask if they’d go for that. When they start making excuses and dithering, the “uh oh” alarm should be going off in your head. You’ll be realizing you wasted hours of your time over months putting out a defense of a candidate who’s indefensible and whose only strategy for re-election is to focus on everything except his record.

Cause if he’d done such a good job, that’s what Bush would be running on. Instead of running away from the video clips of himself reading My Pet Goat, bragging about getting Osama dead or alive- then saying he’s not “concerned” about it, then denying he said that. Video clips of him toasting the elites- his “base” and cavorting with Saudi sheiks and princes.

Oct 23, 2004 - 8:52 am 25. Charlie (Colorado):

I wish they could find us a troll who gave any appearance of independent thought. Instead, we keep getting the ones who depend on misquotation, out of context quotation, unthinking innuendo, and they use the same damn list of misquotations, out of context quotations, and unthinking innuendos as the last one.

It’s not just stupid, it’s boring.

Oct 23, 2004 - 8:59 am 26. Taters... PO-TAY-TOES!:

For people who haven’t seen the movie and who have a bittorrent filesharing client installed, the following link goes to a 190MB version of the film. It’s got about twice the resolution of the version available at buttondepress.com. Again, you need to have a bittorrent client installed for this to work: link

I saw the film last night, and thought it was pretty good. With the narrator standing half-way in the shadows like he, it was reminded me of an episode of American Justice, or city confidential, or some other A&E show with lots of dark innuendo. Earlier in the evening I watched a show on the Discovery Times channel (or somesuch) about the Hyundai shipbuilding plant in Korea. I love these kinds of shows, and this place was really amazing. This one sprawling facility produces, if I remember correctly, $5 Billion worth of ships per year, and completes at least one ship per week. And these are not small ships. Later on I thought, this could well be the situation in South Vietnam today if not for the actions of anti-war activists like John Kerry and the ambivalence of the US government at the time.

Oct 23, 2004 - 9:05 am 27. chuck:

Charlie(C),

It’s not just stupid, it’s boring.

Amen. What makes the comments on this blog interesting to me are the personal experience of the commenters, their expertise, and their thoughts. The trolls are justly characterized as membots, emphasis on bots.

Oct 23, 2004 - 9:06 am 28. richard mcenroe:

So whut, is ‘yacov’ sum kinda smart furrin name whut means ‘john clayton’ that us illiterut Amercans wont get?

I’m sending that Stolen Honor link to every parlor pink I know or am related to. It probably won’t help, because, like their candidate, they are incapable of believing they could be in error, because by their hot-house beliefs that would force them to embrace evil incarnate, but I feel obliged to make the effort.

Oct 23, 2004 - 9:06 am 29. Rick Ballard:

Why should Kerry apologize? His testimony was based upon his deeply held moral and personal conviction that the political advancement of John Kerry was the ethical polar north of his life. Betrayal of comrades and country comes as naturally to him as breathing and should come as no surprise to anyone who gives even cursory examination to his behavior. He’s no flip flopper or waffler, he is entirely consistent in word and act in all aspects of his life. At times he hesitates, because the personal political advantage to be gained by taking one position over another may not be clear. Focus groups may need to be gathered or polls taken to determine the precise position that will best enhance his appearance to others.

You always know where John Kerry stands and what he stands for, he has dedicated his life to personal political advancement and he will let nothing stand in his way. If you don’t believe me, watch his words and conduct over the next ten days. As the possibility of attaining the goal for which he has lied, betrayed and stolen over the course of his entire life to reach grows ever more dim, he will tell ever more exagerated lies, make ever wilder accusations and, in all probability, find someone else to betray.

We shouldn’t be upset by his conduct. That’s just the way John is. True to himself and only to himself right to the end.

Oct 23, 2004 - 9:06 am 30. David Thomson:

ìAnd if you think that you can destroy a profoundly held religious belief by killing its adherents, then how is it that Christianity and Judaism still existî

You are implying that America and her allies are murdering anybody who disagrees with our values. Nothing could be further from the truth. We are not per se ìkilling the adherentsî of radical Islamism. Only those who have declared war on us.

Oct 23, 2004 - 9:14 am 31. Y acov:

For those of you watching the documentary of Kerry in the eyes of a select few former P.O.W.’s, you should realize that you are the intended victims of the Karl Rove disinformation machine. Ask anyone who was an adult in 1969 if they ever heard of John Kerry in the 1969-1972 period. Virtually everybody well tell you they never heard of Kerry then, and didn’t know Kerry had been in Vietnam, let alone testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. Then ask them if they ever heard of My Lai and Lt. William Calley. Unless they were living in a cave during those years, they will remember chapter and verse on that story, because it dominated the front pages and the tv news, especially during his court martial at Benning. Now which story do you think N.Vietnamese political officers would have used to demoralize American prisoners? A guy who said bad things about some of them committing war crimes? Or an Army Lt. convicted of war crimes- a massacre of an entire village, women, babies, old people and all?

The Vietam Veterans against the War were known- but the anti-war movement was huge by that time, and Eugene McCarthy, Robert Kennedy, and William Fulbright (a sponsor of the Tonkin Gulf resolution and an avid supporter of the war in the early 60’s) had given official voice to their anti-war sentiments long before Kerry came back from Vietnam.

It’s just more of the Rove machine magicians’ tricks. Watch the left hand and see Kerry the anti-war protester. Ignore the right hand, Bush the “war president” who doesn’t know when, how, or why to wage it, and never experienced it himself; Bush the foreign policy walking catastrophe who has alienated every foreign government and their citizens; Bush the domestic economy failure who has created historic deficits, increased the size of government, and trashed every deeply held Republican principle from the environment to keeping federal government out of private people’s lives.

Oct 23, 2004 - 9:19 am 32. Y acov:

mcenroe, you anti-semite or know nothing fool: y’acov is my name. It’s Hebrew. In English it means Jacob.

Charlie: I’m guessing you haven’t seen the movie- Fahrenheit 9-11. Or watched the debates. Or read a book or a magazine. Or had an independent thought. Toddle along now. The adults are ready to take back the car from the 16 year old.

Oct 23, 2004 - 9:24 am 33. chuck:

A guy who said bad things about some of them committing war crimes? Or an Army Lt. convicted of war crimes- a massacre of an entire village, women, babies, old people and all?

We don’t need to speculate on this point, as we have the testimony of the prisoners and the honor the North Vietnamese themselves have bestowed on Kerry.

I was an adult in the late sixties, I am an adult now. Rove is a name to scare children, not adults.

Oct 23, 2004 - 9:27 am 34. flenser:

yacov

Video clips of him toasting the elites- his “base”..

yacov, can you explain to us all why billionaries overwhelmingly support John Kerry and the Democratic party?

(Apologies to the normal viewers for the rhetorical question. I know yacov can no more answer this than he can flap his arms and fly.)

Oct 23, 2004 - 9:28 am 35. mwalls:

Y acov – citing John McCain’s judgement of Kerry isn’t exactly a ringing endorsement, since this is the same McCain help make 527’s such great fun. Also McCain doesn’t speak for anyone but himself, unless he’s allowed to. Last I noticed McCain’s cellmate at the Hanoi Hilton (who has a Congressional Medal of Honor) hasn’t forgiven Kerry.

Let me know when Kerry signs his Form 180.

Oct 23, 2004 - 9:31 am 36. David Thomson:

ìThe trolls are justly characterized as membots, emphasis on bots.î

Thatís because a number of them are likely paid to post their comments by George Soros and other wealthy radicals. They are not even slightly interested in normally visiting Roger Simonís blog. These people may merely be following orders. In a few minutes they will be posting similar, if not even the exact same words, on another blog.

Oct 23, 2004 - 9:33 am 37. Peg C.:

Y acov,

Blah, blah, blah. Your rhetoric is tired and unconvincing. Bottom line, Kerry is guilty of treason, and he despises our very way of life here. His wife is an abomination. For those reasons alone (I could list a dozen others), no thinking Americans should even contemplate voting for him.

You’d better get a different schtick because come Nov. 3rd, you’ll need it.

Oct 23, 2004 - 9:33 am 38. Mark Poling:

Kerry’s mendacity from the 70’s could be forgiven, I think, if at any point in his career he had just said “I was young and I did some stupid things.” Americans are naturally forgiving. (Mostly — there’s a subset that can’t get over 30+ year-old DUIs issued to anyone with an (R) after their name.)

What bugs me is I have never seen an instance of Kerry admitting a mistake. (Except, of course, to backhandedly attack an opponent. “I voted for the authorization because I didn’t BELIEVE Bush could be stupid/evil enough to use it.”) Whatever the reason, John Kerry strikes me as someone who feels that he personally can do no wrong, and that impression scares the heck out of me.

And just to throw a little more fuel on the fire:

Kerry does the right thing, then blows it

A little summary with links to JFK 1.8’s actions during and after the VVAW meeting where members discussed the assassination of United States Senators.

That seems more significant than when exactly W picked up his Texas accent, but maybe that’s just me.

Oct 23, 2004 - 9:34 am 39. Sandy P:

y’acov, there are quite a few people here who wore out shoeleather marching in the 60s and 70s.

You should peruse the archives before you assume.

I am a tail-end boomer. John Kerry actively and knowingly created a cloud over this land which still exists today. We do not have to learn to live w/communism, we do not have to subsume the US Constitution, and I’m tired of living under Viet Nam. I refuse to let him do the same to my children and country.

“I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

He hasn’t changed.

Oct 23, 2004 - 9:37 am 40. Rick Ballard:

Isn’t it odd that the the Bush denigrators can’t find much to say about their man? They can lie and distort W’s record for paragraph after paragraph but they can’t come up with two sentences concerning Kerry’s record? He’s been in service (to himself) in electoral office for over 28 years and his sycophants can’t come up with an accomplishment worth noting during their anti-Bush polemics.

If there has ever existed a candidate for the Presidency with a more lackluster record of achievement, I am unable to recall his name. As Kerry slips into well deserved ignominous obscurity one might wonder at the probable brevity with which history will record his candidacy.

Oct 23, 2004 - 9:38 am 41. Hylas:

Sandy P,

Here’s an even better quote:

Kerry was asked in 1994 about the possibility of U.S. troops being killed in Bosnia. Would it be a waste of life?

“If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.”

source

In other words, sacrificing your life for your country is a waste. Sacrificing your life for the UN is noble. It must be that magic “legitimacy” thing.

Oct 23, 2004 - 10:01 am 42. richard mcenroe:

Yacov ó And you sir, are a fool. If you had paid the slightest attention to this blog before wandering in with your tired tropes ó

óyou would have known F9/11 was extensively discussed hereó

óYou would know that the level of professional accomplishment and education here is as high or higher than and as varied as that on any other blog (and more so than most national news publications)ó

ó That there is a large contingent of veterans here that scorn John Kerry to a man ó

ó That there are people here who were college classmates of John Kerry and know him for the opportunist he isó

óYou would know what irony looks likeó

And if you had ever read a magazine, book or newspaper, you would know ó

óThat McCain has endorsed Bush ó

óThat the Democrats have nominated as their (your) candidate a man who has burned villages and killed children, so they have NO business bring up anyone else’s war crimes ó

óThat Afghanistan just held its first free elections in 3000 yearsó

ó That even the UN admits the Iraqi elections are likely to happen, even without UN supportó

In short, you might actually know something. Anything.

Oct 23, 2004 - 10:13 am 43. Charlie (Colorado):

Why should Kerry apologize? His testimony was based upon his deeply held moral and personal conviction that the political advancement of John Kerry was the ethical polar north of his life.

Such a lovely succinct statement deserves its own post.

Oct 23, 2004 - 10:17 am 44. David Thomson:

“If you mean dying in the course of the United Nations effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no.”

I hope to God that President Bushís people create TV and radio campaign commercials highlighting this 1994 statement by John Kerry. Most Americans, especially middle of the road Democrats, are unaware of the Massachusetts senatorís views—and they would be appalled! This would likely end Kerryís chances for the presidency.

Oct 23, 2004 - 10:19 am 45. mikeyboah:

Roger,

I went to UC Berkeley, graduated in 1967, and avoided being a foot soldier by going to Naval Officers Candidate school. I was against the war, but not prepared to go to jail or Canada. There were many young officers with whom I came in contact who felt as I did. I understand that John Kerry was austensibly against the war during his college days. Rather than volunteering for swift boats in Vietnam(easy duty at the time and later changed) he could have done as many of us did and protested within the navy. I was a deck and gunnery officer, but informed my commanding officer that I wouldn’t personally fire guns nor instruct in their use. Further one could write letters of protest to the Chief of Naval Operations with a copy to every officer up the chain of command. It was required that all cc’s be answered. This caused great consternation resulting in lectures and counseling. This might be viewed as a “nuisance” but one did what one could. I know one officer on a destroyer who had a teach-in during training operations off of Guantanamo Bay. Suffice it to say Mr. Kerry could have done all of this instead of grandstanding as he did. We knew he was a fraud then and know he is one now. What he did in his congressional testimony was beyond the pale. Even if I agreed with all his current positions I could never vote for this craven opportunist.

