Matthew Yglesias: So Mad

So Mad

I'm really so furious about this whole situation that I don't know what to say. I'm taking out my credit card and making some donations and I would strongly advise any readers who don't feel like continuing to see a lying, cowardly, idiot who's willing to go to any lengths whatsoever to maintain his grasp on political power (and that's all there is to it, this isn't deception in pursuit of some higher goal, the man has no ideological principles whatsoever other than his own self-aggrandizement) so that the gang of criminals he's employed at the highest levels of government can avoid prosecution serve in the White House I would suggest that you do the same. The purpose of negative ads is to demobilize your opponent's supporters. Don't let it work. Give the DNC some money. Or your favorite 527. Whatever you can. It's increasingly clear that the bad actors have, quite literally, no shame whatsoever and will stop at nothing to maintain their grip on the government.

August 21, 2004 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1042929

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference So Mad:

» Extremism and Partisanship from Kalblog
Like Sean from Everything I Know is Wrong, I get sick of a lot of the blind partisanship that tends to rage around this time in leap years. Sure, we're all biased, but it seems that a lot of people... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 21, 2004 7:49:30 PM

Tracked on Aug 21, 2004 7:55:43 PM

» Badass War Stories from The Ethical Werewolf
William Rood at the Chicago Tribune, captain of another Swift Boat, breaks 35 years of silence on the issue to defend John Kerry. His story about Kerry's leadership as a swift boat captain is pretty awesome: [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 21, 2004 8:31:00 PM

» This Rings Painfully True from Kautilyan
Blogger Digby in the comment thread at Matthew Yglesias discussing the Republican slime machine: But, sadly, I hate to say that winning will not solve the problem. I thought it would make a difference back in 1992 if we -- [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 22, 2004 1:24:22 AM

Tracked on Aug 22, 2004 1:32:40 AM

» Matt Yglesias Is Making Sense from Three Guys
They're not even bothering to try to defend Bush anymore; their strategy is just to sling all the shit they can at Kerry and hope he can't deflect it all. And why not? The strategy's worked for 16 years. All that ever changes is the depth to which th... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 22, 2004 2:04:24 AM

» When you're right, you're right from Jack O'Toole
Matt's right. And, on an unrelated matter, so is Ogged; Atrios should leave the [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 22, 2004 6:51:41 AM

» Dump Bush: The Red State Rebellion from Not Geniuses
Among other projects in the works out here in Montucky, we've got Dump Bush: The Red State Rebellion. The plan is for a large rally down in Caras Park, which played host to an anti-war rally of about 2,000... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 22, 2004 1:17:48 PM

» Abso-Fucking-Lutely from Opiniatrety
Matthew Yglesias captures my mood. I gave a lot of money a while ago and am in the midst of about 3 months without a paycheck, but I'll be doing some volunteering right soon. This Swiftboat Veterans thing is disgusting--pay... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 22, 2004 5:32:26 PM

» Bush Derangement Syndrome (oblivious edition) from QandO
Tim Blair and I spent some time this weekend discussing the hysterical state of the left side of the 'sphere, both agreeing that--for many of them--anger has led to some very self-limiting partisan blinders. Case in point: Matthew Yglesias' recent... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 23, 2004 10:08:19 AM

» Fire with Fire from Pigs and Battleships
Some time in the last fifty years, I'm not sure when, the Republican Party decided that it's more important to be devoted to the Party than to uphold the truth or the public good. More and more GOPers decided they want to be Republicans first, Americ... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 24, 2004 4:45:26 PM

» Evenhanded Backhand from 24P
Some people are upset that Matt Yeglesias got angry, said some very harsh objectively true statements, and gave out a call to arms... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 25, 2004 1:58:04 AM

» Dump Bush: The Red State Rebellion from Not Geniuses
--> Among other projects in the works out here in Montucky, we've got Dump Bush: The Red State Rebellion. The plan is for a large rally down in Caras Park, which played host to an anti-war rally of about 2,000... [Read More]

Tracked on Aug 27, 2004 3:56:30 AM

Tracked on Oct 27, 2004 11:43:39 AM

Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 11:04:42 AM

» http://beautifulatrocities.com/archives/2004/08/_naked_people_p.html from Beautiful Atrocities
Naked people protesting something; one with purse & sensible shoes Mark Steyn: "Every war has pacifists and conscientious objectors and even disenchanted veterans, but there's simply no precedent for what John Kerry did: a man who put his combat... [Read More]

Tracked on Jan 23, 2005 8:26:08 PM

Comments

I hear you. If it helps, this article in The Weekly Standard (yes, The Weekly Standard!) actually made me feel better.

Posted by: alkali | Aug 21, 2004 7:39:25 PM

Just wondering if you saw something that's sent you over the edge, or if it's all just building up to a crescendo.
I don't doubt your convictions either way. I'm just curious.

Posted by: Chris | Aug 21, 2004 7:42:26 PM

Amen. You don't need to agree with everything Kerry does or says to realize that we are in some deep doo-doo with the Bush gang in the WH.

On the plus side, it's like watching something really big collapse, and Americans are usually ready to pay good money to see that.

Posted by: serial catowner | Aug 21, 2004 7:47:00 PM

Good heavens, Matt, what's Bob Kuttner stirring in your coffee these days?

I hate to say "I told you so," but now that you've joined the coalition of the shrill, I presume you can understand why so many of us have been members for so long. There really is something qualitatively different about the Bush gang - they are up to no good, and they don't give two good shits about this country's long-term well-being or about the things it stands for.

The signs were there all along, but in any case it's great to have you on board. Keep up the intensity, though, because you know they've got more dirty tricks up their sleeves. This homestretch of this wretched campaign is going to be - how can I say it? - a long, hard slog.

Posted by: El Gringo Loco | Aug 21, 2004 7:53:18 PM

Hey, now you liberals know how we felt when Michael Moore was strutting around, getting empowered by all the free publicity that Hollywood and the Democratic leadership gave him, by attending his movie's premier amidst a sea of flashbulbs. Not to mention his rockstar treatment at the Democratic National Convention, to include premier seating at the hand of Jimmy Carter.

You were OK with all this when George Soros was throwing his money around. Now you're mad...what a pity.

If you can't take it, don't dish it out. Grow up, children.

Posted by: smagar | Aug 21, 2004 7:57:26 PM

I've got a paper to work on and I haven't been able to get anything done in the last 24 hours, mostly because of sheer mind-eating fury at these liars.

But I've been feeling slightly better since I read the Rood article. Rood has a nice description of bold tactics that Kerry pulled off as a captain. You can get it here at the Chicago Tribune. (I've excerpted the relevant passage here at my place if you don't want to register with the Tribune.) Read it and think of how Kerry's now decided to pull a political 'Turn 90' on those Swift Boat Liars... you might feel better too.

Off to give money to some Democrats now. We can all be gunners on this boat.

Posted by: Neil Sinhababu | Aug 21, 2004 7:59:51 PM

Ummm Matt...weren't you the one who spoke last week so loftily of remaining a journalist, while Hugh Hewitt and the rest of the conservative opinion writers were just hacks?

Welcome to hackdome, dude. You're not holding any sharp instruments at the moment, are you?

Posted by: smagar | Aug 21, 2004 8:04:53 PM

"There really is something qualitatively different about the Bush gang"

This is not new.
1946 Nixon calling Helen Douglas a Pinko
HUAC, McCarthy,
I remember Bob Dole sliming anyone who questioned Nixon's integrity for two solid years in the early 70's. McGovern was a literal war hero, like Dole. Compare their current reputations. What did McGovern do that was so bad?

What are the reputations of Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton? Republicans destroy good people. They enjoy it. Now John Kerry will have a lower reputation for courage and honor than George W Bush. John Kerry, who went out of his way to seek out a dangerous assignment, will, for perhaps a majority of the American people, have a worse reputation than the dude who slacked off Guard duty. This will endure, for the David Adesnik's of the middle will always say "Well, I have some doubts."

When I say I hate Republicans not for their policies but for their behavior and character, now you perhaps see what I mean. There is so much history than this party should have died long ago of shame.

And when I say I hate every Republican, not DeLay and Bush, for they are animals without souls or conscience, but the enabling Adesniks and Tacitus and Moe Lanes, who should know better but avert their eyes from evil and somehow think they escape the responsibility.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Aug 21, 2004 8:12:31 PM

Jeez, Matt, is this true? Do you really think that the other side is a bunch of bad guys?

Smagar, did you know that Soros is a JEW? And he's not just a Jew, but a BIG FAT RICH INTERNATIONAL FINANCE JEWY JEW! And the dictator of Uzbekistan hates him too! And Belarus! And Malaysia! You have LOTS of friends out there.

Posted by: Zizka | Aug 21, 2004 8:18:31 PM

Yes. Michael Moore did invent the modern mud slinging campaign back when Nixon ran against Helen Gahaghan Douglas's pink panties and Joe Mccarthy purged the "commies" and he's been behind every single one of them right up through Clinton's corruption, Chinese espionage and criminal obstruction of justice witchhunts to the assault on the grieving members of the Wellstone family in 2002. That guy gets around.

Moore is not cause he is the effect --- from years of this crap coming from the republican slime machine and our side finally getting sick of it.

But, sadly, I hate to say that winning will not solve the problem. I thought it would make a difference back in 1992 if we -- you know -- won, but it didn't. Indeed, they are emboldened by their electoral losses (not to mention they make big bucks on the ongoing smear operation while they are out of power.) The only good reason for any Democrat to even try is a deep rooted sense of patriotic duty to save the country from these lunatics, even for a short while, and at great personal sacrifice.

