Republican slime miesters who have falsely questioned the patriotism of our fellow Americans and demonized anyone asking LEGITIMATE, RELEVENT, & CRITICAL quesitons relating to the many Bush government abuses, failures, deceptions and neglect as anti-American and/or giving aid and comfort to the enemy have already set the tone for this election.

Democrats are attacking Bush on facts, relevant issues, policy, and agenda. Republicans resort to the black arts of slime and disinformation and have set the negative tone.

Begging to “elevate the tone” now is the hieght of hypocrisy, and laughable. The tone is ugly, - because the reality is ugly. Kerry and all the democrats have done nothing but defend themselves against the unsubstantiated and scurrilous slime spewed out by Rove’s disinformation and propaganda covens - and shine a glaring light on the obvious - huge and festering “credibility chasm” expanding around the Bush government.

Racicot complaining about a “remarkably negative tone” is an hilarious joke in light of the remarkably negative realities of the Bush government.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at February 22, 2004 05:19 PM

For a decorated war hero, John Kerry sure is a whining pussy.

First he makes a big deal of his war record. Fine. Then his fellow democrats question Bush’s record of service, equating it with desertion and Kerry lets that lie, even going so far as to equate Guard service with fleeing to Canada. Then, when somebody looks at his voting record on defense and intelligence issues, he cries like a little schoolgirl about how unfair it all is.

Memo to Senator Kerry: your medals (the ones you DIDN‘T toss over the fence) are not a shield against your voting record (which, you may want to tell Tony, is both a fact and relevant) . Sorry. Maybe your rich wife can do something about that, but until she does, you’re just going to have to live with it.

Can anybody imagine this long-winded milque toast dealing with other world leaders? It makes one long for someone with the backbone of Jimmy Carter.

Posted by: Tobin Lippert at February 22, 2004 05:31 PM

Ah yes, kerry the coward—oops, I mean war hero…
yea right. It’s not the “Bush campaign” that is questioning Kerry, It’s people like this:

“I was in the Delta shortly after John Kerry left. I know that area well. I know the operations he was involved in well. I know the tactics and the doctrine used, and I know the equipment. Although I was attached to CTF-116 (PBRs) I spent a fair amount of time with CTF-115 (swift boats), Kerry’s command.

Here are my problems and suspicions:

(1) Kerry was in-country less than four months and collected a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts. I never heard of anybody with any outfit I worked with (including SEAL One, the Sea Wolves, Riverines and the River Patrol Force) collecting that much hardware that fast, and for such pedestrian actions. The Swifts did a commendable job, but that duty wasn’t the worst you could draw. They operated only along the coast and in the major rivers (Bassac and Mekong). The rough stuff in the hot areas was mainly handled by the smaller, faster PBRs.

2) He collected three Purple Hearts but has no limp. All his injuries were so minor that he lost no time from duty. Amazing luck. Or he was putting himself in for medals every time he bumped his head on the wheel house hatch? Combat on, the boats were almost always at close range. You didn’t have minor wounds, at least not often. Not three times in a row. Then he used the three Purple Hearts to request a trip home eight months before the end of his tour. Fishy.

(3) The details of the event for which he was given the Silver Star make no sense at all. Supposedly, a B-40 was fired at the boat and missed. Charlie jumps up with the launcher in his hand, the bow gunner knocks him down with the twin .50, Kerry beaches the boat, jumps off, shoots Charlie, and retreives the launcher. If true, he did everything wrong.
(a) Standard procedure when you took rocket fire was to put your stern to the action and go balls to the wall. A B-40 has the ballistic integrity of a frisbie after about 25 yards, so you put 50 yards or so between you and the beach and begin raking it with your .50’s.
(b) Did you ever see anybody get knocked down with a .50 caliber round and get up? The guy was dead or dying. The rocket launcher was empty. There was no reason to go after him (except if you knew he was no danger to you just flopping around in the dust during his last few seconds on earth, and you wanted some derring-do in your after-action report). And we didn’t shoot wounded people. We had rules against that, too.
© Kerry got off the boat. This was a major breach of standing procedures. Nobody on a boat crew ever got off a boat in a hot area. EVER! The reason was simple: If you had somebody on the beach, your boat was defenseless. It coudn’t run and it couldn’ t return fire. It was stupid and it put his crew in danger. He should have been relieved and reprimanded. I never heard of any boat crewman ever leaving a boat during or after a firefight.

Something is fishy.

Here we have a JFK wannabe (the guy Halsey wanted to court martial for carelessly losing his boat and getting a couple people killed by running across the bow of a Japanese destroyer) who is hardly in Vietnam long enough to get good tan, collects medals faster than Audie Murphy in a job where lots of medals weren’t common, gets sent home eight months early and requests separation from active duty a few months after that so he can run for Congress. In that election, he finds out war heroes don’t sell well in Massachsetts in 1970, so he reinvents himself as Jane Fonda, throws his ribbons in the dirt with the cameras running to jump start his political career, gets Stillborn Pell to invite him to address Congress and has Bobby Kennedy’s speechwriter to do the heavy lifting. A few years later he winds up in the Senate himself, where he votes against every major defense bill and says the CIA is irrelevant after the Berlin Wall came down. He votes against the Gulf War (a big political mistake since that turned out well), then decides not to make the same mistake twice so votes for invading Iraq — but that didn’t fare as well with the Democrats, so he now says he really didn’t mean for Bush to go to war when he voted to allow him to go to war.

I’m real glad you or I never had this guy covering out flanks in Vietnam. I sure don’t want him as Commander-in-Chief. I hope that somebody from CTF-115 shows up with some facts challenging Kerry’s Vietnam record. I know in my gut it’s wildy inflated.

As well, try this hat on Kerry:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040219-115623-9539r.htm

After you read that, try tell this idiot is in any way patriotic.