Oct 23, 2004 - 10:35 am 46. Oyster:

“I couldn’t believe that Americans could be so easily distracted by peripheral matters.”

I see this time and time again in journals and blogs. Let’s first insult the integrity and intelligence of whom ever you disagree with in hopes that it makes your argument more plausible with words like “peripheral” or “distracted”. It’s a tactic I despise more than one’s inability to see what’s right in front of their nose. If you’ll look at this discussion more objectively you’ll see that what is going on is that most people are shocked at Kerry’s willingness to paint all our soldiers with a broad brush in demonizing all of them.

John Kerry called Robert “Friar Tuck” Brant, of the Swift Boat Veterans Against Kerry, and said to him, “When we dedicated swift boat one in ‘92, I said to all the swift guys that I wasn’t talking about the swifties, I was talking about all the rest of the veterans.” So it seems he is willing to exhonerate only the people who threaten his candidacy. There is something very suspicious about this. If he was a “Swifty” and insists he wasn’t talking about his fellow Swifties committing atrocities then where, exactly, did he see and participate in them? He later admitted to not seeing any atrocities himself. Did he apologize for lying? No. Not to this very day.

He had a right to speak out against the war. He had no right to use lies and deceits to do it.

And suggesting we see both movies back to back? I’m getting the impression here that you believe all that was put forth in Moore’s movie and it is worthy of consideration. There is absolutely no comparison between the two films as far as reality or fact goes.

“You’ll be realizing you wasted hours of your time over months putting out a defense of a candidate who’s indefensible and whose only strategy for re-election is to focus on everything except his record.”

For a second I thought you were talking about John Kerry. He’s the one dodging his record. Military and Senate. I have issues with his reluctance to release his military records. He wants to be President yet does not allow us to base our decision on all the facts of what he has used as a focal point of his campaign.

One final thing. To call John Kerry a liberal besmirches the intents of true liberals. He’s a socialist and a panderer, plain and simple.

Oct 23, 2004 - 10:36 am 47. Charlie (Colorado):

Isn’t it odd that the the Bush denigrators can’t find much to say about their man?

Well, no, actually.

Oct 23, 2004 - 10:36 am 48. Rhod:

Y cov:

I guess I’m the anomaly. In 1971 I was twenty-seven years old, had been home from Vietnam for four years, and I KNEW who John Kerry way. I was a Connecticut Yankee living in Florida, and Kerry leaped from the TV screen like an impressionist doing Vaugh Meader doing John Kennedy.

Your conclusion that the POW’s are lying about hearing Kerry’s name is vile and disturbing. Maybe you should get that asafetida bag refilled. It looks as if Karl Rove’s witchery has reduced you an idiot and sent you to the blogs to prove it.

Oct 23, 2004 - 10:42 am 49. Samuel:

y’acov

you anti-semite or know nothing fool: y’acov is my name. It’s Hebrew. In English it means Jacob.

It has been weeks since I have posted and I was going to keep it that way but as a fellow Jew I must say you are an embarassment. Only fools call others fools, especially with the attached explanation provided. Why should a guy with an Celtic name be ridiculed for what might be obvious to a Jew like myself? First, Richard McEnroe like myself has been a lifelong Democrat and secondly if your main desire is to permanently drive him away you are probably achieving your goal. Most people posting here are “War On Terror” supporting Liberals with some Southpark like disgust at the behaviour of the anti-War left. But please don’t be so damn pompous and arrogant.

Oct 23, 2004 - 10:50 am 50. Charlie (Colorado):

“You’ll be realizing you wasted hours of your time over months putting out a defense of a candidate who’s indefensible and whose only strategy for re-election is to focus on everything except his record.”

You know, Oyster, the more I see of these schmucks, the more I become convinced that they construct their arguments largely by projecting on the Republican side what they know about themselves. Thus, here, the assertion that Bush is “running on everything except his record” — when in fact he’s been quite definite about his record, and it’s Kerry whose record doesn’t withstand much examination.

Similarly, we hear that the Republican thugs are intent on intimidating voters — while mobs of organized labor goons invade Republican Party offices and assault and injure party volunteers, people shoot up RP offices, and now are blocking polling places and threatening voters.

We hear that the Republicans are trying to steal elections — but it’s Democrat attorney Holder who says in so many words that the only acceptable election result will be that Kerry wins, and any other result will bring out the lawyers, and Democrat Ed Rendell who is acting to make it nearly impossible for overseas absentee voters (read “soldiers in Iraq”, about 16,000 of them) to vote.

With that in mind, I expect “Y’acov” to shortly explain how it’s the “neo-cons” — who are in thrall to Israel — who are really responsible for the Iraq war.

Oct 23, 2004 - 10:50 am 51. Y acov:

“If there has ever existed a candidate for the Presidency with a more lackluster record of achievement, I am unable to recall his name.” BALLARD

Ballard: You must walk around all day with a large “kick me” sign on you, or you wouldn’t have invited this. Here’s some help with your memory:

RESUME

GEORGE W. BUSH

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington, DC 20520

EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE:

Law Enforcement:

I was arrested in Kennebunkport, Maine, in 1976 for driving under the influence of alcohol. I pled guilty, paid a fine, and had my driver’s license suspended for 30 days. My Texas driving record has been “lost” and is not available.

Military:

I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas

Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

High School

I grew up rich, went to the best private schools all my life, graduated from Phillips Andover Academy with a C average, and scored a 12OO on the SAT. Whew.

College:

I graduated from Yale University with a low C average. I was a cheerleader. I majored in history.

I graduated from Harvard Business School with a low C average. The GMAT wasn’t required by Harvard when I applied, thank goodness.

PAST WORK EXPERIENCE:

I ran for U.S. Congress and lost. I began my career in the oil businessin Midland, Texas, in 1975. I bought an oil company, but couldn’t find any oil

in Texas. The company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock. I bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land

using taxpayer money. With the help of my father and our friends in the oil industry (including Enron CEO Ken Lay), I was elected governor of Texas.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS GOVERNOR OF TEXAS:

I changed Texas pollution laws to favor power and oil companies, making Texas the most polluted state in the Union. During my tenure, Houston replaced Los Angeles as the most smog-ridden city in America.

I cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas treasury to the tune of billions in borrowed money.

I set the record for the most executions by any governor in American history.

With the help of my brother, the governor of Florida, and my father’s appointments to the Supreme Court, I became President after losing by over 500,000 votes.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS PRESIDENT:

I am the first President in U.S. history to enter office with a criminal record.

I invaded and occupied two countries at a continuing cost of over one billion dollars per week.

I spent the U.S. surplus and effectively bankrupted the U.S. Treasury.

I shattered the record for the largest annual deficit in U.S. history.

I set an economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12-month period.

I set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 2-month period.

I set the all-time record for the biggest drop in the history of the U.S. stock market. In my first year in office, over 2 million Americans lost

their jobs and that trend continues every month.

I’m proud that the members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in U.S. history. My “poorest millionaire”, Condoleeza Rice, has a Chevron oil tanker named after her.

I set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips by a U.S. President.

I am the all-time U.S. and world record-holder for receiving the most corporate campaign donations.

My largest lifetime campaign contributor, and one of my best friends, Kenneth Lay, presided over the largest corporate bankruptcy fraud in U.S.

History, Enron.

My political party used Enron private jets and corporate attorneys to assure my success with the U.S. Supreme Court during my election decision.

I have protected my friends at Enron and Halliburton against investigation or prosecution. More time and money was spent investigating the Monica Lewinsky affair than has been spent investigating one of the biggest corporate rip-offs in history. I presided over the biggest energy crisis in U.S. history and refused to intervene when corruption involving the oil industry was revealed.

I presided over the highest gasoline prices in U.S. history.

I changed the U.S. policy to allow convicted criminals to be awarded government contracts.

I appointed more convicted criminals to my administration than any President in U.S. history.

I created the Ministry of Homeland Security, the largest bureaucracy in the history of the United States government.

I’ve broken more international treaties than any President in U.S. history.

I am the first President in U.S. history to have the United Nations remove the U.S. from the Human Rights Commission.

I withdrew the U.S. from the World Court of Law.

I refused to allow inspector’s access to U.S. “prisoners of war” detainees and thereby have refused to abide by the Geneva Convention.

I am the first President in history to refuse United Nations election inspectors (during the 2002 U.S. election).

I set the record for fewest numbers of press conferences of any President since the advent of television.

I set the all-time record for most days on vacation in any one-year period. After taking off the entire month of August, I presided over the worst

security failure in U.S. history.

I garnered the most sympathy ever for the U.S. after the World Trade Center attacks and less than a year later made the U.S. the most hated country in the world, the largest failure of diplomacy in world history.

I have set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously protest me in public venues (15 million people), shattering the record for protests against any person in the history of mankind.

I am the first President in U.S. history to order an unprovoked, preemptive attack and the military occupation of a sovereign nation. I did so against

the will of the United Nations, the majority of U.S. Citizens, and the world community.

I have cut health care benefits for war veterans and support a cut in duty benefits for active duty troops and their families in wartime.

In my State of the Union Address, I lied about our reasons for attacking Iraq and then blamed the lies on our British friends.

I am the first President in history to have a majority of Europeans (71%)view my presidency as the biggest threat to world peace and security.

I am supporting development of a nuclear “Tactical Bunker Buster,” a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

I have so far failed to fulfill my pledge to bring Osama Bin Laden to justice.

RECORDS AND REFERENCES:

All records of my tenure as governor of Texas are now in my father’s library, sealed and unavailable for public view.

All records of SEC investigations into my insider trading and my bankrupt companies are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for public view.

All records or minutes from meetings that I, or my Vice-president, attended regarding public energy policy are sealed in secrecy and unavailable for

public review.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Of course, this fun “resume” was created and sent around the Internet before Abu Ghraib, before Ken Lay did a perp walk in handcuffs, before Bush denied on national television he’d ever said he wasn’t concerned about not catching Osama Bin Laden (an “exaggeration” he called the accusation by Kerry- but he apparently forgot he was caught on videotape, prominently played after the debate, saying exactly that.)

Anyway, Kerry is no prince, but he’s not the frog more like a poisonous toad- that Bush has been for the country. And no, George Soros wouldn’t waste a dime of his money or a moment of his time on Roger Simon’s weblog- or are you so egocentric that you think you are the center of intelligent life in the universe? As for former military types who supposedly visit this site- any of them ever get shot at? Get hit? Kill anybody? Lose sleep over it? Doubtful. Bush didn’t. But Kerry did.

As for trolls, or memes, or bots, or whatever fun slang cool inside phrases you make up- and you know who you are- junior high must have been a really tough experience for you that you haven’t yet overcome. The cliques must have shut you out completely and now’s your chance for payback by forming your own.

Don’t pretend this website invites intelligent discourse or discussion. Your mentor- to whom you shamelessly kiss up- will assuredly protect you from uncomfortable truths. He’s Jewish, as am I, but he either never learned or forgot the teachings of Hillel, or else he doesn’t believe that morality applies once you leave the borders of the U.S.

Oct 23, 2004 - 10:51 am 52. Charlie (Colorado):

Oh, yeah:

I guess I’m the anomaly. In 1971 I was twenty-seven years old, had been home from Vietnam for four years, and I KNEW who John Kerry way. I was a Connecticut Yankee living in Florida, and Kerry leaped from the TV screen like an impressionist doing Vaugh Meader doing John Kennedy.

“Y’acov”, in 1971 I was a 16 year old Jr ROTC cadet getting spit on, sworn at, called “baby killer” and even, a couple of times, beaten up after Kerry’s testimony, and while I couldn’t have called back his name before this came up, I sure as hell remember his testimony — and what it did to me, and to friends of mine, and to the United States.

(I’ll bet “Y’acov” doesn’t know who Vaughn Meader was.)

Oct 23, 2004 - 10:57 am 53. holdfast:

“mcenroe, you anti-semite or know nothing fool: y’acov is my name. It’s Hebrew. In English it means Jacob.”