I have reluctantly come to the conclusion that this kind of dirty politicking will only end when the beneficiaries --- the Republicans --- are hit repeatedly and ruthlessly with the same scurrilous style of character assasination. And I don't know if the country will be worth living in by then.

Posted by: digby | Aug 21, 2004 8:21:19 PM

MY: Why so unhappy? I heard that the budget for these swiftboat guys is less than one million and that the ad hasn't run in that many markets. Maybe I'm wrong since I don't watch the tube. Maybe its everywhere. I did hear the latest ad on the web and it seems to be using Kerry's own voice and perhaps his own words. Well, maybe the DNC will have some luck in suppressing the swiftboat guys book. They sure seem to be trying to. I think the DNC should just buy them all up and put them in a pile and burn them, don't you? Isn't that the way to handle these bad bad boys?

Posted by: Michael Murphy | Aug 21, 2004 8:24:44 PM

YOu've elicted no disagreement. But then all you've done is vent feelings, without supplying anyone anything to reply TO.
Better the Ferguson piece, a nice cite. Ferguson like you just assumes, doesn't argue, that the Republicans have crossed a line, but then goes on to provide an explanation: they're stuck with a candidate of whom they're ashamed, and they make it easier for themselves to prefer a faineant to a hero by contriving to deny the hero's credentials.

Posted by: Seeker | Aug 21, 2004 8:26:24 PM

This brings me back to a remark of yours in a post from a few days ago, where you said George Bush wasn't the worst president ever. Who's worse?

We have never had a president more corrupt, or one more dishonest, or one more misguided, or one more imcompetent, and that's on each of those charges individually; on all four at once Bush is unapproachable.

I've mentioned the Nixon test, right? It's fun. Whenever Bush 'n' friends do something absurd I ask myself, "Would Nixon have sunk this low?" Frequently the answer is no; it's a good way to keep things in perspective.

Posted by: EH | Aug 21, 2004 8:27:38 PM

I am 100% certain that Bush is the worst president of the last 100 years. Worst in history? Maybe. Maybe not. But definitely down there with the worst, and possibly the most craven and amoral ever.

The man really has no redeeming qualities. Even Nixon at least took public policy seriously.

I like that Weekly Standard piece. I think it makes a good point. This Swift Liars crap is designed to shore Bush up and weaken Kerry with military voters. The fact that Bush feels it necessary to pull Kerry away from military voters in LATE AUGUST shows how the dynamic of this race is going, against Bush. He still might be able to pull it out if Kerry doesn't counter well, but the last few days have made me feel better about that.

Posted by: FDRLincoln | Aug 21, 2004 8:34:45 PM

How did Patrick Henry put this? Gentlemen may cry Peace Peace, but there is no peace.

http://gotv.blogspot.com/2004/08/jack-pine-savage-on-2004-election.html

Posted by: Alice Marshall | Aug 21, 2004 8:42:29 PM

Prepare to go ballistic. Tonight on NBC news they repeated the idea that it is all- he said he said- they cherry picked one quote from Rood and used the dishonest Dobbs piece in the WOWPOO to justify their position. It is clear Oneill is a liar and it is clear from Roods statement to say otherwise as they did is crap. Then they tried to make it about the 527's and couldn't even cover that honestly. NBC is the worst in terms of honesty in reporting. A disgrace.
And then blamed Kerry for not speaking out. All the records were available. Senator's MCCain and Warner have supported the Navy REcords but none of that is good enough for NBC. They only believe John ONeill. NothingButCrap.

Posted by: Katherine Graham Cracker | Aug 21, 2004 8:42:51 PM

"How did Patrick Henry put this? Gentlemen may cry Peace Peace, but there is no peace."

Isaiah said it first.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Aug 21, 2004 8:50:01 PM

Michael Murphy, apparently over half of Americans have seen the Swift Boaties ad because the media run it supposedly to discuss the questions it raises.

Of course, there are no questions. The ad is lies and smears. One of the guys in it, Alfred French, has no direct knowledge of any of the events he is discussing!

But the media know what they are doing. Why let Republicans pay for their smear media when the shareholders of the media companies can pay?

Posted by: js | Aug 21, 2004 8:51:31 PM

alkali,

Thanks for posting that article. A very rare moment of political self-examination.

...Republicans have no such luck this time, and so they scramble to reassure themselves that they nevertheless are doing the right thing, voting against a war hero. The simplest way to do this is to convince themselves that the war hero isn't really a war hero. If sufficient doubt about Kerry's record can be raised, we can vote for Bush without remorse.

That's the sad gist.

I wish they'd stick to policy arguments. I mean, aren't statements like "he's a pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-French tax hiker" sufficient to rally the base? The "fake" war hero thing is just boring to me.

BTW, I also like this passage: ...The same frustration led directly to the bizarre outcome of this year's primaries, when Democrats nominated a charmless and undistinguished candidate whom no one seemed to like very much and who displays a dazzling lack of the most elementary political skills, such as being able to deliver a speech without boring half his audience into paralytic catatonia.

I was an Edwards supporter. And as Kerry (falsely) reminded us during the primaries, Edwards was in "diapers" when Kerry was in Vietnam. I can understand why the SwiftVets - liars though they probably are - hate John Kerry.

Posted by: SoCalJustice | Aug 21, 2004 8:57:30 PM

"The purpose of negative ads is to demobilize your opponent's supporters."

Gee, I think this is going to remind people that Kerry stood up to Nixon and made that bastard sweat. If Kerry plays this right, it could work out pretty well for him.

Posted by: Everybody's Dark Secret | Aug 21, 2004 8:59:02 PM

Just so we can make something clear: the core problem with the Swift Boat Liars isn't anything about financing or 527 status. It's about how a few people can make up completely untrue stories and (potentially) change the course of American politics.

Posted by: Neil Sinhababu | Aug 21, 2004 9:00:04 PM

Neil S.

It won't be a problem if it backfires, which I think it will.

It gives Kerry's people the opportunity to highlight the fact that Bush dodged service and that his campaign is engaged in dirty politics.

I think this whole episode will be a net gain for Kerry come November.

Obviously it's a distraction, and not necessarily a welcome one, but Kerry can use it to his advantage without too much difficulty - at least I think he can.

Posted by: SoCalJustice | Aug 21, 2004 9:06:16 PM

JS: The swift boat ad I heard on the web. It appears to be a bunch of veterans who were in Hanoi in prison at the time Kerry was broadcasting anti=war messages. The veterans are telling how they were steamed about it then and remain steamed about it now. Is this the ad that you are referring to? I don't know the names of the people in them and don't know if they are lying. At least one of the voices appears to be Kerry's relating stories about atrocities committed by the U.S. The veterans take issue with this. Maybe I am missed something.

Posted by: Michael Murphy | Aug 21, 2004 9:10:24 PM

bob mcmanus and others,

Good point about republican dirty tricks of the past...just to clarify, when I said "qualtitatively different" i also had in mind the fact that the bushies' appetite for power leads them to a complete and utter disregard for the public interest, for the creation of good public policy. say what you want about nixon - and there's a lot to say - he definitely had a head for policy, and it would never have occurred to him to make as much of a hash of things as bush has.

I think the "qualitative difference" with shrubco is that they have realized that one can simply cast the policy process aside altogether in pursuit of political gain. in the past, it was axiomatic for both parties that you had to devote at least some energy to running the country in a sensible manner. karl rove et al. have simply rejected this assumption...they've realized that the bills for bad policy won't come due until a couple of presidents later, at which point they'll have long since had their fun.

with that being said, i do think bob and digby are correct when they say that this cancer in the GOP didn't come out of nowhere - it's been growing for a long time, and i, for one, have no idea how we can kill it off.

Posted by: El Gringo Loco | Aug 21, 2004 9:15:54 PM

I want Kerry to say this:

"I stood up to Richard Nixon and his goons, and I will stand up to George Bush and his."

Posted by: praktike | Aug 21, 2004 9:16:21 PM

Followed by: "Luckily for me, I know who they are, because they are the same goons."

Posted by: praktike | Aug 21, 2004 9:16:59 PM

I really hope you're right, SoCal.

Posted by: Neil Sinhababu | Aug 21, 2004 9:17:12 PM

Neil,

They way I look at this issue, if the Dems can't figure out a way to take advantage of this attack, then they have only themselves to blame.

Because it should be a mistake for the Republicans to attack Kerry's military service, when their own candidate only served in the champaign unit of the Texas National Guard and apparently didn't show up all the time.

I've noticed that whenever a Dem actually stands up for Kerry on a cable show on this topic, and calls the "SwiftVets" liars, and says that these ads are a gift because we relish the opportunity to compare the two candidates military records, the Rep usually falls back to the "both candidates served nobly, and it's wrong to impugn either of them" line.

Yeah, right. Kerry needs to knock this out of the park.

Posted by: SoCalJustice | Aug 21, 2004 9:32:44 PM

Just got off the phone with the DNC; gave some meager scratch to them. It's what I can.

What's a good, nasty, smart, tough 527 that's running ads? Anything other than MoveOn or The Media Fund?

Certainly I have never, ever, ever, ever felt this much sustained rage at any political event in my whole life. This is really too much. It it too much. And it should have been too much years and years and years ago. But this is E-nough.

And I don't think it's going to work. I think it just makes people on the side of the angels angrier and angrier and angrier. I don't think it will subside. Not now. Not with this candidate. Not with THAT candidate. And not with this election.

And if these bastards, these empitomizers of everything (and the One Big Thing) that is wrong with American politics suceed, it will only make the rage hotter, white hot.

