Democrats routinely lie about being heroes

[Q Classic]

Where was this when Billy boy was accused of draft dodging.

sprayber, i love ya. really, i do.
because in your zeal to slam all who find that there is worth in at least going to a godforsaken hellhole, no matter how big the ******* is, you're telling me off about some supposed hypocrisy.
however, i submit to you two things in my defense:
1. i'm not a fan of billy boy.
2. when the issue first came up about his draft dodging, i was in the 4th grade, and supported bush.

All I heard from the left when this issue came up was it doesn't matter or the war was wrong anyway, or any number of reasons saying that his actions all those years ago was not important to his becomming president. Now that their current boy is running for president, all of a sudden service in Vietnam is all the issue.

because i don't like this new bush, i'm on the left. yay! better not tell them my opinion on social security, affirmative action, or any number of other subjects.

Neither side gives a damn about those that never came back. One side is whoring their service to get elected and the other side is doing whatever they can to find fault in it. Disgusting from both parties and those here that fall for it and defend either one aren't much better..

at least you start talking some sense here.

[Q Classic]

btw, conservatives, for some reason, also think having a controversial opinion, expressing opposition to your government's policy, and trying expose what you regard as wrongdoing during a moderate or liberal presidencies is not traitorous.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Liberal presidency? I want one of those!

[Ned]

You guys have to remember that Kerry spoke out in '71, two years into Vietnamization. By that time, more than half our troops had been withdrawn. By the same time the next year, all but a handful would have been withdrawn and the war would be over for America.

What Kerry wanted was not a US pullout, but an US defeat. He wanted us to immediately pull out regardless of the fate of our POWs or the fate of SV. In fact, Kerry and his ilk actually wanted us to hand the government of the South over to the North.

He also smeared our troops. Called them ALL war criminals. As a result, the status of the POWs in Hanoi changed. The North now called them war criminals, not POWs. Their bad treatment got worse.

[Berzerker]

Ned -

OH?

Really.

This time.

Last time.

Every time.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Don't know, if Repubs want to try this tactic in future races he may wrap himself in his wartime exploits again.

Not that I know of, he's run several times in Massachusetts and I don't think his opponents made a big deal then nor did Kerry.

Farb -

He's trumpeting it because the ENTIRE reason he went to Vietnam was to film and build up for his future political career and run for the Presidency. He didn't go to Vietnam to serve his country, he went to Vietnam so he could pad his political resume.

That's possible, but since I can't read his mind I wouldn't know.

Now that all of his efforts aren't giving him a huge lead he's frustrated that his Vietnam experiences are going to have been a fruitless investment.

Wouldn't be the first time Repubs went after war veterans. They trashed John McCain in the South Carolina primary in 2000 (guess who McCain was running against). Ever hear of Clayton Hartwig? Type his name into google and see what Bush #1 and the Pentagon did to him. The guy died in service to his country and the Repubs smeared him for political expediency...

[Q Classic]

max cleland was smeared by everyone's favorite rightist columnist, ann coulter.

when she writes things that deliberately alienate asians, arabs... and have nutjobs like michael savage in the fold... i mean, is it really that hard to put two and two together and understand why the republicans have such trouble with minorities?

[Straybow]

Eh? There is some connection between Coulter's hatchet job on Cleland and whatever she wrote that you feel is alienating towards asians etc?

[Q Classic]

yes. she happens to have this odd hate and revulsion to anybody who doesn't agree with her. which happens to be virtually all democrats.

cleland is one. mineta is another. the only link the two have is coulter, who spews hate and vitriol with such skill that only michael moore comes close.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Ned
You guys have to remember that Kerry spoke out in '71, two years into Vietnamization. By that time, more than half our troops had been withdrawn. By the same time the next year, all but a handful would have been withdrawn and the war would be over for America.

What Kerry wanted was not a US pullout, but an US defeat. He wanted us to immediately pull out regardless of the fate of our POWs or the fate of SV. In fact, Kerry and his ilk actually wanted us to hand the government of the South over to the North.

He also smeared our troops. Called them ALL war criminals. As a result, the status of the POWs in Hanoi changed. The North now called them war criminals, not POWs. Their bad treatment got worse.

To which Jane Fonda actually appears morally superior to Kerry considering

In 1988 in an interview with Barbara Walters on 20/20, Jane Fonda talked about her Vietnam visit and issued what some feel was an apology but which her critics say was not enough. Fonda said, "I would like to say something, not just to Vietnam veterans in New England, but to men who were in Vietnam, who I hurt, or whose pain I caused to deepen because of the things that I said or did. I was trying to help end the killing and the war, but there were times when I was thoughtless and careless about it and I'm...very sorry that I hurt them. And I want to apologize to them and their families."

Any bets Kerry (even on his death bed) will ever fess up to his complicity in the mistreatment of POW's?

[Straybow]

I'm not a minority, so I don't get this "anyone criticism of a member of a minority group must be racist" thing.

[Q Classic]

I'm not a minority, so I don't get this "anyone criticism of a member of a minority group must be racist" thing.

oh, please.
it's the linking of an american-born, american citizen who suffered through the internment camps to something the imperial japanese did at bataan based on nothing more than a superficial similarity of appearance that's the ofeensive thing.

[Ned]

Q-Cubed, given that you love to hate Coulter, here is her latest column. It really gets into Chris Matthews, who is now becoming famous for being rude to his anti-Kerry guests.

http://www.anncoulter.org/

Admitted War Criminal Cries Foul
August 25, 2004

There are several methods of evaluating the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, 254 of whom have signed a letter saying John Kerry is not fit to be commander in chief.