Yacov, you self-hating, myopic twit. Get the F*ck out of the Tribe. Your moniker looks like Y acov in your sig line, which is what Richard was commenting on. I cannot beleive that a denizen of the fever-swamp left like your pathetic self would have the unmitigated gall to come onto THIS board and accuse Richard of anti-semitism. The only thing that most of the regular posters of this board do agree on is a loathing of anti-semitism, and a general support for Israel, if not for all of its policies. And when I say regular posters, I do, of course, exclude the seasonal, Moby-inspired troll-bots like yourself John Clayton and others who are too inconsequential to be remembered. Even Goof@, for all his obsessive counting and snarky comments doesn’t fall into that category but you sure as hell do. I’ve seen F 9/11 and I’ve also seem FarenHYPE 9/11, so I know how Moore manipulated his interviewees and flat out lied. If the Dems want to produce a similar effort, showing by Stolen Valour wrong, then I wish them well. I’m sure there are few errors here and there, but I seriously doubt that it can be thouroughly debunked, though I’m always willing to be convinced, unlike you who just obfiscate and change the topic when the facts ovewhelm your underdeveloped congnitive abilities. Oh, and if JK’s testimony was so inconsequetial, then why do the Dems talk about how Nixon and O’Neil were obsessed with him? Can’t have it both ways.

If you want to see real anti-semitism, why don’t you go back to Kos, DU or TPM? Oh wait, your boss, the great Soros doesn’t pay you to post there.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:00 am 54. chuck:

Yacov,

I googled up the resume and it is all over the net. So, once again you prove the point that you are unable to articulate any thought of your own, but can only parrot what others have written. Your insults to the other posters here look more and more like self description. Get a brain.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:02 am 55. lindenen:

Wasn’t Yacov a character on Tiny Toons when I was growing up? I swear there was a Yacov.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:05 am 56. Charlie (Colorado):

“Y’acov”, the most amusing part of that resume is the number of things on the list that are being ascribed to Bush that happened under another administration.

The second most amusing part of the resume is the number of things that are straight-out lies (eg, Bush’s “criminal record”.)

But the funniest part of the post is that — in response to the people pointing out that you’re parroting tired talking points rather than saying anything original — you’ve responded by cut-and-pasting an email that’s been around since the 2000 campaign.

I wonder if we couldn’t model this whole process as a rule-based system:

“Bush’s record” ⇒ post “Bush resume”

“voting” ⇒ “Republicans stealing elections”

and so on.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:06 am 57. Cap'n Billy:

Re: Y acov at October 23, 2004 09:24 AM

I was an adult in 1969 and 1971 and I have crystal clear memories of the My Lai trial as well as Kerry’s testimony. Of course, the leftist media (it was, even then) focused on My Lai much more than Kerry.

I am happy to see poltroons like you surface on this site from time to time to remind us that you’re always there lurking in the shadows, waiting to slither out to attempt to spread your slime over your betters.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:06 am 58. Hylas:

David Thomson,

It would be crazy not to use that quote. It came from the Washington Post, so I would think someone in the Bush campaign has seen it by now.

Roger,

I don’t post here often, so I’m not expecting any favors, but could you please ban yacov? This has gone beyond trolling. Now it’s just spamming. Iíd understand if you wanted to leave the botís ravings up for the sake of humor, but the scroll-wheel on my mouse is wearing out. Thank you.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:08 am 59. Charlie (Colorado):

Cap’n Billy:

“Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)”

Poltroon Pol*troon”, a.

Base; vile; contemptible; cowardly.

“Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)”

Poltroon Pol*troon”, n. F. poltron, from It. poltrone an idle

fellow, sluggard, coward, poltro idle, lazy, also, bed, fr.

OHG. polstar, bolstar, cushion, G. polster, akin to E.

bolster. See Bolster.

An arrant coward; a dastard; a craven; a mean-spirited

wretch. –Shak.

“WordNet (r) 2.0″

poltroon

adj : characterized by complete cowardliness

n : an abject coward syn: craven, recreant

Nice choice. Another word that should be used more often than it is….

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:11 am 60. Rhod:

Stop right there!

Y cov is entirely too derivative and verbose to be other than Jim Finkelstein.

Jim, the failed Senate candidate from Georgia shows up occasionally under different names, but with the same bucket of intellectual concrete.

Jacob, if you’re not him, you should look for him on this and other blogs. You’ve got a lot in common.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:12 am 61. Paul:

Troll:

I got this far into your juvenile fantasy about our presisdent’s credentials;

Military:

I joined the Texas Air National Guard and went AWOL. I refused to take a drug test or answer any questions about my drug use. By joining the Texas

Air National Guard, I was able to avoid combat duty in Vietnam.

Since he logged 954 hours of service in the 6 years that required a total of 300, flying the F102 “widowmaker” for 600 of those hours, perhaps one of the most dangerous fighters ever, with about the same likelyhood of death as service on the ground in Viet Nam, and since “drug tests” weren’t implemented until years later, I knew I could stop reading the rest of your nonsense. You are brainwashed, plain and simple.

Oh yeah. Your reading comprehension skills are almost as poor as your critical thinking skills. Mr. Gonzales will be watching FarenHYPE 911.

The America hating pro-terrorist Moore doesn’t meet the standards of truthfulness that those of us here hoping for the survival of Western civilization require, to put it mildly.

Run along back to your MoveON moron masters like a good little Moby now.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:12 am 62. Michael Adams:

I was a clueless university student when John Kerry was purjuring himself before a Senate Commmittee. (Or confessing to war crimes. Who knows? Who cares?) The name didn’t stick with me for a few years. The disinformation, however, became part of my world view. I examined things about as carefully then as students do today, who hear and believe that President Bush has a secret plan to start conscription. Oh.. and it comes from the same source now as then.

Millions of Vietnamese fled their homeland after the North Vietnamese invasion. They did not flee North when US troops were there. Of course, I know people who saw evidence of wide-spread Communist atrocities, and little or none of such action by people on our side. I know people whose job in the army it was to investigate reports made, up the chain of command, of criminal acts by our men. Did some happen? Yes. Crime happens. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have police, military or civilian. But John Kerry alleged that these actions were widespread and the result of policy. There are thousands of people who know, first hand, that that was absolutely not true.

As for the newspapaer series on an atrocity allegation. Yes, those atrocities may have happened. However, the date of publication and the Pulitzer prize, during the election campaign, make me somewhat skeptical. I know that there has been an astonishing degree of strategic juxtaposition about many news stories in the oast four years. It is fairly difficult, for example to get the straight skinny on Abu Ghreib. Torture allegations are thrown around with proven torment and humiliation stories. Yet, with the world’s press looking intently on, the people being convicted are convicted of torments and humiliaton, not of torture. Everything said, every claim reported is given equal weight, with little or no background or context. An example of that would be enlisted men under investigation who make wild claims of collusion by their commanding officers. In court, under penalty of perjury, they drop those claims. It’s only in their pretrial publicity campaigns that such things are said.

And people who have told such lies have the unmitigated gall to call George W. Bush a liar!

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:15 am 63. Rick Ballard:

I asked for a better class of troll and this is my reward? A reconfigured Deanbot with low cut and paste capability and dysfunctional logic circuits? The Soros/Bing/Lewis cabal needs a careful accounting of where their money went if this is what they bought.

I am deeply impressed by the bot’s ability to disregard and ignore clear meaning but that was a standard feature in the Gorebot days. If Dem party functionaries weren’t so intent on looting the party treasury they would buy better upgrades. Perhaps they believe that this is their last chance?

Nice list of Kerry accomplishments, Yacov, I see that we agree completely on at least that aspect.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:15 am 64. Buddy Larsen:

Am I seeing things, that someone has called a GWB supporter an ‘anti-semite’? Does ANYONE believe that Oslo would’ve been “Oslo” under GWB ?

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:18 am 65. Old Dad:

When Senator Kerry was a young man he said some very stupid and untrue things about his service in Viet Nam, and he slandered his fellow Veterans. His story, as well as almost all of the crap that came out of the Winter Soldier’s conference has been completely debunked by reliable historians and scholars. For a great summary, I recommend Norman Podhoretz’s Why We Were In viet Nam, especially the chapter entitled “Whose Immorality?” The evidence is simply incontrovertible.

I’ll leave the argument as to the relative merits of our War in Viet Nam to another day. Suffice it to say that Senator Kerry was perfectly free to protest that war. The question is whether or not he knew he was lying when he testified to Congress. I believe that he did know he was lying, but set that aside, and let’s give him the benefit of the doubt.

By 1982, it had been undeniably demonstrated that his testimony was false and misleading. His participation in the Winter Soldiers conference and the VAW were troubling at best, and, perhaps, shameful and even criminal. Let’s set that aside, for now. Let’s focus on a simple fact. He slandered his fellow vets.

I did not serve, but I have tremendous respect and gratitude for those who did. It’s not up to me to forgive Senator Kerry. It’s not up to me to demand an apology. It is up to me, though, to wonder about the character of a man who could do these things.

I must conclude that he is unfit for any office. Are these complaints relevant given that thirty years have passed? They are to me, because Senator Kerry could remedy them at any time by setting the record straight.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:21 am 66. David Thomson:

ìThis has gone beyond trolling. Now it’s just spamming. Iíd understand if you wanted to leave the botís ravings up for the sake of humor, but the scroll-wheel on my mouse is wearing out. Thank you.î

I agree completely. Am I advocating censorship? Not at all. But a number of these folks are indeed trolling—and often being paid to do so. They appear to have zero interest in legitimately exchanging points of view. Moreover, I am convinced that their central purpose is to severely damage the site by this form of virtual spamming.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:23 am 67. Samuel:

y’acov

I’ll will add to what I said previously and also to what holfast followed with that I find the throwing around “anti-semite” at a pro-Israel Democrat like Richard McEnroe to be disgusting. Even worse I find it belittles and shows disrespect to the dangers of true anti-Semitism as well as those who have fallen prey to such. Why do Jews in Israel support President Bush by margins of more than 2-1 while the most anti-Semitic populations hate this President? Are they all simpleton dolts? They understand the WOT more than most and this support reverses the usual prejudice of the past that mirrors those you seem to still hold. The world has changed, you need to grow up.

Bush’s IQ by the way is in the top 90% (it is at least 125) and higher then John Kerry’s by the way) slick speech isn’t everything. Your judgemental arrogance and “Michael Moronian” painting of this President is very unimpressive and shallow. You seem way to pleased and impressed by yourself.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:24 am 68. Rhod:

Rick Ballard:

If my theory is correct, and Jim Finkelstein is hiding out under Y’cov, you have yet to see how grim..no, GRUESOME, this guy can be. His posts run to thousands, yes thousands, of words, reminding me that a dung beetle in a dog pellet is no different than a dung-beetle in elephant droppings.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:24 am 69. Cap'n Billy:

Re: Charlie (Colorado) at October 23, 2004 11:11 AM

“Poltroon.” It’s one of my favorites, Charlie. I use it quite often. There are so many public figures to whom it could be applied (Kerry, Franken, M. Moore, ad infinitum) it could easily become a cliche if it were used every time it was appropriate!

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:29 am 70. Rick Ballard:

¬ìThis has gone beyond trolling. Now it’s just spamming. I¬íd understand if you wanted to leave the bot¬ís ravings up for the sake of humor, but the scroll-wheel on my mouse is wearing out. Thank you.¬î

No, no, no. I wanna see what’s in the pinata.

Besides, the impression that the membot is making may actually move a fence sitter to vote in an appropriate manner. I hope he’s wearing a lobster bib so he doesn’t short circuit his keyboard.

Old Dad

Great comment!

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:30 am 71. chuck:

Not at all. But a number of these folks are indeed trolling—and often being paid to do so.

I would be very interested in real evidence of this.

With regard to trolls, when it rains it pours, so there does seem to be some sort of bosonic behaviour. Stimulated emission from folks in an excited state might explain the laser like intensity of these pulses.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:37 am 72. bruce:

Hello:

I was born in 1965, so have had to play catch up on the whole Vietnam thing.

What I have been able to gather is that Vietnam was a horrible thing. I still am not sure about what our motivations there were, it is clear to me that the administrations that led us there and kept us there did the Amercian people a great disservice by not unifying the country behind the war, and then by not dealing with the serious opposition that arose to the war – what a horrible thing to have the country so bitterly divided, while our young men were overseas getting killed, being captured and tortured… and killing and committing some atrocities too.

And what happened when the soldiers came back… the shunning, the mocking, the attacks. That is a scar on America’s conscience that is not going away.

A horrible time.