Not a chance. He’s a coward, and an opertunist. A selfserving gold digger, as shown by how he gained wealth. Not by working and building, but by lying and marrying

Posted by: Fat Guy at February 22, 2004 06:06 PM

Kerry said, “Bring it on.” What did he expect?

Posted by: billhedrick at February 22, 2004 06:07 PM

We expect the scurrilous slime and twisting of facts that are common to all republican campaigns.

Your partisan “opinions” sliming Kerry Fat Guy are hilarious and delusional in light of the curious and porous (AWOL, not desertion) National Gaurd activities of the pampered papa’s boy, Andover cheerleader, and unelected fraud you support.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at February 22, 2004 06:39 PM

Tony, Tony, Tony,

Your content-free response to Fat Guy and ad hominem attack on the Presidential electoral system make quite clear that you have no actual argument.

When the facts aren’t on your side, argue the law, when the law isn’t on your side, argue the facts. When neither are on your side, blame the other guy.

You, sir, picked the last of those three options.

MG

Posted by: MG at February 22, 2004 06:54 PM

Tony says:

We expect the scurrilous slime and twisting of facts that are common to all republican campaigns.

And the Democrat campaign has been just squeaky clean. Hell, they aren’t even playing nice against each other.

Posted by: michele at February 22, 2004 07:16 PM

Just ignore Tony. Your time is too valuable to waste.

Posted by: leaddog2 at February 22, 2004 07:34 PM

Oh, Tony and I go way back, to the days before he was kicked off of Daily Pundit.

Posted by: michele at February 22, 2004 09:21 PM

Kerry’s “32-year history of voting to cut defense programs and cut defense systems?” Gee, Saxby, before 1984, Kerry was a prosecutor and state Lt. Governor. Please tell us more about this 32-year history of his votes on defense spending.

Posted by: stan at February 22, 2004 09:38 PM

Hey Tony;
I didn’t make that story up, it’s told by a person who was there, and knows what he’s talking about.
If kerry can fool you, fine. He fooled alot it seems, he managed to get elected to senate didn’t he?

Still, I want answers, how did he get 5 medals in less than 4 months? and then, used them to skip the rest of his tour, putting someone else in his place, who gets NO recognition at all, even though he served twice as long as Kerry did.

Not only that, kerry and his “throw his medals away” act at the white house was purely an act; for what? to get media attention, to get elected.

He’s a phony. He’s a liar, he’s a coward, and it’s supported by hard FACT.

Did he not marry not one, but TWO rich women, who have basically supported him all his life?
What a man. He’s done NOTHING but act as a disrupter all his career in the senate as well.
His voting record proves he’s never made a good decision, except one and the fool now retracts it.

This guy is a con-man, and this is the worst decision he’s made yet, because it will be exposed on the national stage what he is, ending his political career for good, thank goodness,
There IS a GOD!!!

I guess you’ll be voting for Nader huh? We know kerry isn’t going to last long,
The Democrat swing at Bush backfired, and now Kerry is going to panic, his 3 purple hearts won’t stand up, nor his murder of a wounded POW, He will be lucky if he doesn’t end up in prison for the fruad he’s been carrying around all these years

Posted by: Fat Guy at February 22, 2004 10:26 PM

Hey Dan Spencer
Is that a misprint “Bush Campaign Asks Kerry To Elevate The Negative Tone Of His Campaign”
Or do I just not get the punch line.

Posted by: Redneck Texan at February 22, 2004 10:50 PM

Tony Foresta wrote,

“We expect the scurrilous slime and twisting of facts that are common to all republican campaigns.”

ROFLMAO!! I love it when the facts are clearly not on the side of the person arguing. because when the facts are NOT on someone’s side, that person usually, chidishly, resorts to pouting and bickering and emotional spazziming.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at February 22, 2004 10:52 PM

Cutting the defense budget is good democracy. Gutting the defense budget would be dangerous and foolish, - but quite obviously defense is and always has been an exceedingly well fed American interest.

Our military is unchallengeable and the swiftest, best trained and equipped, most intelligent, technologically advanced, accurate, and lethal fighting force in the history of man. America has more conventional and WMD options and assets than any ten nations. We are the worlds hyperpower. America did not attain the preeminence over night, or through the efforts of any single administration. Our current hypersuperiority is the culmination of a long process of technological innovation and advancement, and an entrenched infrastructure focused on warfighting, weapons, shields, and intelligence. Bush may be commander and chief, - but he leads the peoples military, and utilizes the peoples treasure - we have the right to question deceptions, failures, abuses, and negligence.

All our glorious technology and military superiority, all our hyperpower was impotent on the morning of 9/11.

Even now, our great military using all our advanced technology cannot stop suicide bombings.

Kerry voting against defense projects in congress has absolutely zero relevance to his heroism, courage, bravey and service under fire in the Viet Nam war.

Contrarily Bush’s failure to complete his flight assignment, curious postal service, being AWOL in 1972-73, deceptively mass marketing an unjust, unnecessary war, failing to plan or account for the ensuing bloody costly occupation and nationbuilding enterprize in Iraq, - and then parading around the Lincoln prematurely proclaiming mission accomplished, - is directly relevant.

We question the ideological extragovernmental decision making, the justification, and legal and moral precedents, the cloaked accounting, the maruading of Iraqi oil, the revenge outing of an agency WMD operative, the stonewalling of and resistance to the 9/11 investigations, Silberman’s objectivity in investigation OSP WMD deceptions, the war profiteering, and the ultimate objectives of the Bush government’s activites, shapeshifting policies, agenda - and with just cause.

Kerry speaking out against the unjust, unnecessary war, and woefully misguided, radicallly miscalculated, and intentionally cloaked war and occupation of Viet Nam - was PRO - not anti-American then or now.

We do not succumb to the blind heroworship and hagiography mesmerizing theright, and we demand accountability from the government.