I think when people say "never again" it's for a reason. Certainly there has been genocide in every decade since World War II. There's the Sudan now. And it isn't stopped. And "never again" is an incantation against the sad fact that this evil won't be stopped. There's no will to truly stop genocide, protestations aside.

That is to say, "no more Dukakis's and Clelands and Clintons and Clintons and Gores" is easier to say than to do. And it's here, Willie Horton is here, all of that excremint is in our vocabulary and in our minds because these people, these people have used it to such great and overwhelming effect.

Kerry said bring it on. He said they wouldn't do to him what was done to Cleland. We all said this time would be different. I thought it last fall when the Red Sox were up, what was it, 3 in the 8th? But it wasn't.

And it is by far the most frustrating thing I have ever seen that so far all we've got is another pathetic replay. I am furious at Kerry's team for being so flat-footed. I am ready to chose to not look at clips of a backyard re-creation of Laura Welch's driving skills. It is too much. It is enough. And the only way to stop it is to make the other side no longer feel like they can get away with it. The only way to stop it is to win and use that victory as a lever arm for more victories. It will never, ever, ever stop otherwise. It will take amorality and cunning, it will take venality and rancor to win. The American public truly deserves no worse. And our, trying not to call them enemies, but it's hard, deserve no better.

We have to win. They have to lose.

Honestly, can anyone tell me there's anything else then that?

Posted by: SamAm | Aug 21, 2004 9:33:19 PM

Republicans are responsible because of Nixon's dirty tricks? Go read about Truman's sliming of Dewey or LBJ's sliming of Goldwater. Its been going on a long time.

It is beyond obvious that this cycle, Bush has taken far more than he has dished out against anybody. From "Bush stole the election" to "What did Bush know and when did he know it" to "bush lied, people died" Bush has been slimed repeatedly since Florida.
Highlighting Max Cleland's vote on Homeland Security and Kerry's votes on weapon systems and taxes is not comparable to accusing a president of allowing an attack on the country with his knowledge or fighting a war to aid businesess.

Swift Boat vets are low, but now lower than the National Guard smear or the F9/11 smear. Dems slung mud first. Kerry is right there, repeating the ridiculous "I wouldn't have sat there reading to 2d graders" line from Michael Moore. When Bush or his campaign questions Kerry's medals, then you all may have a point.

Posted by: Reg | Aug 21, 2004 9:35:55 PM

I have a question. Why hasn't Kerry (his surrogates, really) had some sort of blitz about all the corrupt, evil things this administration has done that have just faded away without impact? Bush wanted to make an Iranian spy the leader of Iraq. Rumsfeld approved torture. Bush wanted to attack Iraq before 9/11. An ex-con is running our Middle East policy. Et cetera. This is all out there, so one would think people know about it, but since half the country supports Bush I have to assume otherwise. Can't they use this stuff?

Posted by: EH | Aug 21, 2004 9:39:58 PM

I may be naive, but I think there's another possibility. It could also end when the Republicans stop being beneficiaries of gutter politics...and start being the recipients of backfiring. But that's up to the voters -- and I admit I haven't had much faith in the American electorate for the past several decades.

The voters have to turn against these thugs and punish them repeatedly for their smear campaigns and character assassinations. And I do believe that this year, that just may start happening.

And if it does happen, the American electorate will have to keep the heat turned on the GOP Slime Machine for at least a decade.

The best thing that could happen for American democracy would be a landslide for Kerry and the Dems winning both houses of Congress. Perhaps then moderate Republicans and sane conservatives, such as McCain and Lugar, will see an opening for taking back control of their party from the totalitarian far rightists who control it now.

Posted by: monchie b. monchum | Aug 21, 2004 9:46:42 PM

"They way I look at this issue, if the Dems can't figure out a way to take advantage of this attack, then they have only themselves to blame."

Can anyone imagine what would have happened had Gore drudged up stuff about McCain's war record? Why isn't Kerry's as taboo? If it were a Democrat who didn't seve doing this against a decorated Republican combat vet I think we all know where the story would be by day 2?

Really, why is the Kerry team so bad at playing good hardball? Why are the Democrats? He's a freaking war hero and the GOP is beating him like (saw the analogy on Kos) a rented mule. It is pathetic.

Where's the meanness and the fury and the hammer from the people who should have been on top of this?

I can't for the life of me figure out why Kerry isn't moving hard and fast on this. It's too late now to say that they handled this in a competant way.

ShortBus Vets telegraphed their moves from over the freaking horizon.

But the ball got dropped, again, and we wait and wait and get to this.

It's just mind boggling. This election is too important to be left up to people who didn't have a response ready two weeks ago.

Posted by: SamAm | Aug 21, 2004 9:48:38 PM

Well, I saw the new ad. Kerry is in it, just as I thought, and he is droning on and on about American atrocities in Vietnam. He is droning in pretty much the same voice he has today but with a little more Beantown. Even then he loved to talk and talk. And so now the guys in the prisons in Hanoi, a few of the ones who came back, are having their chance to let JFK reprise his first moments of glory all those years ago. And they are reaming him. It is not pretty and it will not go away. Because this is not a bunch of war memories and bullshit. This is JFK droning on in his pompous self important drone and this is the reaction of guys who have held a grudge. Sweet sweet revenge. All those years ago.

Posted by: Michael Murphy | Aug 21, 2004 9:53:21 PM

Oh, Reg, you kidder.

1) Bush DID steal the election.
2) "What did Bush know and when did he know it?" Nothing then, nothing now, but if he read the PDB he might have known SOMETHING.
3) "bush lied, people died" Should be "Bush prevaricaticed and cherry-picked evidence, people died", OK.
4) Bush did sit there, although the second graders were reading to him. As if that makes it better.

So bald-faced lying about Kerry's record is OK because those Democrats said unpleasant but basically accurate stuff about Bush. Gotcha.

Posted by: Social Scientist | Aug 21, 2004 9:58:32 PM

"Swift Boat Vets are low, but no lower than the National Guard smear or the 9/11 smear. Dems slung mud first. Kerry is right there, repeating the ridiculous 'I wouldn't have sat there reading to 2d graders' line from Michael Moore. When Bush or his campaign questions Kerry's medals, then you all may have a point."

What, pray tell, is "ridiculous" about that line, Reg? According to pg. 38-39 of the 9-11 Commission's report, Andrew Card told them that he simply whispered in Bush's ear: "A second plane has struck the WTC. America is under attack." After which Bush -- instead of taking the obvious course of politely excusing himself and walking out of there to find out what the hell was going on and what orders to give -- sat there for seven straight minutes, knowing his country was "under attack", reading a book to a bunch of preschoolers. Wow.

And, if you bothered to read the NY Times' detailed investigation into the background of the SBVT people and their extremely close ties both to the Bush campaign and to Bush's close friends ( http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position= ), you would know that Bush IS "questioning Kerry's medals" -- he's just doing it incognito. (Which -- as the latest Kerry ad, which simply replays McCain's infuriated videotaped statement to Bush during their Feb. 2000 debate points out -- is exactly what he did to smear McCain's "mental stability" last time around: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/003302.php .)

As for the questions about Bush's National Guard service being a "smear", well, we do have Andrew Ferguson in the Weekly Standard (!), as pointed out by "Alkali" at the start of this thread.

The fact that that oaf Michael Moore is also unquestionably and passionately fond of smearing Bush does not change this. (The most valuable thing in his movie, by far, is his videotape of the Seven-Minute Goat Gap).

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Aug 21, 2004 9:59:22 PM

Michael Murphy: "Well, I saw the new ad. Kerry is in it, just as I thought, and he is droning on and on about American atrocities in Vietnam. He is droning in pretty much the same voice he has today but with a little more Beantown. Even then he loved to talk and talk. And so now the guys in the prisons in Hanoi, a few of the ones who came back, are having their chance to let JFK reprise his first moments of glory all those years ago. And they are reaming him. It is not pretty and it will not go away. Because this is not a bunch of war memories and bullshit. This is JFK droning on in his pompous self important drone and this is the reaction of guys who have held a grudge. Sweet sweet revenge. All those years ago."

What you HAVEN'T seen yet is CNN's note on the very careful, ad deliberately misleading, editing job the SBVT did on Kerry's Senate statement to make it look as though he was saying that war crimes were extremely frequent in Vietnam and that he himself had seen them -- neither of which he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/20/kerry.swiftboat/index.html :

"The latest ad selects quotes from Kerry's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. In the ad, Kerry says, 'They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads,' 'randomly shot at civilians,' and 'razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Kahn.'