It seems to me that the left has learned a lesson from that, and is committed now to always support the troops, even when it opposes what they are commanded to do. No one wants vets of current wars to have to go through what the Vietnam vets went through, and that some still suffer from.

I think Kerry’s opposition to the war was heartfelt, and that is why he has never apologized. I think it might show courage that he was willing to join the anti-war movement, and be a spokesman for it. This is based on an assumption — I don’t know if I am right about this — that the face of the anti-war movement was the face of wild youth – the hippies and the yippies. Not the face of ordered, normal life, not the safe establishment. Am I wrong about that?

Even if Kerry was ambitious back then… would putting his face up there as a face of the anti-war movement have been a sensible path to power? I don’t think so — I think back then it would be a path to political marginalization.

If he really is as craven as he is made out to be sometimes, I would think he would indeed have apologized by now, ascribing his actions back then to some wild youthful naivete or idealism… but he hasn’t done that. I think he does have a moral compass.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:37 am 73. Old Dad:

Rick:

Thanks. This issue has been a real sore spot for me. I always thought that Kerry was a pompous but harmless windbag from Massachusetts. When he won the Dem primary, I thought I better do a little more homework, and the Viet Nam problems stopped me cold. I couldn’t and still can’t understand why he doesn’t simply set the record straight. I think he might be mental.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:39 am 74. PeterUK:

“When I came back to this country last year”

Y’acov

Where did you run away from and why?

Did they run you out of town or were you just surplus to requirements?

Or are you a tergiversator of an itinerant nature?

By the way your long pre-prepared screed is a giveaway it is so yesterdays troll.Do buck up,the fact you have not attracted the attention of Dennis the Peasant indicates your rather shabby standards of trollery.

Using Fahrenheit 9/11 as a source of information puts you in the “challenged “category,still you probably thought “Free Willy” was an offer.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:42 am 75. JackHughs:

Some of the comments appearing here bring to mind the inherent racism of the “Blame America First” crowd. By laying the blame for virtually all global ills on the United States (or in this case the US military), they effectively hold the United States to the highest moral standard and hold all others to no moral standard whatsoever.

This is not a “soft racism of low expectations.” This is the undiluted, unadulterated hard racism of “no expectations.”

And, if you think on it for awhile, you can see this same attitude at work in the Kerry campaign. President Bush is held to the highest standard of behavior in all things while there are no expectations at all for Senator Kerry.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:47 am 76. Orion:

“DIdn’t atrocities occur in Vietnam?”

Since the war ended both official and unofficial attempts have been made to docuent the “many” attrocities committed by US troops in Vietnam. To date the only ones they’ve found are those originally reported by the soldiers themselves thru their chain of command. It was troops at My Lai who told the world what had happened, fer example.

In some cases the VC would level a villiage, shoot footage of the burning houses and dead peasants, and smuggle that out of the country to the USSR where it was turned into propaganda films claiming these were done by US troops. Most of the atrocity stories trace back to left-wing French publications at the time, who were being fed their stories by the KGB and other East Bloc alliance intelligence services. A former head of the Bulgarian Secret Service defected to the West and recently admitted that his unit had taken part in this disinformation campaign. The KGB archives have been opened up and their files show how deeply the Soviet Union was involved in the US anti-war movement, using it as a conduit for their disinformation campaigns during the Vietnam War.

Were there individual acts of cruelty and barbarism by US soldiers? Of course. Many were draftees with limited training and soemtimes incompetent supervision. It wasn’t widespread and it wasn’t “condoned at all levels of command”, as Kerry claimed. Another factor to consider was the length of the war: The US, under Johnson and McNamara, elected not to win the war militarily but politically. McNamara believed a policy of “gradual escalation” would sap the North’s willingness to fight and force them to the bargaining table. It was just the opposite: The Vietnamese learned to adapt to the gradual increase in attacks, where they could hide their troops and supplies so they wouldn’t be bombed, etc. Had Johnson bombed in 1965 like Nixon did in 1972 it would have brought the North to its knees and quickly ended the war, leaving few opportunities for US soldiers to “go bad”.

Kerry betrayed his country, he betrayed his “band of brothers”. Had he said, “Look, this ‘gradual escalation’ crud isn’t working. We should have been given the go ahead to kick in the door and do our jobs from the beginning. If you want this war to end quickly you’ll mine the harbors and turn the B-52s loose.” the war could have been over in 6 months and the POWs treated much more humanely (the NVA would have been terrified to have harmed them further).

There is a REASON Kerry’s picture hangs in a Hanoi gallery dedicated to the heros of the Revolution.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:53 am 77. sam1:

Dear Roger:

Your review reminds me of an interview about Charlie Parker (Bird). At an after after hours joint he frequented there was a jukebox that had a number of country and western songs. He would play them time after time, listening at the jukebox. One of the sidemen he was playing with asked him why did he bother with that lousey music. His reply was “but listen to the stories, man, listen to the stories.” He was of course, correct.

Sometimes great content can overwhelm poor form.

There have been so many comments that I had to note that this was addressed to your review, rather than the trolls and troll killers.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:55 am 78. chuck:

bruce,

It seems to me that the left has learned a lesson from that, and is committed now to always support the troops,

Nah, I don’t buy that. I will believe it when the left actually does something to support the troops instead of attempt to use them to score political points. Till then, it’s just talk. By the way, similar things were said back in the Vietnam days, but it wasn’t sincere then either. I think that what the left wants from the troops is another Battleship Potemkin; until mutiny happens the troops are just misled and ignorant tools of tyranny whose loyalty must be undermined. I suppose this counts as supporting the troops “true” interests as seen by their betters.

Oct 23, 2004 - 11:56 am 79. PeterUK:

Bruce,

Had the Vietnam War been under the auspicies of the UN,Kerry would have supported it,the man has stated publicly that he would put US troops under UN control.See above.

Oct 23, 2004 - 12:04 pm 80. Rick Ballard:

“I think he does have a moral compass.”

I believe that’s what I alluded to in my first comment. His own self advancement has always been his North Star shining brightly for all to see.

I would offer his “No” vote on GWI as evidence. Followed by his “Yes” vote on the Bosnian intervention followed by his “Yes” vote on GWII followed by his “No” vote on the funding bill. If his morality attaches to more than self advancement there should be some type of consistency (aside from polling data) to explain the four votes. If UN permission is the litmus why No to GWI and Yes to GWII? And why Yes to Bosnia? If Yes to GWII why No to funding it? IMO one would find description of Kerry’s character lying somewhere between between poltroon (thanks Cap’n Billy), chameleon and charlatan. His fabled “nuance” is a charade masking a complete lack of core in this most hollow of men.

Oct 23, 2004 - 12:09 pm 81. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

No time today for a full blast, but…

Y’cov is a troll. Anyone who comes into a blog and dumps a long bunch of text from other sites is wasting the host’s bandwidth. A link would have been adequate. Not to mention that it was off topic and full of lies.

A couple of notes:

First, the media is now trying to convince us of two things: Kerry’s speech didn’t address all veterans, only some; The US committed large numbers of atrocities, so Kerry was right to condemn the US and Vietnam veterans.

The many atrocities is being pushed so people will believe that Kerry wasn’t lying (they ignore the many other lies from that same speech, such as the bizarrre and incorrect assertion that we were using weapaons against the asian Vietnamese that we wouldn’t use against Europeans – part of a deceptive sting to paint the war as racist.

The new media campaign is simply smearing us again the way Kerry did in 1971. Don’t look to the democrats to condemn it.

In fact, there were of course more atrocities than were reported – about 200 of our soldiers were convicted and punished for atrocities.

But more importantly, the level was low by the standards of any but western soldiers, where it was a normal, if regrettable number.

The media is only dealing with atrocity charges because so many people know about it. They are ignoring the many other lies and calumnies that are also in the speech. See here for the full text of his speech with analysis. It is clear that Kerry was talking about all of our soldiers, and the policy of our country. Not only were veterans slandered, but our country was hit with lasting slanders by Kerry.

POWs were tortured not to get military information, but to get statements that could be used for propaganda. We were taught in SERE school (which among other things simulates being chased by the enemy, and being in a prison camp and interrogation). When I was interrogated I was made to do pushups and count them outlawed. I was later informed that my one mistake in interrogation (which included mild torture such as beatings and other stuff I don’t want to reveal) was the counting because the enemy could use the numbers in my voice to make propaganda by audio editing!

You can understand why the POWs would be so angry at Kerry: he gave the North exactly the propaganda they wanted from an American officer – the same propaganda the POWs had refused to give for years, suffer terrible tortures (and death) as a result.

His propaganda is IS STILL BEING USED by the Vietnamese dictatorship.

Here is my collection of a number of actions by or about Kerry regarding the Vietnam war.

For original documents, FBI files, analyses, etc go to Winter Soldier. It is the best site for finding anything you want to know about Kerry’s Vietnam and Anti-War (really, pro-North Vietnam) activities.

Also, the Swifties have two new ads that I think are more effective than some of the others.

Oct 23, 2004 - 12:12 pm 82. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

No time today for a full blast, but…

Y’cov is a troll. Anyone who comes into a blog and dumps a long bunch of text from other sites is wasting the host’s bandwidth. A link would have been adequate. Not to mention that it was off topic and full of lies.

A couple of notes:

First, the media is now trying to convince us of two things: Kerry’s speech didn’t address all veterans, only some; The US committed large numbers of atrocities, so Kerry was right to condemn the US and Vietnam veterans.

The many atrocities is being pushed so people will believe that Kerry wasn’t lying (they ignore the many other lies from that same speech, such as the bizarrre and incorrect assertion that we were using weapaons against the asian Vietnamese that we wouldn’t use against Europeans – part of a deceptive sting to paint the war as racist.

The new media campaign is simply smearing us again the way Kerry did in 1971. Don’t look to the democrats to condemn it.

In fact, there were of course more atrocities than were reported – about 200 of our soldiers were convicted and punished for atrocities.

But more importantly, the level was low by the standards of any but western soldiers, where it was a normal, if regrettable number.

The media is only dealing with atrocity charges because so many people know about it. They are ignoring the many other lies and calumnies that are also in the speech. See here for the full text of his speech with analysis. It is clear that Kerry was talking about all of our soldiers, and the policy of our country. Not only were veterans slandered, but our country was hit with lasting slanders by Kerry.

POWs were tortured not to get military information, but to get statements that could be used for propaganda. We were taught in SERE school (which among other things simulates being chased by the enemy, and being in a prison camp and interrogation). When I was interrogated I was made to do pushups and count them outlawed. I was later informed that my one mistake in interrogation (which included mild torture such as beatings and other stuff I don’t want to reveal) was the counting because the enemy could use the numbers in my voice to make propaganda by audio editing!

You can understand why the POWs would be so angry at Kerry: he gave the North exactly the propaganda they wanted from an American officer – the same propaganda the POWs had refused to give for years, suffer terrible tortures (and death) as a result.

His propaganda is IS STILL BEING USED by the Vietnamese dictatorship.

Here is my collection of a number of actions by or about Kerry regarding the Vietnam war.

For original documents, FBI files, analyses, etc go to Winter Soldier. It is the best site for finding anything you want to know about Kerry’s Vietnam and Anti-War (really, pro-North Vietnam) activities.

Also, the Swifties have two new ads that I think are more effective than some of the others.

Oct 23, 2004 - 12:14 pm 83. Cap'n Billy:

Re: PeterUK at October 23, 2004 11:42 AM

tergiversator:

To use evasions or ambiguities; equivocate.

To change sides; apostatize.

My turn to take note of a good word that deserves more use. Thanks, Peter, for increasing my vocabulary. Another of the myriad of reasons for visiting this blog!

Oct 23, 2004 - 12:14 pm 84. Hylas:

Rick Ballard,

“No, no, no. I wanna see what’s in the pinata.”

Okay, you’ve changed my mind, now that I look at it like that.

Oh yakov! Where are you? Please come back. I’m almost convinced, another 5 meg dump of “Bush Eats Puppies” stories might turn me. Help! I can’t resist your awesome logical powers.

Oct 23, 2004 - 12:15 pm 85. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

I hear that Sinclair didn’t air the documentary but just pieces of it, with a lot of pro-Kerry stuff also. I didn’t see it but read this on Free Republic.

If true, its disgusing. The Democrats used every trick in the book, from threatened shareholder suits to a direct threat telling Sinclair they would be in trouble if Kerry was elected and they aired it.

This is beyond the pale. The piece, as journalism, was at least as honest as most 60 minutes stories (which are usually hit pieces). I watched the whole thing and found no lies in it, although I disagreed with the analyses of some of the POWs.