There is the Bill O'Reilly method, which is to abandon independent thinking and simply come out in the middle, irrespective of where the two sides are. In response to Newt Gingrich's remark that the Swift Boat Veterans' independent ads were "the conservative movement's answer to Michael Moore," O'Reilly said, "I don't want either of them."

In Nazi Germany, O'Reilly would have condemned both Hitler's death camps and the Warsaw ghetto uprising. In Bill O'Reilly's world, King Solomon would have actually cut the disputed baby in half.

The O'Reilly method of analysis works well about once a century. The last time was when Hitler invaded Russia in 1941.

Then there is the Chris Matthews method, which is to decide in advance that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are the lowest form of human life imaginable and then publicly excoriate them for consuming oxygen.

Matthews employs a logical calculus known as "begging the question," which goes something like this:

1. John Kerry claims to be a great war hero.

2. Maybe so, but legitimate questions have been raised about his combat record.

3. How can you say that about a great war hero like John Kerry?

When John O'Neill, author of "Unfit for Command," went on "Hardball," Matthews accused O'Neill of being a Republican operative and demanded that O'Neill detail for "Hardball's" six remaining viewers his voting history for the past 20 years in mind-numbing detail. (Completely destroying his case against Kerry, in 1988, O'Neill voted for George Herbert Walker Bush!) Apparently voting for a Republican presidential candidate 15 years ago is a credibility-destroyer, whereas being a former member of the White House staff under Jimmy Carter, as Chris Matthews is, enhances one's credibility.

Normally an interview on a newly released book consists of the author being asked questions about his book and the author answering the questions. With O'Neill, Matthews interviewed himself.

Also, erstwhile war protester John Hurley was interviewed along with O'Neill about "Unfit for Command." The fact that Hurley (1) didn't write the book, and (2) is a paid Kerry campaign worker raises no credibility issues. A colleague of Kerry's in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hurley's contribution to the interview about a book he didn't write consisted of his piping in periodically with insightful comments about O'Neill, such as "his book and his organization is built on lies and distortions."

O'Neill's contribution to a discussion about his own book consisted mostly of meaningless sentence fragments:

O'Neill: I don't believe that ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: Well, I'm not here to ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: I think he is millions of steps behind, because he went over ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: His first Purple ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: Well, the first ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: You're right. I'm saying ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: Well, wait just a second. What you've done is ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: First of all ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

Finally, O'Neill proposed that he be allowed to answer questions and Matthews erupted with an indignant speech notable mostly for being slightly longer than anything O'Neill ever got to say:

Matthews: "One of the oldest tricks on this show is for somebody to come on the show after talking for 20 minutes and say they haven't had the chance to talk. I'll be glad to clock you, John, on how many minutes you spoke on the show. So don't try that old trick. It is a particularly conservative trick, OK? So let's move on here."

Let's review the transcript!

Total words by book author John O'Neill: approximately 1,150. (Complete sentences devoid of Matthews interruptions: about 2.)

Total words by paid Kerry flack Hurley: approximately 950.

Total words by Matthews, excluding host prattle ("Welcome back to 'Hardball'!"): approximately 2,290.

At least Matthews didn't physically throw O'Neill off his set as he did Michelle Malkin a few nights later while she tried in vain to discuss her new book. The lion-hearted Matthews reserves that level of rudeness only for girls. (Now that I think about it, compared to the average Democrat male, maybe John Kerry is manly.)

In lieu of the O'Reilly method (randomly coming out in "the middle" of every issue) or the Matthews method (deciding, ab initio, that any criticism of Kerry could come only from bottom-feeding, politically motivated whores), there is still another method of evaluating the evidence, which is to evaluate the evidence.

For starters, 254 swiftboat veterans say Kerry is a fraud; 14 say he's a hero. Partisan considerations aside, which would be more difficult to do: Get 14 liars to keep a secret, or get 254 liars to do so? As a student of recent history, I defer to any registered Democrat on this question.

Of course, the 14 in Kerry's camp are not necessarily lying, being bribed, or hoping for a position in the Kerry administration – possibilities the media will never raise, I note. But we're talking about 35-year-old memories here; 254 memories to 14 memories is what we used to call "evidence."

Why don't we just give both sides some swiftboats, a few machine guns and lots of ammo, put them on a river somewhere, and let them settle this whole thing like gentlemen once and for all?

[Q Classic]

ned, what's the point of the column?

i don't watch cable news pundits, really, so chris matthews can go suck on an egg for all i care.

is the fact that she tears him apart supposed to make me respect her more? given the enormity of what she'd done before, this is like throwing a pebble into the sea and expecting it to make an island.

face it--pundits who rant on tv are the televangelists of political parties. they can be pretty, but they're vapid, crude, rude, jerkwads, and total *******s.

[Ned]

The reason I posted it is that Chris Matthews has been particularly vicious in his questioning of anti-Kerry folks of late and has himself become a issue to anyone who is not a Kerry fan. It is one thing to ask hard questions, like Russert. Is is another to behave like a barbarian bully.

He did the same thing you see above with O'Neill to Michelle Malkin and Larry Thurlow last week.

In one segment, he was seen asking this question of himself, his face flushed, his beedy eyes darting to and fro, "How could this happen? How could a challenger himself become the issue? These elections are supposed to be about the incombent, not about the challenger?"

He seemed genuinely perplexed, flustered and a bit angry. His treatment of his anti-Kerry guests last week showed signs of extreme frustration bordering on panic.

[Guynemer]

Michelle Malkin asserted that John Kerry self-inflicted his wounds! Yeah, that stupid ***** deserves a lot of respect.