"An official transcript shows Kerry was referring to a meeting in Detroit, Michigan, that was part of what was called the Winter Soldier investigation. He told the Senate committee that veterans had testified to war crimes and relived the 'absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.' "

To be precise, he said that some other veterans had told him at that Winter Soldier meeting that THEY THEMSELVES had done such things, that they felt guilty about it, and that for that reason they had decided to attend the Winter Soldier meeting -- not that he himself had seen other soldiers do such things, or that such crimes were wildly common. A rather important -- and carefully misleading -- omission by SBVT, don't you think? (You can find his entire statement at http://www.richmond.edu/~ebolt/history398/JohnKerryTestimony.html .) In short, one smells a rat in this second ad just as big as in SBVT's first ad, although the species of rat is different.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Aug 21, 2004 10:07:15 PM

As for whether US war crimes in Vietnam actually were alarmingly common, even though a large majority of troops did not carry them out -- you're free to look at the Toledo Blade's Pulitzer-winning investigation (which they're still following through on):
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?Category=SRTIGERFORCE

...or the very detailed 1995 piece by the decidedly non-extreme-Left Charles Lane in the New Republic:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/cnote/lane041795.html

...or Tommy Franks' reluctant but startling double admission to Sean Hannity that he thought Kerry's statements on this subject were indeed very likely true:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh080504.shtml

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Aug 21, 2004 10:14:13 PM

You are not getting it. Once again your knee jerk instinct is to mock and vilify veterans. In this string they are liars and they are "SoftBus" vets. If you could you would physically spit on them. Same as before. In the 70s you would have hated them because they were capitalist tools doing the bidding of their industrialist masters. Baby killers and morons. Pretty much the same lingo you hurl at GWB. What is escaping you is that people do things for reasons other than political. They do them sometimes for something as craven and mean as revenge. This is what you are seeing now. These swiftboat guys are not backing down. They don't give a flying f... about GWB winning. But they care very much about JFK losing. And that is a distincition with a difference.

Posted by: Michael Murphy | Aug 21, 2004 10:14:36 PM

I haven't been to your blog in a while. But if you're willing to join the ranks of the shrill I plan to be a regular reader.

Posted by: lerxst | Aug 21, 2004 10:20:51 PM

According to NBC news, 57% of the people have seen the swift boat ads. Of those 57% who have seen the ad, some 31% (or thereabouts) believe that Kerry did not earn his medals.

Presuming that the 57% of the electorate who saw the ads are representative of the whole, and that 43-44% are already committed to Bush, then it is follows that these ads are not even persuasive, at this point, to even all committed Bush supporters. And the counterattack from Kerry is not yet part of the polling environment.

Say goodbye to the Swift Boat guys; their 15 minutes is up.

Kerry: smeared, slimed and still standing.

Posted by: Tom | Aug 21, 2004 10:30:51 PM

I thought I'd be the first to welcome you to the wonderful world of hacks but it appears a previous poster beat me to it. Ah well.

Posted by: Jeremy Lott | Aug 21, 2004 10:31:02 PM

These "Swiftboat" vets are tools being used by crooks who are still pissed off at Kerry for busting up BCCI. Revenge. Sweet slimey revenge.

Posted by: Everybody's Dark Secret | Aug 21, 2004 10:31:46 PM

Reg you IDIOT! When we moved you off the Political Animal beat and moved you here we assumed you were bright enough to CHANGE YOUR NAME! There's easily enough crossover traffic here that many of these readers are going to recognize you. The idea is to fake an image of an average American. "Reg" is used up. Too many people know you're a staffer. I know most of the good American sounding names are taken but can't you just make up some damn initials? Cripes, it's in the handbook.

Don't make me move you back to the Atrios beat.

Posted by: Karl Rove | Aug 21, 2004 10:31:53 PM

What double talk. A bunch of vets come out and say that Kerry, Rassman and the entire chain of command in the US Navy who wrote up all those glowing fitness reorts and commendations are flat out liar or stupid, and we arethe smear artists. Nonsense.

This time it is good old fashioned right wing republicans who have taken the heroic image of the Vietnam veteran, who for the first time was getting some of that patriotic, John Phillip Sousa love, and throwing it right in the dumper.

It's your guys who couldn't let well enough alone and allow the Vietnam war to enjoy a little bit of that golden mid-life hagiography where the slightly chubby, balding guy gets to get up on a stage, without controversy, and take a goddamned bow.

We anti-war types were over the top 30 years ago, and Kerry has admitted it. We were young and foolish and filled with youthful idealism. We were immature in many ways.

These guys have no such excuse. These are mature men who should have learned a thing or two over these past three decades and grown the fuck up. They have no good excuse for nursing this silly grudge all these years and in the process dredging up all this garbage once again and putting the Vietnam Vet right back where he started --- a controversial, slightly embarrassing figure. Fuck them.

Posted by: digby | Aug 21, 2004 10:34:21 PM

My rant above was directed at Michael Murphy. Sorry.

Posted by: digby | Aug 21, 2004 10:36:46 PM

They ARE liars! They are lying liars. They're other adjective liars. They'll lie about anything. They'll say Kerry shot himself with a grenade. A grenade, for Chrissakes! They'll lie about Purple Hearts. Silver Stars. Bronze Stars. One man. A dozen men. Anyone else who gets in their way. Anything and everything. It quite literally doesn't matter to them. They're gratified to lie. It's their suicide mission; we're just picking up the pieces.

And that is quite deserving of contempt.

And transportation not usually needed for other students.

Posted by: SamAm | Aug 21, 2004 10:39:54 PM

"The ad does not include Kerry's preface, in which he said he is reporting what others said at a Vietnam veterans conference. Instead, a swift boat group member refers to the statements as 'accusations' Kerry made against Vietnam veterans."...In short, one smells a rat in this second ad just as big as in SBVT's first ad, although the species of rat is different.--Bruce Moomaw

This particular rat has been around for quite some time, actually. You have to wonder how many of the anti-Kerry vets genuinely believe he accused them all of atrocities on his own hook because they've never seen anything but the truncated quote. I've encountered it many times ever since Kerry started campaigning for president, and I'll bet it's been circulating for a lot longer than that.

The cynical calculation involved in omitting the first words of the "cut off ears" litany is simply breathtaking.

Posted by: Judy | Aug 21, 2004 10:40:08 PM

Methinks I smell fear among the left, as they watch the beginning of the end. This defeat will be seared -- seared -- in their memories for years to come. They may actually remember that it occured in 2004, with a guy named Kerry.... Or maybe it was seared -- seared -- in their memories in 1988 with Dukakis?

Posted by: Abadaba | Aug 21, 2004 10:53:40 PM

Finally Matt gets pissed and speaks clearly without interrupting himself with the philosophical yeah-buts.

I knew you could say it without the finely-beveled nuance.

Welcome aboard.

Posted by: John Thullen | Aug 21, 2004 11:25:40 PM

Fear? No.

Rage. Absolutely righteous rage. The Swift Boat Lying Hyenas are emblematic of what the Republican Party has become: a moral cesspool less capable of honesty or honor than a retarded cockroach.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's Rule, let me say right now that comparing Bush & Co to the Nazis is an insult -- to the Nazis. As twisted, sadistic, and utterly evil as the Nazis were, they at least *thought* they were pursuing lofty goals.

Bush and his supporters aren't even capable of *that.* They smear, slime and appeal to the dark side of humanity just for the cheap thrills.

Posted by: Ciel | Aug 21, 2004 11:31:15 PM

Michael Murphy? As in Republican political consultant Michael Murphy?

The problem with the TV ad is re-fighting the debate over anti-war activism against Vietnam kinda highlights the parallels between Iraq and Vietnam.

These ads aren't going to convert undecideds or swing voters. Voters who aren't receptive to Kerry's 1971 criticisms of the Vietnam War were never going to vote for Kerry in 2004. (Unless, improbably, there is a subset of voters who think U.S. military intervention in Vietnam War was a good thing, but that invading Iraq was a bad thing).

Posted by: Greg Abbott | Aug 21, 2004 11:36:52 PM

Dude, Matthew,

You're "really so furious"? I don't know. Why don't you get a f**king life? These latest posts are like a descent into madness. You really don't have an actual life, do you? Politics - (D)s - is what your life is all about. "furious", my goodness....

Yeah, max out your credit card giving to "527"s. I'm all for that. Clearly you have no better use for your man-hours.

Posted by: Blixa | Aug 21, 2004 11:41:59 PM

Michael Murphy, the Swift Boat ad that has played has criticized Kerry's service in Vietnam. Whether you care to know it or not, it is full of falsehoods and misleading statements.

The ad you are referring to, playing on the web, criticizes John Kerry for exercising his right of free speech on returning from the war. Believing the war was wrong, he protested against it. However, this ad is also full of falsehoods. In particular, they cut Kerry's statement to the Senate in mid-sentence to twist its meaning.

Kerry was extremely restrained in his protests:

1) He never accused any American soldier of committing war crimes. He specified that only the command leadership could be blamed for what was done.
2) War crimes were in fact being committed. The trial of Lieutenant Calley for the massacre of My Lai was an undeniable example. At the Winter Soldier investigation, which is available online (http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/WS_entry.html), many other veterans testified to brutality they themselves had participated in. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are being despicable and dishonest in pretending that this never happened.
3) The only thing Kerry and other people who were against the Vietnam war would have accomplished by staying silent is to guarantee that more Americans would die in a senseless war.
4) John Kerry has fought tirelessly for veterans. While the Nixon administration cynically abandoned POW/MIAs in southeast Asia, John Kerry and John McCain worked without rest to determine what happened to each man.

(I see that Bruce Moomaw has brought out some of these points, so you can't claim that people have not tried to steer you right.)

Posted by: js | Aug 21, 2004 11:43:11 PM

Michael Murphy, you are also incorrect in attempting to claim--indeed, wildly and recklessly so-- that people here are attempting to "mock and vilify veterans.... If you could you would physically spit on them. "

Ironically, the people who did a lot of spitting in the 1960s were right-wingers, spitting on anti-war protestors. Right-wingers further dishonored veterans by failing to ensure there would be jobs for men mustered out, denied them veteran's benefits for the inevitable PTSD, and otherwise treated them abominably. Yet through the miracle of propaganda, they succeeded in turning black into white and blaming the anti-war movement for spitting. The true story is presented by John Baky, himself a veteran. (http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Scholarly/Baky_White_Cong_01.html)

And now they are spitting on a real-live war hero, John Kerry as they exalt a deserter from the National Guard.