That the Kerry campaign would deny the POWs their chance to speak out (and make no mistake, that’s why they cooperated with making this piece) say worlds about how that organization would deal with internal enemies and how they have no respect for opponents, even those who suffered for many years in Hanoi (as ocmposed to Kerry’s 4 months of Vietnam service) and who have the Congressional Medal of Honor, our nation’s top award for valor, and so respected by real Americans that generals and Presidents traditionall salute any MOH winner the run into.

Kerry shows all the aspects of Nixon (even to the secret plans) with none of the intelligence (Nixon had a near genius IQ) and relevant experience.

Oct 23, 2004 - 12:21 pm 86. M. Simon:

I have a few words to say on the subject. Like the first poster I lived the times.

Given the fact that there were so many guilty (myself included) I’d have to forgive any one who apologized. It wasn’t just an isolated stupidity and moral crime.

So John. Why not apologize?

Confess and be forgiven.

Oct 23, 2004 - 12:24 pm 87. David Thomson:

ìAnd, if you think on it for awhile, you can see this same attitude at work in the Kerry campaign. President Bush is held to the highest standard of behavior in all things while there are no expectations at all for Senator Kerry.î

Wow, thatís really a brilliant insight. Thanks for sharing. It will give me something to think about. Indeed, the perceived conservative is taken to task for their inevitable lack of perfection—while the liberal is given unbelievable amounts of slack.

Oct 23, 2004 - 12:25 pm 88. Rick Ballard:

John Moore,

I hope that Roger does another post concerning the use of threatened lawsuits to obstruct free political discourse. Although I consider Michael Moore to be the shabbiest of propagandists I don’t believe that threatening shareholder suits against Disney or Miramax to be an ethical tactic.

The threatened lawsuits against Sinclair and the “10,000 lawyers in the polling places” are part and parcel of the reason that this election is a critical juncture for the Republic. I abhor the tactic from either side and wish those who promote it the most dismal of failures.

Oct 23, 2004 - 12:37 pm 89. Buddy Larsen:

“You better watch out, Buster, I have 10,000 lawyers (and I’ll cheat all I want)!”

“Oh, yeah? Well then go yer dumb ass ahead and throw the election back into the Congress and the Supreme Court.”

But, Oh, God, Please, bring back the REAL Democrats, afterwards. The ones that would’ve been delerious over the freeing of fifty million oppressed third-worlders.

Oct 23, 2004 - 1:28 pm 90. Terrye:

Y cov or whatever the hell his name is, is just your typical Michael Moore leftie.

I do remember Kerry and I remember his freaking accent and his attitude and I remember the boat people and the Khmer Rouge but mostly I remember how easy people like Y are and were manipulated.

Some of us grew out of, some not.

BTW Y, you made some snotty comment about my name. It is the real spelling, my father named me and wanted the spelling to be different. Sorry if you don’t like it.

I think Roger should put a limit on guys like this when they cut and paste the propaganda bullshit.

You know how we right wingers are, I say off with his head.

Oct 23, 2004 - 1:44 pm 91. Hylas:

It occurs to me that Kerryís entire career is the political equivalent of trolling. (Michael Moore is in the same category) His deceptive and overwrought accusations generate a huge ìbuzzî that wins him fame and allows him to pose as a hero. Even if he doesnít win, it has a destructive effect on the political process. It hijacks the political discourse the way a troll hijacks a thread. How much irreplaceable time has been wasted refuting his bullshit?

There are real issues arising from the situation in Iraq that have never been discussed. For example, coordination between the State Department and the DoD is terrible. There is currently no government agency with a clear mandate to handle post-war reconstruction. How many of our problems have been caused by turf battles between State, the DoD, and the CIA? We havenít discussed it.

But why would Kerry do that? Why blame interagency process? If it doesnít tear down your opponent it serves no purpose. Besides, itís too complicated for us proles. Better to keep screaming ìVietnam! Halliburton! Bush Lied! Draft!î

The press is a huge part of this problem, but politicians like Kerry only exacerbate the situation. For that reason alone he deserves to lose. And the rest of the Democratic Party along with him. Iím disgusted and insulted by this near-traitorous demagoguery.

Oct 23, 2004 - 1:47 pm 92. Terrye:

Hylas:

Very true. I know that many of the people Moore used in his film say he lied about them and want to sue him but he still gets a 20 minute standing ovation from the beautiful people at Cannes. And Kerry is known to be a liar who somehow managed to avoid court martial but the press just pretends not to notice.

They talk about what Bush has done to our standing in the world, but I would say that people like Kerry and Moore have done far more to damage our credibility while they justify anti Americanism. In fact they have made a living doing it.

Oct 23, 2004 - 2:04 pm 93. opine6:

EVERYONE in the military is issued a final DD214 when they leave service. This document summarizes their entire military history. Every military member that I know, hangs on to this document for a lifetime. Most are encouraged to register the document at their local courthouse, so they can get a copy if they lose theirs.

Kerry’s web site does not display this final DD214. If he had the standard enlistment contract, he should have been discharged around 1972, thus a corresponding DD214.

Military members can apply after five years from discharge to have their service characterization reviewed, and possibly changed (1977 for Kerry).

I believe this is what happened in Kerry’s case.

When he was elected to the Senate, none of his records were available to the public. The internet did not exist. Kerry’s mentor, SEN Kennedy, was able to wash his records clean. That’s why documents on his medals, etc. are dated far after his military service ended.

Oct 23, 2004 - 3:00 pm 94. Fausta:

The damage didn’t stop with the WInter Soldier hearings: The Kerry committee’s final report, issued in January 1993, delivered the ultimate insult to history. The 1,223-page document said there was “no compelling evidence that proves” there is anyone still in captivity. As for the primary investigative question ówhat happened to the men left behind in 1973óthe report conceded only that there is “evidence . . . that indicates the possibility of survival, at least for a small number” of prisoners 31 years ago, after Hanoi released the 591 P.O.W.’s it had admitted to.

With these word games, the committee report buried the issueóand the men.

Oct 23, 2004 - 3:29 pm 95. htom:

Y’acov — There are still too many of us who lived through it for your lies to take hold. Maybe your grandchildren will be able to rewrite history the way you want it to have been.

I won’t wish you luck in the attempt.

Oct 23, 2004 - 3:44 pm 96. Pat Curley:

I liked the film a lot, even watched it a second time while reviewing it. It is a devastating movie; there is no doubt that the Democrats were smart to organize to prevent its airing on the Sinclair stations. Had it been shown on those stations complete and uninterrupted, Kerry would probably have dropped 4 points in the polling immediately and another couple over the next few days.

I didn’t mind the lack of subtlety in the presentation. This is a film with a purpose, and I believe it accomplishes what it set out to do spectacularly.

One thing that I haven’t seen here is any discussion of the wives. I thought their reminiscences were very effective, especially the wife of the guy named Smitty. You could even see her husband turn and listen to her in amazement.

Kerry made a huge mistake this spring in not apologizing for his 1971 testimony. If he’d done it then, he wouldn’t be having so much difficulty now.

Oct 23, 2004 - 3:53 pm 97. PeterUK:

I think the Kerry camp made a mistake suppressing this because if he does get elected it will gradually get more exposure and be a major weakness in any Kerry presidency.

No doubt the leaders of the world will be acquiring copies at this very moment,a useful insight into an American president during negotiations.

Oct 23, 2004 - 4:16 pm 98. Jamie Irons:

OT to Rick Ballard

What’s going on in Ohio? Was the Kerry goose hunt a success? (As some wag asked, “How do you ask a goose to be the last gander to die in a pander?”)

But more seriously, a few weeks ago DtP was assuring me Ohio was in the bag.

Jamie Irons

Oct 23, 2004 - 4:25 pm 99. Rick Ballard:

“Was the Kerry goose hunt a success?”

Well, I won’t call it a success ’til Teresa gets done cooking it. She’s doing a fine job so far.

Wrt the Ohio polls – the last Scripps poll had too small a sample size to be meaningful, the MOE was 5. I wish that Columbus Dispatch would do another poll because they do a huge sample that gives a very small MOE. Dennis hasn’t been saying much recently, nor have our other Buckeyes, so all I can say is that I wish it were more clear. The interesting factor right now is that IA is outside the MOE and MN, WI and NM seem to be very much in play.

Oct 23, 2004 - 5:11 pm 100. Jamie Irons:

Thanks again, Rick

Dennis hasn’t been saying much recently…

Dennis seems to have gone dark since we saw that picture of him at Roger’s, IIRC…

Jamie Irons

Oct 23, 2004 - 6:19 pm 101. vnjagvet:

Roger and Fellowsimonbloggers:

I read this thread throughout the day with great interest. Sorry for the hiatus, but I had a “coronary event” September 14, the morning after I returned home from attending the Veterans’ September 12 rally at the Capitol. (I believe it was related to the emotional carthasis of the rally which was magnificent, but barely covered by the “influence peddlars”). I have recovered nicely, and am getting back to normal.

I just want to “bottom line” this thing. We are now in the home stretch. The battleground is very small, and concentrated in the upper midwest and Florida. The rest of the states are pretty well set. My homestate, Georgia is overwhelmingly voting the Zell Miller approved ticket, so I am not worried about my voice being heard.

But, so far as the polls are showing, my native state, Pennsylvania, is hanging by a thread with Ohio, Minn, Wisc, and Iowa.

I grew up in Erie, Pa. Tom Ridge played on the same little league team with my sister in law’s brothers.

It is hard for me to conceive that the “real people” in these states (what were known in 1980 as “Reagan Democrats”) buy the goose hunting photo op BS that the KerryEdwards campaign is selling in the last days of the campaign.

These “real people” get “Stolen Honor”. They hear guys like Bud Day and Tommy Franks. They respect them. They will turn out and be heard on election day and they will not be intimidated. I think I know the people I went to HS with in the 50s. I know their little brothers and sisters who were in the boomer generation. Those folks may have fought with us, but they respect and love us, and they hear us.

They know John Kerry. They know he cannot lead his own family or his own campaign effectively. They will not elect him.

Those of you who were not from this part of the country understand this truth because you are observant and intellectually honest. The folks I describe know this truth because that is who they are.

The “silent majority” might have been a figment of Nixon’s imagination in the 60s. I predict it is no longer imaginary this year.

Oct 23, 2004 - 6:29 pm 102. Hylas:

Terrye,

Yeah, that’s about the size of it. Moore stirs up Bush hatred and mocks Americans in Europe. Then he tells us we have to get rid of Bush because of all the Bush hatred and anti-Americanism. That Terry McAuliffe sure is clever. I guess we’d better do what the man says. And don’t question his patriotism.

Hmmmm. Why do I not feel like cooperating with this?

Actually your comments stir up a lot of disorganized thoughts about America-hatred in general. I’d put them together into something coherent if it weren’t saturday night.

Maybe later.

Oct 23, 2004 - 6:30 pm 103. mcg:

I just watched Stolen Honor. I do think, actually, that a lot of undecided Kerry leaners would at least reconsider, if not change, their leanings if they watched it. I understand Roger’s point about the distracting music but honestly there were times where it faded into the background, because the words of the POW’s were at times riveting.

I also liked the context in which it put Kerry’s actions as an individual. I think it is important to point out, as this documentary did, that even though Kerry was one of the most prominent figures in the antiwar movement due to his Senate testimony, he was certainly not the only one. I think it is both fair and damning to explain his involvement in the larger picture, not just his testimony in front of the Senate.

I thought Carlton Sherwood was a competent narrator, and frankly I was surprised that he wasn’t more melodramatic. So when he finally came down hard on Kerry in his closing statement, there was some power left for him to wield.

Oct 23, 2004 - 6:35 pm 104. DennisThePeasant:

Jamie and Rick

Fret not.

I haven’t seen a meaningful poll in Ohio since The Columbus Dispatch did their massive poll (2,850 polled, 2% MOE) that Bush ahead by 6 points. And I haven’t seen anything occur since then to make me think anything has changed. Kerry’s ad campaign on TV has picked up lately, but I still think Bush is outspending him here. To give an indication of just how Kerry’s hunting has played…his latest foray here in Ohio didn’t merit coverage in The Dispatch of more than a paragraph towards the back of Section A. He’d have got himself more coverage if he’d farted in the High Street White Castle.

My feeling has been that Bush won Ohio (and the general election) in the 4th week of September, and I see no particular reason to doubt myself on this one. In Columbus, the parts of town I would expect Bush to win have lots of Bush signs and stickers…the parts of town I would expect Kerry to do well in have signs and stickers, but not to the same extent. Not very scientific, but it could mean something.