Nixon did not represent America then, and does NOT Bush represent America now.

The people have the right to petition the government for grievances. We are not being negative. We are acting like Americans concerned about our democracy, and demanding accountability from the Bush government. Bush truebelievers must defend the indefensible, and are quick to resort to sliming the questioner and the questions to misdirect attention away from the huge and festering “credibility chasm” expanding around the Bush government.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at February 23, 2004 12:33 AM

Sorry, but for clarity the sentence should have read - (Nixon did not represent America then, and Bush does NOT represent America now.)

Posted by: Tony Foresta at February 23, 2004 12:41 AM

///Kerry voting against defense projects in congress has absolutely zero relevance to his heroism, courage, bravey and service under fire in the Viet Nam war.///

You got it backward, Tony. Kerry’s heroism has nothing to do with his poor voting record. That’s is what is being attacked, and appropriately so.

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 23, 2004 10:14 AM

Yes Bush should run on his record. Like how on 9/11/01 Bush was notified that a plane had been flown into the WTC, multiple airplanes were hijacked and he then went into a school to read to kids. Yes that was truly outstanding leadership.

Posted by: anyonebutbush at February 23, 2004 10:31 AM

But how is that worse than Kerry throwing small children aside yelling “Do you know who I am?” so that he was sure to get a seat on the first bus out of Washington that day?

Posted by: anyonebutaDEM at February 23, 2004 10:44 AM

Anyonebutbush that has got to be the most pathetic criticism of Bush I have read yet. Reading to the kids to me shows coolness under fire if it is in fact true.
Any American president must live under a lot of stress especially in these times. Huge responsibility for millions of peoples welfare. Decisions have to be made that will cost the lives of good people as well as bad. Ones self and family in the front line at all times - it is a dangerous job. It must be a huge burden yet so many Americans seem to forget all this as they spew abuse at their leader. Frankly it appalls me.

Posted by: AngloAmerikan at February 23, 2004 11:49 AM

I seem to recall that GWB was already reading to the kids when he was informed of the crashes. Of course, the supreme test of leadership is the ability to cut short a visit with children and scaring the bejeebers out them by explaining to them just exactly why you’re leaving so fast.

Posted by: Dave T. at February 23, 2004 01:19 PM

Anglo If you feel that way (your comments), please don’t use the ‘K’ in American. Too many have used that ‘k’ in the wrong way.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at February 23, 2004 01:30 PM

///I seem to recall that GWB was already reading to the kids when he was informed of the crashes///

He was, Dave. But “anybodybutbush” (I notice the “2004” has come off as hopes for this year fades) But let it never be said that one of these trolls should let the truth interrupt a fact-devoid rant.

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 23, 2004 01:46 PM

Tony,

Perhaps you should study some history. Your points are all based on b.s. Nixon ENDED the Viet Nam war that was started by JFK and escalated by LBJ.

If you want to defend a political windsock like Kerry, go ahead. But try and do it with something besides uninformed, misguided emotion. That way, people will just think you’re misguided instead of the ignorant, hysterical, disingenuous jackass you sound like now.

Posted by: Tobin Lippert at February 23, 2004 02:37 PM

The (D)onks attacks by proxy include the never ending series of (D)meme’s like WMD, eg. It’s a lie because ®’s said it but wasn’t the 8 years that Clinton said it… right through the current claims that Bush is a deserter or AWOL made by Clark and Gore…

For Kerry to claim discussion of his senate record, which is all he has in the way of qualifications for the Presidency, is an attack on his patriotism is transparent ‘strawman’ hypocrisy.
——

Truman(D) started the Vietnam war by trying to support Vichy-France in their cowardly attempts to resubjugate their colonies.
Ike® ignored it… JFK send the advisors…

But it was clearly LBJ’s war… he escalated it to the largest deployment since WWII and his own tapes reveal he never thought we could win.

Nixon ended it under intense (D) pressure… and immediately 3/4 million Vietnamese were locked up… 2 million fled… 2 million Cambodians executed.

So all those millions endured 30 years of civil war but the moment the Communists took over… JFKerry(D)’s benevolent Commies…

Millions fled and millions died.

JFKerry lied… Millions died.

Posted by: DANEgerus at February 23, 2004 03:00 PM

All of it’s moot too me. What kerry did, what Bush did, etc.

I have a standing rule against voting for Massachusetts Democrats.

Posted by: Spade at February 23, 2004 04:48 PM

Personally, I insist on a candidate who wants my support, to be able to tell me what he has done to get ready for the job,
what he specifically intends to do if he is given the job, and
why I should select him ahead of other candidates.

Kerry is like the 40-year-old who has nothing relevant on his resume, but insists on telling me what he did in high school.

When Kerry insists he’s not like Bush, he’s right, though I don’t think he realizes how unfortunate that is for Kerry, to run against an effective leader when his own qualifications are so scant.

Posted by: GDubya at February 23, 2004 05:36 PM

Fundamental to the Bush campaign - “win the war on terrorism”…
starting with the National Education Association, according to his Secretary of Education.

My o my…
1. The Secretary is asleep in the cabinet meetings.
2. The Secretary is not part of the Bush campaign.
3. The Secretary is stupid…or an Andover grad.
4. Anybody else who supports the Ds is a terrorist too.
5. Anybody who doesn’t support the Rs is either stupid or unpatriotic.
6. The wheels really are coming off.

This administration is an insult to the Nation. And the Rs campaign is an insult to politics.

One thing about this clever move…the enemy is now clear. Red flags in the classroom! Johnny’s teacher is one of them.

Posted by: carl at February 23, 2004 06:04 PM

I too would like to see the questions raised in the post quoted by Fat Guy answered by the Kerry campaign. It originates at FrontPage magazine.com:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12272

Veterans involved in combat are usually unwilling to talk about their experiences with anyone except other veterans. But Kerry is running for President, with his heart on his sleeve. He has to be willing to answer these kinds of questions from other veterans, in public, if he wants to be an effective commander-in-chief, let alone win the election.

On the other hand, there is something phony about this anonymous posting from a mysterious, undocumented chat room. I mean, the writer is supposed to be a Marine sargeant with experience in both Korea and Vietnam, but he questions the account of Kerry’s Silver Star in ways that strike me as coming from the kind of know-it-all blowhard who is too dumb to realize how lucky he is to have avoided killing people up close. My father doesn’t really talk about the war with me, but he does talk about these kinds of idiots, who are found in VFW posts everywhere. When Fat Guy insinuates that Kerry committed murder, it just shows how little real, honest-to-god respect he has for combat veterans. No matter what Fat Guy says, there is a line, and he has crossed it here.

The Bush campaign needs to stop worrying about Kerry’s war record, and start worrying about Bush’s questionable record as a “wartime president” that they are so proud of. Democrats should stop worrying about Bush’s service record and start worrying about Kerry’s voting record and his clear vulnerability to the Republican’s tried-and-true “liberal elite” attack (with the emphasis on elite).

Posted by: rasmus at February 23, 2004 06:18 PM

Get your fact straight DANEgerus. The Bush government deceptively pimped imminent or immediateWMD threats for 19 months, and there is NO WMD!!!

Moore not Clark called Bush a deserter. Clark did not respond to the issue directly but defended Michael Moores right to dissent. Later Moore rightfully retracted his crass statement, and Clark distanced himself from Moore.

The AWOL issue remains in question, as there is yet no proof of Bush serving in 1972-73.

I am well studied on the Viet Nam war. Nixon continued the war to influence the election, escalted the war, secretly bombed Cambodia and Laos, and fled in humiliating defeat leaving South Viet Nam with no defense and no hope. Saigon was overrun and changed to Ho Chi Minh City within in hours. America’s military was ravaged, humbled, and worn.

Ho Chi Minh orginally came to the US for support in returning Viet Nam to the Vietnamese, but Eisenhower and later Kennedy sided with colonialist France. Ho turned to Russia and the rest is history. Viet Nam was the wrong war, fought the wrong way, at the wrong time, against the wrong enemy, for the wrong reasons. We lost and America was ripped asunder as a result of the abuses and deceptions of the same and oligarchs in power today.

Fair enough johnnymozart. Savage Kerry, Edwards, any democrat or any librul on the issues, or on voting records all you want, - but sliming your fellow Americans as unpatriotic is cowardly, low, and despicable conduct that will never go unchallenged.

Effective leader GDubya? That’s funny.

9/11 happened on Bush watch, and there was plenty of intel warning of an al Quaida attack.

Resisting and stonewalling the 9/11 investigations is a greivous treachery, and indicates Bush has much to hide.

Deceptively pimping non existant Iraqi WMD threats to mass market and sell a war is a grotesque abuse of power.

Revenge outing an agency WMD operative because her husband publically debunked a Bush deception is a more grievous treachery - bordering on treason.

Failing to account or plan for the woefully misguided, radically miscalculated, and intentionally cloaked bloody costly occupation and nationbuilding enterprize in Iraq against the wrong Muslims is hardly effective leadership.

Milloins of Children (mostly poor and rural) left very far behind.

Half a trillion dollar and growing deficit.

2.3 million lost jobs.

The largest government in American history, reeking of porcine abuses.

The list is too long and disgusting to continue, but obviously your partisan opinions carry little weight in light of the hard facts and ugly realities.

Bush is the most divisive, destructive, and ideological president in history, and the Bush government is bankrupting, shaming, and radically redifining America.

We demand accountability, and a regime change in 2004.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at February 23, 2004 06:34 PM

///Fair enough johnnymozart. Savage Kerry, Edwards, any democrat or any librul on the issues, or on voting records all you want, - but sliming your fellow Americans as unpatriotic is cowardly, low, and despicable conduct that will never go unchallenged.

Tony, no one has done this. My point was that I could care less what Bush or Kerry did when they were twenty, but…….

Oh, never mind. What’s the point?

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 23, 2004 07:13 PM

“9/11 happened on Bush watch, and there was plenty of intel warning of an al Quaida attack.
Resisting and stonewalling the 9/11 investigations is a greivous treachery, and indicates Bush has much to hide.”

Y’know, I’ve been lurking here for some time. Learned the players. Listened to the various crap from both sides, and I’ll tell you something.

It is the above kind of bullshit that will elect George Bush in November. The sad thing is that the democrat left actually BELIEVES this kind of crap.

I wish you all would just admit that there is nothing, absolutely fucking nothing that George Bush could do that you wouldn’t find a reason to hate him. He could singlehandedly find and capture Osama bin Laden and you guys would scream, “Why didn’t you do it SOONER?” 3 million jobs could appear tomorrow and you’d still find a reason to bitch and complain. You are all a bunch of loserass phonys. Your flagrant inability to find anything good in the last 4 years will ensure a Bush victory this year, count on it.

You crucify Bush for months about not having “enough information” to invade Iraq and then you want to pin 9/11 on him, which had scant info at BEST, you son of a bitch! If there is anything more disgusting than that inconsistency, I don’t know what it is. It just proves that what I said before is true. You hate Bush for beating Gore. You hate Bush for the Iraq war. You hate Bush for the way he talks. You hatre the way he looks. You hate him for what he is, what he says, how he takes a crap, for the way he fucking walks to AIR FORCE ONE!!!! JUST ADMIT IT, GODDAMMIT!!

Then you have the audacity to accuse us of being “narrow-minded”, when you would probably take your own life before being objective about President Bush. There is truly only one response to that:

Fuck you.

At least I’ve seen that there are some liberals with some sense around here. That gives me some hope for our country, at least. But you, Foresta, better get used to your clever little catchphrase, which you’ll be using until 2008.

Posted by: Pertinax at February 23, 2004 07:47 PM

Is that you, Karl behind that new handle (Pertinax)? The way your campaign has been going would have me a little on edge too.

Does the email address “edwardgibbon” indicate that somebody thinks that the empire might be in decline and fall?

Your blanket accusations about Bush hatred are just not true. I don’t like the way he walks, talks, lies, smirks, puts on make-up. But i don’t have real strong feelings about it. It’s actually kinda pathetic. He’s incompetent and irresponsible. How could a bleeding heart liberal hate someone for that?

3 million jobs could appear tomorrow. We’ll just re-write the budget again.

Loved this…”He could singlehandedly find and capture Osama bin Laden”. He was a cheerleader, for land’s sake. He goes to Iraq for a picture with a plastic turkey. the toughest thing about him is the Chimp-in-Chief action doll.

The most telling, engaging and poignant piece of this post is “…there is nothing, absolutely nothing that George Bush could do…” my heart swelled; i almost cried. We definitely see eye to eye.

Posted by: carl at February 23, 2004 08:18 PM

Wow, that is one hacked lurker.

Carl, you miss the valid point that pertinax has, to your detriment. Hatred is a bad breakfast and a worse supper.

What is with Libs and cheerleaders? Do you know Eisenhower was a cheerleader?

Posted by: jones at February 23, 2004 08:29 PM

Jones…

I won’t speak for others who seem to have that hatred. And yes, if people are full of venom about what’s happening (one way or the other), i’m concerned about what happens when someone loses. (the Supremes are going to stay out of it this time. If there’s a brouhaha, they have to take turns.)

I’ve got nothing about cheerleaders; won’t accept the Libs label either. Here’s the point…someone hints that GWB would go after OBL singlehandedly (clearly an exaggeration to make a point, that’s cool). But it brings to mind that, to some, we’ve got Mr. Testosterone in the White House. He didn’t personally do diddly to Saddam. The military did. And more to the point, the tough guy stance is part of the “scare the crap out of people, and let us Big Boys handle the terrorism war” re-election rhetoric.

This disconnect may be behind some of the Bush/NG flap too. Tough as nails when it’s somebody else or somebody else’s kid doing the fighting.

In my view, plastic turkey and “Mission Accomplished” photo opps are going to come back to haunt Rove/Bush. Time will tell.

Posted by: carl at February 23, 2004 09:16 PM

John Kerry’s Silver Star exploit looks to me something form out of the John Wayne movies starring John Wayne, Audie Murphy and Rambo. Doing something showy. As far as pulling the Special forces troop out of the water; that seems like he was just doing his job. you can argue both ways on beaching the boat. Whether the boat commander should have done that is arguable, the story is just too sparse to truly judge. that doesn’t sound like Silver Star action. Army procedures vice Navy procedures for awards. procedures vary from unit to unit, month to month, commander to commander, much less service to service.
There was a “3 Hearts and you can go home” policy — but I couldn’t tell you when it was instituted or if all services subscribed to it. I also know that it generally only applied to enlisted. no officer worth would use that as an excuse to go home. But, in the end, we’ve found out what Kerry thought of that. Every description I have read of Kerry’s action resulting in the Silver Star leave me wondering, Where is the rest of it? I’ve have not read his citation, and I’ve not heard a description of his actions from someone who is both supportive of Kerry and a combat vet. So, my position is: he has the Silver Star - and I hope that there was more to it than we’re hearing. I have no information at all on how the award was generated. I especially like to see whose signature is recorded on the citation. Senior officers and other high-ranking politicians have been known to help each other’s reputations by recommending each other for awards such as the Navy Cross, Silver Star and other recognition’s. What is most important is what he did after he got home and since? His Silver Star and his Purple Hearts Throwing his medals and the other radical protest was insulting to any soldier who earned similar decorations. It went far beyond just being apposer to the war. His voting record in the Senate have been consistently antimilitary. He voted against all key weapons in the current war effort.- Stan 199th LIB. Vietnam 67-68

Silver Star

Authorized on July 9, 1918 as the “Citation Star” of the U.S. Army, it was
redesignated as a medal on August 8, 1932. The star is awarded to any member of the United States Armed Forces who, while serving in any capacity, distinguished themselves by gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States, or while serving with friendly forces against an opposing armed enemy force. When the medal was created in 1932 it was made retroactive, so that those cited for gallantry as far back as the Spanish-American War of 1898 were eligible to receive the Silver Star. It is awarded for combat action only, and ranks as the third highest valor decoration of the United

Posted by: Stanley J. CwiklinskiIII at February 23, 2004 09:29 PM

Wow, someone really took their angry pills today. :) Elevated blood pressure can cause apoplexy, you know. Can’t really disagree with the sentiment, though.

By the way, carl, way to be objective. I mean, you (snicker) really have me (snicker, snicker) convinced.

No. Really.

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 23, 2004 09:43 PM

Johnny-

That’s big movement for you. i thought for certain that your mind was made up.

i can’t tell though…really…are you making fun of me? No. Really. After your diatribe when i insulted one of your brethren, i was pretty sure that you would play by your own rules. So i guess you’re not insulting me. And isn’t Republican the honorable party, the gentleman’s party? That settles it.

Thanks for being such a gentleman.

Posted by: carl at February 23, 2004 10:27 PM

Well, I mean, what else could I do carl, with all that factual information and objectivity you just spewed?

Actually, only the second half was directed at you. The first part was directed at Emperor Pertinax. All that anger, bad for the blood.

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 23, 2004 11:14 PM

The hate eminates from your camp brother, not mine. We are posing legitmate critical questions relating to global events impacting all our lives and futures. I stand behind all my claims, and challenge you to defend one of them. You cannot.

Truebelievers succumb to the Rove/Bush mindwarp mesmerizing them into believing all the Bush government abuses, deceptions, failures, and neglect are somehow unimaginable or not possible - when the sad ugly reality is, all these issues are being scrutinized and investigated now for the first time in earnest, and there are several legitimate well documented grievances the people hold against the government. The Bush government is accountable.

I refer you again to the beginning of the list I posted above, and add to this sad legacy - alienating America internationally, the dividing of America internally, the incestuous obscene profiteering in the prosecution of war, occupation, and nationbuiliding by cronies in the Bush oligarchy, the cloaking of accounting, (niether Afghanistan nor Iraq are alloted one penny in the Bush governments’ 2004 budget.), the environmental irresponsibility, packing the circuit courts with rightwingideologue partisans - again the list is long and festering.

The USA Patriot Act is an exceedingly overarching erosion of the peoples rights, freedoms, and protections, and affords thefew rightwingideologues in Bush government far too much power to search and surveil AMERICANS - AMERICANS for heavens sake!

Ravaging the Bill of Rights and eroding the freedoms, rights, privaleges, and protections of the people, by exploiting the horrors and the dead of 9/11, without oversight or review - is conduct unbecoming and totally unacceptable. Numerous civil authorities, cities, and states have denounced the radical intrusions of the USA Patriot Act. We are not making anything up. All this information is readily available, and a thousand times linked. The people are questioning the Bush governments policies for good reason.

You defend on blindly partisan grounds Bush by sliming those who question the policies, the activities, and the unspoken agenda of the Bush government. (Anything that creep Poindexter is involved with is certainly dirty, suspect, and warranting independent scrutiny and review.)

America (and particularly the somnambulents in the mainstream press) have finally awakened from our collective torpor, Allah be praised - and suddenly the airy substantless plastic veneer of the Bush government is melting away and fast evaporating into the myst. All the pretty partiotic platitudes promising someday greater goods, - all the rightwingideologue disinformation and partisan hagiography - all the deceptions, fictions, and myths are unmasked and revealed as hollow and meaningless words, - nothing but air, - and all that remains is the stink of a huge and festering “credibility chasm” expanding around the Bush government.

We demand accountability.

Bush would not have summoned scrutiny into his legacy service in the National Guard, had he not used and exploited the people’s Navy, the Iraq war, and 9/11 as a backdrop for a campaign commercial. And theright would not have raised the ire of theleft had they not slimed our fellow Americans patriotism.

Shame, I say - Shame!

Posted by: Tony Foresta at February 24, 2004 12:02 AM

hmmmm . . . the internet version of road rage. I see that there’s really nothing commanding about this post.

I will not be voting for GWB this year, but I am glad every day that we live somewhere that anyone can say that at any time. I do not believe what the man says, and he does not represent my views.

I don’t know if Kerry’s my man - this ‘someone else’s medals’ thing bothers me - but I know that I’m bothered more by undeserved political dynasties and oil companies calling the shots. We have both right now.

You guys argue among yourselves. You don’t change anything and never will. Get out and make a difference.

Posted by: centrist at February 24, 2004 12:14 AM

Ah, I see that the first gutterslug has arrived to prove my point for me, all the while, in perfect partisan fashion, denying that they are doing so. You’re a funny guy, carlie, maybe you can give us some standup later.

Good work. You made it almost two sentences before reverting to stupid loserass namecalling like “Chimp in Chief” Yup, well, what did I expect? That’s objectivity for you these days. Thank you for once again proving my point.

But see, carl, I don’t object to you, or that. You can hate Bush all you want. What I find pathetic, sad, and hypocritical is that you are too much of a pussy to ADMIT it. (just the way you didn’t in both your posts, BUT I notice that you DID avail yourself of the opportunity to accuse me of hatred. Always expect the opposite of liberalism’s stated intent, I suppose.)

What I do object to is that both sides of the aisle, and at this particular time, Democrats (Republicans had their turn several years ago) are UNABLE to see any problem objectively. When jobs are lost, it isn’t because the economy is dynamic, its because BUSH HATES THE WORKING MAN. When John Kerry comes back and throws a fit with his medals, it isn’t because he’s a stupid kid who’s just seen hell on Earth, its because he’s a pinko commie lover who hates America. Because an Alzheimer’s ridden General can’t remember Bush as a National Guardsman, suddenly he’s AWOL. Because NK obtains nuclear weapons, its not because of a failure of the last eleven years of US and international diplomacy, noooooooo, its Bush’s fault. Because 9/11 happens on Bush’s watch, it isn’t because of intelligence failures, its because he’s an accessory to the murder of 3000 civilians.

Drought in Rwanda?—Bush’s fault
Prostitution in Thailand? Bush’s fault
The Holocaust? You know THAT was Bush’s fault.
Inquisition? Bush
Carl can’t get laid? Well, what other reason could there be but George W. Bush?

This bullshit is killing America. The lack of objectivity will soon overwhelm us because we will never address the right problem, and thus NOTHING WILL EVER BE ACCOMPLISHED. Despite your efforts, right out of the leftwing playbook, to “pigeonhole and slander” me, I’ll tell you that I have no particular allegiance to George Bush or the Republican Party, although I voted for him in 2000 and plan to do so this year. By the same token I voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 as a protest vote against George Sr. and again on his own merits in 1996. But if it makes it easier and more comfortable to believe that I’m a diehard right winger, well, hey, knock yerself out.

As for my name, if you’d done anything other than read the title, dipshit, you’d know that Pertinax was an Emperor killed by his own soldiers for trying to enact reform in a society that had allowed the political elite to grossly abuse their power, thus destroying Rome. Kinda similar to what’s happening now, in both parties. Rome fell not long after, so yeah, you could say I’m a little concerned about decline and fall, after all. Just not of what you think I am. Pretty smart guy, you.

I will remind you, carl, that none of what I said was directed at you. But you seemed to take offense. Good. If the shoe fits, wear it. But see, I don’t hate you, carl, or Tony. In fact both of you are probably standup guys, good citizens, pay your taxes and shit. Probably good guys to have a beer with. Nor do I think you are unpatriotic (unless, of course that you, like Tony, define unpatriotic as “being a dipshit” in which case, yes, I think you are unpatriotic) But what I do hate is what you are doing to America with this partisan shitslinging. Just like I hate it when the Republicans did it to Clinton, and when they do it to Kerry now. And it would be fine if you wanted to say about Bush, “I hate what he is doing to America, I’m going to vote aginst him and encourage others to do the same” My sister says that.

But no, he has to be stupid, a racist, a drunk, a deserter, a wife beater, a cheater, a thief, a liar, someone who hates children, someone who hates the working class, wants to fuck Grandma and Grandpa, an imperialist, just like Hitler, and last but certainly not least, an accessory to the murder of thousands, AND a mass murderer.

Oh, but ok, you don’t hate ‘im, you’re objective. Because you, as a bleeding heart liberal, feel sorry for him. If you believe that last paragraph, fuck that…and you. If you only want to vote against Bush, then I guess I’m not talking to you, am I, carl? But then I guess we both know what your true feelings are, don’t we?

Posted by: Pertinax at February 24, 2004 12:15 AM

Mozart and Jones and centrist, I fear that the inability to look at problems objectively will be the death of democracy in this country.

Evidence, evidence, evidence. That’s all we hear these days. Everybody seems to want evidence. Evidence about Iraq. Evidence about WMD. Evidence that Bush actually quit drinkng. Evidence that Bush actually fulfilled his Guard Duty (which was a lightweight duty) Evidence about everything EXCEPT evidence substantiating any outrageous claim made against the President. That kind of evidence isn’t necessary. Its sickening.

I don’t even object to the claims, really. What I object to is the fucking hypocritical double standard. For both men AND parties. All the bitching Tony did about Bush acting on Iraq intelligence, and then complaining about fucking NOT acting on 9/11 intelligence, which was far less. The hell with that. For the good of the country, pick a position and be consistent, even if it means agreeing with a politician or a person you despise.

Posted by: Pertinax at February 24, 2004 12:29 AM

I like what you say, Pertinax. Objectivity is a casualty on this site. We can all take a lesson from the immortal words of a Fair Witness in a Heinlein book when asked what color a house on a hill was . . . “it’s green on this side”. (no political statement intended).

Critical thinking . . . objectivity . . . tolerance . . . diversity . . . understanding - all are American ideals.

Let’s gain some altitude and look over the horizon. That’s where Americans live.

Posted by: centrist at February 24, 2004 01:23 AM

One order of objectivity, coming up:

Notice to Fat Guy, rasmus, Stanely J, et al regarding Kerry’s “fishy” medals:

Snopes has debunked this as a myth.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp
(Hat tip - Instapundit)

I read this and concluded that the “fishy medals” story is pretty much bunk, although the “court martial vs medal” issue is not entirely resolved - but then I bet that is often the case, the line between valor and stupidity in battle is sometimes blurry and a judgment call after the fact. I’d seen Fat Guy’s posting on a number of other sites and was skeptical as well, the Snopes article is a decent explaination of the background. Probably won’t satisfy everyone though.

So, centrist, still think we’re wasting our time here? There are some of us here who listen and think. You may guess from this one post what “side” of the debate I’m on and you’d likely be wrong.

Now, can someone run down the whole “Kerry threw someone elses medals away” meme for us? Like some reasonably authoritative source? I have to go to bed.

Posted by: lewy14 at February 24, 2004 05:37 AM

Pertinax, (well chosen NIC, by the way)

Welcome. I don’t think I’ve seen you post before yesterday. Profound words. Nice job of “outing” carl, too. Its nice to see balance here sometimes. And although you have style, I’ll give you that, I’m not sure its a good idea to let the idiot savants manipulate you. I appreciate what you’re saying, but arguing with them is sometimes like trying to describe the color “orange” to a blind person.

I must confess, however, that I’m interested: what made you vote for Clinton in 1996 that made you NOT want to vote for Gore in 2000? Especially since you seemed to support Clinton during his impeachment hearings? Just curious.

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 24, 2004 09:35 AM

And actually, centrist, Pertinax has hit the nail on the head, and so have you. The reason so many of us look so partisan is that we can’t defend anything Bush does without being called “truebelievers” or some such. And criticism that doesn’t acknowledge that Bush is either A) stupid, B) a liar, or C) an election thief is immediately invalidated by those who are too arrogant to admit that they just hate Bush. So even if we disagree with him vehemently (ie the McCain-Feingold act) it doesn’t matter. The arrogant tinfoil hat brigade will accuse us of being sheep. Not to mention that usually people who disagree with Bush on lot of issues are so busy defending him from scurrilous charges like he’s like Hitler to even get a chance to debate where they diverge from Bush.

Posted by: johnnymozart at February 24, 2004 09:45 AM

Most of Tony’s rants I have learned to ignore, and I have no intention of rehashing the whole war, but the history student in me cries for some corrections:

Nixon was elected in 1968, and immediately began to make changes in the way the war ws being fought in Vietnam. Because of the large commitment, these changes took time to implement, especially since, unlike LBJ, Nixon paid some attention to his generals about the likely effects of his decisions.

The decision to invade Cambodia was and is controversial, but it directly attacked the Viet Cong’s supply line, and US troops started to take fewer casualties. The mining of Haiphong harbor forced the North Vietnamese to realize the conflict had fundamentally changed, and was instrumental in beginning serious Peace talks in Paris. The agreement was signed in 1971, and allowed for two independent Vietnams.

After Nixon resigned in 1974, the Democrat-controlled Congress refused to honor the terms of the treaty, particularly in leaving a sufficient troop in force, or supply the South Vietnamese government. When the North Vietnamese realized this, they invaded, and over a million civilians died in the ensuing slaughter, with millions more fleeing the region if they were able.

Posted by: GDubya at February 24, 2004 09:55 AM

If you want to say Shame on someone, say it to Kerry.
Shame on him for writing himself up for 3 purple hearts, a silver, and bronze star. and then, apply for and recieve stateside duty…. All within 3 1/2 months!!!!
How do you explain that?

He shot a wounded, dying POW in the head, and gave himself a medal.

He then got his stateside wish granted, in a lightening speed time of 4 days, where he began his Anti-war carreer.
He quit his service early, claiming politcal ambitions, which weren’t realistic, nor possible.

He then called his Veit Nam bubbies murderers, butchers rapists— the wost men on earth, the worst army on earth.

He then in his senate terms, covered up information of MIA’s Senator Covered Up Evidence of P.O.W.’s Left Behind

He has taken more corperate money, than any other senator.

You want this snake to be a leader?
Protect your national security?

What can he do for trade, business, job creation?

He’s worthless, a fraud, like he has been all his life.

Posted by: Fat Guy at February 24, 2004 07:09 PM

Fat Guy, did you even read the Snopes link I posted? Or are you like Tony Foresta just another polemico-hysteric spew ‘bot with delusions of relevance? Have a donut.

(FWIW I agree with you. Kerry is worthless. And a fraud. But the case against him is strong enough that you don’t have to go making stuff up or passing on urban legends or distorting the truth beyond all recognition. There’s too much of that.)

Posted by: lewy14 at February 25, 2004 04:46 AM

You support my argument GDubya. Nixon escalated the war (secretly and behind the peoples back) for political reasons. Bombing Cambodia and mining Haiphong harbor failed completely to stem the flow of supplies, deter the enemy, or prevent the fall of Saigon, - despite the enormous costs in America military resources, political oxygen, treasure, and blood wasted in the effort.

Civility would be nice. Focus on the issues, and not the candidate’s private life would be nice. Rejecting the blind, false, and scurrilous sliming of our fellow Americans patriotism for questioning the government would be nice. An end to all the bitching would be nice. But it is not possible in the current context, and the fault lies with theright - not theleft.

There is no double standard on my part.

For example no one made any claims of complicity for 9/11, but quite obviously there were massive failures, we had intel, and several of the 9/11 mass murderes under surveilance, and did not connect the dots. Pretending no one was responsible, resistng examination of the facts, and shielding the government from accountability - is is not sound democracy. We need to know what went wrong before 9/11, and why, and work to correct the failures. Simply washing it away is not acceptable.

The Iraq WMD hype is another example. The OSP is responsible for the stovepiped, cherry picked, single sources, uncorroborated, and NOT CREDIBLE WMDtheat speak mass marketed by the Bush government - not the intelligence community.

Ignoring, evading, or excusing this fact is again not sound democracy. Here again we need to know what went wrong with regard to Iraqi WMD hype, and why, and work to correct the failures.

Just because these examinations reflect negatively on the Bush government does not mean we should wash them away with cliams of partisanship and “bitching”.

These two issues impact all our lives. We must hold the government and leadership (republican and democrat) accountable. This is our right and essential duty as Americans.

Sticking to the issues, and resisting personal attacks is step in the right direction.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at February 25, 2004 10:35 AM

You know, Tony, I can see you’re TRYING to get away from the sniping. But you’re gonna have to put down your rifle, if you want the other guy to do so.

The WMD canard is a common tactic taken by the left. First off, you know damned well, Saddam had them; he used them in the Iran-Iraq war, and he used them on civilians in Halbja - at leats three incidents were confirmed in 1995 by scientists, from chemicals in soil samples. There are CONFIRMED stockpiles in 1991, which Saddam promised by treaty to destroy unders supervision, but which instead he hid and then denied; the crux of all these years’ concern was what he did with KNOWN WMD, and what his KNOWN research was producing.

You are ignoring significant events along the way, as well, like the sudden shift in the use of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers: For many years, poor people in Iraq have used the rivers for their cooking and washing, but when the Americans arrived, they discovered the people were giving the rivers a wide berth, not even fishing there. The possibility that CW and/or BW were dumped there to prevent US discovery is obvious. The surveillance of smuggled freight across the Syrian and Iranian borders should also be noted; does it seem strange to you that Iran, which had no weapons-grade uranium in 2003 and no means to produce any, suddenly is discovered to have 160 pounds of weapons-grade U-235?

My point is simple: The intelligence was valid, and Bush’s statements were factual and honest, especially since he did NOT claim there was an imminent threat, but that the US would not wait until the threat became imminent (SOTU 2003).

If you would stop lying about the war, it would easier to discuss it with you.

Posted by: GDubya at February 26, 2004 12:03 PM

The point GDubya is the Saddam had WMD, that there was no WMD threat, and certainly no immediate threat, that there is now no WMD, that Iraq was well contained, and that there was no legitimate reason for the Bush to divert attention, military resources and treaure away from hunting, capturing or killing jihadist mass murderers, and towards invading, occupying, and adopting Iraq for who know how long, or at what cost, so the Bush oligarchy can pirate Iraqi oil, and profiteer obscenely from the war and nationbuilding enterprize in Iraq.

The Bush government deceived the America public about the necessity for attacking Iraq. If there was no imminent threat - (which the OSP and the entire Bush government pimped for 19 months no what semantic gymnastics you use to parse the word imminent) - but if there was no imminent or immediate threat - why are we there?

The lies about the war eminate from your camp brother - not mine.

Posted by: Tony Foresta at February 29, 2004 07:59 PM