Up is down.
Black is white.
Peace is war.
Truth is lies.
Vote Republican.

Posted by: js | Aug 21, 2004 11:46:48 PM

comparing Bush & Co to the Nazis is an insult -- to the Nazis. As twisted, sadistic, and utterly evil as the Nazis were, they at least *thought* they were pursuing lofty goals.

Sigh.

Bush Derangement Syndrome on full display.

Get it together, before you pop a blood vessel.

Posted by: SoCalJustice | Aug 21, 2004 11:48:16 PM

"The ad does not include Kerry's preface, in which he said he is reporting what others said at a Vietnam veterans conference."

So what? He has stood by the veracity of those allegations. As a Naval officer his words gave credibility to those lies. He did not present his testimony as merely passing on rumors.

There are many Vietnam vets that wouldn’t give Jane Fonda the sweat off their butt crack if she were dying of thirst. Ditto John Kerry.

Posted by: Abdul Abulbul Amir | Aug 21, 2004 11:52:51 PM

Digby, please speak for yourself as regards anti-war activities (I know you are, but make it plain). For many of us, our relationship with veterans was as pained friends and relatives, trying to help them patch up their lives and mend their consciences. Just as today we pray for and try to help mend the broken minds and bodies and spirits returning from Iraq.

I cannot recall hearing anyone blame a veteran for obeying their orders. We blamed their leaders for giving them criminal orders, the orders that bore bitter fruit in My Lai.

It was the senior commanders of Lieutenant Calley who bore responsibility, just as top commanders in the Pentagon-- probably Donald Rumsfeld himself-- ordered the crimes of Abu Ghraib.

Posted by: js | Aug 21, 2004 11:52:56 PM

Reg is evidently unaware that Richard Nixon ordered the firebombing of the Brookings Institute and the murder of at least one person (neither of which his staff fortunately carried out), the audit of tax returns of thousands of political opponents for harassment, the use of the FBI to wiretap and "ratf--k" his political opponents-- in other words, all the things the Republicans accused Clinton of.

Of course, the Republican charges against Clinton were lies and cannot be substantiated, while Nixon's crimes are memorialized in his own words, on tapes he ordered made.

Posted by: js | Aug 21, 2004 11:53:59 PM

"I knew you could say it without the finely-beveled nuance."

works for me, too...
Hey, Reg, Smagar, Abadaba...
fuck you.

Posted by: hawiken | Aug 22, 2004 12:08:50 AM

Matt, The Swiftvets are not about partisan politics. They are attacking the guy who betrayed and slimed them by calling them war criminals and baby killers in 1971. This is about payback to a traitor. I'm of that generation (5 months older than Kerry) and I observed as John Kerry betrayed his brothers and his country with lies to enhance his political career. There is nothing that George Bush can do to stop them because it is about hate of a traitor rather than politics. They literally believe that Kerry is unfit to command, even those who always vote for Democrats. He betrayed each and every one of them as he betrayed his country.

This could have been predicted with absolute certainty. The question is, why did the Democratic Party select a traitor as its presidential nominee?

John Kerry is a war hero who chose to fight to stop the war. That's fine, even patriotic. But it was not fine to accuse the entire US military of war crimes and it was not fine to meet with the North Vietnam and Viet Cong leaders while still in the military. It was not OK to make the lives to our POW's a greater hell.

Slime the Swiftvets if you wish, but they have a right to their revenge against the one man who did most to dishonor their honorable service. And George Bush does not have the power to quiet their voices.

Hold on to your seats because those honorable men seeking just revenge against the brother who betrayed them as he betrayed his country are going to have a lot more to say. It's their right.

While you are at it, get ready to be angry for four more years because the turkey that your party nominated will not fly. You should have known better. The country needed a good candidate to oppose George Bush this year. Had you selected one, he/she could have won. But not John Kerry. Not in 2004. Not ever. There are not enough idiots and fools in this country to elect John Kerry.

Posted by: Tarheel | Aug 22, 2004 12:15:22 AM

Slime the Swiftvets if you wish, but they have a right to their revenge against the one man who did most to dishonor their honorable service.

This is what it's about to these people -- holding on to their cherished, false notion that US soldiers did not participate in atrocities at any time in Vietnam. That's why the SwiftVets are so dangerous, because I think they actually do believe that their relentless lies about Kerry's record are in service of a greater "truth" -- showing that we were blameless in Vietnam and that the only reason we came home was that the Left smeared the military into looking bad in front of the American public.

Posted by: Kimmitt | Aug 22, 2004 12:35:58 AM

"Swiftvets are not about partisan politics. They are attacking the guy who betrayed and slimed them by calling them war criminals and baby killers in 1971."--Tarheel

The false meme that will not die...

One more time: in 1971 he reported to the Senate about the war crimes vets themselves testified to having committed at the Winter Soldier meeting.

The people he "slimed" were the members of the military command structure who gave the orders, not the soldiers who followed them.

"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago, in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do."--John Kerry, testimony before the Senate, 1971

Posted by: Judy | Aug 22, 2004 12:36:35 AM

Tarheel, you might want to read my post of 11:43PM.

You may know less about this matter than you think.

Posted by: js | Aug 22, 2004 12:38:39 AM

Matt, I feel for you. You're a wonk at heart, but because of this president, you find yourself turning into a hack. Let wonks be wonks again!

For more imformation, read this Washington Monthly article on Bush's war on wonks.

Posted by: Dogberry | Aug 22, 2004 12:40:40 AM

Jesus Christ the paid trolls are obvious. Is there no quality control? Don't the Republicans check to see if they're getting their money's worth?

Posted by: Walt Pohl | Aug 22, 2004 12:42:18 AM

"There are not enough idiots and fools in this country to elect John Kerry."

the one truthful sentence in the whole post - all the fools and idiots in the country are solidly in the Bush camp.

Posted by: oreilly x | Aug 22, 2004 12:47:44 AM

The upcoming new Swift Boat Liars ad--with KENNETH CORDIER who just happened to be listed on the bush/Cheney 2004 campaign website until 2 days ago--has really hit the bottom of the scumpond this time.

And they're (yet again) trying to DUPE the rightwingnut RUBES.

Judge for yourself.

What Kerry actually said;

"...It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped..."

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200404231047.asp

And the SB Liars ad with bush's Kenneth Cordier;

"They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads" Kerry is shown testifying in the opening clip.

A few seconds later, Ken Cordier, a veteran, says: "He betrayed us in the past -- how can we be loyal to him now?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/error.html

Gee...knowingly and deliberately chopping off the entire first half of someone's sentance makes a wee bit of difference to the meaning, don't it.

It sure is easy to dupe them rightwingnut rubes.

Posted by: Lynn | Aug 22, 2004 1:08:35 AM

Poster Michael the Liar posted:

"Well, I saw the new ad. Kerry is in it, just as I thought, and he is droning on and on about American atrocities in Vietnam. He is droning in pretty much the same voice he has today but with a little more Beantown. Even then he loved to talk and talk."

News for ya, you lying partisan idiot.

1. The Swift Boat Liars slowed Kerry's voice down. YOU would have KNOWN this for yourself had you had the intelligence to go listen to the ORIGINAL speech which was taped in 1971.

2. The Swift Boat Liars CUT OFF the ONE SENTANCE Kerry "drones on and on" in their ad.

Kerry DID NOT accuse the soldiers of atrocities.

Something, again, that YOU could have found out all by yourself IF you only had any intelligence to have found the ORIGINAL text of Kerry's testimony.

The Swift Boat Liars DUPED ANOTHER RIGHTWINGNUT RUBE!

Posted by: Lynn | Aug 22, 2004 1:16:38 AM

Oh-oh, Matt, you've lost **Blixa**'s respect.

I'm really sorry, but I can't help ya. Blixa has a lot of clout around here. One of the movers and shakers.

Posted by: Zizka | Aug 22, 2004 1:24:39 AM

Reg, in your list of Democrats who were just as bad as Republicans, you forgot to mention Martin Van Buren. His campaign tactics make the blood run cold. He was the evillest man in American history -- much worse than Bush. And a Democrat, of course.

Posted by: Zizka | Aug 22, 2004 1:30:34 AM

I'm not paid and I'm not a troll. I am a registered Republican. I voted for John Edwards for US Senate in 1998. I have voted in every US Senate race in NC since 1964 and have voted for a Democrat every time except one (Elizabeth Dole in 2002). (I will campaign and vote for Bowles this year.) I voted for Humphrey, McGovern, and Carter for president in 1968, 1972, and 1976. I supported John Kerry's cause in 1971, but not his methods.

It is true that he wa speaking of the Winter Soldier meeting before the Fulbright Commission and he was reporting what he had heard. But he was reporting what he believed, or what he claimed to believe. He didn't say, "This is what has been reported to me, but I'm uncertain of the credibility." He was vouching for the credibility. His Paris meeting with the representatives of the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong was giving aid and comnfort to the enemy.

John Kerry has the blood of thousands of US soldiers and tens of thousands of Vietnamese on his hands. The choice on tactics was his and those tactics lengthened the war by giving the enemy hope. It is now time to pay the piper.

The Democrats gave a traitor, even a war hero traitor, their nomination. The result is going to be pain for this country as the people he most wronged get their revenge. If he doesn't like it, the 2002 route of a New Jersey senator is open to him and his party.

Let Bush BEG the Swiftvets to stop. Their message to him will be "F**K YOU, George Bush, this in not about you. It is about our right to revenge; revenge of truth to repay the lies of a traitor. His lies cost many lives and much pain. We were willing to stand back until there was risk that this traitor could become commander-in-chief. We are going to explain to the electotate why John Kerry is Unfit to Command."

I suspect that by the time the finished even Matt will not be able to vote for Traitor John Kerry. Their case is that strong.

Posted by: Tarheel | Aug 22, 2004 1:41:28 AM

250 Vets who knew John Kerry and served with John Kerry say he is unfit to be Commander in Chief.

Shouldn't Kerry answer the charges directly? So far his response has been to file a lawsuit to keep the Swift Vet ads off the air, and to plead with the book company to keep the Swift Vet book from being released.

Kerry's response is lame.

Posted by: Kevin Gregory | Aug 22, 2004 1:52:57 AM

hmm, which to choose? A traitor or a coke head deserter? I think I'll go with the traitor. That guy's got balls.

Posted by: snaggletooth | Aug 22, 2004 1:53:15 AM

Lynn, Are we to believe that Kerry was a disinterested reporter simply telling what a bunch of strangers told him in Detroit? Are we to believe that he found the reports from Detroit lacking in credibility? He was reporting what he claimed to be the truth. He was staking his reputation on the credibility of the information.

The fact is that many, possibly most, of those who testified in Detroit had never served in Vietnam. Kerry eith knew that or should have known it.

Unfortunately you are going to get a lot angrier before this election and especially when the results come in. May I suggest that your physician can provide medication to help you deal with it.

Posted by: Tarheel | Aug 22, 2004 1:53:42 AM

What Kerry actually said;

"...It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit--the emotions in the room, and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told stories that, at times, they had personally raped..."

http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200404231047.asp

WHat the SB Liars cut that down to;

"They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads" Kerry is shown testifying in the opening clip.

They are LIARS with NO CASE.

PERIOD.

YOU are a thoroughly DUPED rightwingnut RUBE.

PERIOD.

Posted by: Lynn | Aug 22, 2004 1:57:23 AM

Until today I thought I had donated as much as I can afford for this election cycle. But today I donated some more.

Anyone that doubts terrible things were done by some US soldiers in Vietnam should take open their eyes and read the Toldedo Blade's Pulitzer Prize winning series on Tiger Force: http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040406/SRTIGERFORCE/40406017

excerpt:
Three Blade reporters won the Pulitzer Prize - journalism's highest honor - yesterday for uncovering the atrocities of an elite U.S. Army fighting unit in the Vietnam War that killed unarmed civilians and children during a seven-month rampage.

Michael D. Sallah, Mitch Weiss, and Joe Mahr received the investigative reporting prize for their series - "Buried Secrets, Brutal Truths" - which detailed how the Army failed to stop the atrocities after commanders were told about them. The reporters also discovered that the Army failed to prosecute soldiers who killed unarmed civilians after an investigation found the platoon had committed war crimes .

Posted by: mf | Aug 22, 2004 1:58:45 AM

This is what happens when your father is the only President in history to have been the director of the CIA, one who still opts to receive daily intelligence briefings despite the fact that he's on the board of one of the world's ugliest companies.

It's been a long time since America’s representational government wasn't being usurped the US intelligence community. No matter your convictions, the reality that a second and, more importantly, far less constrained internalized agenda flows through elected administrations is an absolutely disastrous thing.

It’s so disastrous, in fact, as to be hard to believe. And doesn’t that work out well.

Posted by: M. Good | Aug 22, 2004 2:00:38 AM

Kerry was and is free to BELIEVE anything he wants to believe.

HE DID NOT accuse the soldiers of attrocities. And THAT is a FACT.

GET OVER IT.

The SBLiars say "Kerry ACCUSED the soldiers of attrocities..."

That is a LIE.

GET OVER IT.

YOUR bushler is going down. That WILL be a FACT.

GET OVER IT.

YOU are a bush bootlicking goose-stepping talking points spewing coz you can't think for yourself RUBE of a duped IDIOT.

And YOU prove that all by yourself.

GET OVER IT.

Posted by: Lynn | Aug 22, 2004 2:01:44 AM

And the above was for tar "I'm a total rube" heel, btw.

Posted by: Lynn | Aug 22, 2004 2:03:59 AM

John Kerry has the blood of thousands of US soldiers and tens of thousands of Vietnamese on his hands.

Um, WTF? Sorry, but this is fuckin nuts.

Walt Pohl:
Are there really paid trolls around here or are you just kidding around? That would really be disturbing, although it would also explain a lot.

Posted by: JP | Aug 22, 2004 2:08:37 AM

Tarheel-

If that's your goal, I hope the Kerry campaign is unconditionally victorious over you and your cause.

Kerry reported what he had heard from the people he talked to. He said as much. He said it was the result of the Winter Soldier investigation. It was obviously 2nd hand knowledge, he said so. There was no attempt to decieve. He went out of his way to be clear.

And the historical record has vindicated what he said. It's true, it's all obviously true what he spoke of. But he made a point to not let it stand as an indictment of the average soldier. In fact his point was the opposite. A subtlety lost on purpose in todays debate.

And those Paris peace talks? Why that conspiracy extended all the way to the president of the United States. Do you guys piss on Nixon's grave? And to blame Kerry for the atrocities (and they were that) commited by the Viet Cong is simply blinkered, a true blame America first idea.

But I do understand the long-time grudges held against Kerry. Honest sentiment is honest sentiment, and I'll never be one to say otherwise. Let's look at the record.

From Kevin Drum...

"This probably isn't a complete list, but here's a quick recap of why nobody with a brain should trust a word they say:

Roy Hoffman, today: "John Kerry has not been honest."
Roy Hoffman, 2003: "I am not going to say anything negative about him — he's a good man."

Adrian Lonsdale, today: "He lacks the capacity to lead."
Adrian Lonsdale, 1996: "He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."

George Elliot, today: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."
George Elliot, 1996: "The fact that he chased an armed enemy down is something not to be looked down upon, but it was an act of courage."

Larry Thurlow, today: "...there was no hostile enemy fire directed at my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day."
Larry Thurlow's Bronze Star citation, 1969: "...all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks."

Dr. Louis Letson, today: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury."
Medical records, 1968: "Dr. Letson's name does not appear on any of the medical records for Mr. Kerry. Under 'person administering treatment' for the injury, the form is signed by a medic, J. C. Carreon, who died several years ago."

Grant Hibbard, today: "He betrayed all his shipmates. He lied before the Senate."
Hibbard's evaluation of Kerry, 1968: "Mr. Hibbard gave Mr. Kerry the highest rating of 'one of the top few' in three categories—initiative, cooperation and personal behavior. He gave Mr. Kerry the second-best rating, 'above the majority,' in military bearing."

They were either lying then or they're lying now. Take your pick. But either way, since there's no documentary evidence to back up their stories, the only thing going for them is their own personal credibility.

And that seems pretty thin, doesn't it?"

I know, I know, feelings change over time.

How long has it been since Iowa?

Posted by: SamAm | Aug 22, 2004 2:11:38 AM

Those who testified in Detroit had "NEVER SERVED IN VIETNAM"????

Oh OOOPS aren't you just such a totally STUPID and MISINFORMED little rightwingnut rube of a boob.

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Hint for ya, idiotboy, ya gots yer Winter Soldier investigation mixed up with Mark Lane's BOOK.

Phony Vietnam veterans alleged in books

In 1970, Lane had published a book called Conversations With Americans purporting to be interviews with Vietnam veterans about war crimes, containing Vietnam tales of atrocities.

Reporter Neil Sheehan showed some interviewed in Lane's book had never served in Vietnam and others had not been in the situations they described. Lane admitted he did not check military records, as confirmation of details was not relevant. Lane later confirmed these military records.

The following are often falsely listed as being participants in Winter Soldier, but were actually in Lane's book instead.

This confusion is probably due to Stolen Valor having an explanation of Lane's history within the section on Winter Soldier.

It is also true, as noted by author Gerald Nicosia in his authoritative history of the Vietnam Veterans Movement “Home to War”, that those discredited voices were never key witnesses in either the Winter Soldier Investigation or in subsequent war crimes investigations such as the congressional Dellums Hearings of 1971.

Now do yourself (and all of us who bother to keep ourselves infoermed) of INFORMING yourself on FACTS. It ain't that hard, honest.

Posted by: Lynn | Aug 22, 2004 2:14:51 AM

Comments reflect the blogger MY, and your comments are approaching Atrios levels.

"Reg is evidently unaware that Richard Nixon ordered the firebombing of the Brookings Institute and the murder of at least one person"

I was unaware of that. Who did Nixon murder?

And Zizka, if Dems are going back to Nixon to accuse Republicans of historic use of dirty tricks, surely the LBJ and Truman are fair game.

Again, both parties routinely play dirty, its pretty stupid to act all outraged because the other side is doing it too now with the Swift boat vets when the Dems have been sliming Bush with horrible lies since Florida.

Posted by: Reg | Aug 22, 2004 2:17:10 AM

Blixa has a lot of clout around here. One of the movers and shakers.

He's just pissed that he maxed out his credit card on a somewhat disappointing night with Michelle Malkin. Not even to first base.

Posted by: blah | Aug 22, 2004 2:19:58 AM

I am positively enraged by the repellent tactics of the Bush family political operation, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Slime Machine. George W. Bush is a lying fraud and a poltroon. He is a danger to himself and others. Take him down. Now.

Posted by: Donny | Aug 22, 2004 2:26:45 AM

I was unaware of that. Who did Nixon murder?

reread

Posted by: EH | Aug 22, 2004 2:30:38 AM

A bit more FACT for tarheel the total idiot;

The "Winter Soldiers" marines' TESTIMONIES were entered into the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Congressional Records by Sen. Mark Hatfield (R) and the marines were INVESTIGATED by the US Marine Corps Commandant.

US Marine investigators were unable to confirm or refute the claimed atrocities, but identified one organizer (Al Hubbard) as never being in combat.

VVAW leader and Winter Soldier co-organizer Al Hubbard lied about being an officer, and sustaining war injuries - but he never testified at Winter Soldier.

Guenter Lewy in America in Vietnam said;

"The results of this investigation, carried out by the Naval Investigative Service are interesting and revealing ... Many of the veterans, although assured that they would not be questioned about atrocities they might have committed personally, refused to be interviewed. One of the active members of the VVAW told investigators that the leadership had directed the entire membership not to cooperate with military authorities."

The February 3, 1971, Detroit Free Press interviewed James Weber and Ron Palosaari, and another soldier, all of the same Americal unit, after the Winter Soldier Hearings.

The Pentagon confirmed that Weber and Palosaari were Vietnam veterans.

To view the events they actually testified about at the hearings, and had entered into congressional record, see the Winter Soldier Investigation:

http://lists.village.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Resources/Primary/Winter_Soldier/WS_entry.html

So, while I can excuse you because you're totally ignorant of the actual FACTS, it doesn't change the other FACT that YOU are smearing OUR VETERANS.

And here's an excellent example of YOU smearing and lying about our veterans;

"The fact is that many, possibly most, of those who testified in Detroit had never served in Vietnam. Kerry eith knew that or should have known it."

Your "fact" is totally and completely incorrect.

Posted by: Lynn | Aug 22, 2004 2:38:10 AM

I can't for the life of me figure out why Kerry isn't moving hard and fast on this. It's too late now to say that they handled this in a competant way.

Um, maybe because the swift boaters are at least partly right. Maybe some of their points are legitimate, and Kerry, despite the obvious bravery of volunteering for such service, really was a bit of a credential hound with an eye to his political future. You'll note for starters that the Kerry camp hasn't vigorously tried to counter the substantive claims of the swift boaters. Their rebuttal has amounted to something along the lines of "My service was a lot more noble than Bush's. Bring it on!"

Not that there would be anything wrong with trying to get the Hell out of Dodge when you're posted to the Mekong Delta 35 years ago -- no sane person would want to stay there longer than necessary. The problem for Kerry is that he's made his service not only the core, but pretty much the entire content, of his campaign.

Had he kept his mouth shut about his service like McCain, any sniping about his time in the military really would have seemed incredibly petty and mean spirited. But the reality is that, in so many words (and Spielbergian frames), Kerry is boasting about his heroism. It's not too much to ask that he defend the substance of his campaign from the attacks of fellow veterans who actually possess the temerity not to bow down in awe before the majesty of the new Audie Murphy.

The fact is you fellas have nominated an empty suit with few legislative accomplishments and a taste for expensive haircuts, pricey hobbies, and rich women. A smart man, yes, but a left-of-center political tumbleweed who hoodwinked the Bush-fatigued voters of Iowa by selling them a vision of a battle-tested JFK complete with Purple Hearts and rescue stories.

Welcome to the campaign.

Posted by: Karl | Aug 22, 2004 3:28:22 AM

"Um, maybe because the swift boaters are at least partly right."

A ringing endorsement! Vote accordingly!

As for substance, there's been a lot of that. From documentation of past praise for Kerry, to Rood's defense of the Silver Star incident, to the Kansan factory workers defense of the Silver Star incident, to out-and-out distortions about the Bronze Star (yeah, Republican Green Beret policeman and near casualty Jim Rassman is really a big lying phony) to the lie that the guy on TV treated Kerry for the Purple Heart to the allegation that Kerry shot himself with his own grenade, to the mysterious and non-existant "3rd guy on the boat" in another Purple Heart incident to the Navy records themselves (including Thurlow's) to Hoffman's willing inability to read initials on reports to other things I've already forgotten, the facts have come strong the defense of Kerry.

They are, it has often been remarked, stubborn things. Not all the money in Houston real estate can change them.

And, by the way, what IS your postion on the smear job Bush and his operatives pulled on McCain in South Carolina? Or was that, as I would suspect you'll protest, fair game because of the cover of "Faith of Our Fathers"?

Posted by: SamAm | Aug 22, 2004 3:46:19 AM

Lynn,, The real difference of opinion we have here seems to be the factual answer to the question, "Was it the policy of the US government or the leaders of the US military to condone or order war crimes in Vietnam?" The war crimes claimed by VVAW can be broadly categorized as mistreatment of innocent Vietnamese civilians and prisioners of war under Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. The question is not, "Were some war crimes committed in isolated cases?"

John Kerry described in rather graphic detail some war crimes and claimed that the crimes happened on a day to day (routine) basis with the knowledge and approval of officers at all levels of command. He said it before the McClellan Commission in 1971 and he has repeated it many times since. It is a lie.

What damage was done by the lie and his other actions?

1. Our POW's suffered and were tortured.
2. Vietnam veterens were often mistreated when they returned home.
3. Negotiations to end the war were slowed due to the hope given the enemy. This led to many deaths.
4. The reputations of Vietnam veterns were tarnished (officers AND enlisted).
5. My party (until 1979 when I left it) was permanently changed for the worse.

I graduated college in 1965 and volunteered for the US Army. I came to believe the war was wrong by 1968 because we were not fighting to win. The fact is that I do not know a single vetern of Vietnam who ever participaed in a war crime or who ever saw one occur. The people I know treated civilians with dignity and respect.

You claim that Kerry was innocently repeating the claims of others with not wash. He put his reputation behind those claims when he testified under oath.

Politics is a dirty game as it is practiced by Republicans and Democrats. It has been from the birth of our republic and will be so long as the republic is vibrant. What John Kerry did in the early 1970's was politics of a far more dangerous type because he committed treason.

The worst type of politics is that aimed not at winning but instead at making sure the other guy loses. ABB is the current example, but several years ago it was the Republicans and ABC. It is ironic that this year for the first time in my life there is an election where neither person deserves to win. But one is not a traitor, so I must work for his reelection. I'm now in the position of working mostly against one candidate while holding my nose as I vote for the other.

You can use your word games and fabricated facts all you wish. The truth will get out about the traitor from veterens like the Swiftvets even if Bush, McCain, and others beg for it to stop. Cry if you must about your party's mistake in nominating Kerry and scream to the top of your lungs about the unfairness of the nasty Republicans, but the Republicans cannot stop our determination to assure that all of America is aware that John Kerry is unfit to command.

Swiftvets are an INDEPENDENT 527. They don't need a Soros to get their message out because of the truth of it, but they can use donations. Why not go on over to www.swiftvets.com and contribute to their noble cause? There is no tax deduction, but I promise you will feel good about helping make sure everyone knows the truth about Kerry's post-service treachery.

Posted by: Tarheel | Aug 22, 2004 3:51:21 AM

Oh, by the way. In 2000 I was a McCain supporter who didn't like the smear by the veteren's group against him. Neither did I believe, as McCain did, that Bush condoned the "SC smear".

John McCain has had his opportunity to deal with his issues with Kerry's post-active service actions. I respect him but believe he is off base in criticizing the Swiftvets (although I believe that the Swiftvets should not have attacked Kerry's metals). Also, please note that McCain is campaigning and voiting for Bush.

The sad part of all of this is that if the Democratic party had enough collective intelligence (as in brain power) to not nominate Kerry, the wound he created would never have been opened.

Pardon my comment because I used to be one and members of my family still are, but Democrats (in total, not as individuals) are stupid. You nominated him, now live with your loss.

Posted by: Tarheel | Aug 22, 2004 4:05:30 AM

1. Smear of McCain by GOP operatives/Bush proxies in S. Carolina and New York.

2. Smear of Cleland by GOP operatives/Bush allies in Georgia.

3. Smear of John Kerry by Bush allies, one of whom was until today also a Bush campaign leader.

As Goldfinger said to James Bond: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action."

Oh, and tarheel? Here's another vote for you're being disingenuous to the point of utter fatuity.

Posted by: Ciel | Aug 22, 2004 4:28:27 AM

Well, Tarheel, my biological father was one of those war criminals - and not a repentent one, either. I knew about that long before the mass media had accepted that My Lai was not an "isolated incident." When the Tiger Force records came out I was shocked that they were admitting to it, but not at the substance of it.

You see, Special Forces Dude left his photos and "trophies" in a desk where my mother discovered them, before he ran out on her after abusing her. My grandfather the SAC officer and NATO liason had to pull strings to track him down and make him pay child support.

(The best I can tell these days via google, he may be out training survivalists in CO, if he's still alive, but the best thing he ever did for us was leave.)

And the bombings of Laos? Kerry was correct, O'Neill was wrong, whether he was just trusting his leaders like a good little German, in denial or outright lying.

Americans have *always* committed atrocities. We're fucking human beings, not angels of light. And the use of Schrecklichkeit as a tactic long predates von Bismarck - it isn't all random individuals, any more than any other country's treatment of its enemies "domestic and foreign." It's as old as police brutality, and as widespread.

We've also been in denial about it since King Phillip's War, because we want to beleive that we're God's Chosen People.

-Matt, as Viktor Laszlo says to Richard, "Welcome [back] to the fight." I assume you haven't missed one of Henry Regnery's boys founding a dating service for the Master Race, but did you know that ASC and AEI and all were founded by people with connections to Lindbergh's pro-Nazi America First group?

And that Regnery's first publications denounced the Nuremberg Trials?

I always knew that there was a section of the reactionary Traditional Catholic movement that had a fixation with Franco and Churchill and said that Mussolini wasn't so bad (since I grew up hearing it) but some of this stuff is surprising even me.

The Dr. Strangelove stuff wasn't limited to the rocket program, and von Braun - we've heard a lot in recent months about how the CIA used Nazi intelligence officers and "rehabilitated" field agents, against the KGB, often with really bad intel as a result.

And the CIA was/is deeply involved in the founding of the Conservative movement back in the late 40s. Buckley was CIA, as well as a Yalie.

I shouldn't have to remind anyone what Bush I's old job was, right?

(Rick Blaine is a blacklisted lefty radical, in Casablanca, btw.)

Posted by: bellatrys | Aug 22, 2004 4:32:05 AM

Karl;

58 bills sponsored by Kerry passed into law.

2 bills sponsored by Cheney passed into law.

In case ya haven't noticed, it's BUSH & his Cartel that are trying to keep to the Vietnam issue and AWAY from the Congressional comparisons between Kerry & bushCartel.

Posted by: Lynn | Aug 22, 2004 6:21:07 AM

tarheel; Kerry claimed NOTHING. He summarized to Congress what 100+ Vietnam veterans had testified to.

WHAT is so DIFFICULT about this that you can't grasp it???

NOT ONE of the Vietnam soldiers who testified at the Winter Soldier hearings has EVER been discredited, nor has any of their testimonies.

SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND Vietnam vets protested against the war.

The US majority protested against the war.

And Nixon and Colson hired John O'Neill to trash Kerry, because, as Colson put it, Kerry was SO CREDIBLE.

And atrocities WERE INDEED done with the knowledge and approval of officers at all levels. Which, again, is what the other Vietnam vets had testified to.

Apparently you missed the Pulitzer-prize winning investigation last year about Tiger Force, for a start.

Vietnam vets WERE NOT "spit on" etc. That was a Nixon lie, dear. Total myth, dear. Some WW1 veterans dressed in uniform and protesting the Vietnam war were indeed spit on...by RIGHTWINGERS.

Find me ONE single news article from the era that described one single incident of Viet vets being spat on. I am sure SOME vets were not well-treated, but that it was any kind of common happening is pure & total bullshit.

Atrocities, according to rightwingnuts, should be hushed up, kept quiet, so as not to "tarnish" images. See here's the problem; those we inflict the atrocities ON already KNOW about them.

Take Iraq as a current example. RWWs screamed bloody murder when the news broke about Abu Ghraib and the various other torturings, that this should have been kept quite because it "enables" our "enemies" otherwise.

Well geee DUHHHH GUESS WHO our ENEMIES are??? Would ya think maybe the people we were TORTURING???

Other reporters from other nations were there; they too knew about the torturings and in fact had been reporting on it for 7 months before the news broke in the USA.

DO RWWs think hiding bad things the USA does from Americans, while the REST of the entire bloody world KNOWS about it is a good thing to do???

Then things like 911 happen, and Americans say the incredibly innane, stupid and totally non-sensical crap of "they hate us for our freedoms".

No ya stupid SOBs, they hate us because of WTF we're DOING to them that the entire WORLD knows about except you clueless Americans because you're kept in the dark and haven't got a bloody clue as to why they really do hate us.

You call Kerry a traitor; you RWWs sure do love to bandy that word around. He's a "traitor" because he accused the vets of atrocities.

Except no, he never did accuse them of any atrocities.

HOW MANY LIES do you allow these Swift Boat Liars until you finally admit they are, in fact, liars?

Your # of lies allowed to Kerry, be they honest mistakes or outright lies is of course 0.

Yet there are so many absolutely proven no doubt whatsoever total lies told by these SB Liars, but you continue to believe whatever they've said that hasn't yet been proven as lies.

I'd call that partisan Party Uber Alles. Roosevelt called that "moral treason".

Posted by: Lynn | Aug 22, 2004 6:48:44 AM

Just a couple recent examples;

How many Americans know that bush gave the Taleban $4 million as a "reward" in their "war on drugs", in August 2001?

How many know it was America who helped train the Taleban and al Qaeda, including bin Laden? That many of those rockets their firing at us in Afghanistan right now say Courtesy of the USA on them?

How many Americans know that the USA was indicted and found guilty in the terrorist deaths of some 30,000 civilians in Nicarauga and ordered to pay restitution? That the US agreed to do so, then made a deal with Nicarauga to do trade deals instead of cash payments, that Nicar govt agreed, and that less than 1 year later, the USA froze the trade deals where they remain frozen to this day?

How many Americans know that in the Gulf War, US troops were ordered to mass grave thousands of Iraqis by bulldozing over them and burying them?

How many Americans know about the Basra Highway massacre? That US troops were ordered to fire on rounded-up, unarmed, surrendered Iraqi troops two days AFTER the final ceasefire?

How many Americans know that the City of Detroit gave Saddam Hussein the Key to the City?

That Cheney was doing business with Hussein right up until August 2000?

That contrary to the RWW pundits & bushCartel and their chants of "millions" killed/disappeared by Saddam Hussein, the Human Rights Watch and AI reports say 16,500 Iraqis are unaccounted for over the past decade?

What...you don't believe HRW and AI? Then go look at bush's own website; Decade of Deception, where it says "over 16,000 Iraqis unaccounted for".

How many "millions" found in them mass graves in Iraq??? Bush's forensic scientist says oops, only apx 5000, and they're mostly from the Iran-Iraq war int he 1980s, and some from the putting down of the Shia rebels in 1991.

Oops, we won't mention the Shia rebels, as we're currently massacring Shia rebels in Iraq ourselves.

SH "gassed his own people"? That's not what several US government reports say, including from the Pentagon, the CIA, the State Dept, the US Marine Corps, the USAWC.

How many Iraqi civilians have we killed in the past 18 mths? Estimates are apx 37,000. That sure beats hell out of Saddam's record of 16,500 per bush's own website, now doesn't it.

But shhhhhhh! Must keep facts and truth and reality away from the American public! Doesn't matter that the rest of the world is very well aware of all this--ever wonder why not one nation ont his entire planet had a population that was pro-war except the USA???

Keep Americans totally dumb as dirt, then when blowback happens and they're utterly confused as to why, tell 'em "they hate us for our freedoms".

Posted by: Lynn | Aug 22, 2004 7:08:32 AM

Typo correction:

That's $43 million bush gave the Taleban in August 2001.

Posted by: Lynn | Aug 22, 2004 7:13:45 AM

How many Americans know that the bush-selected interim "president" of Afghanistan wants the Taleban back into govt positions, and declared that "only a handful" of Taleban are "bad men"?

We've lost 133 US troops in Afghanistan (so far; the situation is deteriorating fast right now) for a "handful" of bad men.

How many Americans know that the bush-picked Iraqi interim "prime minister" hadn't been in Iraq for over 30 years before he was flown in after the fall of Baghdad?

That he's a former (?)terrorist? That the Iraqis hate him? That he's saying he'll install martial law, that he'll "chop off their heads...cut off their hands!" of any Iraqis who are caught fighting occupation (and yes actually it is legal to fight uniformed occupiers, as much as bushCartel refuse to admit that).

That he's already ordered several news offices in Iraq closed, implemented curfews and had Iraqi police in Najaf order all journalists out of the city or they'd all be murdered by the police, including the US & UK journalists?

Shhhhh! Mustn't let the American public know any of this.

Posted by: Lynn | Aug 22, 2004 7:28:52 AM

The Anybody But Kerry feeling is getting stronger every day. Bush isn't perfect but next to Kerry Bush belongs on Mt. Rushmore.

Posted by: Warthog | Aug 22, 2004 8:10:04 AM

Tell it to Andrew Ferguson, Warty. He just said (in the Weekly Standard, for God's sake):

"Reading some of the anti-Kerry attacks over the last several weeks, you might conclude that this is the new conservative position: A veteran who volunteered for combat duty, spent four months under fire in Vietnam, and then exaggerated a bit so he could go home early is the inferior, morally and otherwise, of a man who had his father pull strings so he wouldn't have to go to Vietnam in the first place.

"Needless to say, the proposition will be a hard sell in those dim and tiny reaches of the electorate where voters have yet to make up their minds. Indeed, it's far more likely that moderates and fence-sitters will be disgusted by the lengths to which partisans will go to discredit a rival. But this anti-Kerry campaign is not designed to win undecided votes. It's designed to reassure uneasy minds."

It seems now to be doing exactly the opposite.

Posted by: Bruce Moomaw | Aug 22, 2004 8:14:30 AM

Oh, by the way. In 2000 I was a McCain supporter who didn't like the smear by the veteren's group against him. Neither did I believe, as McCain did, that Bush condoned the "SC smear".

Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery. The Bush family has always resorted to vile smears when fighting for political survival. That's all this is -- a Karl Rove dirty trick for a candidate running desperately away from his own record.

Posted by: Rogers Cadenhead | Aug 22, 2004 8:31:06 AM

The most interesting words in the Weekly Standard piece are the following:

"...we'll let slip a thinly disguised secret--Republicans are supporting a candidate that few of them find personally or politically appealing."

Even a lot of conservatives are beginning to realize that there is no bar so low that Bush can't slither under it.

I suspect that in the next few days the general public is going to sort out the truth and the fiction of the

Matthew Yglesias

Proud Member of the Reality-Based Community

So Mad

TrackBack

Comments