What we have going on now, in my opinion, is the patented old MSM trick of conducting a slew of badly designed polls late in the campaign and then using the results to proclaim the election to be ‘too close to call’. In reality, this is not one of those elections…Bush has Ohio, could win Pennsylvania (but I think Kerry will take it), and appears to have Florida in hand. If fact, the Democrats may end up losing Graham’s vacated senatorial seat in Florida…which should tell you something about how Bush is doing there.

To me, the question isn’t whether Kerry can pull any states out between now and November 2, it is whether he can keep the states he has.

Bush 52.5%

Kerry 46.5%

Nader 1.0 %

And not even close in the Electoral College.

When it is over, I think you’re going to look at the results and wonder why you thought it would be so close.

Oct 23, 2004 - 6:45 pm 105. Rick Ballard:

vnjagvet,

Great to hear from you and best wishes for a full recovery. I believe that you are absolutely correct on all but one of your points.

I was one of Nixon’s “silent majority” in 1972. After we spoke, Nixon carried the election by 62% to McGovern’s 38% in the largest popular vote victory since FDR.

We were in the middle of a war and the American people understood that support of the troops meant support of the CIC despite what the seditionists were perjuring themselves about before the US Senate. I was a member of a silent majority then but I intend to be a part of a very noisy majority on Nov. 2 when W prevails against 10,000 lies and 10,000 lying lawyers (no offense vnjagvet) in sending a much less honorable man than Sen. McGovern home to obscurity in MA.

Oct 23, 2004 - 6:52 pm 106. DennisThePeasant:

vnjagvet-

Good to hear you dodged the bullet, but by all means take care of yourself!

Chicken soup!

Oct 23, 2004 - 6:57 pm 107. Russ:

The only problem with stewing over Kerry, his actions, etc., is that it accomplishes nothing other than giving one a sour stomach. I had just been discharged from the Corps when Vietnam started cranking up. The years passed…old friends got killed…the protests grew…and then Nixon et al let Kerry get away with what I consider to be traitorous behavior (especially with respect to meetings with Viet Cong representatives). I couldn’t believe it…couldn’t believe people would elect him to any office…and now am witnessing the ultimate obscenity.

Those of us who still believe in integrity and honor

and haven’t fallen prey to moral relativism had damn well better do what we can to influence others NOT to vote for Kerry. Action, in other words, not just sitting back and seeing what happens!!!

Oct 23, 2004 - 7:03 pm 108. Charlie (Colorado):

VNJAG — felicitations on your recovery — take your statins and follow doctor’s orders. You wouldn’t want to miss anything.

Oct 23, 2004 - 7:53 pm 109. bertrumfinn:

I have not yet seen the movie which is the subject of this blog, and I don’t need to. I figured out a long time ago that John Kerry was not my guy. George Bush leads with his heart – that is my kind of leader. Men and or women who lead with their “heads” who believe they can think thru a decision lack the ability to make difficult or valiant decisions. Bravery, valor and victory come from the heart not the head.

Oct 23, 2004 - 9:06 pm 110. Jamie Irons:

vnjagvet

Be well.

DennisThePeasant

Thanks!

Jamie Irons

Oct 23, 2004 - 9:11 pm 111. John Moore ( Useful Fools ):

opine6

Kerry was in continuous service from 1966-1978 as far as we can tell. Hence his DD214 and Honorable Discharge should be from 1978.

The Boston Globe reported that he received an honorable discharge in 1970. That is nonsense, and I emailed the reporter. With little interest in correcting facts in a way that would benefit Kerry, they have not corrected it as far as I know.

This means that Kerry was an officer in the USNR at the time he met twice with the enemy (one of those was secret, the other he mentioned) and during all of his antiwar (really anti-US) period.

His website originally tried to hide this latter fact, showing his service as 1966-1970, 1972-1978, which any veteran would know immediate as nonsense, which is probably why his bio on his veteran’s page was 1966-1970 and nothing else. The whole website has been updated to that standard. The change was forced by publishing of much of his Navy records (he has still refused to release all, another fact the MSM ignores).

My DD-214 misses one thing – the in-country medal one got for in-couontry service – even though I was awarded it. I have no idea why it wasn’t there. But in general, the DD-214 is the most important document a veteran gets and keeps – moreso than the discharge, which is only useful for framing.

vnjagjet

Glad to hear you are recovering. I hope our rally didn’t cause it! I was there also, sitting just to the right of the CSPAN camera that was back in the crowd. I found it to be a celebration, the homecominng we didn’t get, but also sobering. It wa s fascinating to have the fellow who had been one of the Winter Soldier liars speak and ask us for his forgiveness after all these years. A moving moment of many in that event. Felix Rodriguez was interesting too, even if it wasn’t about ‘Nam.

To all, we are still doing things and can use help/money. Operation Street Corner and Operation Billboard, also see here. For odd reasons we have two web sites now.

Oct 23, 2004 - 10:59 pm 112. Davod:

For those who suggest that putting Stolen Honor and Farenheit 911 together would make Kerry look great just shows how silly you are.

I can only think you didn’t even look at Stolen Honor.

Farenhype 911 or celcius 41.1 would be more appropriate as a rebuttal to the diatribe of Farenheit 911.

Oct 24, 2004 - 5:17 am 113. bruce:

Dear Chuck:

About the “support the troops” issue. I am more or less lefty, as you may have guessed, and have been involved in planning several protest marches. I can assure you that there was a great deal of conversation, at least in the groups I have been part of, about making sure that we aimed our protest clearly at the administration, and not only avoided any denigration of the troops, but indeed supported them. There is a difference between attacking the ones giving the orders and the ones made to carry them out, and we always kept the line between them clear and bright.

I have seen some on the far left go further and attack the troops – that makes everyone on the left cringe, and we do what we can to make that kind of very bad thing stop.

Oct 24, 2004 - 5:47 am 114. bruce:

Dear Rick:

You ask what is the common thread between “the “No” vote on GWI as evidence. Followed by his “Yes” vote on the Bosnian intervention followed by his “Yes” vote on GWII followed by his “No” vote on the funding bill.”

This a long post, because your question deserves a good answer.

There is a theme running through all these votes, and it is exactly something I mentioned in my post above. Kerry, having lived through Vietnam, is very concerned that when we go to war, the whole country is united behind that war. (The funding bill is more about fiscal responsibility, though.)

For Gulf War 1, he said: “When I returned from Vietnam, I wrote then I was willing personally, in the future, to fight and possibly die for my country. But I said then it must be when the Nation as a whole has decided that there is a real threat and that the Nation as a whole has decided that we all must go.

I do not believe this test has been met. There is no consensus in America for war and, therefore, the Congress should not vote to authorize war.”

If you want a full text it is here, but I must apologize that after a half hour of searching, the only text I was able to find was on Kos… my apologies for that again.

For Gulf War 2, when he voted to authorize Bush to use force (which is NOT the same thing as saying “Yes, now is the time to go to war”), he said that YES, Saddam is a threat, but much more work needs to be done to make a case for war – and that war was neither necessary at that stage, nor unavoidable. He also said: “Writing in the New York Times in early September, I argued that the American people would never accept the legitimacy of this war or give their consent to it unless the administration first presented detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and proved that it had exhausted all other options to protect our national security. ” If you want to read the whole speech it is here. if you have never read this speech, I would urge you to do so, because it is consistent with what he has said throughout this campaign.

As to the funding for GWII:

Kerry, who is a fiscal conservative, wanted to roll back the tax cuts in order to pay for the war. This is just plain common sense. He put forth an amendment, and explained the reasons it should be put in place in a speech you can find here

failed amendment: here.

The amendment failed, leaving Kerry stuck with the choice of voting for a bill that would further bankrupt the country, or voting against — voting for fiscal sanity but leaving himself wide open to attacks that he didn’t support the troops and was ’soft” on defense. Text of the speech is here.

This vote in particular shows me is not a weather-vane flip-flopper, but that the man has guts.

With respect to Bosnia, here is the resolution he voted for, which I think you are referring to. The resolution approved Clinton’s deployment of ground troops – it was extremely limited – giving authority to deploy troops for “one year to implement the military provisions of the peace agreement.”

Here are excerpts from speeches he gave about it. He made it clear that we were NOT sending troops into war – rather, we were sending troops as part of a multilateral peace-keeping force, which was not vital to our national security. He drew a bright line between sending troops into war, and sending troops in to maintain the peace. So this does not contradict his votes about use of force for war, but it is cut from the same cloth as his over-riding concern that when we go to war, the country should be unified behind the war.

This is the so-called “global test”: when you go to war, you should be able to make a convincing and persuasive case for it, so that we don’t end up with a Vietnam again.

This line of thinking is right in line with the Powell Doctrine, which was also crafted with the lessons of Vietnam in mind.

Again, sorry to be so lengthy, but it was a good question.

Oct 24, 2004 - 7:27 am 115. flenser:

bruce

Thanks for all the effort you obviously put into that post.

However, you make a number of assumptions that end up invalidating the whole effort.

With regards to Vietnam, you assume that the country was bitterly divided over the war. This is true to the extent that there was a samll but very vocal minority who opposed it. But Nixon was re-elected in 1972 in one of the biggest landslides in American history. The fact is that there was broad popular suport for the Vietnam war.

What you seem to be suggesting is that there must be unaminous support for a war, before we can engage in one. Or that certain minority political views must be given a veto over the use of force. I disagree that this is the case, and also that this is the Powell doctrine.

Incidently, the idea that the Chief of Staff (as Powell was when he proposed it) gets to make up his own doctrine is a rather disturbing one. I have no idea why the “Powell doctrine” is referred to as if it is the policy of the US government.

GWII.

The same issue applies. The elections of 2002 were seen as a referendum on a potential invasion of Iraq. Vote R to back the president and for an invasion; vote D to oppose him and against an invasion. The result was that the Republicans picked up seats in a yesr when they would otherwise have been expected to lose them.

John Kerry and John Edwards both voted to authorise the use of force, and used language in doing so identical to what Bush was using.

So once again you are claming that there must be unanimous (not majority) support for any military action. You seem to be claming that even majorities in the House and Senate are insufficient to authorise a war.

As an abstract matter, what preconditions would you put on the the use of war as a policy tool? Can you provide a specific answer please, not vauge talk of “popular support”?. How much support is “popular support”? Fifty-one precent? Sixty-one? How do you arrive at your answer? What if, in the course of the war, “popular support” drops below what you consider the magic number? Should the war immediately end?

As a practical matter, the opposition to this war is driven by animus against President Bush. A great many people detest him, and the war in Iraq is simply a convienent club with which to bash him. The union thugs attacking GOP party HQ’s around the country are not engaged in anti-war protest, and the diatribes against this president in the MSM are not based on what is happening in Iraq. For these people, and I have no idea yet if you are among them, it is imperitave that we fail in Iraq, or at least that we be seen as failing, because otherwise the issue will rebound to Bush’s credit and he will win relection. But as for the issues of what is really happening in Afghanistan and Iraq, and whether it really is making American and the world safer, these people could care less.

So I submit that pointing to their “dissent” and suggesting that this somehow invalidates the war is clever but disingenuous nonsense.

Oct 24, 2004 - 8:58 am 116. flenser:

This thread is probably played out, but a note to the poll watchers.

Zogby today (24th) is sounding bullish about Bush and showing him with the lead, after being consistently out of step with the other polls. This matches what our poll experts have been predicting, with the polling companies bringing their predictions back into line with reality in time for the election. Good call, guys.

Oct 24, 2004 - 9:11 am 117. richard mcenroe:

Bruce ó Kerry stated:

“…But I said then it must be when the Nation as a whole has decided that there is a real threat and that the Nation as a whole has decided that we all must go.

I do not believe this test has been met. There is no consensus in America for war and, therefore, the Congress should not vote to authorize war.”

Right there is all the proof anyone could need that John Kerry is not and never will be a leader, in any sense of the term. Kerry was looking at the invasion of a peaceful, sovereign nation by a rapacious power that had already conducted a decade-long war against another neighbor; a sovereign nation that was also key to access to fuel for much of the civilized world and Europe; in short, an affront to blood and… yet he would not act, unless someone else would take responsibility for it.

And that is one of the keys to John Forbes Kerry: nothing is ever his responsibility.

He burned villages and shot unarmed fishermen in Nam, but the atrocities were the fault of higher command.

He would not take the responsibility of voting for Gulf I, even though he has blathered ever since about the need to remove Saddam.

He voted for removing Saddam, but only once he saw that the Clinton administration would never do anything to achieve it.

He voted for Gulf II, but never thought he would be responsible for any actual consequences of it. As with the ‘98 Saddam resolution, he would never have voted the authorization if he knew it might be acted on.

Brief interlude here for KERRY IS A FISCAL CONSERVATIVE?! Where, on Planet Platinum?

He voted against the 87 billion. That is simply not spinnable. He voted to send them, whether he thought they would be sent or not, then when they were on the ground and the reconstruction was under way, he refused to accept the responsibility for supporting them. The argument about the deficit is specious because the surplus was a myth, predicated on predicted earnings that weren’t going to happen after the dot-com bust and recession and certainly weren’t going to happen after 9/11 blew a huge smoking hole in the service economy.

His family owned the SUV.

That SS man knocked him down.

His speechwriters screwed up.

His aide made up the story about the souvenir VC assault rifle.

The man does not accept responsibility. Look at his legislative record. Authored five bills in 20 years, and all five were “National Hug A Tree Day”-type novelty acts. Sonny Bono and the kid who played Grady on Love Boat had better legislative records than that.

And we’re going to trust this man to make decisions on our lives? Not on my vote.

Oct 24, 2004 - 9:21 am 118. Alina:

I want to be as informed as I possibly can be about this. I take it for granted that, when people make comments such as Kerry made at the ‘71 hearings, they are not speaking about absolutely everyone who took part in the war, that there were people who behaved honourably and decently, but that there was too much of dishonourable and indecent behaviour. So, if Kerry actively lied, in the sense that he knew there was relatively little of such behaviour and in fact never saw any of it himself, then that’s very damning indeed. Still, most of what I’ve seen is of the “he said, she said” variety. I feel like I’m just whipping my head back and forth. Can anyone point me to a really definitive, well-documented, account that Kerry actively lied in his ‘71 testimony?

Many thanks.

Oct 24, 2004 - 9:40 am 119. flenser:

Alina

I take it for granted that, when people make comments such as Kerry made at the ‘71 hearings, they are not speaking about absolutely everyone who took part in the war, that there were people who behaved honourably and decently, but that there was too much of dishonourable and indecent behaviour.

That seems like a very generous assumption for you to make. Kerry has claimed that he himself engaged in some of these war crimes; for example, slaughtering farm animals.

Have a look around at winter soldier and see for yourself.

http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=YesterdaysLies1

Oct 24, 2004 - 9:52 am 120. bruce:

Dear flenser:

Thanks for your reasonable response.

First, about the assumption I made that the country was bitterly divided about the Vietnam war. Not having been alive at that time, and being exhausted of googling now, I can’t present any evidence for that…. so I am busted in that all I have to go on are my impressions. Your point about the 72 election is interesting.. but I am not sure if that was a mandate on Vietnam – I just don’t know, and will need to check into that. In general, I am not ready to concede the point that the country wasn’t terribly divided about Vietnam, in a huge way, as opposed to the tiny minority that opposed GWI and the more substantial minority that has opposed GWII. But I will do some more homework on that one.

With respect to the 2002 election… I disagree about that. I well remember the debate in the Democratic party… should they oppose the war effort, and make that the election issue, or should they yield on that, and try to make the economy the issue. They disastrously decided to yield on the war, figuring that they would just be pasted as “wuss Democrats” and tried to run on the economy – and got creamed, because Bush kept pounding the drums of war, and there was no concerted effort by the opposition to draw the public’s attention to the holes that were obvious in the WMD story, even at that time. I still am so angry at the Democratic leadership for that, because I feel that the country was robbed of a vigorous debate on those issues, and all due to a very stupid election strategy. So the election was not at all contested with respect to the Iraq war, with the exception of a few isolated seats (most notably Wellstone in Minnesota).

With respect to people opposing the war because they hate Bush, you might have that right with respect to a small slice of the country, but I think that with respect to the vast majority of the ABB vote, you have that exactly backwards. The county was very unified behind Bush after 9/11, and he lost the support of a chunk of the country first by going to war, and then lost the support of even bigger chunk by his inept prosecution of the war. With his awesome handling of the days just following the war and war against the Taliban, there is no way he should be struggling like he is now… except for leading the country into an unpopular war and then screwing it up. He might still win, but he is being hung by his own petard. (BTW, it is not imperative to me that we fail in Iraq, and I know of no sane person, left or right, to whom that is imperative. Rather, it is imperative that at the very least we succeed in standing up a solid state that will not be a terrorist haven – at best that we stand up a democratic state. I don’t know where you got the idea that anyone of good conscience wants to see a failed state in Iraq, or that these people are ignorant. In fact a recent http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf“>survey showed that Kerry supporters are the ones who are better informed.)

Finally, you bring up a good point, with respect to what kind of grade a president should to get on the “global test” before he takes the country to war. It is clearly absurd to ask for 100%. There will always be pacifists with their deeply held opposition to war, as well as other groups with possibly legitimate beefs, as well as cranks.

Clearly also, we wouldn’t want the president to present completely specious arguments for war so that 100% of the country was againt the war.

Clearly the answer lies somewhere in the middle — the question of course is where. I am sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t think it is possible to quantify. A tiny minority of Germans were vocally opposed to Hitler… were they wrong? Not that I am by any means comparing Bush to Hitler, and not that I am implying that could happen here. But that is shifting the ground between a moral right to go to war and the question at hand, which is to what extent the country should be unified behind the war.

However, I was part of the marches against the war in NYC, and I can tell you that there were plenty of normal folks there – grandparents, families with their kids, working folk, business folk, as well as your slavering radical left wingers. There was a substantial chunk of normal mainstream America that thought the war was nuts. It has never degeneated into rioting madness, thank God, and the protestors have successfully avoided slamming the troops themselves (with a few rabid exceptions) – but if I were president, that would give me pause.

Oct 24, 2004 - 10:01 am 121. bruce:

My apologies for screwing up that link.

Here is the link done correctly.

Oct 24, 2004 - 10:04 am 122. bruce:

Dear Richard:

You are really angry about Kerry!

With respect to his vote against the 87 million, I think he was right on — I think it absolutely crazy to cut taxes and take the country to war. That is just not fiscally responsible. I don’t see how the “Bush blew the surplus” line plays into this argument – that is another topic.

With respect to his Senate record, it is true that he was more an committee/investigative guy than an initiator of bills. It takes all kinds. Here is a decent article from Newsweek via MSM summarizing his senate career. He did some great work on international crime rings and banking, he helped uncover Iran-Contra, and he did that work on the POW/MIA issue. His amendment to a banking law has become a key tool for the administration in shutting down al Qaeda’s ability to move money around through legitimate banks.

I hear you clearly when you say that you don’t like him, and you don’t trust him, and I do not believe that your mind will be changed about that But I just wanted to respond to some your salient points.

With respect to the question of him being afraid to lead, of hiding behind “consensus”… I see how you could read his actions that way. I don’t.

bruce

Oct 24, 2004 - 10:20 am 123. flenser:

bruce

There was a small but vocal minority against the Vietnam war.

There was a small but vocal minority against the Iraq war.

If you are correct in your contention that there was widespread opposition to the invasion, then it should have been reflected in the way that Congress voted. You claim that the Democrats in Congress were scared that they would be depicted as “wusses”. This may be true. But if their constituents were against the war then they should have had nothing to fear by voting against it. The fact that they actually voted for the war seems to be pretty compelling evidence that there were no significant number of people against it. As I say, if you look at the statements of Kerry and Edwards in the run-up to war, they sound just like the president.

I have has this same discussion with others. The idea that there was, and is, widespread opposition to the invasion of Iraq seems to be taken as a given by some people. When questioned as to what evidence supports this idea, they find it impossible to present any. I debated one person on a BB who assured me that all the Americans who do not vote are opposed to Bush and the Iraq war. This is a statement of faith and belief rather than a display of rational thought.

I don’t doubt that those caught up in a movement, marching through New York with hundreds of thousands of their fellow believers, tend to imagine that everyone must feel as they do. That is the nature of such movements – they pull in the true believers and repell everyone else, so those on the inside hear only what they want to hear. But there is simply not a shred of evidence that the anti-war movement, then or now, has any popular support.

There is a large segment of the Democratic party who profess to believe that Kerry will wage the war more effectively than Bush has done. Kerry has, after all, promised to increase the size of the army by 40,000. I believe that these people are sincere only about their desire to defeat Bush and elect Kerry, and that they are absolutely indifferent as to what we do in Iraq. If Kerry wins the election, some segment of his base is going to discover he was lying to them. In all probability it will be the rather marginal anti-war crowd.

Broadly speaking, the Democratic party is the party of the status quo. They have taken to quoting approvingly people like Pat Buchanan and Brent Scowcroft, and have adapted a narrow “America First” position that makes no sense in the modern world. If you believe that we should go back to the pre-9/11 world, when the “international community” propped up a series of Middle Eastern dictators, then you should vote Democratic. That is the reality of Kerry’s ‘global test”.

Broadly speaking, the Republican party is the party of change and reform. If you believe that the only path to a lasting peace and towards reducing the threat of mass terrorism is for a fundamental change in the reality of the Middle East, you should vote Republican. Change and reform are scary and disruptive, and there will always be entrenched interests that will fight against them, as we are seeing.

That is where the two parties stand. The choice really is that simple. Make your decision.

Oct 24, 2004 - 11:23 am 124. flenser:

BTW bruce

With regard to Kerry being a leader; I don’t doubt that the man has convictions, although he has certainly tried hard to obfuscate them. The real issue is, what are those convictions?

Unless we assume that he is a compulsive liar, then his conviction seems to be that the US is a bad country and that the use of US military force, unless backed by all the people of America and all the countries of the world, is a Bad Thing.

But of course, he opposed GW1. So maybe even that does not describe him properly?

That is the problem with him – nobody has the faintest idea what he would do in any given scenario. I suppose it has the advantage of allowing his supporters to read into him whatever they please. But I would like to have some idea of what I’m getting when I vote for a president.

Oct 24, 2004 - 11:41 am 125. vnjagvet:

JohnMoore, Jamie, Rick, Dennis:

Thanks for the kind thoughts.

Bruce:

If I had not served in VN and returned home to see my fellow countrymen persuaded that what was going on there was evil and not worth the sacrifice of 55,000 plus lives, many more wounded and many more than that whose lives were uprooted, I probably would be thinking just like you are.

But that ignores the Vietnam factor, about which Stolen Honor speaks. You see, to many of us, it is elemental, emotional and personal.

We see Senator Kerry as a conflicted, self centered opportunist, with deep internationalist instincts, who mainly wants the respect of the Ancien Regime. This side of him is seen in his shameless use yesterday of his four months in Vietnam to try to convince a Colorado crowd that he is “tough”. That is a reprise of his Band of Brothers moment at the Democratic Convention that so incensed people like me, John Moore and Zell Miller, veterans all.

But he has not been tough enough with his surrogates who have successfully muted those who fervently believe his testimony in 1971 stole their honor.

Likewise, he has not been tough enough to face his fellow Veterans and personally explain himself to them. A nationally televised face to face one on one with, e.g. Bud Day, the congressional medal of honor POW, might have helped to clear the air, and at least neutralize the massive resentment many of us who served honorably feel.

All of this, of course, is mainly symbolic. But symbolism is the stuff of politics. If not the mother’s milk, it is at least the juice and cereal, and baby food.

Symbols add up. The Democrats have valiantly (and mostly successfully) sought to neutralize the symbolism of the planes crashing into the WTC and the Pentagon. They have sought to ridicule the President’s congratulating the Kitty Hawk for its mission having been accomplished.

But Kerry is now left with the symbolism of goose hunting camo costumes and tarmac football games.

All I see, though, is the symbol of his appearance before the Senate in 1971, in a beribboned set of fatigues and a distinctly non-military haircut. That and the symbol of him throwing his (or someone elses, depending on which version is true) medals over the fence.

On those days, by willfully creating those symbols, he relinquished all right,title and interest to my respect or to the possibility of my vote, then or in the future. I believe there are more like me out there than the pollsters have thus far discovered. We will find out on the first Tuesday in November.

Meanwhile, Bruce, I enjoy your earnestness and your ability.

Oct 24, 2004 - 11:48 am 126. flenser:

Read more about “Kerry’s good work on the MIA issue” here.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0408/schanberg.php

I guess those “better informed” Kedwards backers are still mystified as to why the military detests Kerry.

Oct 24, 2004 - 11:53 am 127. bruce:

Dear Flenser:

You again bring up good points. I probably do have some wishful thinking going on — it is a powerful feeling to be in a march with hundreds of thousands, and so my sense of how many folks are really opposed to the war is exaggerated. I guess that my sense is that if that many people actually were motivated to take a check on their busy lives and entertainments to actually go out and march, that really means something.

With respect to the survey that I linked to earlier… the most important point I think it makes is that both a majority of both Bush and Kerry supporters, when asked, ìIf, before the war, US intelligence services had concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and was not providing substantial support to al Qaeda,î said that we should not have gone to war.

I think that if the Dems had balls and had run against the Iraq resolution in 2002, the strong doubts in the intelligence community on both scores would have been given wide play, and the opposition to going to war among the people would have been there from the get go. I am trying to address the point you raise about the election in 2002 – that if the people really had been opposed to the war, that would have been expressed in the election itself. Unfortunately, most Americans get their news from TV, and without an organized, vocal opposition to raise the doubts about the story Bush was putting out there, most Americans believed the war was justified. The polls from that time overwhelmingly show that.

Finally, I am sorry you believe Kerry is a liar. I think Kerry has left himself open to that with his long, complicated statements. He and his campaign are really really bad at making concise statements that always hang together in a straightforward way; the Republicans are absolute masters of communicating with the public, and I wish the Dems were as good.

Oct 24, 2004 - 12:36 pm 128. bruce:

Dear vnjagvet:

Thanks for your kind words. I hope you are recovering well from your heart attack, and wish you good health.

Thanks for describing some what it was like to come back from Vietnam and be abused. I can’t imagine how bad of an experience that must have been.

Tying this into what flenser has been saying… I guess your experience shows that even if the opposition to the war was a minority, they certainly had an impact on the guys returning home. I wish they had understood what they were doing by taking out their anger on soldiers, like you. That is just f$#%^ed up.

Also, I hear you about how Kerry has way overplayed his 4 months in Vietnam. Compared to guys who were actually on the ground and faced much greater danger, and for much longer, his experience is nothing to brag about.

I have also been mystified as to why he didn’t seem to count on his candidacy, and especially his riding his service so hard, would tear open old wounds.

His work on the POW/MIA issue seemed to be a heartfelt effort, to me, to heal some of those wounds, so I find his lack of foresight extra mystifying. But you might view his and McCain’s POW/MIA work in different light. I haven’t been on this blog long enough to know your views on that.

I also have wondered whether it would be a good idea for him to have a public conversation with VN vets.

Also… just so I understand better where you are coming from…do you think any VN vet could come home and join the protest against the war, or is that automatically a betrayal?

I ask that because I have looked at what Kerry and other vets were doing with their protest as very specifically trying to help other soldiers by ending the war and getting them out of that situation.

Thanks

bruce

Oct 24, 2004 - 12:54 pm 129. flenser:

Bruce

..a majority of both Bush and Kerry supporters, when asked, ìIf, before the war, US intelligence services had concluded that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction and was not providing substantial support to al Qaeda,î said that we should not have gone to war.

I don’t know what point you are trying to make here. The intelligence was what it was. It was believed by both Democrats and Republicans, by Kerry as well as by Bush. Engaging in speculation about what might have happened had the intelligence been different seems pointless. Unless you are trying to suggest that Bush ìmanufacturedî the intelligence? But you don’t seem to be a deranged Bush hater.

The strong doubts in the intelligence community that you speak of do not exist anywhere on the public record. The 9/11 commission report looked at this in detail. They found zero evidence that anyone was pressured to falsify evidence. George Tenet assured Bush that the WMD case was a slam dunk. The Butler report in Britain found that the evidence that Saddam was attempting to acquire yellowcake in Africa were well-founded. I could go on forever.

(The only person whom the 9/11 commission found to be lying was Joe Wilson, a fact that strangely did not receive much play in the media.)

The reason that John Kerry and John Edwards voted for the war is precisely because the evidence supported it. Their statements at the time, (which have almost disappeared down the memory hole) bear this out.

I have explained why I will vote against Kerry and for Bush, and it is not primarily because I regard Kerry as a liar. In fact, he is probably no more dishonest than a lot of other politicians. I repeat, we have a choice between two different ways of approaching the world. I believe that the Bush way is superior. If you want to make an argument that the Kerry way is better, I’d be willing to hear it.

I’m afriad, bruce, that you are a little too open-minded. If you stay around here too long you are going to be converted.

Oct 24, 2004 - 1:07 pm 130. bruce:

hey flenser -

One more quickie then I have to run to dinner.

So first of all, Kerry and Edwards did not vote “for the war” – they voted to authorize Bush to use force as a last resort, after playing out the UN, blah blah blah. Big difference! The biggest reason they voted for the authorization was that Bush needed a credible threat to push both Saddam and the UN into action, to break the stupid stalemate. I still believe that Bush pulled the trigger to quickly. I really think the weather determined the schedule for the invasion. The troops were built up, and waiting any longer would have meant waiting a long time, for the next cool season.

2nd – the doubts about the intelligence were things like — those “mobile biological weapons factories” that Powell (very disappointingly touted at the UN): on the day the story about them broke, the NY Times reported it, and also reported that several experts believed them to be for weather balloons, as they indeed turned out to be. Ditto with the aluminum tubes – if you read the times reporting all the way through as the news about them came out, the doubts that they were for centerfuges were clear from the get go, and that they might be intended for rockets, as they indeed turned out to be. And so on. These are the kinds of doubts I meant — doubts that were in the intelligence, and that Bush administration blew past.

Remember, the commission investigtating this stuff most pointedly did not address how the intelligence was used by the administration, and if such a report is ever able to get past partisan bickering, such things will enter the official record, along with the other stuff.

About being converted… well maybe! Before I made an effort to come check out with Republicans were saying and thinking, I thought they were either evil or idiots. But when you spend some time on the other side, you find that there are people of good conscience who just see things differently. So I have been converted that far, for sure.

bruce

Oct 24, 2004 - 2:34 pm 131. vnjagvet:

Bruce:

I do not believe that “any” individual, be they soldier/sailor/marine/airman/nurse who came back and protested the war betrayed those they served with.

I believe Kerry did. Here’s why:

1. He was still an officer in the Naval Reserve when he became part of the leadership of VVAW. VVAW was not merely a protest group, but one which espoused virtually verbatim the talking points of the North Vietnamese.

2. He used his officer/hero status to advance the VVAW message and to give it the credibility it lacked without him.

3. He used the dual status (war hero/war protestor) to advance personal political ambitions.

4. He met with the enemy in order to advance their goals.

5. The rhetoric he espoused was demonstrably wrong. Its effects were a tragedy for many South Vietnese people.

He was not only a “useful fool”, but actively undermined Official United States policy (formulated, BTW by a Democratic administration) which had as its goal the true independence of the South Vietnamese from communist domination. That official US policy, as Reagan and history has proved, was not only not evil, but correct.

I was one of those who fought for that policy. Kerry fought against it using the honors he earned and his official office in that fight.

I think that is a betrayal to those of us who were right.

Oct 24, 2004 - 2:54 pm 132. flenser:

Bruce

This thread has gone on too long, time to move elesewhere.

Given a month or so, yes, I believe you would change your mind. Too bad you got here so late.

So some closing thoughts. Here is a speech by Edwards justfying the war. It is quite clear from the context that he is expecting war, that he recognizes that the result of his vote will be war.

Second, the resolution should call for an effort to rally the international community under a U.N. Security Council mandate. The president’s speech last week was an important first step, and his belated diplomatic efforts have already borne fruit. At the same time, we must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action. Congress should authorize the United States to act with whatever allies will join us if the Security Council is prevented from supporting action to enforce the more than 16 resolutions against Iraq.

Read the whole thing.

http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm

You cannot seriously say that he considered the question of Iraqi WMD, or of whether he was authorising invasion, to be in question.

You seem to be sincere and idealistic. That is a refreshing change, because most of the Kerry supporters who come here are the exact opposiste.

It’s something of a mystery how a genuine pacifist can mingle with todays Democratic party and their supporters. These people are vicious, corrupt, and obsessed with power.

One day someone will write a book or a movie detailing the depravity that the Democratic party and its allies have sunk to in this election. I’ll have to point out just a few examples to you.

The Guardian newspaper in Britain is calling for the murder of president Bush. They puled it from their web-site, but read it here.

http://piratescove.typepad.com/piratescove/2004/10/the_guardian.html

Go back to the main page og Rogerlsimon and scroll down. You will see a picture of Bush as a vampire, drinking the blood of Lady Liberty. In the comments of that story you will find links to other such material.

Here is a very partial roundup of stories detailing the activities of the Democrats in trying to intimidate the Republicans, by every possible means, up to and including shooting out the windows of their headquarters.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html

Kos himself infamously responded to the killings of four Americans in Iraq with ìScrew em!î

Let me suggust to you that todays Democratic party has no respect for human life, for democracy, or for the rule of law. If you actually spend time with these people you must already know that on some level Unless you are willfully blind there is no way to ignore the insane hatred that many of your fellow Democrats feel for the president.

The modern left seems to have turned into a caricature of what they always believed the right to be. It is now a movement populated by well-to-do snobs, contemptuous of the people of the Third World, entrenched in the halls of power in law, media, and the academy, and lavishly bankrolled by a number of super-wealthy but shady financial speculators.

If you would like to continue this offline you can mail me at flenser44@aoldotcom.

Oct 24, 2004 - 4:26 pm 133. gj04:

To the “blog community”, I’m a new guy to this thing. I don’t usually get mixed around in all this posting stuff but I feel pretty pationate about this issue. I’m a freshman at Drury University in Springield MO. I received a link to watch the video from the leader of the College Republican group here at school. I can say, that as a person from my generation, that Vietnam certainly has a very dirty reputation. All I have ever heard about it, along with many if not most of the people my age, is that it was a war which we shouldn’t have fought in and one that we didn’t fight with honor. Vietnam is perceived as a war which should be forgotten because there was no good thing in it. This film was rather mind blowing to me. To me, My Lai was the standard. Even if this film did not have political ties with todays election, it would be just as important as it is now. People from my generation need to know the other side of things, and by things I mean Vietnam.

That said, it is amazing that Kerry can act the way he does and sleep at night. I love how ironic it is that he campaigns his service in Vietnam, yet condems the soldiers who fought in it. It is completely rediculous, yet completely predictible. Someone will go to great lengths to persuade people something which is unpersuadable. Such is the case in Kerry’s campaign.

It is also quite breathtaking to what extent Kerry is so devoid of any “character” whatsoever. After watching “Stolen Honor” it is disheartning at the least that someone could campaign so avidly that soldiers doing their duity fighting for us would be war criminals when there is next to no truth in it. Especially when that person was there and knows that it wasn’t like that. And then for that person to be in any kind of leadership position, let alone the position of President one of the most powerful nations on earth, at all is apalling at the least.

I had made my decision on who I am going to vote for in MY first presidential election a while ago, but never have I felt passionate about why I will vote that way.

I don’t believe Bush to be the best president America has ever had, he’s made some mistakes no doubt about it, but never will I EVER vote for someone who I believe is hitting below par in character.

I had the chance to listen to a widow, whose husband had died in the 911 attack, speak this summer and what she said only exemplifies what is missing in Kerry. She was telling the story of losing her husband and how President Bush came up to her and held her as she wept in his arms and said that she could “see that he ACTUALLY cared for me, for the American people”. It is sometimes easy to spot people of character, and that pretty much spells it out right there. There isn’t much in Kerry’s record that makes me think he is anything fake. He consistantly goes back on his own views and consistantly makes incredibly poor decisions.

As for people like y cov, you pretend like Farenheit 911 is your Bible. You’re probably right, Farenheit 911 is completely truthfull and most likely entirely unfoulable, oh, and you’re the supreme creator of original ideas. Especially when us kids can’t read books or magazines.

I could tell you what’s wrong with you, but richard mcenroe has already spelled it out to you, point by point. You say “at least Kerry has seen to war”, you’re right, and he made some real good with that experience, oh wait that’s not good, it’s mahim and contempt. Kerry’s experience with Vietnam has got to be one of the biggest stains on his record, not one of his shining moments.

For those opposed to this war, or especially those opposed to war in general, I’d like to agree with you in that war is good for nothing. It only stopped the masacre of an entire race, won us independence, end the spread of communism, you know, worthless crap like that.

All that said (and some forgotten to voice, as it is 3:00 in the morning now and I’m getting tired) I would like to complement charlie (c), samuel, richard mcenroe, and the rest on their delightful remarks.

Oct 29, 2004 - 12:58 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: