PeterDavid.net

Ralph Nader is the GOPs best friend. The protesters come in a close second.

If the NYC protestors have a positive effect on the Bush Campaign, it will be because the American people will again see what kook, far-Left weirdos most of them are and this will serve to further distance Bush's opponents from mainstream America. It won't be because of sympathy on the part of the swing voters toward the Republicans thanks to the protestors. That idea is just plain wrong.

DW

I'm sorry to say it, but mass protests just don't work any more. Media portrayals of protestors are always negative, and lip service (at best) is given to the actual reasons for the protests. The end result is that protesters come out looking like violent hooligans.

I can't remember a recent protest anywhere that hasn't resulted in more harm than good.

Turns out that we have a spy in the Pentagon and...well...no one seems to care all that much.

But naked protestors? All over the news

Seems to me that some people, rather than looking at the cause behind a demonstration or protest or whatever ya wanna call it, just label the people involved as loonies and want to send them home to their fish named Eric. We live in a world shaped by and for sound bytes and the news just doesn't have the time to report on it. After all, they've got cars to sell and they HAVE to go to their weatherman in someone's backyard with a giant tomato shaped like (insert minorly famous person HERE).

The Dems are worried about a backlash against the protesters, but how else to get their message across? They are angry with this administration and feel their complaints are not recognized. The people holding office do not care to listen. I hope they try to conduct themselves with dignity and the American people get angry with the mass arrests that are planned. (And before anyone says differently, people have already been arrested in conjunction with protests.)

I'm worried about this as well - sometimes I get the sense that a lot of the people protesting are more concerned with feeling good about themselves instead of taking an objective look at the situation in the country and trying to figure out what the best way to enact practical positive change would be (and I'm something of a kook far-left weirdo myself, although I would argue that neither political side can lay claim to having a monopoly on kooky weirdos.....)

Oft times in the last two decades, the protestors are detrimental to the cause that they say they are for because their own behavior is contrary to that cause or belief. Gay pride marches in which participants streak, dress in drag, and perform sex acts on each other in public is pretty contrary to their cause, which has been to be perceived as "just like everybody else" or "normal." Pro-Life protestors who KILL doctors (as few of those as there are) are also acting contrary to what their beliefs/cause are supposed to be.

Most often, the reaction many working people have to protestors is this: Get a life. And most of the time, the people who say that are onto something.

DW

My big fear about the protestors are that some of the participants are not exactly there to protest. Some of the "protestors" may be there to cause a riot.

// Turns out that we have a spy in the Pentagon and...well...no one seems to care all that much.

But naked protestors? All over the news //

And while we're on the subject of nude protesters can I just take a moment to say that taking your clothes off is the dumbest form of protest. I mean come on, generally thinking there are only two reactions to someone taking off thier clothes, laughter, (which is gennerally the reaction I get), or sexual interest, (i.e. "whoa, look at that, what a hottie"). No one takes anyone who's naked seriously about political issues and if you happen to be a hottie you risk having the oppisit effect. Back at the begining of the War there was a group of women who decided to protest by going au natural in Central Park. Let's think about that for a moment, who starts wars? Genneraly speaking it's men, heterosexual men. What other pastime consumes a large part of the heterosexual man's life? Getting women to take off thier clothes. Heterosexual men, over the course of their lives, spend a lot of time and effort, (and yes even money) trying to see naked women. So what do some women do to protest the actions of men?, they take off thier cloths. This is like protesting the actions of McDonalds by eating a big Mac. Speaking of which, every time some hot actress takes off her cloths for a PETA poster I go out and have a steak, I figure what the hell, if I eat enough steaks maybe Sara Michelle Geller will be the next hot actress to pose for a PETA billboard. If PETA really wants people to stop eating meat they should try the oppisit approach, have the Playboy centerfolds put thier cloths back on. Sales of meat would drop over night.

It's interesting that the Democrats were not able to reap any benefit from protests at THEIR convention. Part of this, of course, was that Boston was apparently much more restrictive to protests than New York plans to be. Part of it is that conservatives tend not to be as, well, insane, in their protests as the radical left.

It would be ironic if the Democrat Party's successful supression of dissent at their convention ended up hurting them. Live and learn.

As for the Swift Boat controversy...Kerry could probably put a lot of this to rest if he would just release ALL of his military records. Or is that too much for voters to expect? As The Note jokes today:

"Someday, Karl Rove's precocious grandchildren will say to him, "Grandpapa, what's it like to run a presidential campaign against an opponent who has had his own background thoroughly researched well before the general election; who is broadly personable and possessed of great campaign skills; and who projects an image of constancy?"

To which Grandpapa Rove will reply, "I haven't the slightest idea."

You do know that they found a spy at the Pentagon right Bill? If the United States Goverment thought that Kerry deserved the medals that is good enough for me. Can we please talk about real issues.....PLEASE.

I think organizers on the Left have forgotten damn near every single lesson learned in the 60s about mass action.

First, you MUST police your people....and in some cases more tightly than what the police themselves will do. Yes, you say you're non-violent...but the authorities don't know that, and would be stupid to assume that.

Second, you must police not only yourselves, but other people you attract...who may not share the same aims as you do. In the WTO protests, the organizers were just as stupid as the police, because they KNEW some radical anarchists were with them, and they made no bones about the fact that they were out to do some damage.

Third, if something happens (and it probably will), you must be prepared to clamp down on it yourself. Mob pyschology makes it very easy to have a feedback loop that escalates action and violence until you have a real problem.

Fourth, remember that human psychology will magnify any volence that occurs. It's not the media...it's the human psyche that makes violent protest more memorable than a peaceful protest.

Anthony asks:
"You do know that they found a spy at the Pentagon right Bill? If the United States Goverment thought that Kerry deserved the medals that is good enough for me. Can we please talk about real issues.....PLEASE."

Um...yeah, I did read that, along with all sorts of things that have very very little to do with this thread. So I didn't feel like bringing them into the discussion, you know? You could suggest to Peter that he start a thread on it, though I believe he is also probably aware of the story.

As for laying off Kerry and sticking to the "real" issues...after all the Bush-bashing that has gone on involving issues both serious and petty, you would have to be very unrealistic to expect republicans not to press their advantage on any issue that seems to be as succesful at derailing the Kerry campaign as this one has so far been.

Republicans pressing the Swift Boat issue? Why not? You Kerry Supporters...or is it Bush Haters?... were all having a blast with the National Guard thing & the Fahrenheit 9-11 swill that the leftie media kept talking about night after night after night...right? Now it's my turn and I'm having a blast and I bet a lot of the Swift Boat stuff is true, to boot. Kerry should talk about his accomplishments as a Senator. Waitaminnut? WHAT accomplishments? .

[i]t a lot of the Swift Boat stuff is true, to boot. Kerry should talk about his accomplishments as a Senator. Waitaminnut? WHAT accomplishments?[/i]

Helping uncover Iran-Contra. Is that a good start?

"If the United States Goverment thought that Kerry deserved the medals that is good enough for me."

The US government doesn't have very much to do with the handing out of medals. It has more to do with the chain of command within the military service one is serving. In Kerry's case, nobody looked at what he did and said, "Son, you deserve a medal." Kerry himself started the paperwork that got him most of his medals, because he was the CO of his swift boat. This is kind of thing is nothing new but it is something that the average American-who-has-not-served often doesn't know.

"Can we please talk about real issues.....PLEASE."

Since Kerry has been making his four-month Vietnam stint a central theme of his campaign, it IS an issue.

The real problem with Kerry is that he is a political dud. He can't run on his senate record because it's the record of a far-left leaning appeaser. His campaign is the most contrived thing I've seen in a long while: He is being portrayed as a hawk by the Left for having served in a war that the Left despised. He's admitted to committing wartime atrocities in said war and yet his side likes to bring up Abu Ghraib to politically attack his opponent. The medals that he now attempts to hold up as an indication of how good a president he would be were the same ones he threw in disgust and protest after he left the Navy. The same folks who said Clinton's draft dodging was immaterial in a presidential election are now trying to prove, unsuccessfully so far, that the current president may have been absent without leave while serving in the military during that same war. All the while the left is trying to silence those who served with Kerry rather than address and debate this issue.

DW

And I don't recall the Bush Campaign threatening movie theaters who were running F9-11 like the Kerry Campaign has been threatening tv stations that run Swift Boat ads. I didn't see anybody from the Bush Campaign suggesting to anyone that bookstores not stock Clarke's book, or Woodward's book or Franken's book the way the Kerry Campaign has suggested that bookstores not carry "Unfit For Command."

F9-11 made over 100 million dollars and has been called a "box office blockbuster." Bush did nothing to stop it, never told anyone not to see it. Some private citizens put out a 250,000 dollar ad and look at the Democrat reaction. The real problem the Left has with the Swift Boat Vets ad is that it is effective... and it's only effective because John Kerry made it so.

DW

I was in the military for the first Desert Storm, and grew up a military brat so I've got a little bit of first and second-hand knowledge (and if a little knowledge is dangerous, I'm one of the most dangerous men alive) on the subject.

Massive generalizations to follow:

Officers, especially during times of war, aren't that great. They're college kids given some basic instruction in military customs and courtesies and thrown into situations where they've no experience. With luck, they're at least smart enough to listen to the older enlisted guys who've been around the block a few times and know what's what. I wouldn't be surprised if Kerry embelished or even lied about some of the 'Nam stuff, just as I'm not surprised that many more did the exact same thing.

And during most of my time in, I was the one who had to write up my commendations and such, because they're the type of thing that if you don't take care of it yourself, it aint gonna get done.

Which is a long way around to saying the whole thing is a non-issue.

"I hope they try to conduct themselves with dignity and the American people get angry with the mass arrests that are planned."

Yeah, well, I think the good ship Dignity has already more or less sailed and is vanishing into the horizon.

PAD

> It's interesting that the Democrats were not able to reap any benefit from protests at THEIR convention. Part of this, of course, was that Boston was apparently much more restrictive to protests than New York plans to be. Part of it is that conservatives tend not to be as, well, insane, in their protests as the radical left.

I don't get this. I live in Boston and the vast majority of the protesters in the city were anti-war folks who were protesting Kerry's voting for giving Bush the authority to wage war on Iraq. I barely saw any right-wing protesters, which is why I think trying to peg a lot of the protesters who are going to descend upon New York as "Kerry Supporters" is inaccurate and unfair. So I guess I've got nothing to worry about, as accuracy and fairness seem to be the twin watchwords for the current presidential election. phew.

Also : someone made a comment about the "leftie media" - I know it's been popular for years now to gripe about the media being left-wing and that may have been true at one point, but I honestly don't see it. I more get the sense that because conservative pundits have been crowing about the "liberal media" for so long that the media's been given a complex and tends to report things more on the right-wing side of the things to avoid being PERCEIVED as left-wing, because they're touchy about not being seen as objective. Combine that with the fact that most media outlets are owned by huge multi-national corporations more interested in profit than providing a public service (someone complained about the media being "soundbite-addicted", and I'd suggest this is the reason why) and I'm not sure the media's as liberal as people would like to think. Then again, I suppose if I spent my entire time watching the news looking for a perceived "liberal bias" I'm sure I'd come up with SOMETHING (ie : "Ye gods, they did a story on Clinton and didn't automatically portray him in a negative light! What BIAS!") And, I mean, if you want to see news coverage that reaffirms conservative biases there's Fox, there's the New York Post, the Boston Herald (I'm waiting for the Herald to print a cover that's nothing more than a head shot of John Kerry with the headline "DOUCHEBAG") and there's countless other publications with a strong conservative bias.

PAD,

With all due respect, I disagree on two points. First, the reason the protesters will help and not hurt Bush is because they are so absurd, not because they make Bush the poor little underdog. They can't be taken seriously, so their point is lost. (Same thing happens with pro-life activists who drive around with pictures of aborted fetuses on their vehicles. I am strongly pro-life, but I know that such tactics do nothing to help and everything to hurt my cause.) That being said, I don't want this kind of help. I would rather the demonstrators were not so over the top.

Second, your comments about the Swiftboat stuff ignores the strong dicrepancies (sp??) on both sides. This is not the usualy one or two people disagreeing. There are large numbers (especially on the Swift Boat Vets for Truth side) that make very similar claims. There are factual differences that the Kerry campaign keeps having to re-explain (such as where exactly Kerry was on Christmas Day, or where exactly Kerry was when he heard of Martin Luther King's assasination (he said he was in Vietnam when the records show he was still on a naval ship)).

Bottom line, I stick with what I said in a post on another thread. I do not take the Swift Boat claims as being true on face value. But I do feel there has been more than enough changes in explanations by Kerry to wonder what exactly is the truth. Kerry would help this if he would truly release all of his records, something multiple news sources now admit he has not done.

One last thought: For all of you who said I could not have an informed opinion without seeing Farenheit 911, have you gone out and read the Swift Boat book for yourself? Not reveiws of it, not Kerry's attempts to silence free speech by asking stations not to air the ad, but read the actual book itself? If not, then how dare you call it garbage? Are you not doing exactly what you criticized others for doing who don't believe Bush was AWOL or that he lied to us about WMD's? Just wondering. Nice to know there is no double standard here.

Jim in Iowa

Oh, by the way, Bush is by no means the first to attack the record of a veteran (assuming, for the sake of argument, that he was really behind all this). The Democrats for Clinton did that already. They questioned Bob Dole's war injuries. It didn't fly because anyone with two eyes could see he truly had been injured. Kerry's injuries are neither visible nor as severe. That does not mean they are not valid. But if Kerry is unwilling to truly release his war records, forgive me if I am hesitatnt to just take his word for it. (What, the government record that he got a medal should be enough? Funny how that works only one way. Bush's official record says he did serve honorably and fullfilled his time in the National Guard. Sorry, my mistake for not understanding the standard that should be used.)

Jim in Iowa

Kerry made his bed by "reporting for duty" at the DNC in a swift boat and bringing out his "band of brothers". Personally, I'd rather the Vietnam stories went away. What someone did in their 20s has little relevance to me 35 years later.

What I want to know is how is Kerry going to "spread the burden" of Iraq, while at the same time pulling out US troops (sending a clear signal we aren't serious)? I want to hear what Bush is planning about Social Security since we are overspending our budget every year by 15-20%.

These are issues that need to be talked about, not swift boat ads.

One last thought: For all of you who said I could not have an informed opinion without seeing Farenheit 911, have you gone out and read the Swift Boat book for yourself?"

No, but then again, I wasn't talking about the book, I was talking about the commercials featuring spokesmen who, seven years ago, were seen singing Kerry's praises, and now they're saying that he deceived Americans. So either they were lying then or lying now. Me, I'm thinking it's now. I have an informed opinion about the commercials because I've seen them, and I've seen coverage of them. Should you find me commenting on the book that I haven't read, then you have a point. Until then...not so much.

PAD

"So either they were lying then or lying now."

Whoa, Peter. Dude, I LOVE your work, but you're too smart for such a stupid generalization.

Twelve years ago I was smokin' pot and railing against the conservative machine. Today I'm a conservative, fundamentalist Christian. Was I lying twelve years ago when said I hated all capitalist, oppressive pigs? Hell no, I meant every word. Passionately. I've since changed my mind and my perspective.

Do you hold the exact same positions you held seven years ago? Do you have the exact sme friends you had seven years ago? Things and people change. The SBVs can't?

Later,
Chip

"No, but then again, I wasn't talking about the book, I was talking about the commercials featuring spokesmen who, seven years ago, were seen singing Kerry's praises, and now they're saying that he deceived Americans."

That may be true for some, but not all who now are part of the Swift Vets for Truth. The fact is, there are people coming forward almost daily about this issue. It appears that they are almost 2 to 1 against Kerry's version. And they are individuals who have not spoken publically before about this. So not all were singing Kerry's praises 7 years ago.

But that is a side issue. I suggest there is some truth to my comments in that you are looking at a 30 second summary of their proof, not reading the whole thing. That is like my reading the blurb on the inside book cover and making up my mind.

I have heard interviews with 2 of the key people behind the book. I find them very compelling. But I don't really care because I have looked at the deeper issues. I am more than willing to assume Kerry was honorable in the war (his comments after the war are a different matter, but that is my opinion). I look at how he voted for the last 20 years. I look at what he says he wants to do for the next 4. The choice to me is clear. Bush, for the most part, has attempted what he promised. He has not always been successful, but no one ever is.

Bottom line, I am more than happy to focus on the "real issues" if Kerry would be more substantive in his comments about what he would do (such as how he would actually fund health insurance without further increasing the deficit). I would love to focus on how he can claim he believes life begins at conception, but still believe in abortion. Kerry is the one who made his time in Vietnam such a central point in his campaign, then suddenly says it is a dirty trick when Vets criticize his service. Nice of him to paint such a nice target on his back. Maybe I have underestimated Karl Rove. Maybe he had spies secretly suggesting to Kerry that he make his service in Vietnam a highlight of the convention. Who would have thought they would ever dig up the tapes of his anti-war activities? Guess Karl Rove really is a genius after all.

Jim in Iowa

"Do you hold the exact same positions you held seven years ago?"

More or less, yeah.

"Do you have the exact sme friends you had seven years ago?"

For the most part.

"Things and people change. The SBVs can't?"

Not on this, no. Either they think Kerry acted heroically or they don't. Nothing that Kerry has done in the past seven years should affect what they believe he did thirty five years ago.

On the other hand, I do appreciate your spirited defense of John Kerry against people who claim that he flip flopped on issues. By your own words, you're saying that changing one's mind on issues is a normal and positive thing. I certainly hope you'll be voting for him then, since Bush ostensibly never changes his mind and you seem to think of that as a bit peculiar.

PAD

"Bush, for the most part, has attempted what he promised."

Yes. That's the most horrifying thing of all.

PAD

I'm going to fly against the breeze blowing here, and say that I am actually looking forward to the protests in New York.

For the longest time, ordinary people have been told to shut up and obey. September 11 cowed a lot of people into that obedience. Now, people are finding the courage to talk back. And all the Rushes and Hannity's, and their supposedly respectable cousins at newspapers and network news departments, are sounding more and more hollow as they try to defend Bush and his pals.

People have gotten the idea that they don't have to take this lying down. They're willing to get up and speak. Maybe spit in the beer of a rich delegate who fires people and outsources jobs. Maybe make them realize the number of people they are hurting, by yelling at the delegates as they exit their limos.

The protesters aren't the monolithic "dirty hippie youths" that caused trouble in Chicago, 1968. They're people from all classes of society. I think the viewing public - if jerks like Stossel and Stephanopolis let the footage be seen at all - will see people just like them, expressing what they feel but are afraid to say.

I won't say it will help Kerry. But it might have a longer lasting effect on people's minds than this election.

And heck, I'd pay to see a bunch of these ignorant right-wing delegates stranded in a darkened, broke-down subway car, having to face the mental patients they insisted had to be thrown out onto the streets of New York.

PAD:
"No, but then again, I wasn't talking about the book, I was talking about the commercials featuring spokesmen who, seven years ago, were seen singing Kerry's praises, and now they're saying that he deceived Americans."

I hadn't heard that the SBV's were out singing Kerry's praises before. I just remember seeing the footage of the author of the book debating Kerry about the Vietnam experiences back in the 70's. So, it's not like the issue just came up a month or so ago.

Seven years ago, Kerry was the junior senator from Mass., with very little chance of not being reelected, who (by senate records) didn't show up to meetings a lot of the time. There really wasn't a lot of reason for anyone, other than the people of Mass., to come out against him.

Kerry brought up Vietnam in his acceptance speech at the Democrat Convention. That's all he spoke about. It's no wonder that Vietnam is what his opponents are using against him.

I grew up a military brat in a military town (Fayetteville, NC). One of the things that struck me most about veterans of Vietnam (and other conflicts) is that they don't come home bragging about being "heroes" or showing off their medals or ribbons. In fact, they rarely discussed what happened in war except with other veterans.

Going back to the topic at hand, I don't think the protesters can do anything except help Bush. The more outlandish or destructive the protestors are, the more the few swing voters remaining may say "if these are the people that are for Kerry, I don't want anything to do with them" and vote for Bush.

Thomas E. Reed said:
"For the longest time, ordinary people have been told to shut up and obey. September 11 cowed a lot of people into that obedience. Now, people are finding the courage to talk back. And all the Rushes and Hannity's, and their supposedly respectable cousins at newspapers and network news departments, are sounding more and more hollow as they try to defend Bush and his pals."

"People have gotten the idea that they don't have to take this lying down. They're willing to get up and speak. Maybe spit in the beer of a rich delegate who fires people and outsources jobs. Maybe make them realize the number of people they are hurting, by yelling at the delegates as they exit their limos."

Sorry, but this is just the usual wishfull thinking by the Left... no one has been cowed into obedience at all. Not sure where you're getting this -- well, besides the usual Left talking points. And "Courage to talk back"? What a load of horse manure... Do you really believe this sort of stuff? Liberals have been never stopped speaking up against their opponents.

I like how you pepper your observations with "rich" and "limos"... um, you also know this describes the Democrats representing you, right? People love to condemn the Republicans as being so rich, but man, you ever take a look at the Dems in office these days? They're just as rich too.

Protest coverage is unfortunately like mainstream comic convention coverage. A large percentage of the public attending are fairly normal-looking, well-adjusted people who have a common interest and are there to meet like-minded people and celebrate it... but TV camera and news outlets are slightly more interested in the six foot guy dressed as Princess Leia and who needs to tell you how The Force changed his life.

TV and press (unless you're well-informed and NOT looking for a quick soundbite/image)often go for what they think will hold the attention of their viewer/reader for a brief period of time. I like to think I've never done that kind of reporting and if we've ever used a 'fun' image, balanced it with a more accurate image as well.

Press will look for the story behind the protest story - an angle, image or moment that they want to tell their readers/viewers sums up the occasion. That could be a successful, notable protest or a violence (if anarchists manage to infiltrate).

I have no doubt that FOX News will run a story saying how everyone has the right to protest but will run sound-bites with the less articulate or the more extreme sounding protestor, commenting how some acts may endanger the police (the latter is a fair point only if any protestor acts irresponsibly).

As for whether the protests harm or help either campaign... I think the lack of protest doesn't help either. The trick, in whatever protest, rally or event you involve yourself in, is to show a balance of passion, knowledge and peaceful displays of concern. Then just hope there's enough truth in whatever coverage you get.

John Mosby

After all, they've got cars to sell and they HAVE to go to their weatherman in someone's backyard with a giant tomato shaped like (insert minorly famous person HERE).

My friend has tomato he claims looks like Louie Anderson. I have tried to explain to him that all tomatos look like Louie Anderson. They're round.

>Kerry's own supporters may be the GOP's best friends.

Why think that those of us who'd march against Bush are Kerry supporters? Some of us see Kerry as Bush-lite, and don't feel compelled to do him any favors. Certainly Kerry's support of the Iraq war is as strong as Bush's, and always has been.

Yeah, I hear Kerry's supporters saying Kerry's move to the "center" was a political necessity, but that we should ignore everything Kerry says now, and trust that he'll move to the left in office. I'm not convinced. At least Bush can pull troops out of Iraq whenever he pleases, and the Republicans will provide political cover for him. President Kerry wouldn't be able to do it without a storm of accusations from Republicans and the media, claming he'd "lost Iraq and the war on terrorism." And frankly, I don't think he's strong enough to stand up to that. Easier to keep the troops over there, dying every day for a mistake.

I'd be protesting if I was in NYC, but I'm already pretty reconciled to four more years of Bush. Bush is already pulling ahead in the polls, and all that we have left before the election is the Republican convention (a four day Bush commercial) and the debates (which won't help Kerry since he's absolutely charisma-impared). I just reconcile myself with the fact that there's enough Democrats in the Senate to block any really extreme Bush nominations to the Supreme Court (if they feel like bothering).

"Not on this, no. Either they think Kerry acted heroically or they don't."

"On the other hand, I do appreciate your spirited defense of John Kerry against people who claim that he flip flopped on issues. By your own words, you're saying that changing one's mind on issues is a normal and positive thing."

Wow. You're kidding, right? How can someone who writes such complex characters, thereby, IMO, demonstrating a pretty serious intellect, actually take such a silly position.

Let me check my book on things it's okay to change your mind on. Maybe I missed the chapter on how SBVs can't.

And I never said Ketty couldn't change his mind. Hell, I never even mentioned his name. I fully champion his right to cahnge his mind every day should he wish to do so, however that will affect my faith in his ability to lead this country. After all, the fact several of the SBVs have changed their minds sure hasn't helped the validity of their position. By your logic, Peter, you should vote for Bush.

People expect consistancy in people they follow or take guidance from. It helps build faith in the decisions made because of the track record of those offering the guidance or leadership. The SBVs have left themselves open because of this. So has Kerry. Kerry flip-flops on damned near a weekly basis. How are others supposed to have faith in a leadership that shifts positions all the time?

I have a pretty solid understanding (as do most people) of what decisions and directions Bush will make in the coming weeks and years. For me, since I like those positions, I feel comfortable voting for him. Obviously, since you don't like Bush's ideas and decisions, you won't vote for him. Cool. I love this country.

Even you can't offer a solid direction, with a consistancy of decisions and actions behind them, the Kerry will go as President. Even you don't know what he'll do.

If Kerry could offer any consistancy in positions we could all bank on, we'd actually have a debate, instead of this whole SBV mess. A similiar attack on Bush didn't work because he gave the voters a consistant history that supported his plans for Presidency.

Hate to end this, but I need to corral the kids for church.

Later,
Chip

""For the longest time, ordinary people have been told to shut up and obey. September 11 cowed a lot of people into that obedience...."

"People have gotten the idea that they don't have to take this lying down. They're willing to get up and speak. Maybe spit in the beer of a rich delegate who fires people and outsources jobs."

Maybe by "cowed" you mean that they suddenly developed whatever it is that normal people have, that still, small voice inside that tells you that spitting in someone's beer is both nonproductive and low class.

the odds that any delegate is an actual moustache twirling oil baron, lighting cigars with the 100 dollar bills he got by raiding the 401Ks of his workers are pretty slim. Most of them are fairly ordinary folks, albeit the kinds who see nothing wrong with wearing hats shaped like the chief export of their state.

And anyway, spitting in someone's beer--illegal by the way, though laws mean nothing to those cloaked in the armor of self righteousness--only makes the spitter feel good. It doesn't really have ANY effect on the victim, unless the spitter carries diseases and/or is a Komodo Dragon. So it accomplishes very little and runs the risk of making the protestor look very bad...pretty much PAD's point...

1.Nude protests with words written on your body
may get you on the news but in no way helps forward your cause.The nude celebs for PETA(which Penn Gillete did a hysterical article for Razor magazine on)being an example.Wow ,a hot naked chick ,pass the steak sauce please :)
2.The time and energy being spent to monitor these protestors also bothers me..Not for nothing but a few weeks ago wasnt RoboRidge telling us that NYC was under threat of attack by TERRORISTS!!!Im not saying that the protestors may not be a threat but I dont know ,im thinking
the the same energy could be spent more practically finding people with expired student visas with possible terror ties,than harassing some hippie,vegan,antiwar person who MAY be a threat.
3.Kerry and the Swiftboats post Vietnam comments.
I honestly dont know what to believe here. All i know is the guy was in vietnam ,any comments he may afterwards he may have felt at the time ,and may have been ill advised but he was at least there and did his time.The medals are a non issue to me.
4.Maybe I read it wrong but i thought i saw somewhere that bush was being advised to not bring up Iraq as it may distract from his reelection bid.HUH???This is not an issue when he is portrayed as a "wartime President" and as being the reason we are "safe".Sorry that should be a big issue on where do we go now?
5.Not to be a conspiracy theorist, which I am but the whole Israeli Spy scandal bothers me greatly.You know i was about to go on a rant but after thinking realized i was sounding like the shrouded ,cursed banned Dee and reconsidered.I dont know if I am more angry about the spying or that security was so lax that someone was able to potentially infiltrate in such an important government office(potentially).
Just my two cent opinion thats all:)

Deano says:
"5.Not to be a conspiracy theorist, which I am but the whole Israeli Spy scandal bothers me greatly.You know i was about to go on a rant but after thinking realized i was sounding like the shrouded ,cursed banned Dee and reconsidered.I dont know if I am more angry about the spying or that security was so lax that someone was able to potentially infiltrate in such an important government office(potentially).
Just my two cent opinion thats all:)"

I'm not that surprised. I WOULD be surprised to find out that we don't have spies of our own in the intelligence agencies of friendly countries, so I can't be too shocked if they do the same.

That said, they should throw the book at him if it's true. Can't make exceptions.

It is probably more difficult to catch spies from friendly countries since they would not behave in ways that would make their actions obvious. I mean, if an FBI agent starts talking about how great the North Korean economy is, well, you have some serious probably cause right there, but being known as pro-Israel or pro-Britain shouldn't raise many flags.

Sorry if I'm helping things veer too far off topic here, but I thought some of you might be interested in this account (if you haven't seen it already). It's an account written by the only other surviving swift boat commander (aside from Kerry) on the night that seems to be drawing the most criticism.

Swift boat veteran for Kerry
Vietnam comrade rises to attack candidate's foes

Sun Aug 22 2004

William B. Rood

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's medal-winning record of service on so-called swift boats in the Vietnam War has come under well-publicized attacks from a group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth . The group, which claims Kerry has been untruthful about his war record, has been linked to political associates of President George W. Bush.
Now William B. Rood, a Chicago Tribune editor and, with Kerry, one of three swift boat commanders in the action that earned Kerry a Silver Star, disputes the truthfulness of Kerry's attackers. Here is his story.

THERE were three swift boats on the river that day in Vietnam more than 35 years ago -- three officers and 15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to talk about what happened on Feb. 28, 1969.

One is John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am the other.

For years, no one asked about those events. But now they are the focus of skirmishing in a presidential election with a group of swift boat veterans and others contending that Kerry didn't deserve the Silver Star for what he did on that day, or the Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for other actions. Many of us wanted to put it all behind us -- the rivers, the ambushes, the killing. Ever since that time, I have refused all requests for interviews about Kerry's service -- even those from reporters at the Chicago Tribune, where I work.

But Kerry's critics, armed with stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the accounts of what happened were overblown. The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there.

Even though Kerry's own crew members have backed him, the attacks have continued, and in recent days Kerry has called me and others who were with him in those days, asking that we go public with our accounts.

I can't pretend those calls had no effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this. What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honoured for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it.

I was part of the operation that led to Kerry's Silver Star. I have no first-hand knowledge of the events that resulted in his winning the Purple Hearts or the Bronze Star.

But on Feb. 28, 1969, I was officer in charge of PCF-23, one of three swift boats -- including Kerry's PCF-94 and Lt. j.g. Donald Droz's PCF-43 -- that carried Vietnamese regional and Popular Force troops and a navy demolition team up the Dong Cung, a narrow tributary of the Bay Hap River, to conduct a sweep in the area. The approach of the noisy 50-foot aluminum boats, each driven by two huge 12-cylinder diesels and loaded down with six crew members, troops and gear, was no secret.

Ambushes were a virtual certainty, and that day was no exception.

The difference was that Kerry, who had tactical command of that particular operation, had talked to Droz and me beforehand about not responding the way the boats usually did to an ambush.

We agreed that if we were not crippled by the initial volley and had a clear fix on the location of the ambush, we would turn directly into it, focusing the boats' twin .50-calibre machine guns on the attackers and beaching the boats. We told our crews about the plan.

The Viet Cong in the area had come to expect that the heavily loaded boats would lumber on past an ambush, firing at the entrenched attackers, beaching upstream and putting troops ashore to sweep back down on the ambush site. Often, they were long gone by the time the troops got there.

The first time we took fire -- the usual rockets and automatic weapons -- Kerry ordered a "turn 90" and the three boats roared in on the ambush. It worked. We routed the ambush, killing three of the attackers. The troops, led by an army adviser, jumped off the boats and began a sweep, which killed another half dozen VC, wounded or captured others and found weapons, blast masks and other supplies used to stage ambushes.

Meanwhile, Kerry ordered our boat to head upstream with his, leaving Droz's boat at the first site.

It happened again, another ambush. And again, Kerry ordered the turn manoeuvre, and again it worked. As we headed for the riverbank, I remember seeing a loaded B-40 launcher pointed at the boats. It wasn't fired as two men jumped up from their spider holes.

We called Droz's boat up to assist us, and Kerry, followed by one member of his crew, jumped ashore and chased a VC behind a hooch -- a thatched hut -- maybe 15 yards inland from the ambush site. Some who were there that day recall the man being wounded as he ran. Neither I nor Jerry Leeds, our boat's leading petty officer with whom I've checked my recollection of all these events, recalls that, which is no surprise. Recollections of those who go through experiences like that frequently differ. With our troops involved in the sweep of the first ambush site, Richard Lamberson, a member of my crew, and I also went ashore to search the area. I was checking out the inside of the hooch when I heard gunfire nearby.

Not long after that, Kerry returned, reporting that he had killed the man he chased behind the hooch. He also had picked up a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, which we took back to our base in An Thoi after the operation.

John O'Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry's Vietnam service, describes the man Kerry chased as a "teenager" in a "loincloth." I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore.

The man Kerry chased was not the "lone" attacker at that site, as O'Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well. It was not the work of just one attacker.

Our initial reports of the day's action caused an immediate response from our task force headquarters in Cam Ranh Bay.

Known over radio circuits by the call sign "Latch," then-captain and now retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, the task force commander, fired off a message congratulating the three swift boats, saying at one point that the tactic of charging the ambushes was a "shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers."

Hoffmann has become a leading critic of Kerry's and now says that what the boats did on that day demonstrated Kerry's inclination to be impulsive to a fault.

Our decision to use that tactic under the right circumstances was not impulsive but was the result of discussions well beforehand and a mutual agreement of all three boat officers.

It was also well within the aggressive tradition that was embraced by the late Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam. Months before that day in February, a fellow boat officer Michael Bernique was summoned to Saigon to explain to top navy commanders why he had made an unauthorized run up the Giang Thanh River, which runs along the Vietnam-Cambodia border. Bernique, who speaks French fluently, had been told by a source in Ha Tien at the mouth of the river that a VC tax collector was operating upstream. Ignoring the prohibition against it, Bernique and his crew went upstream and routed the VC, pursuing and killing several.

Instead of facing disciplinary action as he had expected, Bernique was given the Silver Star, and Zumwalt ordered other swifts, which had largely patrolled coastal waters, into the rivers.

The decision sent a clear message, underscored repeatedly by Hoffmann's congratulatory messages, that aggressive patrolling was expected and that well-timed, if unconventional, tactics like Bernique's were encouraged.

What we did on Feb. 28, 1969, was well in line with the tone set by our top commanders.

Zumwalt made that clear when he flew down to our base at An Thoi off the southern tip of Vietnam to pin the Silver Star on Kerry and assorted Bronze Stars and commendation medals on the rest of us.

My Bronze Star citation, signed by Zumwalt, praised the charge tactic we used that day, saying the VC were "caught completely off guard."

There's at least one mistake in that citation. It incorrectly identifies the river where the main action occurred, a reminder that such documents were often done in haste and sometimes authored for their signers by staffers. It's a cautionary note for those trying to piece it all together. There's no final authority on something that happened so long ago -- not the documents and not even the strained recollections of those of us who were there.

But I know that what some people are saying now is wrong. While they mean to hurt Kerry, what they're saying impugns others who are not in the public eye.

Men like Larry Lee, who was on our bow with an M-60 machine-gun as we charged the riverbank, Kenneth Martin, who was in the .50-calibre gun tub atop our boat, and Benjamin Cueva, our engineman, who was at our aft gun mount suppressing the fire from the opposite bank. Wayne Langhoffer and the other crewmen on Droz's boat went through even worse on April 12, 1969, when they saw Droz killed in a brutal ambush that left PCF-43 an abandoned pile of wreckage on the banks of the Duong Keo River. That was just a few months after the birth of his only child, Tracy.

The survivors of all these events are scattered across the country now.

Jerry Leeds lives in a tiny Kansas town where he built and sold a successful printing business. He owns a beautiful home with a lawn that sweeps to the edge of a small lake, which he also owns. Every year, flights of purple martins return to the stately birdhouses on the tall poles in his backyard.

Cueva, recently retired, has raised three daughters and is beloved by his neighbours for all the years he spent keeping their cars running. Lee is a senior computer programmer in Kentucky, and Lamberson finished a second military career in the army.

With the debate over that long-ago day in February, they're all living that war another time.

-- Chicago Tribune

Ugh. I need a couple of things explained to me. I've been waiting patiently for PAD to condemn Kerry for trying to silence the SBV. The slightest hint at what he perceives as censorship from the right seems to stoke his ire, but this one passed right on by. Maybe PAD does change his mind...

Furthermore, I distinctly recall PAD saying that Bush's military record is fair game because Bush showed up on the aircraft carrier in a flight suit. That was his only justification for carping on Bush's supposed AWOL. Now, Kerry, who makes his service the PRIMARY point of his candidacy, gets a free pass on everything? Or did you change your mind again?

Beyond that, the bottom line is that the SBV are telling the TRUTH. All the truth? That's probably not the case, but the FACT is that the Kerry campaign has now altered their stories on TWO of the positions that the SBV brought to light. They've switched gears on the Cambodia story, and this week admitted that the first purple heart may have been for self-inflicted wounds. A third issue, the V on the silver star, is also turning out to be an issue.

But, if you want to call it garbage, hey, unlike John Kerry, I believe you have a right to say what you want. Even if you AREN'T a democratic-leaning 527.

A few comments on what people have already said:

Taking your clothes off may be the dumbest form of protest, but it often achieves the desired result in terms of getting attention. Just look at the front page of the New York Daily News last week.

The Swift Boat ads were so successful mainly because the media grabbed the story and ran with it…and ran…and ran. I usually spend a couple of hours at the gym every morning, and with half a dozen monitors positioned over the treadmills, you can get a pretty good cross-section of the news stories playing each day. By my estimate, FX News was alternating Swift Boat stories about every 20 minutes, day in and day out, punctuated by a segment on Iraq and another on the Peterson murder case. But to be 'fair and balanced' about it, the F9/11 stories ran just as often a few months ago.

I was watching Bush's impromptu (meaning choreographed like every photo op) press conference from the ranch last week when one of the press asked Bush about the Swift Boat ads and if he denounced them. Bush immediately responded by denouncing all of the 527 ads, forgetting by the way, that he was the president who signed the law allowing them to come into being. Anyway, as soon as the photo op- oops, I mean press conference- was over, the Fox News reader immediately turned to the Republican talking head and said, 'Well, there you are, we just heard President Bush denounce the Swift Boat ad…' It took several minutes to get around to the Democrat talking head, who pointed out what I had just seen with my own eyes, which was nothing of the sort. Okay, I thought, that's just Fox News; surely the networks won't be that stupid, but on the CBS Evening News that night, their lead story opened with the very same statement. The point of this little story? If I hadn't seen the original answer live and uncut, I could well have believed what I was being told. How can you blame several million Americans who trust what the media tells them? Most people are not news junkies like myself or quite a lot of people who post on this site, from both sides of the political spectrum. They may read one newspaper a day, or watch the evening news or half an hour of cable news, which means that an awful lot of their information is funneled to them in one shot, concentrated dose. If that dose deals with the Swift Boat ads, it takes on even more substance.

Thanks to Hank by the way, for citing William Rood's account from the Chicago Tribune. I meant to track it down to see what he had said. Oddly enough, his eyewitness account doesn't seem to have drawn anywhere near the attention that it deserves, probably because it was in print not on camera, where it could pared down to a couple of sound bites and replayed over and over.

re: the effectiveness of protest

As a native of Alabama who was alive in the sixties, let me say that protests and boycotts DO work! It WILL get media attention if massive and effective enough. And if "the establishment" over-reacts, (ie Kent State), then the complaintants gain widespread sympathy. If there is no reaction, then the message, though often muddled, has still given, without a response from the opposition. Widespread and organized protests helped end the Vietnam war, and an unintended protest by Rosa Parks changed our country forever. These were two of the most important examples of a democratic people forcing their government to obey their will in the twentieth century.

Sorry, but this is just the usual wishfull thinking by the Left... no one has been cowed into obedience at all. Not sure where you're getting this -- well, besides the usual Left talking points. And "Courage to talk back"? What a load of horse manure... Do you really believe this sort of stuff? Liberals have been never stopped speaking up against their opponents.

Pfft! Where the hell have you been? People in this country were cowed into silence post-9/11. There was a massive sentiment of "wave this flag... or else!" that Bush used to get things like the "Patroit Act", to push the war on Iraq, push $87 Billion ny saying the money was to "fund our troops" (eventhough $75 Billion of it was not going to the troops). That wasn't people being patroitic, it was people being jingoistic and creating a devisive mentality of "either agree with us, or you agree with the people who knocked down the world trade center" and given the options, who do you think was the choice? (another popular variation is "America: Love it or leave it")

Now, certainly, Bush did use that wave to push through some reforms that needed to be done, but he also abused it, and likely will try to squeeze as much as he can out of it if he's re-elected.

Bottom line, when the phrase "live free, or die" is used as a threat, something is very wrong.

Believe it or not Sen. Hillary Clinton said something quite meaningful on "This Week".

To paraphrase her, all the protest in the world isn't going to bring the change needed (or desired) unless they are lawfully registered to vote and they exercise that right.

Beyond that, the bottom line is that the SBV are telling the TRUTH.

I despair of this country.

You know, I feel for the anti-Bush crowd. I really do. I'm not a fan of the guy either.

Now, having said that, can one of the people here's that's in favor of the protests explain to me how having a bicycling protest thats purpose is to try and shut down traffic throughout Manhattan by blocking the streets helps anyone's cause other than the protestors' opponents? If you're going to protest, at least don't actively try to screw over everyone in the most powerful city in the country, no matter what 'side' each person is on.

Hey, be nice, my in-laws are over there protesting. Or as I told them trying to relive their hippy days ;)

I was actually relieved to see the number of protesters making their way to NYC. For many months those of us who disagreed with the President's position on Iraq, the economy, health care, taxes, his administration in general, felt as if voicing our opinions and then our anger was wrong. It's nice to see others rallying to let the GOP and the country know we're mad as hell and not going to take it anymore. So I agree with Karen's post earlier in the thread.

Posted by Dennis V. at August 29, 2004 05:28 AM
Sorry, but this is just the usual wishfull thinking by the Left... no one has been cowed into obedience at all

Yeah Dennis, America was cowed into silence. We were painted a picture that America had to stand by her president during this war and that disagreeing with him dishonored the memory of those lost on 9-11 and the service of those men and women in Iraq now. We were labeled un-American and unpatriotic and it was accomplished in the same means as the connection made between Iraq and 9-11; terms used inter-changeably until we connected the two together. The tactic was duplicitous and just plain wrong.

Posted by Bill Mulligan at August 28, 2004 07:38 PM It's interesting that the Democrats were not able to reap any benefit from protests at THEIR convention. Part of this, of course, was that Boston was apparently much more restrictive to protests than New York plans to be.

And oh I'd say a lot of the difference comes from the massive number protesting in NYC compared to the much smaller number in Boston. The GOP has repeatedly and regularly quelled and protest or opposition at any site the president campaigns on. In NYC they're let the republican mayor do that job thereby removing the taint of suppression from Bush's shoulders.

As for laying off Kerry and sticking to the "real" issues...after all the Bush-bashing that has gone on involving issues both serious and petty, you would have to be very unrealistic to expect republicans not to press their advantage on any issue that seems to be as succesful at derailing the Kerry campaign as this one has so far been.

Problem is, most right wingers think asking Bush to justify his actions is "Bush bashing".

One last thought: For all of you who said I could not have an informed opinion without seeing Farenheit 911, have you gone out and read the Swift Boat book for yourself? Not reveiws of it, not Kerry's attempts to silence free speech by asking stations not to air the ad, but read the actual book itself? If not, then how dare you call it garbage? Are you not doing exactly what you criticized others for doing who don't believe Bush was AWOL or that he lied to us about WMD's? Just wondering. Nice to know there is no double standard here.Jim in Iowa

No Jim, because the TV ad is an entity separate unto itself AND it has been repudiated by so many written and first hand accounts that it can safely be labeled lies. The Swift Boat Vengeance is aimed at Kerry because they didn't like his testimony in front of congress. If they want to debate that, fine, bring it on. I'll have as many who say atrocities did happen as they have who swear none occurred. But to cloak their anger in lies 30 years after the fact degrades every nam vet who won an award, as many of the comments here about the awarding of medals do. They've opened wounds that took years to heal and I hope they're readily ashamed of themselves.

The fact is, there are people coming forward almost daily about this issue. It appears that they are almost 2 to 1 against Kerry's version.

Posted by Chip Skelton at August 29, 2004 09:32 AM "Not on this, no. Either they think Kerry acted heroically or they don't.""On the other hand, I do appreciate your spirited defense of John Kerry against people who claim that he flip flopped on issues. By your own words, you're saying that changing one's mind on issues is a normal and positive thing."Wow. You're kidding, right? How can someone who writes such complex characters, thereby, IMO, demonstrating a pretty serious intellect, actually take such a silly position.Let me check my book on things it's okay to change your mind on. Maybe I missed the chapter on how SBVs can't.

Right over the ole noggin. You can't change the facts of the attack. Meriting a medal is not based on "opinion" and trying to call question to those awards thirty years after the fact proves the purely political motivation behind their actions. Well, political and monetary.

Posted by Charles K at August 29, 2004 01:03 PM
Beyond that, the bottom line is that the SBV are telling the TRUTH.

Hardly. Most of the claims were repudiated in the official records of the events. The others were dismissed as soon as Rood broke his silence.

Knew there was one I missed:

The fact is, there are people coming forward almost daily about this issue. It appears that they are almost 2 to 1 against Kerry's version.

They must be reporting just to you then. Most networks themselves have shot so many holes in the Swift Boat ads they have little credibility. It's more truthful to say there's a 2 to 1 (or more) support of Kerry's account. Even vets who do not support him have come forward to say the SBV's comments are not based on fact.

Catori wrote:
"Yeah Dennis, America was cowed into silence. We were painted a picture that America had to stand by her president during this war and that disagreeing with him dishonored the memory of those lost on 9-11 and the service of those men and women in Iraq now. We were labeled un-American and unpatriotic and it was accomplished in the same means as the connection made between Iraq and 9-11; terms used inter-changeably until we connected the two together. The tactic was duplicitous and just plain wrong."

Well, maybe you're living in a totally different America than I am, but no one was silenced. No one was dragged off to jail for expressing their opinions (no matter how wrong it was). Sure there were some Right Wing nuts out there accusing people of being unpatriotic, but that still didn't stop anyone of speaking out (the whine only got louder!)... I just see this as the usually Left Wing ploy to exagerate something way out of proportion in order to garner some sympathy. Also, I wonder what you think of the Left's accusations, towards the Right, of them being unpatriotic (or as Michael Moore calls them, "Hateriots")? But I guess that's not "pain wrong"...

Dennis V wrote:
"no one was silenced. No one was dragged off to jail for expressing their opinions"

Here are several accounts of people being silenced and, in some cases, being arrested:
http://www.progressive.org/mcwatch03/mcwatch03.html

What's amazing to me is that Kerry and his supporters (who for the most part hate the war in Vietnam and really hate the war in Iraq) will support Kerry who protested the Vietnam War then and now is "reporting for duty" and voted FOR the Iraq war. They protest war but are mad because Bush didnt go to a war they hate. They praise Clinton for not going to war but then say Bob Dole war record is umimportant. Huh? Kerry spoke about criminals in Vietnam and how HE commited the same type of crimes. Yet he never reported these crimes while in Vietnam and he and the New York Times cry themselves to sleep every night of the abuses in the Aba Gharib prison.

Kerry is a man who approved of saying that he was in Cambodia under the direction of Richard Nixon in Christmas of 1968. Its in his approved biography. One problem, it all was lies as pointed out by SBVFT. Nixon was the president elect and had no powers yet in the winter of 1968.

I suppose PAD has some nuance to explain that away.

Im James Tipton and Im REPORTING FOR DUTY!

Yeah two more free countries in the world. Iraq and Afghanistan. Who needs that! Bring back the Saddam and the Taliban! No wonder the "world" i.e. leftist/communist hate US.

Bottom line, I can't take the protesters seriously because they clearly are not for true human rights. The proof? Where were the protests when literally over a million people were executed by Saddam Hussein?

Ok, let's forget the past. Let's look at today. In Sudan, over 50,000 have been murdered, and over 1.5 million have been displaced. They currently live in such horrible conditions that they make Iraq look like paradise. Where are the protests about this? Other than Danny Glover and a few others, there is nothing to be heard. Interestingly, the Bush administration is doing far more about a massacre on its watch than Clinton did about Rwanda. I think they should do more, but at least they are putting active and real pressue on the Sudanese government. Meanwhile, the worthless UN appears to be about to let them off the hook yet again. And why do we conservatives feel the UN was worthless in bringing any real change to Iraq.

I just spent 3 hours with a friend who works with Iraqi refugees. He spent 12 years in Jordan and now almost a year in Nebraska. The majority of Iraqi's both here and there are glad Saddam is gone. They want the US to leave as soon as possible, but they are not stupid. If the US were to leave now, it would be chaos. The "insurgents" are made up of 3 groups. One group is Saddam loyalists who are upset they have lost power and who were armed to the teeth. Another group is the radical, extreme portion of the Shittes (sp?). The last group is terrorists from countries like Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

It is probably a lost cause to even try to convince most of you, but the reality is that Iraq is better off now than 4 years ago, and that it is very possible for it to get even better if we stick with it.

History only now is telling of the horrors under the Soviet Union and Communist China and other totalitarian regimes. The same "peace" activists who opposed Reagan's goal to bring down that evil empire are today protesting the change in Iraq. So forgive me if I find there tactics and motives suspect.

Dennis V, go read "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." That is, if the state in which you live still permits private citizens to own books.

I work in TV, and have for several decades. I KNOW how slanted these guys are. I know how they kiss up to the rich and powerful, because the rich and the powerful are their bosses.

It isn't "fair and balanced" to put a screaming ideologue from the Right like HANNITY against a castrated, cowardly supposed liberal like (colmes). And putting something on a web site isn't like having newspapers like the Reverand Moon-owned Washington Post push an agenda every day.

All this stuff doesn`t get that much coverage here in Britain at the moment. From what I can see, also when listening to certain comments by reporters, the vast majority of people shares my feelings: The way Bush is throwing mud at Kerry is nothing else but disgusting. That Bush himself denies to have anything to do with it only makes it worse. I can only hope that this mud won`t stick, it certainly should affect the person who threw the dirt, not the recipient. If you can`t fight clean and hope to win, you start with dirty tricks. I guess I will see in November if the majority of US citizens actually falls for this.

And what is this about forbidding a demonstration because "it will damage the grass"!? This caused some ironic reactions as well.

I wonder what will come next. :(

Re:Jim in Iowa
I agree with you on the the whole Sudan issue.Unfortunately ,there doesnt seem to be about a lot of interest in human rights violations in Africa in general.To be honest I dont see how "pressuring " the Sudanese government is going to have an effect.Acts of genocide seem to be pretty clear cut and something needs to be done.Inaction on the part of the UN and US will only feed the image of the
western world some cultures already have and create more potential terrorists.
I thought Clinton had us in Bosnia around the time Rwanda was having its atrocities commited and if memory serves that was considered a humanitarian crisis and ethnic cleansing was in place there also.However i do recall a report by 60Minutes or Abc News where the numbers of people killed in Bosnia were overdone while Rwandans were being slaughtered at a rate of about 800 a day i think.
By the way proper spelling is 'Shiites' i think.
Iraq being better ,well thats a matter of opinion.From my view considering american soldiers are being attacked and killed its not
a better place.As far as the forces at work in the country consider that if the borders were not opened up by Saddams removal maybe the outside terrorists would not be there.
As far as Reagan breaking up the "evil Empire"
that was Russia,well There are a lot of problems caused by the breakup of the Soviet Union.Nuclear material and weapons being available on the black market,soviet weaponry in general being available and various problems like Bosnia ,and Chechnya that were held in check by the big government that were not cut loose.Besides not you got a bunch of small potential threats instead of one big ,slow ,threat .The threat you know vs the threat you dont.
The UN in my opinion is an ineffectual,bloated beast that needs to die.If there is no concern on their parts for a world crisis that may require the use of force then they need to be gone.
Not nitpicking or starting a flame war just interested in a discussion:)
Just my .02 cents of opinion
Deano

"Dennis V, go read "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." That is, if the state in which you live still permits private citizens to own books."

The fact that Lying Liars and a whole slew of similar books were published and are easily available in EVERY state in the land sort of proves Dennis' point.

If you let yourself be cowed...well, I can understand how ashamed you might now feel. But there were plenty of folks who never let up in their critisism of Bush. I may disagree with most of what they said but at least they aren't pretending that they had no choice but to toe the line.

Catori said (forgive me, I'm not certain how to italicize):
(Me): Beyond that, the bottom line is that the SBV are telling the TRUTH.

(Catori):
Hardly. Most of the claims were repudiated in the official records of the events. The others were dismissed as soon as Rood broke his silence.

Well, ignoring the fact that you chose not to print the VERY NEXT LINE I WROTE, I have to ask, WHY HAS KERRY CHANGED HIS STORIES? This isn't a matter of "flip-flopping" or anything, this is absolute fact, the Kerry campaign has conceded that the SBV were correct on at least two counts, and a third is on the horizon. Considering those are the only two that have really come under scrutiny, a 100% rate of truthfulness is hard to ignore.

And as for Robert Tang's comment, yeah, I fear for the country too, even moreso if Kerry and his supporters ever gain power.

Thomas E. Reed wrote:
"Dennis V, go read "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." That is, if the state in which you live still permits private citizens to own books."

"I work in TV, and have for several decades. I KNOW how slanted these guys are. I know how they kiss up to the rich and powerful, because the rich and the powerful are their bosses."

"It isn't "fair and balanced" to put a screaming ideologue from the Right like HANNITY against a castrated, cowardly supposed liberal like (colmes). And putting something on a web site isn't like having newspapers like the Reverand Moon-owned Washington Post push an agenda every day."

I would like you to show me just one state in this country that isn't premitting private citizens from owning books, especially the one you are recommending -- "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them." Just one is all I need. Again, this is exactly what I'm talking about. The over-the-top exageration from the Left.

As for your attack against FOX, it sort of sounds like you don't think people with opposing views deserve to be heard. Gee, I'd hate to live in your ideal America. I guess those that only mirror your ideology deserve the right to speak. The others are just labled a "screaming ideologue(s)." Personally, even though I may disagree with people like Al Franken and Michael Moore, I do not think they should be silenced. They have every right to speak -- but don't forget, those that may disagree with them have every right to voice their opinion as well.

Oh, BTW, FOX does allow opposing views to be heard on their programs. Maybe you're not used to such a concept, but it's quite the novel idea.

I suppose I don't get the point of protesting a political convention. It's the time when a party assembles to asset its platform. It ranges from a pep rally to an appeal to the public regarding what the nominated candidate stands for. Protesting it seems a waste of time. If you don't like what the GOP/Democrats believe, then vote against them in New York (and dear God, I hope all these protestors are registered). It would be like pro-lifers protesting the Democratic convention.

I'm not a fan of protesting in general. It's sort of like the Lenny Kravitz of political statements -- shamelessy swiped from the '60s without any historical context. If you're cut out of the mainstream, as blacks were during the Civil Rights Movement, then a protest, a march, and sit-in is the only way to make your message known. You don't need to block traffic to state your beliefs about the war. Write a letter to your congressman. Write a letter to the newspaper. Put up a Web site. Oh, and actually vote against the people who started the war you oppose.

As I don't see protests actually accomplishing the goal of convincing people to not vote for Bush, it just seems very self-indulgent, a big party.

You know, I'm sure there are quite a lot of Iraqis that probably agree that Iraq is better off today; there are also several thousand people lying in their graves who probably don't much care if they had been murdered by Saddam's secret police, or killed by a wayward US bomb, mistaken intel or just being in the wrong place at the wrong time. To them, dead is still pretty much dead.

If there's one canard that really drives me nuts, it's 'Iraq is better off now...' Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but THAT'S NOT THE POINT! The Bush administration told the American people we had to go to war because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He told the UN and our allies the same thing. And we fell for it. After several months in which nary a weapon could be found, the WMD rationale turned into weapon programs, and then regime change, and then Iraq is better off now... If you want to send us into war to topple Saddam, fine. If you want to go to war because of weapons programs, or UN violations or whatever, that's fine. But don't tell me one thing and change the story after the fact. And when certain senators realize they've been snookered and cut you off because you lied to them, don't call them unpatriotic.

We went to war because we we were told repeatedly that Iraq had WMDs, and after none were found, we were told the reason was regime change. I don't know, sounds like a flip-flop to me.

And did anybody ever notice that when Condy Rice goes on the Sunday morning news shows to spin the Bush administration's latest position, her forehead wrinkles whenever she says something that isn't necessarily true? It would make a great drinking game: Condy's forehead wrinkles, drink a shot!

Going back to the original theme of this topic -- whether or not the most extreme protesters could wind up helping Bush -- the problem is that the most ridiculous protesters make for the best television coverage. With most heavily divided issues, the majority of the people on both sides are intelligent and behave well. However, they either degenerate into name-calling when faced with the other side, or they get ignored in favor of the most dynamic, excessive people. After all, lunatics make better viewing than intelligence.

This also reminds me of the Onion article "Gay-Pride Parade Sets Mainstream Acceptance Of Gays Back 50 Years." It's funny -- and sad -- 'cause it's true.

So far, so good, anyway. From CNN.com:

There were no reports of violence, and more than 100 people were taken to a police holding pen on 57th Street.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the march was peaceful.

"United for Peace and Justice have behaved responsibly, as have most of the marchers," Bloomberg said.

Joe Nazarro wrote:
"If there's one canard that really drives me nuts, it's 'Iraq is better off now...' Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but THAT'S NOT THE POINT! The Bush administration told the American people we had to go to war because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He told the UN and our allies the same thing. And we fell for it. After several months in which nary a weapon could be found, the WMD rationale turned into weapon programs, and then regime change, and then Iraq is better off now..."

"Iraq being a better place" is part of the point... or should I say, it's part of the bigger picture of things.

As for the WMD's, you're making it sound like Bush made this up all by himself. Like it was some grand scheme to fool the world... Well, the notion of Iraq being in posession of WMD's was a widely held belief well before Bush took office. So, before Bush took power, was the Clinton Admin fooling the world too? Were other countries such as GB, France, Russia, Germany just fooling each other and themselves at the same time? And also, you're over exagerating when you claim the rationale is changing... all that have you mentioned was part of the reason for invading Iraq. Sure, from the WMD's, to me anyway, was the most paramount being touted, but don't pretend the other reasons were not brought up before the toppling of Saddam took place.

My favorite protestor was one who was actually against the guy I ended up liking. When reagan was running the first time (I think) he made some comment about how most air pollution comes from trees. So some guy comes to the next reagan rally dressed up as a tree holding a sign that said CHOP ME BEFORE I KILL AGAIN.

If today's protestors could come up with witty stuff like that they might get somewhere.

Dennis V, I'm prepared to take Bush at his word that he honestly believed that Iraq had WMDs. In fact, he could have felt he was doing absolutely the right thing, based on the intel he was given (by sources now largely discredited, such as the ironically named Curve Ball) as well as some not-so-gentle pushing by the Neo-Cons, who seemed to have an agenda of his own. What I was trying to say is that Bush and his adminstration used WMDs as their reason for going to war. If he was wrong, he could have stood up in front of the American people and said he made a mistake, but it was based on faulty intelligence, instead of simply trying to rewrite history after the fact. If he said he misunderestimated the facts (his choice of words, not mine) I would have respected him a hell of a lot more. Even in his most recent round of pre-convention interviews, the most he'd conced was he made a 'miscalculation.'

And Dennis, regarding your point about our allies being equally waylaid, I think we have to discount France, Russia and Germany, who all seem to have their own agendas as far as Iraq is concerned. As for Great Britain, at least Tony Blair had the stones to stand up in front of his people recently and say he made a mistake. And by all accounts, he had the same intel as Dubya.

A few things:

1) I was in the 400,000 strong protest march in NYC today.
2) The overwhelming majority of us were perfectly peaceful, as the organizers had wanted us to be.
3) The political spectrum in the crowd was pretty broad, from the center to the left fringe.
4) I'll be damned if I'm supposed to just shut up when Bush and co. come here in an attempt to make political gain out of 9/11 (again). While I still have the right to publicly dissent -- Ashcroft is just dying to take it away, after all -- I'm going to utilize it.
5) If John Kerry loses it's his own damn fault for having not even the semblance of a spine. Being Bush-lite is not the way to beat Bush.

Like many others I believe that Saddam DID have WMDs, but that he somehow disposed of them to other location(s) during the continual back and forth "negotiations" that took weeks during the UN's fiasco with inspectors. There was even a report of aerial surveillance of convoys headed towards Syria, likely having not only WMDs, but also a significant portion of the Iraqi treasury on board.
Having said that, I do believe that Iraq is likely a better place without Saddam, and the world is certainly a better place without him. BUT...I also noted on the day of the US invasion that this adventure will make Viet Nam look like a kindergarten class. And so it is beginning to unfold.
The sad fact is that no one will be able to withdraw US forces for a very, very, VERY long time, like it or not. If that was to take place in the short term, Iraq would almost certainly go the route of Iran which would precipitate problems having far-ranging worldwide repercussions that no one wants to contemplate.
Was Bush right in making the move? That question is irrelevant since the situation now exists. Is either candidate capable of withdrawing the troops? No, despite what either might espouse.
Is Kerry a better candidate than Bush? I believe he is, because I believe that
a)there is more truth to what Kerry and his supporters say than there is to what Bush and his supporters say, and
b)Kerry has for the most part run a campaign that is above board and does not rely on the type of tactics that the Bush camp is using.
Will the protests have any effect? The main effect they will have is to keep the political cauldron boiling and the larger questions front and center in the minds of the people. That's a good thing.
I believe that the people are not quite as gullible as many would think and that they WILL discern the truth and vote accordingly.
The only issue will be to see if the result reflects that vote. In the previous election it certainly did NOT.

"b)Kerry has for the most part run a campaign that is above board and does not rely on the type of tactics that the Bush camp is using."

This kind of thinking amazes me!

Kerry claims that he is taking the high road while making negative comments against his opponent on a daily basis. He rarely stands on his record. His ties to the soft-money ads are easier to make than his opponent.

Just how has he been more above board?

Jason wrote:

>>>I was in the 400,000 strong protest march in NYC today.

This reminds me of something I've pondered once or twice as I've watched this whole goofy election tableau unfold. Who in the Republican party decided to have the convention in NYC anyway? That's almost as nutty as having it in Chicago. Also, I'm not very impressed that 400,000 people just showed up to march in NYC to protest against the Republicans, mainly because there are probably at least 4 million Democrats in the city proper alone. If anything, that's a pretty apathetic turnout given the huge pool of Democrats who live within a couple of hours of the city -- especially since many of those in the crowd were probably just rubberneckers out for a Sunday stroll.

"It is probably a lost cause to even try to convince most of you, but the reality is that Iraq is better off now than 4 years ago, and that it is very possible for it to get even better if we stick with it."

That's not the point. It's what the Bushites have endeavored to MAKE the point. It is the point that his followers have swallowed like hooked fish. But it is not the point.

The point is that the war on Iraq wasn't about making it better off. It was about protecting America. It was about a threat to security so urgent that the UN weapons inspectors were not allowed to finish their work. It was about WMDs that weren't there. It was about an imminent threat that Saddam posed, which he didn't. It was about convincing Americans that Saddam masterminded 9/11, which he didn't.

If Bush had said, "I want to be granted powers to wage war on Iraq because I want to make Iraq a better place," he would never have gotten the approval. You know it. I know it. We all know it. So for the love of God, stop pretending it's anything else other than a massive tissue of lies to support an agenda already in place before 9/11...one that was put into effect by ruthlessly and cynically manipulating an American public shellshocked by the fall of the Twin Towers. A public that, if not for 9/11, would have collectively stared at Bush if he'd wanted to go bomb Saddam and said, "What are you, high?"

PAD

Jason Schulman wrote:
"4) I'll be damned if I'm supposed to just shut up when Bush and co. come here in an attempt to make political gain out of 9/11 (again). While I still have the right to publicly dissent -- Ashcroft is just dying to take it away, after all -- I'm going to utilize it."

Do you really think your right to publically dissent is under any kind of threat of being taken away by Ashcroft? Really? If so, please provide some realistic evidence you are in posession of this happening. Man, talk about using scare tactics...

More importantly, Jason, do you then mean that if Bush doesn't mention 9/11 at all during the Convention then you won't have a reason to protest? Yes, I realize how unlikely that is, but still.

Jason Schulman wrote:
"1) I was in the 400,000 strong protest march in NYC today."

I had heard the numbers were more around 100,000 to 120,000 strong. The only people throwing out 400,000 are the organizers themselves (and of course, it would be to their benefit to inflate the numbers).

Nobody should have any problem at all with the folks who march for a cause or even just to vent at the president. American as apple pie.

The ones who are jeering folks going to Broadway shows (on the assumption that they are delegates) or chanting "we don't want you here" or "Republicans go home" and other things aimed at intimidating OTHER people engaged in the political process...they are modern brownshirts, pure and simple, and if the irony were not lost on them they would probably be deeply ashamed of themselves.

I just want to add something to what PAD said, other than that I completely agree with him:

The main reason why Iraq is in the mess it is today is because of the arrogance and naivite of first of all the USA that people would immediately celebrate them as liberators and as soon as the regime is toppled, the war is over. On top of that, the USA insisted to do this on their own, under their own command.

Nobody actually thought about it what consequences the invasion would have and how to actually rebuild the country - and I mean the political and social structure. A lot of mistakes have been done and a lot could have been avoided. And now the USA wants some help, also from the UN - but without giving up their command position!

I am sure, foreign troops will be stuck in Iraq for many years to come, at least. The same as what is still happening in Afghanistan, a country that it still far from being stable and which is still a country in which me, as a woman, wouldn`t want to live. (By the way, I noticed that female reporters on British TV reporting from Iraq started to wear headscarves which is not a good sign at all)

I think Iraq would have been better off if it would have been left alone. Instead of smashing a regime and leaving a mess behind the USA should have helped the people of Iraq to shape their own destiny.

This is somewhat off-topic from the convention, but here's some news to make everyone a bit happier:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=515&u=/ap/20040829/ap_on_re_af/war_and_peace_1&printer=1

Last year had the lowest number of combat deaths of any year since World War 2.

A public that, if not for 9/11, would have collectively stared at Bush if he'd wanted to go bomb Saddam and said, "What are you, high?"---PAD

Umm...that's exactly what Bill Clinton did in 1998. Bomb Saddam for shooting at US planes in the no-fly zone. He also bombed the Sudan. Did you ask if he was "high."

As for people who say that troops are going to be in Iraq a long time. WELL no Sh*t they are. We have troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea.
Those wars have been over well over 50 years!

Will you stop acting as if GW rousted young men and women out of their houses and forced them to go to the middle east. Most soldiers want to be involved in some form of military operation. I know thats hard to believe if youre a democrat but not all people who join the army do it for the money. Dont project YOUR fears of combat onto them.

I understand your feelings, but I must disagree. I took part in the march yesterday. It was very large (NY TImes says 500,000) and very peaceful. the only aggression was from some "anti-protesters".
We know that Bush and the republicans are deaf to decent and even find it unpatriotic. We hope that voters out there who are uneasy about Bush will see how divisive he is might think we will be better off with a new President. You may disagree with this strategy, but I think it is valid.

Baerbell:

>The main reason why Iraq is in the mess it is today is because of the arrogance and naivite of first of all the USA that people would immediately celebrate them as liberators and as soon as the regime is toppled, the war is over. On top of that, the USA insisted to do this on their own, under their own command.

>Nobody actually thought about it what consequences the invasion would have and how to actually rebuild the country - and I mean the political and social structure. A lot of mistakes have been done and a lot could have been avoided.

Ya know, I don't consider myself to be overly insightful, but I was one of a vast number of American citizens who followed the news and questioned going it alone, going to war, and the plan to rebuild Iraq after invasion..... we simply weren't paid any attention and dismissed as "not supporting" our counrty, "doing the terrorists' jobs for them", etc.

>I am sure, foreign troops will be stuck in Iraq for many years to come, at least. The same as what is still happening in Afghanistan, a country that it still far from being stable and which is still a country in which me, as a woman, wouldn`t want to live. (By the way, I noticed that female reporters on British TV reporting from Iraq started to wear headscarves which is not a good sign at all)

Not that I get all goose-pimpley over war, but the case for terrorist cells being supported in Afghanistan was much stronger than the accusations still being leveled at Iraq as a supporter even to this day.

>I think Iraq would have been better off if it would have been left alone. Instead of smashing a regime and leaving a mess behind the USA should have helped the people of Iraq to shape their own destiny.

I wouldn't go for the "left alone" approach, but certainly would look at more assertive approaches to other counties before I'd have supported invading Iraq.

Fred

Dennis: "I would like you to show me just one state in this country that isn't premitting private citizens from owning books"

When you've got government officials wanting libraries to keep track of who borrowed what book, it's a time to worry.

James: "We have troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea. Those wars have been over well over 50 years!"

You're kidding, right?

You honestly equate keeping troops in a friendly nation as a 'presence' against poteitially hostile outside forces (ie the Soviets and Communist China/North Korea) with keeping troops in a coutry to keep it from self-destructing from revolutions or warlords?

"Umm...that's exactly what Bill Clinton did in 1998. Bomb Saddam for shooting at US planes in the no-fly zone. He also bombed the Sudan. Did you ask if he was "high." "

Ummmm... that's exactly what most republicans did. In the height of their attacks and demonizing of Clinton, they questioned why he did this. And secondly, this was retalitory. Not "to make it a better place" or because of WMDs.

Travis

Steve,
"Ralph Nader is the GOP's best friend."
Please give this a rest already. The scapegoating of nader for "costing' Gore the election is one of the more cynical things I have witnessed in all my years involved with politics.

1.) Gore could have run on "peace and prosperity" and the accomplishments of the Clinton Administration. He did not. he was determined to run as "his own man" (gee, not too much ego there!) His choice, and an insane one.

2.) The "brilliant" Gore, who had crushed Ross Perot in a debate on NAFTA and Bill Bradley in primary debated, likely would have been a clear victor if he had convincingly won either of the three debates against Bush. he failed to do so. That's on HIM.

3.) The whole idea that a candidate who actually stands by what he believes, and who gives voters another choice, is a bad thing is quite sad. If anything, we would be better served by having more choices, be they Libertarians on the right, or Greens on the left. Again, if a candidate or party can be tripped up by the interjection of ideas from a candidate or party that gets low single digits and gets relatively low media exposure and almost no money, well it's kind of pathetic to use the "third party" candidate as an excuse.

4.) Nader is having an even harder time getting on the ballot in states this year (through no small effort by the Democrats - how ironic that name is in this case - to keep him off). If he can "cost" Kerry the election with his current ballot access issues and poll numbers, then kerry was simply not good enough to win.
Period.

Ok, let's forget the past. Let's look at today.

So, when is your man, the President, going to take an interest in Africa?

Until he does, let's try to not make a piss-poor generalization about who does and does not care about Africa.

The president only cared about Saddam since Day 0.

Hell, his interest in bin Laden is only there because he wants to get reelected. And I think that is pretty self evident by the fact that we have over 100k troops in Iraq, and less than 1/4th that number in Afghanistan.

The sad part is the fact that the American people are too stupid to notice this and all the other BS that's come from the Bush Administration.

Re: Swift Boat ads
You know, I find it amazing that the same people who hailed "Fahrenheit 911" - which I did see by the way - as being unassailable (despite being packed with distortions and outright lies which have proven to be so), and then, when that was easily disproven, said it "brought up important issues" and was a "vitally important part of the debate" now are complaining about a group of veterans expressing their opinion. Of course, it's much easier just to lump them into the supposed Republican Attack machine than consider what they have to say for many, I suppose.

From edhopper:

"I took part in the march yesterday. It was very large (NY TImes says 500,000) and very peaceful. the only aggression was from some "anti-protesters"."

More accurately, the NY Times reports that the organizers estimated the crowd at 500,000. They also quote an unnamed police officer. There is apparently no way to verify either.

What was the form of the "aggression" you speak of?

"We know that Bush and the republicans are deaf to decent and even find it unpatriotic."

Not sure what that means. Even if you change the word to decency it becomes a massive overstatement, albeit a coherent one. But since you "know" this to be the case I guess there's no point in arguing.

This is just great. Tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people leave their homes and travel to New York to protest what they feel is an unjust government full of corrupt policies. Polls show that the President is, at best, in a dead heat with his challenger. And what do we hear from the right? That the Kerry supports are "out of touch" with the mainstream. And that protesters are "loonies".

This is what's become of our country? This is how people view dissent? As the act of loonies? And the right somehow deludes themselves into thinking that half the country is out of touch with itself?

It's nice to see the ditto-heads faithfully repeating the Republican talking points of the day. What next? Are we going to hear about how Kerry is the most liberal member of the senate? Maybe that he's a flip-flopper? Ooh! Better yet! Maybe the President who spent more than 40% of his time on vacation in the months between his inauguration and 9/11 can accuse Kerry of missing too many senate meetings, and the ditto-heads will echo that one, too!

I don't mind conservatives. I really don't. "Real" Republicans, the folks that believe in smaller government, and fiscal responsibility, those are the people that I think deserve respect. What I can't stand is the people who ignore the fact that they are making half the population of this county absolutely miserable, and don't want to make any effort at all to change that. This whole "my way or the highway" policy is a load of crap.

If these people want to protest that, let them! Once upon a time, protest was a very noble, patriotic thing to do. It's too bad the the armchair politicians that seem to creep around every corner find is so easy to ignore the issues that upset these people so much.

Phinn

Re: Max Cleland

I a realy tired of Max Cleland being made out to be a martyr by the media, the Kerry campaign, the Democrats and people who simply don't know the facts.
First of all, no one ever mentions just how Cleland became a triple amputee. He blew himself up WITH HIS OWN GRENADE, and he was not engaging the enemy or in the midst of battle. He was near his barracks, the grenade slipped out of his hand and he blew himself up. While that certainly doesn't make his willingness to fight for his country any less admirable or honorable, it certainly was not a heroic act that led to his severe injuries.
Also, I find it beyond irritating that people will charge that because of his false war hero status, that Cleland's voting record on defense and veterans issues is somehow immune from attack. Cleland's military record played a large part in his being elected to the Senate initially, but in that time he accumulated a voting record that then was held up to public scrutiny, and he was rejected on THAT basis. That is caled democracy, something Cleland was fighting for, before he blew himself up.

Re: McCain

As far as the liberal media is concerned, McCain's critique of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads is devastating. Because what the media and the liberals who seem to swoon over McCain every time he acts like a Democrat fail to realize is that many - especially his fellow Republicans - don't like his voting record, feel he panders to the media, comes off self-righteous and appears to be thin-skinned. In fact, Cleland and he seem to be forming a group - Thin-Skinned Vietman War Veterans Adored by the Media. of course, the acronym, TSVWVAM isn't really catchy, so maybe they'll change it.
But seriously, a huge reason McCain's campaign was sunk in 2000 was his voting record. If for some reason, you seem to feel that military/wartime service should trump voting records, then you should also be perfectly okay for me as a writer, if I were to be elected to office someday, to be taken to task if I have a voting record that would seem to contrast with that. For example, if I consistently voted against the right of protesters to organize and in favor of book banning, it would be ridiculous for me to then say the charges that i was weak on First Amendment issues simply because I was a professional writer and editor for over a decade. The same principle aplies here. McCain and Cleland's voting records are fair game, regardless of their service. In fact, considering the political capital they received from their military service, they should arguably have their voting records even more heavily scrutinized on these issues.
The other reason McCain lost is because he was too liberal for the voters of South Carolina and HIS campaign was considered too negative there after he compared Bushs honesty to Bill Clinton's. That was a silly, but, big, mistake. You can lkook it up.
Of course, most of those who still feel like McCain, Cleland and kerry are being treated unfairly will probably consider to do so. Fine by me. It means that instead of arguing the right issues, you will continue to fail to learn from your mistakes.

I think that the protestors are successful in getting people not to like Bush. For the past year whenever our president has spoken he has tossed in words such as unity, solidarity, resolve, resolute when describing American feelings regarding his presidency. If the protestors remained silent I could see the undecided voters out there taking the silence of the American people as confirmation on what Bush has been proclaiming. Thanks to the protestors most people out there can understand that Bush has polarized the nation. We are a much divided people now and that is reflective in our politicians. By contrast in the Clinton Administration, in his second administration anyway, we saw the country unite more as the difference between Republicans and Democrats shrunk sharply. When I was eighteen I voted for Bob Dole and when I was twenty two I voted for GW. Now that I’m twenty six I will, for the first time in my life, vote Democratic in the next election. The reason is simple. Bottom line is that life is not better for most Americans now then it was four years ago.

"Umm...that's exactly what Bill Clinton did in 1998. Bomb Saddam for shooting at US planes in the no-fly zone. He also bombed the Sudan. Did you ask if he was "high."

And then he immediately launched a full-scale invasion in defiance of the UN...oh, wait. He didn't.

But hey, at least the GOP pundits who support Bush's unprovoked war efforts were uniliterally behind Clinton when he...oh, wait. They weren't.

Well, hey, color me convinced.

PAD

"Nobody actually thought about it what consequences the invasion would have and how to actually rebuild the country - and I mean the political and social structure. A lot of mistakes have been done and a lot could have been avoided. "

"Ya know, I don't consider myself to be overly insightful, but I was one of a vast number of American citizens who followed the news and questioned going it alone, going to war, and the plan to rebuild Iraq after invasion..... we simply weren't paid any attention and dismissed as "not supporting" our counrty, "doing the terrorists' jobs for them", etc."

To be fair, I think when she said "no one" she was referring to the people in the administration actually running the war. You know: The draft dodgers whose agents are trying to smear the candidate who did NOT dodge the draft.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that Powell had some serious trepidation.

PAD

"You know, I find it amazing that the same people who hailed "Fahrenheit 911" - which I did see by the way - as being unassailable (despite being packed with distortions and outright lies which have proven to be so), and then, when that was easily disproven, said it "brought up important issues" and was a "vitally important part of the debate" now are complaining about a group of veterans expressing their opinion. Of course, it's much easier just to lump them into the supposed Republican Attack machine than consider what they have to say for many, I suppose."

I don't seem to recall liberals for the most part hailing "Fahrenheit 9/11" as anything other than a powerful piece of movie-making. Would you like a tin woodsman and a cowardly lion to go with that straw man you're building?

I would also like to point out that some people have the intelligence to perceive that Michael Moore has a long history of acting with an independent voice while the Swift Boat ads are being stage managed by the Bush and GOP machines, as the "New York Times" so impressively proved. Now if you're prepared to prove that Michael Moore is being supported by John Kerry or the DNC, then do so. Otherwise I wish you and others would stop disingenuously pretending it's the same thing.

PAD

Oh, so Michael Moore has an "independent voice", even if its spouting lies and distortions, not a "lying voice" or "distorting voice".
Oh, and The New York Times "proved" a connection between the Bush campaign and The Swift Boat ads? The paper whose publisher has gone on record as saying the Times is liberal and that he doesn't like Bush?
Oh, and was Michael Moore not in a former president's private box at the DNC? But no, he's still an "independent" voice rather than a Democratic voice/attack dog?
Sigh.

Jerome, you really should stop promulgating lies about Cleland and look stuff up. Cleland was not injured by his own grenade and it happened during the siege of Khe Sanh.

PAD,
To say that you "don't seem to recall liberals for the most part hailing "Fahrenheit 9/11" as anything other than a powerful piece of moviemaking"....

What? In the same breath as "Mystic River"?
It was a propaganda piece, with many of its claims easily debunked by various sources. The part where he uses a headline in a letter column as a "headline" in a Florida newspaper is as close to lying as one can get without tecnically doing so.
For weeks afterward, undeterred by debunked points of the film, all you heard were questions on whether or not this and the subsequent DVD release would have a major impact on the election. And a big deal was made about "Fahrenheit 9/11" doing well in "red" states (gee, I wonder how many stories there have been on how "Unfit For Command" is doing in "Blue" states)?
And I've heard it repeated a million times that "F911" is "the only place where you can get the truth", that "Moore didn't have to lie and distort this time because...well, he didn't have to" and that "Moore is doing the media's job in digging for the truth".
And how much airtime has Moore's lie regarding the pipeline in Afghanistan gotten compared to those who denounce the SwiftBoat Vets.
Just, you know, wondering.
Straw man? Hardly.

I am VERY concerned over this orgy of protesting. I'm not entirely sure of the purpose of it.

Er, to protest the current administration.

It comes across to me as massively self-indulgent in that not only will it accomplish nothing in terms of affecting the opinions of Bush and Company, but it may well swing undecided voters to the Bush camp. Why? Because Americans lean toward underdogs, and as protestors do everything they can to make the lives of the GOP delegates as miserable as possible, all they're gonna do is make the GOP come across as sympathetic. "Those poor Republicans, can't even have their convention without demented naked Kerry supporters trying to hog the spotlight."

Underdogs? These people are going around in bunkers and avoiding any actual contact with the city as they move back and forth between their fortified hotels and the war zone that West 33rd Street has been turned into. How, exactly are they underdogs?

And what's the alternative? Sit at home and let the Republicans have all the press? Just be sheep and let the people with political power control the process? The hell with that.

Besides, the protestors aren't making "the lives of the GOP delegates as miserable as possible," they're just protesting, amiably and peaceably. And I have no problem with the press paying more attention to them and regularly showing the anti-Bush signs on camera.

---KRAD

Tim H.,
I did look stuff up. That's how i found out. The Khe Sanh myth/story is the lie.

"Umm...that's exactly what Bill Clinton did in 1998. Bomb Saddam for shooting at US planes in the no-fly zone. He also bombed the Sudan. Did you ask if he was "high." "
No, but he was accused of doing it to distract from the Lewinsky nonsense.

"Most soldiers want to be involved in some form of military operation. I know thats hard to believe if youre a democrat but not all people who join the army do it for the money"
I agree. Most join to defend our country. The invasion of Iraq has nothing to do with that.

"As for people who say that troops are going to be in Iraq a long time. WELL no Sh*t they are. We have troops in Japan, Germany and South Korea.
Those wars have been over well over 50 years! "
Yes, but how many of those troops are being shot at, maimed, and / or killed?

"there are probably at least 4 million Democrats in the city proper alone. If anything, that's a pretty apathetic turnout given the huge pool of Democrats who live within a couple of hours of the city "
Yes, but how many of them have to work, or want to spend time with their families after working the rest of the week?
Besides, Americans are the most individualistic people on the planet. To get several hundred thousand of us mobilized at one time in one place takes some serious provocation.

Re: Max Cleland:
Jerome, the only person who honestly believes that bullshit is Ann Coulter, who wrote it. Not one single source, to my knowledge, other than her has ever been cited to give it credence. I'm surprised that you left out the part about him being on the way to a beer party what the grenade went off.

"I did look stuff up. That's how i found out. The Khe Sanh myth/story is the lie."
Provide a scource other than Ann Coulter.

PAD said:

"the Swift Boat ads are being stage managed by the Bush and GOP machines, as the "New York Times" so impressively proved."

Oh, this is just flat out BS, and I'm surprised you can even say that with a straight face. The NYT pointed out connections, and there are far more connections between the DNC and the Democratic 527s. For the record, John O'Neill is NOT A REPUBLICAN. He voted for Gore. He supports Edwards. He does not like George Bush.

Regardless, from the Washington Post last week:

"[Ginsburg] said two prominent Democratic lawyers are doing the same thing. He said Robert Bauer, the top legal counsel for the Kerry campaign, also is the attorney for an independent group, America Coming Together, that has been mobilizing voters in support of Kerry. In addition, Ginsberg said, Joseph Sandler is a lawyer for both the Democratic National Committee and for the independent group MoveOn.org, which has run advertisements attacking Bush."

What's good for the goose.

If all of that wasn't enough, what about the fact that the ads have forced Kerry to admit his lies? And that Kerry tried to censor them?

"John O'Neill is NOT A REPUBLICAN"

oh, you must be talking about a John O'Neill other than the one hired by the Nixon administration to discredit Kerry during his first successful senate run.

You know, the John O'Neill who was part of the Republican Nixon's Dirty Tricks campaign who went on the Dick Cavett Show to "debate" Kerry?

http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/061703.shtml

If all of that wasn't enough, what about the fact that the ads have forced Kerry to admit his lies? And that Kerry tried to censor them?

See, I'm wondering when the shift in this country went from examining Bush's lies and BS to Kerry's potential lies and BS.

From Bush's military non-service to Kerry's factual service (in so far as he atleast was in Vietnam).

I think it shows that we're in for another 4 years of lies and BS regardless of who wins the election.

And then he immediately launched a full-scale invasion in defiance of the UN...oh, wait. He didn't.

But hey, at least the GOP pundits who support Bush's unprovoked war efforts

"If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement ..." - Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed The New York Times 9/6/02 (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times, 9/6/02)

"...even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act." - Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed The New York Times 9/6/02 (Sen. John Kerry, Op-Ed, "We Still Have A Choice On Iraq," The New York Times, 9/6/02)

John Kerry...Republican Pundent????

PAD wrote: "The point is that the war on Iraq wasn't about making it better off. It was about protecting America. It was about a threat to security so urgent that the UN weapons inspectors were not allowed to finish their work. It was about WMDs that weren't there. It was about an imminent threat that Saddam posed, which he didn't. It was about convincing Americans that Saddam masterminded 9/11, which he didn't. "

You are reading into what I said. The protesters are upset of the "loss of life" in Iraq, etc., and are protesting the war. My point is that they are out ot lunch on this issue. Many refugees are RETURNING to Iraq. And there is not a flood of people leaving. (Some, yes, but a very small percentage.) That is a totally different issue than why we went to war.

But that brings up another point. It is wrong to say we only went to war over WMD's. There were 3 reasons consistently given, and one of them was to free Iraq. Obviously, because of the threat to our security, the WMD's was the largest reason, but not the only. (Go read Tommy Frank's book to see a military -- not a politician or pundits -- viewpoint on what we thought we knew and whether the WMD's were a threat. Unless you want to write off yet another person as a puppet for Bush or Rove, it makes for fascinating reading.)

Furthermore, I am amazed by the many people on this post who do not understand a fundamental point: A free Iraq DOES protect US security. You don't find the hotbed of terroism in any truly free society as you do in dictatorships and totalitarian regimes. It may exist, but it is on the fringe. A free Iraq does help us.

You are free to come to the conclusion that Bush had planned to bring down Iraq since before 9/11. That conclusion, in my opinion, is what is based on a tissue of lies. We will have to disagree on that. But I am sick of hearing how Iraq is not better now than 4 years ago. Go tell that to the women who for the first time in at least 40 years (if not more) have the right to not only vote but to serve in their government. Go tell that to the kids who are not being starved while Saddam builds yet another palace with the money from the UN sponsored "oil for food" program (either to build up his ego or to hide his WMD program -- does it really matter?). Go tell that to the families who had their husbands and fathers stolen in the middle of the night and executed. Go tell that to the truly thousands of vicitms who were massacared by Saddam when he gassed the Kurds.

Don't give me this idiotic nonsense about a stray shot by our troops killing someone. While I hate the loss of life, the crucial difference is that it is an accident, not a deliberate policy to terrorize. And yes, while for the person grieving it may not matter, for the majority of the country, it does. Enormously.

This area of the world was under a brutal dictatorship led by the Ottoman Turks (an Islamic regime) for hundreds of years. It was under a better, kinder European rule (Britain, France, etc.), but an outside rule none the less, for under 100 years. For the most part, the Middle East has been under self rule for 60 to 80 years. That is not a long time. And Iraq was under a brutal dictatorship for at least 20 or more years. My point? Freedom is not a concept they are familiar with. They will struggle with it for a while. Those who were in power will fight hard to regain it -- at the expense of those around them. While we did go to war in part to defend our own security, it was not done at the expense of the Iraqi people. The intent -- and I believe the very possible outcome -- is that both sides will be better for it (as can be seen my our victories over Japan and Germany over 50 years ago).

Jim in Iowa

PAD,

I forgot to mention I am tired of the other lie in your response. Bush has never, ever said that Saddam masterminded 9/11. He did not try to manipulate us to that conclusion. He DID say Saddam was a possible threat to conduct another 9/11 type attack. I believe that was true. You do not. Fine. But quit saying Bush said something he did not.

Was there any link between Saddam and Bin Laden? I think they were. So did Bush. That is a conclusion based on some facts (facts much, much sronger than the supposed "web" of connections some claim Bush has with Saudi Arabia). That does not mean he said Saddam masterminded the attack, or even that he knew about it. But clearly, Saddam would have done nothing to prevent it and everything to help it given the chance. That is what made Saddam a threat to us.

Jim in Iowa

Welp, like my father always said, "If someone is determined to show their ass (in public literally and comedians are joking, this is the first time NYers asked people to put their clothes back on), get out of their way..."

Lot of replies to be made here:

"And I don't recall the Bush Campaign threatening movie theaters who were running F9-11"

See www.moveamericaforward.org, a web site run by a Republican PR firm.

"Republicans pressing the Swift Boat issue? Why not? You Kerry Supporters...were all having a blast with the National Guard thing."

Bush could end it by simply saying, hey you know, "[insert National Guardists names here] saw me a lot while I was serving. Ask them if I went AWOL."

"Now it's my turn and I'm having a blast"

That's a childish attitude.

"and I bet a lot of the Swift Boat stuff is true, to boot."

Can I take that bet?
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Swift_Boat_Veterans_for_Truth

"In Kerry's case, nobody looked at what he did and said, 'Son, you deserve a medal.' Kerry himself started the paperwork that got him most of his medals, because he was the CO of his swift boat."

You can get a Purple Heart without an injury? George Elliott (now one of the SBV) reccomended Kerry for his Bronze Star. Kerry's signature does not appear on the official report for that medal, BTW.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0820041kerry1.html

"I know it's been popular for years now to gripe about the media being left-wing and that may have been true at one point, but I honestly don't see it."

Good for you. The right has been "working the refs" - complaining about media coverage - they've got journalists running to the right. Media "critics" like Media Research Center are paid big money to publicize the idea the media leans to the left.

"Beyond that, the bottom line is that the SBV are telling the TRUTH"

I'll dispute that.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-kerryswift17aug17,1,6210087.story?coll=la-home-headlines
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?pagewanted=3&hp
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-swiftpress24aug24,1,3137952.story

"They've switched gears on the Cambodia story, and this week admitted that the first purple heart may have been for self-inflicted wounds. A third issue, the V on the silver star, is also turning out to be an issue."

Sure it is. The guy who claimed he wasn't fired at got a Silver Star for the SAME ACTION. I guess it took him 30+ years to realize the 'V' was there.

In scanning the posts quickly, I might have missed this, in if I did, sorry, but apathy seems to be George W.'s greatest aide in him elected and re-elected. Alot of people will rights and freedoms, but most seem to miss out on responibilities. I wonder what would happen if the government offered a tax deduction for proof of voting?

"We know that Bush and the republicans are deaf to decent and even find it unpatriotic."
Of course I meant "dissent", damn that spellcheck!
The aggression was from a small group called tha Protest Warriors who went right into the midst of the march with some rather provocative signs and yelled at the marchers.

Those of you who choose to believe the lies about the service to our country of Kerry and Cleland, but support our troops in Iraq 100% are hypocrites. John O'Neil has hated Kerry since the Senate hearings and is doing what he can to damage his reputation. The US Navy investigated these same claims about Kerry's service back then and found them totally unfounded. Bush, instead of condemning the attack wants to limit our free speech by banning all 527's. Not surprising, since this administration has a problem with all dissent. If you are not for them, you are labeled unpatriotic. I am glad there are protesters in NYC. Protests before the war weren't covered and the women's march on the White House was only partially covered in the news. At least now other Americans can see they are not alone in opposing the policies of the people currently in office.

"The aggression was from a small group called tha Protest Warriors who went right into the midst of the march with some rather provocative signs and yelled at the marchers."

If yelling at people is aggression then the protest was far more aggressive than you think. Just as an experiment, try holding a pro-Bush sign at the next big protest. Don't say a word, don't glare, don't make faces. just stand there with a sign as the marchers go past.

the level of aggression you have directed at you may be disheartening.

A lot of this thread has devolved into partisan bickering, so I'm going to go back to your original post, Peter, and take it from there. I'm writing this as someone who has marched in two protest marches - the March for Women's Lives in DC this April, and again two days ago in NYC.

Re: protest having neither purpose nor point. The point is to make the "right to peaceably assemble" a reality in modern politics. The purpose is to draw attention to whatever the theme of the march is. True, it will "accomplish nothing in terms of affecting the opinions of Bush and Company." Nothing affects them once their collective mind has been made up; even when the chosen course of action has been wrong, they simply spin, spin, spin in a new direction.

However, that's all the more reason to march and protest - to prove that it's not just one or two cranks who want to be in the newspapers, but masses of citizens who are deeply concerned about issues. The administration and Clear Channel and Fox News are all pretending that only one or two hippie freaks are against the war -- and then hundreds of thousands of people show up to protest. The religious right redefines medical abortion procedures as "unnecessary" and Ashcroft pilfers the records of anyone who objects -- and then over a million people show up on the mall. When things like this happen, whether the administration does anything about it or not, it lets the rest of the country know that people care. It lets the folks who are against the protest know that there is massive opposition to their policies, and it lets the folks who are for that issue know that they are not a lone voice in the wilderness - and frankly, it motivates them both to go DO something about it at the polls!

Anything that gets the vote up is a good thing.

As for the Republicans being treated like underdogs because of this harassment, well, the Rs weren't too kind during the Democratic convention and it doesn't seem to have done much about public perceptions. So I'm not worried there.

Bottom line, why did we march? Faith in the old poem - "all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good to do nothing." So we did something - something that made it very clear that we are not alone, we will not be dismissed, and we will be voting on our issues in November.

He did not try to manipulate us to that conclusion.

Man, I guess the 50% of Americans who think Saddam was behind 9/11 must really be ignorant and stupid then.

But hey, that plays right into Bush's hands, doesn't it?

Craig:

>>He did not try to manipulate us to that conclusion.

>Man, I guess the 50% of Americans who think Saddam was behind 9/11 must really be ignorant and stupid then.

>But hey, that plays right into Bush's hands, doesn't it?

That is why implication and allusion are so often ustilized in politics with this administration in particular. When called to the carpet on something, the very ready response is, and not incorrectly, "I never said that!"

Fred

A few points here and there:

""They've switched gears on the Cambodia story, and this week admitted that the first purple heart may have been for self-inflicted wounds. A third issue, the V on the silver star, is also turning out to be an issue."

Sure it is. The guy who claimed he wasn't fired at got a Silver Star for the SAME ACTION. I guess it took him 30+ years to realize the 'V' was there."

Irrelevant. The problem is the V. You don't get Vs on Silver Stars. Perhaps it is a simple error; if so I'm sure the Kerry folks will be grateful for setting the record straight.

""John O'Neill is NOT A REPUBLICAN"

oh, you must be talking about a John O'Neill other than the one hired by the Nixon administration to discredit Kerry during his first successful senate run.

You know, the John O'Neill who was part of the Republican Nixon's Dirty Tricks campaign who went on the Dick Cavett Show to "debate" Kerry?"

Don't know why you would put "debate" in quotes. It was an actual debate and both guys pretty much held their own. I suspect that Kerry would much rather people not see the debate now, since his attitude toward the war seems to have changed a bit (I hear pro-Kerry people talking about how he "defended America"--an interesting point of view regarding Vietnam. Used to be that kind of talk was reserved for real hardcore Conservative types.)

At any rate, hating Kerry does not make one a republican any more than hating Bush instantly makes on a Democrat. One could be a yellow dog democrat and find Kerry’s congressional testimony simply beyond the pale. Accepting help or money from Nixon doesn't make one a Republican any more than taking money from George Soros makes one a Hungarian.

Re Max Cleland:

Personally I find it distasteful to harp on Cleland. The man has truly suffered. Yes, he has come to believe a very self serving version of events but one should admire him having the guts to come back from an injury that would have left many of us hopelessly bedridden for the rest of our lives.

That said, Ann Coulture got the facts pretty much right. He was wounded not in battle, but in an accident. That's why he didn't get the Purple Heart. If you simply refuse to accept Coulture as a source here’s someone you might believe--Max Cleland:
From "Strong at the Broken Places", his autobiography,

“There were no heroics on which to base the Soldier’s Medal, and it had been my men who took care of the wounded during the rocket attack, not me. Some compassionate military men had obviously recommended me for the Silver Star, but I didn’t deserve it.” ... “I was not entitled to the Purple Heart either, since I was not wounded by enemy action.”

I still think he was heroic for his fighting back against grievous injury. However, the myth of Cleland as a soldier wounded in battle who later lost his senate seat because of a slanderous ad that morphed Bin Laden's face into his is simply a feel good story for the choir. He barely won his seat with less than a majority of the vote, voted far to the left of his constituency, and at the first opportunity the voters sent him packing in a landside defeat. He took it hard and now allows himself to be used for demeaning stunts like the one at the Crawford ranch.

As far as the Swift Boat Vets go, let's see how they have done so far with their 3 ads: 1-- They claimed that Kerry did not deserve his medals--highly debatable. A few inconsistencies have turned up but nothing that seems to me to have reached the level of importance given to it. (That said, would a Kerry supporter PLEASE tell me why it is right for Kerry to withhold his full military record?).

2-- They claimed he made up the story about spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia on President Nixon's orders. A slam dunk. The Kerry campaign has admitted that he was not in Cambodia in 1968. Those of us with access to a history book have also pointed out that Nixon did not take office until January of 1969. Whether Kerry was EVER in Cambodia is still open to question...maybe those RECORDS would help.

3- they are upset with his testimony in front of Congress. Well, the testimony is there, for all who wish to see. Obviously they may have a harsher appraisal than others but you can't say they made it up out of whole cloth. The part about the North Vietnamese using his testimony against POWs is, of course, based on the word of those men. Perhaps the Kerry folks will attack their credibility but they will be taking an awful risk in doing so.

edhopper wrote:
"I understand your feelings, but I must disagree. I took part in the march yesterday. It was very large (NY TImes says 500,000) and very peaceful. the only aggression was from some "anti-protesters"."

So, now the protest numbers are swelling to 500,000... sorry, I'm still seeing numbers put at around 100,000-120,000... Of course, the NY Times wouldn't be inflating the numbers simply because they're known to have an axe to grind against Bush, eh? Nah! I wonder if the first day numbers will mysterioulsy climb to a million soon?

NPR is reporting the number at around 500,000. Its very common for the Authorities to low ball the numbers.
They just did a story on the radio about the protestors that were arrested. They are being held without access to lawyers or anyone else. New York City Council members asked to see the proetestors being held cause they heard of this, and they were DENIED access to the protestors. Being detained for protesting usually consist of standing before a judge and then released. IT IS OUTRAGES that anyone is being held for unspecified time for protesting.

"That said, would a Kerry supporter PLEASE tell me why it is right for Kerry to withhold his full military record?"

I'll tell you what, if someone can actually *find* Bush's complete national guard records, I'll call for Kerry to produce his.

"Irrelevant. The problem is the V. You don't get Vs on Silver Stars. Perhaps it is a simple error; if so I'm sure the Kerry folks will be grateful for setting the record straight."

I was wrong. The V was for his Bronze, not Silver Star.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FH31Aa03.html

Thank-you Jason. Instead of watching footage and assuming what was going on this reporter actually talked to people to see what was behind their actions. A good article.

One thing the GOP definitely doesn't need but are gonna get anyway is the leftovers of Tropical Depressiom Gaston tomorow. But then again, all that rain will probably help wash away all the elephant dung and b*llsh*t. ;)

"If yelling at people is aggression then the protest was far more aggressive than you think. Just as an experiment, try holding a pro-Bush sign at the next big protest. Don't say a word, don't glare, don't make faces. just stand there with a sign as the marchers go past.

the level of aggression you have directed at you may be disheartening."

Sorry I guess you weren't there. There were quite a few folks standing along the route holding Bush signs. Mostly they were ignored. These "Protest Warriors" pushed their way into the midst of the march. They were provocative. I assume they wanted to start something more violent, since their stated claim on their website was to distrupt the rally.

"So, now the protest numbers are swelling to 500,000... sorry, I'm still seeing numbers put at around 100,000-120,000... Of course, the NY Times wouldn't be inflating the numbers simply because they're known to have an axe to grind against Bush, eh? Nah! I wonder if the first day numbers will mysterioulsy climb to a million soon?"

NY Times. Knight Ridder, NBC all getting it wrong, huh? I was there. I've been to other protest here that had 100,000 to 200,000 and this was much bigger. The Times underreported those. Maybe they decided to get it right this time?

Karen said:
"Those of you who choose to believe the lies about the service to our country of Kerry and Cleland, but support our troops in Iraq 100% are hypocrites. John O'Neil has hated Kerry since the Senate hearings and is doing what he can to damage his reputation. The US Navy investigated these same claims about Kerry's service back then and found them totally unfounded. Bush, instead of condemning the attack wants to limit our free speech by banning all 527's. Not surprising, since this administration has a problem with all dissent. If you are not for them, you are labeled unpatriotic. I am glad there are protesters in NYC. Protests before the war weren't covered and the women's march on the White House was only partially covered in the news. At least now other Americans can see they are not alone in opposing the policies of the people currently in office."

Allow me to rephrase.

Those of you who choose to believe the lies Democrats spread about our Commander in Chief, but support our troops in Iraq 100% are hypocrites. Terry McAulife has hated Bush since the Democrats lost the 2000 election and is doing what he can to damage his reputation. The press investigated claims about Bush's service back then and found them totally unfounded. Kerry, instead of condemning Democratic 527s, wants to limit our free speech by banning only Republican-sponsered ones. Not surprising, since Kerry has a problem with anyone telling the truth about his past. If you are not for him, even when proved true, you are accused of calling him unpatriotic. I am curious about how the protestors in NYC are going to be covered. The protests in Boston, which the Democrats tried to block (such as a business owner asked to take down an anti-Kerry sign and people forced into small, out-of-the-way protest zones) were very rarely covered by the left-leaning media. The Democrat-controled media does not want anyone to know that people are opposed to Kerry.

spike wrote:
"NPR is reporting the number at around 500,000. Its very common for the Authorities to low ball the numbers."
It could very well be that the numbers given the the authorities are somehwat low, but couldn't it very well be that the numbers being given by the NY Times and NPR (and who's their source? The NY Times?) being way too high?

edhopper wrote:
"NY Times. Knight Ridder, NBC all getting it wrong, huh? I was there. I've been to other protest here that had 100,000 to 200,000 and this was much bigger. The Times underreported those. Maybe they decided to get it right this time?"

Then how do you explain such a huge difference in the numbers being reported? Is it 500,000 or 100,000? Curious, where is Knight Rider and NBC getting their numbers from? The NY Times? Or a different source? Or are all of these places, which you cite, getting their numbers from just one place?
(Of course, anything the NY Times reports I'll take with a grain of salt.)

Allow me to rebut:
"Those of you who choose to believe the lies Democrats spread about our Commander in Chief, but support our troops in Iraq 100% are hypocrites."

What lies? I am strictly talking about service to the country in the military. Are you trying to tell me that Bush DID see combat and the Democrats are saying he did not deserve his medals?

"Terry McAulife has hated Bush since the Democrats lost the 2000 election and is doing what he can to damage his reputation."

Hmmm. 30 years of hatred to 4 years of working against a Bush re-election. There is ample evidence that O'Neil hates Kerry. What is your evidence that McAulife hates Bush?

"The press investigated claims about Bush's service back then and found them totally unfounded."

There are still missing pieces. His service records have not all been found.

"Kerry, instead of condemning Democratic 527s, wants to limit our free speech by banning only Republican-sponsered ones."

He asked Bush to condemn the lies about his service. He did not call for a ban. When McCain asked that ads with him complaining about Bush's treatment of him be pulled, they were. Kerry took responsibility for those ads, even though McCains words are a matter of record. Has Bush called for pulling ads which have been proven false?

"Not surprising, since Kerry has a problem with anyone telling the truth about his past."

Again, where is your evidence? Most of his past is a matter of public record. What lies are you talking about?

"If you are not for him, even when proved true, you are accused of calling him unpatriotic."

And what evidence do you have for this statement? I have not heard any Dem call anyone unpatriotic for disagreeing with them.

"I am curious about how the protestors in NYC are going to be covered. The protests in Boston, which the Democrats tried to block (such as a business owner asked to take down an anti-Kerry sign and people forced into small, out-of-the-way protest zones) were very rarely covered by the left-leaning media. The Democrat-controled media does not want anyone to know that people are opposed to Kerry."

Are you kidding? Do you truly think we don't know there is opposition to Kerry? The protest-zone story was all over the media. I think it more likely that Republicans didn't bother to protest because they think they will win the election without having to resort to that.

As for how many protesters there were, just look at a picture in ANY newspaper. Without an exact count we can all believe that there were A LOT.

I mentioned this before but here is the actual quote from the New York Times:

"The protest organizer, United for Peace and Justice, estimated the crowd at 500,000, rivaling a 1982 antinuclear rally in Central Park, and double the number it had predicted. It was, at best, a rough estimate. The Police Department, as is customary, offered no official estimate, but one officer in touch with the police command center at Madison Square Garden agreed that the crowd appeared to be close to a half-million."

So the Times quotes the organizers and an unnamed cop. I don't see this as particularly biased since they make it clear that these are very rough estimates. Anyone who says that "the Times is reporting that there were 500,000 protestors" is either deliberately being misleading or just doesn't have the facts. It would be like saying that the Times is reporting that Kerry lied about Vietnam when they are actually just quoting the Swift Vets For Truth.

And then he immediately launched a full-scale invasion in defiance of the UN...oh, wait. He didn't.

But hey, at least the GOP pundits who support Bush's unprovoked war efforts were uniliterally behind Clinton when he...oh, wait. They weren't.

Well, hey, color me convinced...PAD

The point of my statement is not if the Republicans "pundits" supported Clinton when he bombed Iraq. The point is Clinton did it without all the hand wrangling from DEMOCRATS. It seems that dems and hundreds of thousand of protestors dont mind Iraqis and us soldiers dying as long as it's by a DEMOCRAT.

The US didnt defy the UN. Resolution 1441 gave power to the colitian to remove Saddam. But since a Republican did it, its wrong in the eyes of PAD. Clinton can bomb the Sudan, Iraq, and Bosnia(our national interest and security were at risk there) back to the stoneage but as long as a D is next the President's name everything is cool.

Oh Micheal Moore was in president's box sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the Dems convention. Can you image if any of the Swift Boat vets were invited to the Republican convention the outrage that would ensue.

As far as what Bush said and what he didnt say. Its all online. His public speeches, the speeches after 9-11 etc. No need for distortions PAD

"That said, would a Kerry supporter PLEASE tell me why it is right for Kerry to withhold his full military record?"

I'll tell you what, if someone can actually *find* Bush's complete National Guard records, I'll call for Kerry to produce his.

So the fact that some of Bush's records have been lost allows Kerry to deliberately hide his? Sounds to me like he may have something to hide, though I suspect that it may be more likely a health issue than anything really involving his service in Vietnam (Kerry has lied at least once about his health to the press).

I don't mean to really pick on Kerry over this, since one only has limited control over the capricious whims of fate where health is involved but given the powers of the presidency, given the fact that we give this person powers once reserved for the Greek Gods, I think that a full, 100% un-redacted release of all health records should be demanded of all candidates.

I'm going to make a prediction: When Bush wins the 2004 Election, it will be because, according to the Left, of the Swift Boat Vets and their "lies" and because of the "vast right wing conspiracy."

I, myself, feel that, in contrast, the Democrats can blame their upcoming failure in significant part on Michael Moore and Richard Clarke and their lies and the partisan media bias.

DW

James:

>Oh Micheal Moore was in president's box sitting next to Jimmy Carter at the Dems convention. Can you image if any of the Swift Boat vets were invited to the Republican convention the outrage that would ensue.

I've actually heard that Moore was not formally invited to the convention and he raised quite a stink to get in and around while there. Knowing quit a bit about Carter's character, it isn't a far strtch to imagine him playing the hospital and charitable type, letting Moore sit there to avoid problems.

As far as a possible loss in the upcoming elctions being in large part to Moore, I'd like to hear your reasoning Darin. Although Moore tends to be a lightening rod for controversy and his films largely questioned, I haven't made note of anything he has done to effect Kerry in any other way than to raise issues to a boiling point for the electorate a few months before it would have happened anyways. Certainly can't figure out any way in which Moore has hurt Kerry. If anything, Moore has only hurt Moore as far as most critics that I've talked with.

Fred

"I, myself, feel that, in contrast, the Democrats can blame their upcoming failure in significant part on Michael Moore and Richard Clarke and their lies and the partisan media bias."

Please give examples of Clarke's lies.
Iraq seeking uranium?
Meetings dealing with Iraq invasion in Jan O1?
Diversions of millions from the Afgan War to Iraq without congressional approval?

And the media really exposed hoe flismy the case for WMDs was before the war.

Give me a effing break.

Please give examples of Clarke's lies.
try
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,604598,00.html

At the very least, he seems to alter stories to fit whatever is useful to him at the time he tells them.

I was going to post a long response here. Someone really pissed me off.

But, I caught myself.

All I can say is this:
If people were looking for an intelligent conversation from two different parties to understand which person they would vote for. Well, if they came here, they'd end up voting for Green Part or Nader. But they'd definitely not vote for the jackasses or the pachyderms.

Travis

Just watched McCain's speech. How refreshing. Support for his candidate without attacking his opponents. I liked his speech very much. Hasn't changed my mind, but more positive politics is always appreciated.

Sorry I guess you weren't there. There were quite a few folks standing along the route holding Bush signs. Mostly they were ignored. These "Protest Warriors" pushed their way into the midst of the march. They were provocative. I assume they wanted to start something more violent, since their stated claim on their website was to distrupt the rally.

Just to show an alternate view-- try http://blindpig.blogs.com/outside_the_perimeter/2004/08/when_anarchists.html
It's a video so you don't just have to take someone's word on it.

Just out of curiosity...when you say that they "pushed their way into the midst of the march"...exactly what WERE the ground rules for marching? I assumed that anyone could march--was there some kind of registration? Loyalty oath?

Nice speach by McCain, BTW

Karen wrote:

>>>Bush, instead of condemning the attack wants to limit our free speech by banning all 527's. Not surprising, since this administration has a problem with all dissent.

Face it... Bush has been hammered by the left in films, newspapers and on TV since he took office, but in the past six months, the anti-Bush fervor has reached unprecedented proportions -- including in what once was, for a while, somewhat of a refuge from the back-biting and name-calling -- the venerable book store. My second home is in book stores, and I can't walk anywhere in one now without passing row after row of books demonizing Bush. I didn't vote for Bush in 2000, but it's to the point now I feel sorry for the guy, because I know that the majority of attacks are just far-left crap.

One anti-Bush book, for example, is by a New York Times columnist whose column was once recommended to me as a "must read" by an acquaintance. Well, I read it, and my journalism school alarm bells suddenly started clanging like crazy. So I went to the columnist's Web site and read another. Then another. And another. Soon, I had a revelation. In the four years this columnist had been writing about Bush (generally a couple of times a week), he never ONCE had a positive word to say about Bush or Bush's administration.And so it goes with many of these other authors.

And now that the Republicans are striking back with just a fraction of the fervor as the leftists, the cries of "Republican Spin Machine" are suddenly everywhere. As an independent, I find this quite humorous, because, by comparison, the Republican "machine" is a mere Tinkertoy compared to the Democratic Spin Machine.

And the irony of it all is that despite the fact that the Democrats are outspending the Republicans in combined hard/soft money, they are actually losing ground.

Yep! Free speech works both ways, even if you don't like the outcome.

Whoa...I thought McCain was good but Gulliani hit the ball out of the park.

Karen wrote: "He asked Bush to condemn the lies about his service. He did not call for a ban. When McCain asked that ads with him complaining about Bush's treatment of him be pulled, they were. Kerry took responsibility for those ads, even though McCains words are a matter of record. Has Bush called for pulling ads which have been proven false?"

You clearly don't understand the new laws that ironically a moderate (McCain) and a liberal (Feinberg -- sp??) wrote. Bush could not ask for the ads to be pulled. In fact, according to the letter of the law, that would be coordination and would be gainst the law. My memory is that the ads Kerry pulled were ones he approved.

For the wishful thinkers who blame Bush for this law, go recheck the record. This was opposed by many of us conservatives. It was moderates and liberals who wanted this and Bush gave them what they wanted (believe it or not, I can make a list of things Bush does I do not agree with, even though I support him!!).

It is amazing the way there is a double standard. I don't know the exact figures anymore, but Democrats have spent at least 80% more (I think the exact figures is 150 million versus about 20 million) on attack ads. The difference is, the Republicans "attack machine" ran ads that must have hit close to the truth. They did not have to spend 3 years promoting a lie (such as that Bush "stole" the elections). They just had to point out the historical fact that Kerry was anti-war when he returned from Vietnam. They just pointed out the fact that Kerry himself made contradictory claims about his time in Vietnam. They just pointed out that Kerry has no record to run on for his 19 years in the Senate. And the list goes on.

Ignore the fact that Bush called for all ads to be pulled. He is clearly, and without nuance or wiggle room, stating repeatedly on the record that John Kerry served honorably. Comapre that to Kerry who continues to raise false allegations about Bush. Their actions speak for themselves.

Jim in Iowa

b)Kerry has for the most part run a campaign that is above board and does not rely on the type of tactics that the Bush camp is using.

Funny. I don't remember the Bush campaign or the Republicans demanding that F9/11 not be shown in movie theaters because it "contains falsehoods." In fact, until McCain's speech today at the RNC, Moore and that crapmentary had went largely unmentioned by the Republicans. Outside of the inevitable few protest groups, the Republicans have been largely pro free speech regarding all the anti-Bush, anti-Cheney, and anti-Republican books/movies/etc.

Compare and contrast this with the Kerry campaign. They have actually resorted to legal threats in order to prevent TV stations from airing those SwiftBoatVets ads. And they've outright tried to prevent anybody from publishing "Unfit for Command."

And hey Peter David? You're the biggest First Amendment supporter around here, even to the point of allowing somebody like that "shrouded" troll run around amok for way longer than it deserved to. Heck, you even let me post on your blog despite my nasty actions to you several years ago. There is no question how highly you value the First Amendment. So why have you been absolutely mum on this subject? The Kerry campaign is outright attempting to supress free speech! But not a peep from you.

Second, Kerry is running a far more negative campaign than Bush is. His whole acceptance speech at the DNC was basically "I'm better than Bush! BETTER! You hear me, BETTER!" without explaining why. Thus far, I've seen Kerry attack Bush on inconsequental things such as his stint with the National Guard, the "infamous" seven minutes (nevermind the fact that Kerry admits to sitting there in stunned silence for thirty-five minutes), and his so-called "web of connections" to the Saudis. Kerry has not really debated any of Bush's policies (perhaps because just about all of Kerry's policies echoes Bush's policies -- Kerry really is Bush-Lite when it comes to his policy).

On the other side, Bush has had nothing but glowing praise for Kerry's Vietnam stint. Bush's attacks on Kerry thus far has been contained to Kerry's extremely poor Senate record. Which *is* fair game. Bush has actually condemened the SBV ads, but when he challenged Kerry to do the same thing and condemn 527's all Kerry could do was mutter "well you didn't say it exactly the way I wanted you to!"

Let's not forget the fact that roughly 80% of the money spent by the 527 groups have been anti-Bush. Kerry benefits from the 527's far more than Bush does, which is why he refuses to condemn those groups. But he has no problems at all condemning the pro-Republican 20%.

As far as the SBV attacking Kerry on Vietnam ... it was Kerry who made it an issue by "reporting for duty" at the DNC. He made the bed, he can sleep in it.

And finally, this piece of idiocy:

Better yet! Maybe the President who spent more than 40% of his time on vacation in the months between his inauguration and 9/11 can accuse Kerry of missing too many senate meetings, and the ditto-heads will echo that one, too!

Please, stop getting your facts from F9/11. That "42% vacation time" figure has long since been disproved. That figure included weekends (which, assuming you worked the standard five-workdays week, would automatically give you 29% "vacation time" right there) and "working vacations" at Camp David and his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

The actual "vacation time" figure is about 13%.

Stats taken from: http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm

In short, don't take your cues from F9/11. That movie has been proven worthless.

I don't think Bush should pull the ads. They are not his to pull. I think he should condemn the ads. The military had already investigated the swiftboat vets for "truth"s claims 30 years ago and they were unfounded then as they are now. There is no double standard. How much has the Bush campaign raised? If you want to talk money then moveon.org's contribution is a pittance compared to what is in the Bush war chest. You are comparing apples and oranges. What false allegations has Kerry raised against Bush? I'd like to know because I've heard about underfunded education, job loss, an economy in shambles, and tax cuts for the wealthy. Which ones are you considering lies?

I don't believe for one second that President Bush's military records are "lost". No way, no how, not with all the record keeping in the government. How convenient that they are not to be seen. Just like the missing segment of the Nixon tapes. Hmmm....
Hermann way above wrote:
" I wonder what would happen if the government offered a tax deduction for proof of voting?"
The Australian system goes one better: anyone NOT voting gets a fine (which I believe shows up on their tax bills so it can't be avoided). They get 95%+ turnouts every time.

If this years election doesn't get a decent turnout, then I don't know what will motivate Americans.

PAD responded to "Bush, for the most part, has attempted what he promised."
by saying
"Yes. That's the most horrifying thing of all."

Personally I think the horrifying thing is how badly he's bungled all of it. Afghanistan stumbles back into the situation that created the Taliban rule, atrocities at Abu Ghraib, needless casualties, cost over-runs... I was disgusted in 2000 to see a fake Republican run against a real one, who knew it would turn out that Gore/Lieberman were the real Republican candidates in that race?

Karen,
You keep making these claims that are absolutely untrue! And you say people like Rush (who I never listen to, by the way, but you bring him up quite often) don't check their facts?
If you actually, you know, take a look at the numbers,
A.) Bush and Kerry actually have raised about the same. Bush currently has more to spend because his convention is a month later.
B.) If Bush has raised more, it is because people like myself have donated to his campaign. It is the first time i have made a monetary contribution to a candisate for President. That's how important I think it is. Anyway, it is a FACT that the Republicans, the so-called "party of the rich", receive more contributions of $500 or less than the "defender of the underdog" Dems do. We don't receive contributions by most of the Hollywood elite, Big Labor or George Soros. We make it up in numbers.
C.)Really, MoveOn.Org's budget has hardly been a "pittance", ESPECIALLY when talking about 527s. I don't believe the SwiftBoatVets even now would have enough money to attempt to buy ads during the Super Bowl, which MoveOn.Org obviously had BACK IN JANUARY (and whic should have been allowed to run by the way. I am for free speech).
D.) What is dishonest about the second SwiftBoat ad? It's Kerry's own words. They're haunting him? My heart bleeds.
E.) McCain is the one who co-authored the inane campaign finance "reform" we have now in the first place, and now HE is filing suit to stop 527s from running ads. Are you angry at him as well? Or is it only "suppression" when Dubya does it?

PAD said: "To be fair, I think when she said "no one" she was referring to the people in the administration actually running the war. You know: The draft dodgers whose agents are trying to smear the candidate who did NOT dodge the draft."

This kind of language is beneath you, PAD. For most of my life I have had to listen to these jackasses call people who used legitimate options and deferments "draft dodgers," as if there's any dishonor in not wanting to get shot at.

Quote the hypocrites who claimed (at least until early 99) that Vietnam service is a prereq for credibility, tell the Kerry naysayers that an unimpressive 4 months is 120 days more than GW ever served overseas. Whatever. But don't join those jerks in their namecalling just because it's currently working in your favor.

karen wrote:
"As for how many protesters there were, just look at a picture in ANY newspaper. Without an exact count we can all believe that there were A LOT."

Yes Karen, there were definitely a lot of people... but there's a big differnce in claiming there were 500,000 people versus other claims of about 100,000--120,000 people. 500,000 is just such an inflated number.

Just to show an alternate view-- try http://blindpig.blogs.com/outside_the_perimeter/2004/08/when_anarchists.html
It's a video so you don't just have to take someone's word on it.

Ha! Hundreds of thousands shouting down Bush but a handful of guys supporting the President of the United States deserve to be attacked?

Bush is the Nazi? Republicans are the attack machine? Conservatives are violent war mongers?

More tale of peace-loving first amendment fans can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/31/politics/campaign/31protest.html?ei=5006&en=a9ba78aba9c3fa99&ex=1094616000&partner=ALTAVISTA1&pagewanted=print&position=

It's from that right wing rag The New York Times. (And kudos to the Times for reporting the uncomfortable truth.)

Seriously, give these geeks a bunch of brown shirts and armbands.

Whoa...I thought McCain was good but Gulliani hit the ball out of the park.

To quote Giuliani:
"We need George Bush more than ever."

Yeah, he just proved to me that he's a bigger idiot than I imagined.

"So the fact that some of Bush's records have been lost allows Kerry to deliberately hide his?"

Not all, but if you're going to demand that Kerry produce his in their entirety, it's only fair that Bush do the same. Saying that they're lost seems awfully convenient, don't you think? Especially given that when he allegedly transfered to another state, no one seems to remember actually seeing him report for duty.

Jerome,
It has been widely reported that the Bush fund raising has been way more effective than Kerry's. Also, stop bringing up Hollywood types. There are plenty who are Republican as well. Ron Silver and Stephen Baldwin were at the convention last night and I'm sure, just as at the Dem convention, they will be pulling more pro-Bush stars out through the week. What about Charleton Heston? What about Dennis Miller? There are many others, but I don't seriously follow the political leanings of Hollywood, so I'll let someone else do a more complete list. And I think McCain is wrong also. I wrote above that I think the ads that are lies should be condemned. I never said they should not be allowed to air. There is still a little thing called the 1st amendment.

Karen:

>It has been widely reported that the Bush fund raising has been way more effective than Kerry's. Also, stop bringing up Hollywood types. There are plenty who are Republican as well. Ron Silver and Stephen Baldwin were at the convention last night and I'm sure, just as at the Dem convention, they will be pulling more pro-Bush stars out through the week. What about Charleton Heston? What about Dennis Miller? There are many others, but I don't seriously follow the political leanings of Hollywood, so I'll let someone else do a more complete list. And I think McCain is wrong also. I wrote above that I think the ads that are lies should be condemned. I never said they should not be allowed to air. There is still a little thing called the 1st amendment.

Everytime Hollywood actors get knocked for their pushing a candidate, I shake my head and know that I'd feel a lot more comfortable if all who were pushing cadnidates were as public about it. Much better to have public Hollywood types giving time and money, than the plethora of faceless, multi-millionaires and billionaires who not only give their ungodly resources to the Republican Party, but also have a heavy hand in development of policy.

I'm surprised that more people don't focus on this, rather than simply look at the evil Hollywood.

"NPR is reporting the number at around 500,000. Its very common for the Authorities to low ball the numbers."

Really, then you actually believe the Million Man March was actually that big???

Ron Silver supports Nader, not Bush.

Nonetheless, hespoke at the convention and was very supportive of Bush. One doesn't usually speak at a convention if one is not for the candidate.

Karen said:

"What lies? I am strictly talking about service to the country in the military. Are you trying to tell me that Bush DID see combat and the Democrats are saying he did not deserve his medals?"

And I was talking about the myriad of lies Democrats have told about Bush.

Bush went AWOL: Lie.
Bush lied about WMDs: Lie.
Bush is connected with the SBV: Lie.
Anyone who speaks otu against Bush is punished (a viewpoint you have stated more than once): Lie.

"Hmmm. 30 years of hatred to 4 years of working against a Bush re-election. There is ample evidence that O'Neil hates Kerry. What is your evidence that McAulife hates Bush?"

You're joking, right? You have to be joking.

"There are still missing pieces. His service records have not all been found."

Which does NOT prove he did anything wrong. Jesus, Kerry REFUSES to release his records, so that does that automatically mean there's something hidden in there? Riddle me that...

"He asked Bush to condemn the lies about his service. He did not call for a ban. When McCain asked that ads with him complaining about Bush's treatment of him be pulled, they were. Kerry took responsibility for those ads, even though McCains words are a matter of record. Has Bush called for pulling ads which have been proven false?"

He did not call for a ban? So, sending letters to television stations telling them not to run the ads and threatening to file lawsuits is the epitome of free speech? Honestly, that would sound better coming from anyone but you, who keeps harping about fictional sanctions made against Democrats who area gainst Bush. In any case, Bush has NO CONTACT with the SBV, no matter what magical world the Democrats live in where tenuous connections exist. Hey, is the fact that I work in the same school district as Alice Cooper went to school at forty years ago mean that my Repubilcan masters are behind his recent statements? Must be, because all that's needed is a possible connection, not real proof.

And no, as fasr as I know, Bush hasn't called for the end to Democratic ads that are strict lies, and since most of them are, I think I can confidently say that unlike Kerry and the Democratic party, Bush believes in free speech.

"Again, where is your evidence? Most of his past is a matter of public record. What lies are you talking about?"

What do you mean "Again?" Let's look at the facts:
Which candidate and party tried to block legal ads from being shown on TV? Democrats.
Which candidate and party threatened to sue in order to keep the ads from shownig? Democrats.
Which party is wishing that protestors back off? Democrats.
Which candidate refuses to allow any discussion of the issue to occur? Democrats.

As for lies, after hearing Dean, Gore, Kennedy and McCaulife spout out about how Bush lied about WMDs, something the 9-11 Commission definitively stated was NOT TRUE, how can you even say with a straight face those people haven't been telling lies about Bush?

"And what evidence do you have for this statement? I have not heard any Dem call anyone unpatriotic for disagreeing with them."

Oh, well, if you haven't heard of it. Just because it happens every single time...

"Are you kidding? Do you truly think we don't know there is opposition to Kerry? The protest-zone story was all over the media. I think it more likely that Republicans didn't bother to protest because they think they will win the election without having to resort to that."

Well, the part about the Republicans winning the election isn't in dispute, true.

Charles K,
Nice point-by-point post. Thanks.

"Nonetheless, hespoke at the convention and was very supportive of Bush. One doesn't usually speak at a convention if one is not for the candidate."

I missed him speaking at the convention, but saw him on After Hours and he was supporting Nader.

Karen,
I'm glad to see that we at least agree on the First Amendment and that campaign-finance laws, particularly McCain-Feingold, are more trouble than they're worth at best, and undemocratic at worst. Political ads are the only way for candidates or those who support them to get their message out unfiltered. I find it amazing that there are those who are First Amendment absolutists, who don't believe in "hate speech" and who feel that warning labels on rap albums are "repressive", yet favor campaign-finance restrictions because of the supposed "problem" of money in politics. THe MAIN PURPOSE of the First Amendment is the right to speak out for or against the government! That's one of the fundamental rights that makes the U.S. special! So, I say let everyone from MoveOn.Org to the SwiftBoatVets be heard. The only people who really whine about them are the candidates made to look bad and the mainstream media who lose their monopolistic control over filtering and reporting and spinning the campaigns.

Jerome,
Don't forget the Republican and Democratic parties, too. I'm sure they aren't happy that they don't get to control everything that gets on the air.

Charles K,
One day the truth of this administration will come out and it won't be pretty. You may believe Bush completed his service, told the truth about WMD's, and has no relationship to SBV, but at least 50% of this country don't.

Karen,
You may believe Bush went AWOL, lied about WMD's, and is behind SBV, but at least 50% of this country don't.

Funny how words can be twisted against you, eh?

Starving:

>>Karen,
You may believe Bush went AWOL, lied about WMD's, and is behind SBV, but at least 50% of this country don't.

>Funny how words can be twisted against you, eh?

I have a hard time believing that half the country could be wrong..... I'm much more cynical/realistic than that. It's much more likely that we are all being deceived. :)

You may believe Bush went AWOL,

Do we have Bush's record to prove otherwise?

lied about WMD's,

Do we have WMD to prove otherwise?

and is behind SBV,

Well, it was Bush's lawyer, not Kerry's, who resigned for having given advice to the SBV group.

But then, the GOP opening fire on Kerry shouldn't be a surprise - they've opened fire on just about anybody else who's gotten in their way these last 4 years.

Still more stories of gentle protestors, from the nazi stooges at reuters:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040830/us_nm/campaign_protest_broadway_dc_4

I especially like the reasoned, well thought out point "Republican murderers go home and kill your babies!". Good to see those deabate team skills carry on into adult life.

"I have a hard time believing that half the country could be wrong..... "

I have a hard time believing that half the country is any where close to an accurate figure!

Most likely 30% or less!

"Do we have Bush's record to prove otherwise?"

The lack of MP hunting him down seems more telling than the lack of 30 year old military records!

"And hey Peter David? You're the biggest First Amendment supporter around here, even to the point of allowing somebody like that "shrouded" troll run around amok for way longer than it deserved to. Heck, you even let me post on your blog despite my nasty actions to you several years ago. There is no question how highly you value the First Amendment. So why have you been absolutely mum on this subject? The Kerry campaign is outright attempting to supress free speech! But not a peep from you."

I tend to think it would be obvious: The First Amendment doesn't support libel and slander. And considering you've got people who back in 1996 stood next to Kerry and called him a hero now claiming he's a coward, I think the "reckless disregard for the truth" test is reasonable.

PAD

Kerry not wanting to address the charges of the book and instead wanting to silence them tells the real story, I think. If these accusations are indeed libel and slander, then he is in a position of strength. But he isn't behaving as though he is in a position of strength, is he? Michael Moore makes a high profile movie full of documented and proven lies and slanderous accusations and Bush did nothing to stop people from seeing it. Why can't Kerry be that cool about one book and three tv ads?

From Karen:
"You may believe Bush completed his service..."

Yeah, well there's always that pesky little honorable discharge from the National Guard that says he completed his service.

Oh, I see, we can believe Military records when it comes to Bush's discharge, but things like medals are unearned and the records are wrong when it comes to Kerry. Thanks for clearing this up for me.

250 vets whose story hasn't changed vs. Kerry (who has changed stories at least 5 times just on the Christmas in Cambodia) and his 14 vets on his side. Karen........ you do the math... : D

I tend to think it would be obvious: The First Amendment doesn't support libel and slander. And considering you've got people who back in 1996 stood next to Kerry and called him a hero now claiming he's a coward, I think the "reckless disregard for the truth" test is reasonable.

Just so that I get this straight.

Had the Republicans attempted to shut down Moore's crockumentary, which shows a "reckless disregard for the truth" (as many websites have documented), you would've been OK with it?

Just asking.

You are not understanding, to PAD F9/11 was truth and SBV are liars, so it would hamper the 1st Admendment to stop Moore but not the Veterans.

See, 1st Admendment rights are dependent on PAD's point-of-view.

From Karen:
"You may believe Bush completed his service..."

From Jeff:
"Yeah, well there's always that pesky little honorable discharge from the National Guard that says he completed his service."

I'm an Army Reservist. Trust me, that "honorable discharge" is no validation of the actual service that a member put in to get it. You can have gaps of months upon months, and still qualify for such discharge. The real problem when you want to RETIRE from a reserve or guard component with such a spotty record; you need to to perform enough duty each year of service to earn enough points to have them qualify as "good years" towards retirement. You need 20 good years to retire.

I saw the new SBV ad and it is not filled with lies. The men talk about how they felt betrayed when Kerry went before Congress. (Let's forget about the fact that atrocities were committed in Vietnam) This ad doesn't denigrate his service, but disagrees with his actions after the war. This one is more honest. I still think it was courageous of Kerry to go before the Senate hearing to relate what other vets had told him about their time in country. And I still think the first ad lied about the actions he took while in Vietnam. But I will concede that this one is more a matter of their opinion instead of distorting Kerry's military record.

Oh, and while the SBV's try to rewrite history to deny that horrendous things happened, we still have vets with flashbacks due to horrors they witnessed or perpetrated.

Karen,
Although I usually dsagree with you, vehemently, let me say do enjoy talking with you since
1.) You're almost never vicious (sometmes I've even 've been accused of going on diatribes, if you can believe that:)
2.) You at least attempt to be "fair" when listening to the other side of the debate
Yes, I actually fnd the recent SBV much more effective than the first. Regardless of the perceived fairness or accuracy of the first ad, the truth is none of us were there. I frmly beleve the SBV's depcton of events, but there's no way any of us can know for sure.
But Kerry's TESTIMONY back in 1971 s definitely far game. THAT s how he ntally made a name for hmself, and t was those words that hurt many Vetnam vets to ths day. Even McCain said that stuff was fair game.

Catori,
"The problem is many people on the right equate askng Bush to justify his actions with Bush bashing."

Uh,no. We don't.
1.) We consider Bush constantly called a fascist as Bush bashng.
2.)We consider Bush constantly beng compared to Hitler Bush bashng.
3.) We consider Julian Bond wondering aloud at an NAACP Conventon if Bush was going "to repeal the 14th Amendment" as Bush bashing.
4.) We consider Al Gore saying Bush "betrayed ths country!" to be Bush bashng.
5.) We consider Michael Moore's lies - not his opinions, but his outright lies to be Bush bashng.
6.) We consider the people who say (and I have heard them say it to my face) that they would "rather vote for Osama Bin Laden than Bush" to be Bush bashing, in additon to being insane and offensive.
7.) We find the contnuous portrayal as "dumb" or an "idiot" to be Bush bashing
8.) We find the New York Times runnng 43 front page stories in 47 days on Abu Ghraib incidents to be Bush bashing, especially most of the stores contained nothing new. I mean, if they did that many front page stories on education or the environment, we may actually get somewhere. But those stores would not hurt Bush nearly as much as this "scandal".
9.) We find Howard Dean inferrng that the Administraton was raisng terror levels for poltical gain to be Bush bashng
10.) We fnd the repeated callng of Bush to be a "liar", "coward", "deceiver" and "inept clod" to be Bush bashing
Just to, you know, set the record straight.

"Kerry not wanting to address the charges of the book and instead wanting to silence them tells the real story, I think. If these accusations are indeed libel and slander, then he is in a position of strength. But he isn't behaving as though he is in a position of strength, is he?"

Right. Because aggressively saying that people are lying about you and that you want them to stop lying about you is a sign of weakness.

Coming soon: Up is down and black is white.

PAD

Karen,
I find it unfortunate you had to post that last statement statng that the SBV's are trying to "rewrite history". No, it's you that has a warped view of history if you feel that way. Of COURSE many Vietnam vets have flashbacks due to thngs that happened. So do many World War II and Persian Gulf vets. But Vietnam was unique. First, it may take you three months to get home during World WarII, durng which they could decompress and prepare to reenter society. In Vietnam, one could be on the battlefield one day and home the next. Plus, of course, they had the lovely protesters calling them "babykllers" and people saying the war was dishonorable. Kerry's testimony fed into that horrible stereotype and has the effect of making atrocities commtted in Vietnam seem to be routine and par for the course. He painted them all with the same brush, and now you pretty much have done the same thing. I'm dsapponted, and more than a little hurt. My father served in Vietnam, and he almost NEVER talks about it. But he does get hurt when he sees movies like "Platoon". He'll say to me, "It wasn't like that. Honest." And 'll say, "I know, dad." But that's the stereotype, of the drug using, women and chldren killing, village burning Vietnam soldier. It's a stereotype Kerry played a huge part - heck, maybe the major part - in advancing as truth, and for that I will never forgive him.

"Had the Republicans attempted to shut down Moore's crockumentary, which shows a "reckless disregard for the truth" (as many websites have documented), you would've been OK with it?"

You mean the way that Jeb Bush pressured Disney into dumping the film lest they suddenly find various tax advantages stripped from them in Florida? Or could you be referring to the way the GOP went after the Reagan biopic and drove it off network TV? Like that? You do realize those films found an audience in spite of GOP interference, not because of lack of it.

God, you people are so full of crap.

People who support a "compassionate conservative" who has governed as an arch conservative abrogate the right to complain about a liberal positioning himself as a centrist. People who support someone whose dad pulled strings to keep him out of the draft abrogate the right to complain about someone who went willingly to the draft. People who support someone who blindly got us into a war abrogate the right to complain about someone who doesn't have a magic plan to get us out of that war. People who support someone whose major prior accomplishments were failed business ventures and being a lousy governor, abrogate the right to claim that someone with twenty years of government service has an undistinguished record. People who support someone who has trouble stringing together coherent sentences abrogate the right to complain about someone because they talk slowly and pedantically. People who support a war monger abrogate the right to complain about someone who protested war.

And really...seriously...if my opinions are so bothersome to you, which they obviously are...feel free to note the "exit" door. It's over on the right.

PAD

PAD:
"You mean the way that Jeb Bush pressured Disney into dumping the film lest they suddenly find various tax advantages stripped from them in Florida? Or could you be referring to the way the GOP went after the Reagan biopic and drove it off network TV? Like that? You do realize those films found an audience in spite of GOP interference, not because of lack of it."

And yet, both of these products saw distribution. Disney had problems with F/9-11 from the very beginning and the Disney execs were probably glad to have the film taken off their hands because of the built in controversy around it. There are lots of things Disney (Eisner) has done wrong, but chosing not to alienate roughly half of the US isn't one of them. The Reagans got to air also. Viacom changed their original plans because of viewer and advertiser complaints.

Kerry had lawyers trying to stop the SBV ads which are legal following the McCain-Feingold bill, and stopping the ads anyway would be an infringement of the 1st Ammendment. Wanna take a guess on how Kerry and Edwards both voted on that bill?

There is no "Truth In Advertising" law when it comes to political commericals. So, even if the ads were totally full of lies it's still legal to run them. The only way a station could not run the ad would be to turn down every political ad, and there's just too much money involved for a broadcasting station to do that (for better or worse).

Karen says
"Oh, and while the SBV's try to rewrite history to deny that horrendous things happened, we still have vets with flashbacks due to horrors they witnessed or perpetrated."

I don't know that they deny that ANY horrendous things happened. However it IS undeniable that SOME of the incidents that Kerry talked about were made up--the meeting he was referring to had more than a few tellers of tales who later turned out to have not been actual Vietnam vets.

I think that Kerry may take the opportunity today to apologize (he's speaking to a Vets group). It may be the only way to get this behind him. If done well an apology can make you look stronger (though it helps if it isn't done when there is beginning to be a clear whiff of flop-sweat).

PAD says:
""You mean the way that Jeb Bush pressured Disney into dumping the film lest they suddenly find various tax advantages stripped from them in Florida?"

Was this ever actually proven to be anything more than something imagined by Michael Moore? The story that Disney "suddenly" dumped the film was shown to be untrue--they had warned Miramax that they would not support the film long before it was finished and Miramax just figured they'd change their mind.

If there is ANY evidence at all implicating Jeb Bush in malfeasence regarding this film could someone point it out? Or is this a comforting urban legend?

As for the rest of your stement, I'll chalk it up to grumpiness at the (so far) success of the Republican convention. "Abrogate the right to complain"??? Yikes! I should have such power...

People who support a "compassionate conservative" who has governed as an arch conservative abrogate the right to complain about a liberal positioning himself as a centrist.

Not when we disagree with some of the compassionate conservative agenda (aka the Medicare expansion).

People who support someone whose dad pulled strings to keep him out of the draft abrogate the right to complain about someone who went willingly to the draft.

Some of us never complained about it and would rather focus on issues.

People who support someone who blindly got us into a war abrogate the right to complain about someone who doesn't have a magic plan to get us out of that war.

Wrong. Kerry is saying he's going to "get us out of Iraq" and "get more allies into Iraq". I want details. What magic foreign policy is going to get more allies into a war zone at the same time we are pulling out? I don't think asking for a bit more information is irrelevant. The same details I wanted when we went into Iraq. (This of course leads to the inevitable screaming of "Bush Lied", "No, it was bad intelligence", so let's stipulate that we disagree on that.)

People who support someone whose major prior accomplishments were failed business ventures and being a lousy governor, abrogate the right to claim that someone with twenty years of government service has an undistinguished record.

It's not that he has an undistinguished record, it's that he doesn't want to talk very much about his Senate record - which is far more relevant to me than his Vietnam service. Why is it that Kerry voted for presidential authority in Iraq, but not for the money? He says it's because the President needs that authority. If true, then why did he vote against the first Iraq War when we had UN backing and an international coalition? He has a consistent record of voting for increased taxes and increased entitlement spending - something I don't like as a general rule.

People who support a war monger abrogate the right to complain about someone who protested war.

Again, not an issue for me.

This is like saying people who don't vote shouldn't complain. They have every right to complain, but they should start complaining at the ballot box instead of the water cooler.

Bottom line - a person doesn't abrogate their right to question Kerry just because they support Bush. The last I checked, that right was pretty well guaranteed.

"God, you people are so full of crap.

People who support a "compassionate conservative" who has governed as an arch conservative abrogate the right to complain about a liberal positioning himself as a centrist. People who support someone whose dad pulled strings to keep him out of the draft abrogate the right to complain about someone who went willingly to the draft. People who support someone who blindly got us into a war abrogate the right to complain about someone who doesn't have a magic plan to get us out of that war. People who support someone whose major prior accomplishments were failed business ventures and being a lousy governor, abrogate the right to claim that someone with twenty years of government service has an undistinguished record. People who support someone who has trouble stringing together coherent sentences abrogate the right to complain about someone because they talk slowly and pedantically. People who support a war monger abrogate the right to complain about someone who protested war.

And really...seriously...if my opinions are so bothersome to you, which they obviously are...feel free to note the "exit" door. It's over on the right."

PAD

Does your little diatribe work in reverse? If not, then... meh, I'm unimpressed. As for your final sentiment, this time I will chalk it up to the lateness of the hour of your post. Because I really don't believe you're telling everyone who disagrees with you not to support your work, which they may well enjoy despite your rabid liberalism and frightening double standards. Or are we to support your work, but as far as our opinions go, we should cram it?

Blackjack:

>>And really...seriously...if my opinions are so bothersome to you, which they obviously are...feel free to note the "exit" door. It's over on the right."
>>PAD

>Does your little diatribe work in reverse? If not, then... meh, I'm unimpressed. As for your final sentiment, this time I will chalk it up to the lateness of the hour of your post. Because I really don't believe you're telling everyone who disagrees with you not to support your work, which they may well enjoy despite your rabid liberalism and frightening double standards. Or are we to support your work, but as far as our opinions go, we should cram it?

Actually, there is some history between PAD and Starving Writer. I'm pretty sure that this statement was directed at him.

Posted by Fred Chamberlain at September 1, 2004 09:54 AM
"Actually, there is some history between PAD and Starving Writer. I'm pretty sure that this statement was directed at him."

If that's the case, then I apologize for overreacting. Long morning, my bad.

Actually, there is some history between PAD and Starving Writer. I'm pretty sure that this statement was directed at him.

That doesn't exactly match up with:

God, you people are so full of crap.

(emphasis mine)

PAD is always talking about choosing words carefully. If he really meant this for just one person, then he should have said so. As it is, the rest of the statement comes off as a blanket statement against Bush supporters.

PAD,
So people "abrogate the right to complain" (a line you used six times) if...well, basically if they view Bush in a positve light at all, obviously. Quite ironic comng from a First Amendment absolutist like yourself. You have stated on more than one occason that you want this site to be an "intellectual garden" and an "exchange of ideas", but your last diatribe makes it sound like deep down, you feel you are 100% correct, and everyone who disagrees that Bush is a "warmonger", "Blindly" led us into a war, or that Kerry's actions 33 years ago were less than honorable not only have differing opinions from you, but are flat out wrong. know you and Starving Writer have some history, and what he did s beyond sleazy - which is why I have yet to talk to him - but most of the rest of the Bush supporters on this board did not deserve your attack.

Jerome says:
"...your last diatribe makes it sound like deep down, you feel you are 100% correct, and everyone who disagrees that Bush is a "warmonger", "Blindly" led us into a war, or that Kerry's actions 33 years ago were less than honorable not only have differing opinions from you, but are flat out wrong."

I don't mind being called flat out wrong--after all, I think the same of the person doing the calling--but the whole "abrogate" thing was kinda weird. Don't really see where we could do anything of the kind...I suppose PAD could abrogate our access to the site but that doesn't seem like something he'd do and I think the site would lose a lot of character (not to mention characters). But it seems like the kerry slide is raising temeperatures among those who had begun to see him as having a better than fighting chance at winning (and for the record I think it's WAY WAY WAY to early to even consider writing off Kerry's chances. Being a few points down in the polls this far from the election is no big deal. A good showing at the debates could seal the deal for either candidate and I think that Kerry can expect a bounce from the inevitable Tet Offensive that the Iraqi inssurgents will do if they have anything resembling a a brain in their heads).

Well, it's begun. Any comments on this?

AIDS activists interrupt Republican event
Last Updated Wed, 01 Sep 2004 15:45:42 EDT

NEW YORK - Activists criticizing U.S. President George W. Bush's record on fighting AIDS disrupted the Republican National Convention on Wednesday, blowing whistles and chanting "Bush kills" as young Republicans and security officers tackled them.

The incident came just after Bush's 22-year-old daughters Jenna and Barbara left the convention's main stage at Madison Square Garden. They had introduced White House chief of staff Andrew Card to a gathering of youth delegates.

About 10 activists jumped up from where they had been sitting, drowning out Card's speech with their chants of "Bush kills," "Stop AIDS now" and "Bush lies."

That enraged the youth delegates, who tackled the protesters and scuffled with them until police officers and Secret Service agents could move in.

Officers dragged one female activist out of the arena by her knees and shoulders as television cameras rolled.

The AIDS-awareness group ACT UP claimed responsibility for the incident.

Security was expected to be much tighter on Wednesday night when Vice-President Dick Cheney is scheduled to speak to Republican delegates in the same room.

Thousands of protesters have descended upon New York for the duration of the Republican event, which concludes on Thursday night with Bush's formal acceptance of his party's presidential nomination.

On Tuesday alone, police arrested about 1,000 protesters, many of them activists decrying what they call the Bush administration's lack of concern with halting the spread of AIDS at home and abroad.

Written by CBC News Online staff

If I sound un-choked up over the prospect of conservatives departing this website, it's because I regard them all with suspicion for one simple reason: I'm wondering who is going to be the next one who tries to screw me over.

I'm reasonably sure the people who agree with me won't be writing to those who employ me, trying to get me fired. I'm pretty sure those of a liberal mindset won't be going around screaming "Boycott Peter David." I'll go out on a limb and predict that those of a similar political leaning to me won't say they're writing lie-filled letters to national organizations, forcing me to have to warn my employers of possible repercussions. I'm pretty sure liberals won't be signing me up for right wing magazines and book clubs, causing me to get unsolicited mail at my home and billed for it. I doubt they'll be flooding my e-mail box with belligerent letters, or working overtime to try and crash this site.

In short, I doubt any liberals will be trying to take advantage of my generosity or use my support of the First Amendment as an excuse to harass me or my family and then, when I take steps to prevent it, send me more e-mail claiming I'm a hypocrite.

Should I be concerned about alienating those who disagree with my politics but support my work? That concern pales next to my concerns over the personal grief they give me and the damage they try to do to me and my career. I am freakin' sick of it, and every day I consider how much simpler my life would be if I just used this board for announcements regarding my work and nothing else.

And by the way, not for nothing, but every time somebody tries to punish me for having differing opinions by attacking this website, it causes Glenn a ton more work. But the last time I suggested people donate to the tip jar to show their appreciation for all the work he puts into this place, not only did I catch flack about it, but the total amount left was under ten bucks. So frankly, I'm losing patience with everybody.

PAD

Wow.

Hopefully a weekend of Dragon*Con will help bring up your mood Peter (and please don't infer anything other than a hope you have a good time).

I found this site originally looking for details about your work. Then discovered the open discussions and thought that it was wonderful for a professional to open himself up like this to his fans. The majority of fans only get to meet writers/aritsts/whatever for a couple of seconds in an autograph or sketch line. Here, you've opened up youself in a unique way and it's not brought you "down" to the level of the fans, but rather us "up" to the level of the writer. Here, you're writing TO us, not FOR us, and I believe it has helped me appreciate your writing even more.

But of course, no good deed goes unpunished. There's always one or two (maybe more?) people that will always try to ruin things for others. Maybe someday it will be possible to find a way to teach these children some manners, short of the Jay and Silent Bob method (finding the posters, going to their house and kicking the crap out of them).

We disagree on politics, but that's a GOOD thing. Who wants to have a discussion only with people that agree with them? That would be boring. Strong opinions often lead to strong words, but there's no reason to be uncivil about it. And in full disclosure myself, I've written many replies here that I've had to go back and change before posting because I drifted from a discussion of the topic to a discussion (slam) of the person I'm replying to. It's just too easy to make a target of the person rather than the ideas, and I'd rather not go for an easy hit.

So, THANK YOU Peter. Thanks for taking the time to make room for us in your life. Time that sure could be used for other things like writing and didn't I hear something about you having a wife and kids...? ; )

As for Glenn. Who cares what a web guy does? It can't be that hard.
JOKE! JOKE! Glenn, thanks for your hard work not only here, but on your own site and Kathleen's.

Final thought. Peter, if there's a tip jar out on the table at D*C, I'll be glad to drop an amount at least equal to the $10 you mentioned above in it. Use it for yourself, give it to Glenn, buy the baby something, anything you want. At least it will give me a better excuse to come up and introduce myself to you. We've spoken at D*C before, but I didn't introduce myself then. Now, I'll have a good reason.

PAD,
I love coming to this blog. I really like to read your comments. Since I get my comics from Westifield a month after they come out, I don't even read the comics related threads so I can avoid spoilers. I love to read the give and take of everyones opinions, even the ones I vehemently disagree with. Everything I know about you personally comes from reading this blog and some of your CBG columns. You should in no way be receiving this harrassment. I think, since you allowed the shrouded one so much leeway, that you must have been putting up with this for quite some time. (I am extrapolating from prior behavior, but am in no way implying that I DO know you.) If you ended this blog tomorrow, I would miss it greatly, but I certainly would understand. Your home and family are off limits and should always be off limits. There is a separation that should have been inferred. For those of you using this blog as a jumping off point for your childish and rude behavior, shame on you all.

PAD,
I am sorry so many people give you a hard time and screw you over, but am not one of them. In Fact, I have done four stories promoting your work:
1.) A story on Star Trek novels and comics in whch I stated that "two writers stand out from all the rest, Peter David and Michael Jan Friedman". then proceeded to plug your comic run, urged readers to pick up your comc run, and urged them to pick up "The Best of Star Trek" and "The Modala Imperative" trades, as well as "Imzadi".
2.) In my Phladelphia Daily News "Nemesis" package, I did a story on the Top Ten "Next Gen" Books Ever", and chose your work for the first 8 slots: "Vendetta", "Imzadi", "A Rock and a Hard Place", "Q-Squared", "Q-In-Law", "New Frontier:House of Cards", "Wrath of the Prophets" and "Imzadi II"
3.) Around the time of the Hulk movie, I did a story on your career based on your interview with me at WizardEast, and it appeared n both Allentown's "Mornng Call" and the "Daily News"
4.) and both also carred my "Top Eleven Hulk Comic Stories Ever", in which I chose your tales for the top five slots and seven overall, and also urged people to go to their local comic shop to track them down.
I am sorry many people have hurt you PAD, but I have done none of the things you mentioned or anything similar. I am sorry you are so angry, but no matter what you will always be one of my favorite writers.

Peter, I cannot say strongly enough how dismayed I am to hear about the level of personal and family harassment you are enduring. In your other thread, I wondered about the degree of venom and vitriol that seemd to be infecting American politics and life in general. I was assured by another of your correspondants that that type of destructive behaviour disappeared in times of need and Americans pulled together in when things got rough.

Frankly, I'm not sure I believe it. I've studied too much history, follow too much news (from a variety of sources)to accept that this is just a big food fight, forgotten in the morning. When a people whose very nation is ostensibly predicated on freedom and mutual respect starts practicing the kind of assault (because that is exactly what it is) on someone who is doing what your founding fathers so wisely saw was the sanest and most rational way to foster civilisation and civilised behaviour, then the jackboots and the brownshirts are not too far down the road.

Every major power in history has fallen. Every single one. America could be an exception but as Abe liked to say "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I fear America has become that house.

Please keep doing what you are doing as long as you can. I don't envy you the task (things are a tad less divisive up north despite the efforts of some of our own Neanderthals to turn back the clock) but nonetheless, I find myself listening to some of my fellow Canadians spout nonsense that undermines the essence of what we are supposed to be - a gentle, polite, mutually supportive people. Should you decide that Genucht ist genucht, we'll have to settle for your books and your comics, but, hey, that ain't too shabby.

Keep well. The Reverend Mr. Black

Oh hell no! Nuh-uh, no one, NO ONE is making me give up my love of PAD and his books!!! Not me, not politics....... not even Mr. David himself! Mr. David, man, I got to meet you at Dreamcon and you are one of the nicest guys in the biz and your kids were just darling. Anyone that messes with the family is lower then a racid snake snotrag and should be beaten with a wet knotted rope. I hope things get better, I hate to see this get personal and upsetting to you guys...
Carl Booth II aka MIB44

Was that rancid snake snotrag or rabid snake snotrag? I agree with your sentiments. It's one thing to come here and join a discussion against whatever topic PAD has chosen. It's quite another to make it personal. I wonder what all those wonderful writers and artists of yesteryear would have done if someone who did not agree with them followed them home from one of the salons? I bet we'd be missing much wit and wisdom right now.

I am sorry so many people give you a hard time and screw you over, but am not one of them.

And there are tons of people who protest stuff that don't do something stupid to make the front page news.

Yet, all liberal protestors in NYC right now are getting painted by the same brush due to the actions of a few. Indeed, conservatives seem to be getting a laugh out of the whole thing, commenting on how it should hurt Kerry in the long run (this is on another forum, btw).

So, it goes both ways.

Craig,
What is your problem lately? The post I made above was not to "make it about me" but to let PAD know that he does have some people here who, rather than screw him over, support him. And you launch a parrallel with NYC protestors. You seem very bitter lately, which is a shame, because I remember when only a short time ago the two of us could have a reasoned discussion. Now Gulian is an "idiot", and you take a personal sentiment toward PAD and make it political. It's really a shame.

But the last time I suggested people donate to the tip jar to show their appreciation for all the work he puts into this place, not only did I catch flack about it, but the total amount left was under ten bucks. So frankly, I'm losing patience with everybody.

Considering that I'd entirely intended to donate at the time and had it slip out of mind, I felt guilty this time. :-) So I just attempted to donate over at the tip jar...

only to have PayPal crash out on me and say "please try again later."

One hopes this doesn't happen often -- I've never used them before.

In any case, I'll second other people -- have a good time at DragonCon, and I hope you find your spirits lifted by the time you return. I understand the bitterness in some ways (both the political and the ongoing attempts to keep Fallen Angel thriving), but I hope both ease enough to get you some equilibrium back.

TWL
staying out of politics for a while

I'd hate to see this board cease to be as it is...but if Peter requested that conservatives or anyone else who disagrees with him take it elsewhere, I would. This is his house and when you are invited to someone's home (or, as in this case, just show up) you can't get too huffy about any "my way or the highway" rules.

But I'd really miss it. My wife and kids are so apolitical it's almost scary so I can't get into any discussions with them before I see the Glossy Eyes Of Death. I enjoy the passion expressed, even if it isn't always tempered by reason (and I may be guilty of that myself on occassion but we are sinners all).

However I also realize that some folks take this a good deal more personally than others. Also, while I'd like to think that if the situation were reversed, if some liberal Democrats were trying to get me kicked out of my school (unlikely, since around here I am practically a tree hugging hippy in comparison to most here), I would be able to avoid regarding all liberals "with suspicion", well, that's easy to say when you aren't the one being harassed.

Just hate to see a few dickheads spoil it for everyone but that has been the way of the world.

Tim,

Glad to see you back, man. How are mom and the little one doing? If, at any point in the last few weeks, you have found yourself at some obscene hour of the night awake, wondering "What the hell have I done?", don't worry, that's pretty normal. It gets better. You'll wonder one day what exactly you did before you had kids.

First I asked: "Had the Republicans attempted to shut down Moore's crockumentary, which shows a "reckless disregard for the truth" (as many websites have documented), you would've been OK with it?"

Then Peter David said: You mean the way that Jeb Bush pressured Disney into dumping the film lest they suddenly find various tax advantages stripped from them in Florida? Or could you be referring to the way the GOP went after the Reagan biopic and drove it off network TV? Like that? You do realize those films found an audience in spite of GOP interference, not because of lack of it.

That doesn't answer my question at all. I even worded my questions very carefully as to not attempt to put any words in your mouth.

First, the Reagan biopic did had a "reckless disregard for truth." It had the Reagans saying lines that they never did say in an effort to paint them in a negative light. Even then, the Republicans in the government did nothing to shut that movie down. CBS folded under pressure of boycotting from customers and adversiters and put it on a pay-only channel instead.

Second, got any proof for the claim that Jeb Bush tried to get Disney to dump F9/11 by threatening legal problems? I'd like to see a link on that. Preferably from somebody NOT Michael Moore.

And finally ... if I were to accept your version, which I don't, here we have two so-called examples of Republicans actively trying to prevent movies they disagree with from being aired. Both movies, without question, show a "reckless disregard for the truth" which you seem to feel is not protected by the First Amendment, as reflected by your earlier comments regarding you being OK with the Democrats trying to prevent TV stations from airing SBV's political ads by threatening legal action (and this we know to be true, we have the memo on record) and attempting to prevent "Unfit for Command" from being published.

Are you then perfectly OK with the Republicans attempting to shut down the Reagan biopic and Moore's F9/11? Do you think it is not a First Amendment issue at all?

And if you want me to leave your blog, just say it. Say "Starving Writer, please leave my blog and never come back" and I will do so. Or ban me. It is your weblog to do as you see fit.

What is your problem lately?

Well, as I said, Bush is an idiot, Guiliani is an idiot for supporting Bush, so I think you know part of my "problem".

As for bitter, you haven't seen nothing yet, particularly if Bush wins the farce... err, election.

As it stands, you may not have anything against PAD and what he says, but to many he's just another crazy liberal, and the NYC protestors bear that out. PAD's comments regarding what he's had to put up with lately bear that out as well.

Apparently the idea of posting what I see on other boards about how some react toward liberals didn't sink in, and people probably just dont' give a damn.

Besides, the title of this thread is "Protestors: Just what the GOP ordered".

Bill,

while I'd like to think that if the situation were reversed, if some liberal Democrats were trying to get me kicked out of my school (unlikely, since around here I am practically a tree hugging hippy in comparison to most here)

Reminds me of what a friend of mine said last New Year's Eve, when we were all up at his place in San Francisco. "I love living in this town. Here, I'm considered a moderate or even borderline conservative. Other places I'd probably be burnt at the stake."

[And just for those who equate liberals with "godless atheist types", said friend is also one of the most deeply devout Christians I've ever met. He and his wife simply use their faith as a blueprint for their own life, not a bludgeon for others'.]

Tim, glad to see you back, man. How are mom and the little one doing?

So far, so good. My mother-in-law got in Tuesday night, just in time for me to start school on Wednesday, so the support system is still there. Katherine is very well -- the plumbing certainly works (lots coming in, f*ing wheelbarrowloads coming out :-), she's comfortably gaining weight, and while she's got fussy moments we've only had a couple of parental meltdowns so far.

All is well. (We are looking forward to her getting a bit more interactive, when we can get genuine smiles and feedback other than "hmm. She didn't cry for THIS five-minute period...")

You'll wonder one day what exactly you did before you had kids.

It's already getting difficult to remember the B.K.E (Before Katherine Era), and it hasn't even been two weeks yet. I'm chalking that one up to sleep deprivation...

TWL

Had lots to say but Pad's last comments have tempered them. I enjoy your forum, Peter, first because I respect the hell outta your writing and buy everything of I can written by Peter David, and secondly because you have taken the time to interact with your public and given us a forum that we can use for discussion and debate. I mostly agree with your politcal viewpoints and appreciate your comments. I do tend to get heated when discussing politics but as one other person stated, the rest of my family is apolitical and its energizing to find a forum for discussion. My apologies if I've ever made your situation worse by what's posted here.

Man, I hate mangling an edit..

Posted by Charles K at August 29, 2004 08:18 PM
WHY HAS KERRY CHANGED HIS STORIES? This isn't a matter of "flip-flopping" or anything, this is absolute fact, the Kerry campaign has conceded that the SBV were correct on at least two counts, and a third is on the horizon. Considering those are the only two that have really come under scrutiny, a 100% rate of truthfulness is hard to ignore.

Pick a source. Any source. At this point even you should have been able to find the deceptions of the ads. If not, go back and read this thread again. There are plenty of links posted.

Posted by Joe Nazzaro at August 29, 2004 09:34 PM
If there's one canard that really drives me nuts, it's 'Iraq is better off now...' Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but THAT'S NOT THE POINT! The Bush administration told the American people we had to go to war because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He told the UN and our allies the same thing. And we fell for it. After several months in which nary a weapon could be found, the WMD rationale turned into weapon programs, and then regime change, and then Iraq is better off now... If you want to send us into war to topple Saddam, fine. If you want to go to war because of weapons programs, or UN violations or whatever, that's fine. But don't tell me one thing and change the story after the fact.

Well said!!

Posted by Denis V. at August 29, 2004 11:06 PM
As for the WMD's, you're making it sound like Bush made this up all by himself.

But he is insisting they existed even after so many have said they weren't there, they were never there and we were wrong.

And also, you're over exagerating when you claim the rationale is changing...

No, he isn't.

all that have you mentioned was part of the reason for invading Iraq. Sure, from the WMD's, to me anyway, was the most paramount being touted, but don't pretend the other reasons were not brought up before the toppling of Saddam took place

No pretense. We were told that Iraq posed an immediate threat to the US because it possessed WMD. That was the only reason we went to war. It was suppose to be to protect our nation from further attack. Anything more is your presumption and was not the national position.

Posted by Joe Krolik at August 30, 2004 12:42 AM
Like many others I believe that Saddam DID have WMDs, but that he somehow disposed of them to other location(s) during the continual back and forth "negotiations" that took weeks during the UN's fiasco with inspectors.

There is No, nada, zip, none, nein, NO evidence of that.

Posted by Gorginfoogle at August 30, 2004 02:33 AM
More importantly, Jason, do you then mean that if Bush doesn't mention 9/11 at all during the Convention then you won't have a reason to protest? Yes, I realize how unlikely that is, but still.

That was blown when Rudy presented us with an if/then proposition. IF you want to honor those who dies on 9-11 THEN you should vote for George Bush. I found that offensive. I will NOT dishonor those who perished on 9-11 just because I vote for Kerry.

Posted by Jerome Maida at August 30, 2004 11:30 AM
Re: McCain

As far as the liberal media is concerned, McCain's critique of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads is devastating. Because what the media and the liberals who seem to swoon over McCain every time he acts like a Democrat fail to realize is that many - especially his fellow Republicans - don't like his voting record, feel he panders to the media, comes off self-righteous and appears to be thin-skinned. In fact, Cleland and he seem to be forming a group - Thin-Skinned Vietman War Veterans Adored by the Media. of course, the acronym, TSVWVAM isn't really catchy, so maybe they'll change it.

And yet the republicans chose to give him one of the most visible speech times. Perhaps they see his popularity far exceeds their own.

Posted by Jerome Maida at August 30, 2004 11:59 AM

Oh, and The New York Times "proved" a connection between the Bush campaign and The Swift Boat ads? The paper whose publisher has gone on record as saying the Times is liberal and that he doesn't like Bush?

Yep, I believe they did.

Oh, and was Michael Moore not in a former president's private box at the DNC? But no, he's still an "independent" voice rather than a Democratic voice/attack dog?
Sigh.

Moore was there for USAToday

Posted by Jim in Iowa at August 30, 2004 01:13 PM
You are reading into what I said. The protesters are upset of the "loss of life" in Iraq, etc., and are protesting the war. My point is that they are out ot lunch on this issue. Many refugees are RETURNING to Iraq. And there is not a flood of people leaving. (Some, yes, but a very small percentage.) That is a totally different issue than why we went to war.

Of course they are, Jim. It's their home. Residents return after any disaster to their homes to pick up the pieces and try to rebuild. It doesn't make the destruction any more beneficial.

Posted by Jim in Iowa at August 30, 2004 01:19 PM
PAD,

I forgot to mention I am tired of the other lie in your response. Bush has never, ever said that Saddam masterminded 9/11. He did not try to manipulate us to that conclusion. He DID say Saddam was a possible threat to conduct another 9/11 type attack. I believe that was true. You do not. Fine. But quit saying Bush said something he did not.
Was there any link between Saddam and Bin Laden? I think they were. So did Bush. That is a conclusion based on some facts

What facts? There were no facts that suggested any connection between Hussain and 9-11. As far as the administration wanting us to connect the two? Lemme give you a recent fer instance. Cheney's speech. Kerry made a statement about the war in Iraq that included the word: Sensitive. Cheney quoted him in his speech and then immediately asked the audience if the victims of 9-11 would agree it should be a more sensitive war. The use of the two situations interchangably are exactly why at one point 72%, NOT 3o but 72% of all Americans thought Saddam had something to do with 9-11.

Posted by Bill Mulligan at August 30, 2004 03:48 PM
As far as the Swift Boat Vets go, let's see how they have done so far with their 3 ads: 1-- They claimed that Kerry did not deserve his medals--highly debatable. A few inconsistencies have turned up but nothing that seems to me to have reached the level of importance given to it. (That said, would a Kerry supporter PLEASE tell me why it is right for Kerry to withhold his full military record?).

Kerry has an obligation to a contract made with a writer, I won't say biographer because I'm not certain that's what the book was, concerning his records and diaries. he DID release them to a number of reporters although he wouldn't allow them to be removed or copied. Those reporters found no surprises.

Posted by Charles K at August 30, 2004 06:31 PM
Those of you who choose to believe the lies Democrats spread about our Commander in Chief, but support our troops in Iraq 100% are hypocrites.

First, I haven't seen lies and secondly, no sir, and I can not say this firmly or strongly enough. Disagreeing with our president, his approach to this war and our occupation of Iraq does NOT mean I disrespect the men and women who serve there. God love them all. They do their duty in a dangerous occupation and are worthy of honor and respect regardless of anyone's politics. Shame on you for using them as a political football.

Posted by Dennis V. at August 30, 2004 07:09 PM
spike wrote:
"NPR is reporting the number at around 500,000. Its very common for the Authorities to low ball the numbers."
It could very well be that the numbers given the the authorities are somehwat low, but couldn't it very well be that the numbers being given by the NY Times and NPR (and who's their source? The NY Times?) being way too high

The number issue seems to frighten you, Dennis. Yes, there are that many people upset at your president. You've been given a number of independent sources as well as several eye witness accounts yet you still cling to one single contradictory account.

Posted by Fred Chamberlain at August 30, 2004 08:01 PM
James:

I've actually heard that Moore was not formally invited to the convention and he raised quite a stink to get in and around while there. Knowing quit a bit about Carter's character, it isn't a far strtch to imagine him playing the hospital and charitable type, letting Moore sit there to avoid problems.

He was there for USAToday

Posted by Starving Writer at August 31, 2004 03:04 AM
Second, Kerry is running a far more negative campaign than Bush is. His whole acceptance speech at the DNC was basically "I'm better than Bush! BETTER! You hear me, BETTER!" without explaining why.

You didn't watch, did you? :-) Of course his comments on jobs, the economy, health care, social security, prescription drug costs wouldn't be relevant. riiiight.

Thus far, I've seen Kerry attack Bush on inconsequental things such as his stint with the National Guard,

Um...Inconsequental? *cough*

the "infamous" seven minutes (nevermind the fact that Kerry admits to sitting there in stunned silence for thirty-five minutes),

Kerry wasn't the leader of our nation then. Big ole difference in level of responsibility

On the other side, Bush has had nothing but glowing praise for Kerry's Vietnam stint.

Glowing? LOL Nah. I don't think so. After many weeks of Kerry bashing when he saw the polls and the people were taking a dim view of the bashing SBVs he finally made the statement that Kerry earned his medals. of course by then he knew the effectiveness of the ads was done.

Bush has actually condemened the SBV ads,

No he didn't. He said all the ads should be pulled but he refused to condemn the SBVs.

but when he challenged Kerry to do the same thing and condemn 527's all Kerry could do was mutter "well you didn't say it exactly the way I wanted you to!"

Wrong again. Kerry condemned several ads bashing Bush immediately after they aired and asked the president to do the same. He finally commented three weeks later.

Posted by Dennis V. at August 31, 2004 04:10 AM
Yes Karen, there were definitely a lot of people... but there's a big differnce in claiming there were 500,000 people versus other claims of about 100,000--120,000 people. 500,000 is just such an inflated number.

Geez almighty, Dennis. Were you there?

Posted by Craig J. Ries at August 31, 2004 09:10 AM
Whoa...I thought McCain was good but Gulliani hit the ball out of the park.

To quote Giuliani:
"We need George Bush more than ever."

Yeah, he just proved to me that he's a bigger idiot than I imagined.

Those were not his words. He actually said: Paraphrased, that nothing of this magnitude had ever happened and no one could be prepared for this that they would have to make up the response on their own.

"And what evidence do you have for this statement? I have not heard any Dem call anyone unpatriotic for disagreeing with them."

Oh, well, if you haven't heard of it. Just because it happens every single time...

Charles K, post proof. I think you're projecting.

Posted by Ken at August 31, 2004 08:59 PM
"I have a hard time believing that half the country could be wrong..... "

I have a hard time believing that half the country is any where close to an accurate figure!

Most likely 30% or less!

As I posted earlier, it was actually 72% at one time.

I tend to think it would be obvious: The First Amendment doesn't support libel and slander. And considering you've got people who back in 1996 stood next to Kerry and called him a hero now claiming he's a coward, I think the "reckless disregard for the truth" test is reasonable.

PAD

Bingo! Exactly!

Posted by Carl at September 1, 2004 12:23 AM
250 vets whose story hasn't changed vs. Kerry (who has changed stories at least 5 times just on the Christmas in Cambodia) and his 14 vets on his side. Karen........ you do the math... : D

The men who served under Kerry, on his boat, the other swift boat Captain still alive and there that day, the man he rescued and the official records all support Kerry's version. YOU do the logic.

8.) We find the New York Times runnng 43 front page stories in 47 days on Abu Ghraib incidents to be Bush bashing, especially most of the stores contained nothing new. I mean, if they did that many front page stories on education or the environment, we may actually get somewhere. But those stores would not hurt Bush nearly as much as this "scandal".

My point exactly. You see any questioning, any reporting of negative incidences as "bush bashing". Not a chance. I follow no man blindly.

Posted by Jerome Maida at September 1, 2004 02:32 AM
My father served in Vietnam, and he almost NEVER talks about it. But he does get hurt when he sees movies like "Platoon". He'll say to me, "It wasn't like that. Honest." And 'll say, "I know, dad." But that's the stereotype, of the drug using, women and chldren killing, village burning Vietnam soldier. It's a stereotype Kerry played a huge part - heck, maybe the major part - in advancing as truth, and for that I will never forgive him.

As did members of my family. Jerome, that this upsets your father is regrettable but the members of my family that served in nam say yes, these are true incidences. They do not resent Kerry's statements but instead appreciate the courage it took for him to speak out.

Catori, see conspiracies much, do you?

Catori writes:
Posted by Bill Mulligan at August 30, 2004 03:48 PM
As far as the Swift Boat Vets go, let's see how they have done so far with their 3 ads: 1-- They claimed that Kerry did not deserve his medals--highly debatable. A few inconsistencies have turned up but nothing that seems to me to have reached the level of importance given to it. (That said, would a Kerry supporter PLEASE tell me why it is right for Kerry to withhold his full military record?).

"Kerry has an obligation to a contract made with a writer, I won't say biographer because I'm not certain that's what the book was, concerning his records and diaries. he DID release them to a number of reporters although he wouldn't allow them to be removed or copied. Those reporters found no surprises."

Nice try. From the Chicago Sun-Times:

"Reporting by the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs points out that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry's full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the "at least a hundred pages" a Naval Personnel Office spokesman called the "full file."

Quote:
"A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry's records produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which
consists of at least 100 pages."

The Post story continues: "The Kerry campaign has refused to make available Kerry's journals and other writings to The Washington Post, saying the
senator remains bound by an exclusivity agreement with Brinkley." (In a subsequent Post story, Brinkley said those papers are in Kerry's "full
control."

Don't just repeat the spin. Kery has promised to release ALL of his records. He hasn't. He has claimed that he can't because he has an agreement with a writer (which is SO much more important than letting the American public see the facts for themselves, dontcha know.). The writer disagrees.

Kerry does not seem to want to release his records. Which is fine. He doesn't have to. But let's not pretend he has.

Also:

You say several times that Michael Moore was at the Democrat convention because he was writing articles for USA Today. Untrue. He IS doing articles for them at the REPUBLICAN convention but that's not quite the same thing, is it?

I don't think either of these are deliberate lies. For one thing, they were easy to research. But since you are a sticler for the truth, well, there you are.

Oh, and was Michael Moore not in a former president's private box at the DNC? But no, he's still an "independent" voice rather than a Democratic voice/attack dog?
Sigh.

Moore was there for USAToday

No he was not. USAToday sent Ann Coulter to the DNC and Michael Moore to the RNC (so they would get "opposing viewpoints"). USAToday did not send Michael Moore to the DNC. Moore went to the DNC of his own violation.

Bush has actually condemened the SBV ads,

No he didn't. He said all the ads should be pulled but he refused to condemn the SBVs.

I reread the article, and to be fair he didn't outright condemn the SBV ads. But he did specifically point it out as something that had no place in the campaign.

But you're right, he didn't specifically condemn the ads. My bad.

Wrong again. Kerry condemned several ads bashing Bush immediately after they aired and asked the president to do the same.

Got links to that?

Thus far, I've seen Kerry attack Bush on inconsequental things such as his stint with the National Guard,

Um...Inconsequental? *cough*

Yes, inconsequental. Bush got a honorable discharge from the Air National Guard. Bush never made it an issue of the campaign or his presidency. It was all the Democrats who tried to make it an issue.

Were you this outspoken against Clinton, who openly dodged the draft? Or did you let it pass because he was a Democrat?

Glowing? LOL Nah. I don't think so. After many weeks of Kerry bashing when he saw the polls and the people were taking a dim view of the bashing SBVs he finally made the statement that Kerry earned his medals. of course by then he knew the effectiveness of the ads was done.

Bush said, "I think Senator Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record."

I have yet to see Bush attack Kerry's Vietnam record. Sure, he's kept quiet while others attacked Kerry's Vietnam record. That's the nature of politics. Kerry is the one who made his stint in Vietnam a campaign issue by "reporting for duty," surrounding himself with his fellow veterans, and constantly talking about his Vietnam time in every f'n interview he's ever done. He can't make it an issue then act shocked when others decide to attack it.

As far as I'm aware Bush himself has not questioned Kerry's Vietnam record at all. Show me a link where Bush attacks Kerry's Vietnam record.

I will tell you this, though. Bush absolutely punked Kerry regarding the whole SBV situation. After the SBV raised several good questions (ie; Christmas in Cambodia which was seared ... SEARED ... in Kerry's memory and Kerry's post-Vietnam testimony) and Kerry started to whine about the SBVs and tried to *block* their ads and *block* their book, all Bush had to do was say "I think Kerry served honorably, and I don't think those ads or all other 527s have a place in this campaign. I call to stop all 527s and I hope Kerry does the same."

And then Kerry refused to, saying "it's not enough! whiiinnne!"?

Blammo!

Kerry made himself look bad by whining about the ads and trying to block them, then refusing to ask for the end of all 527s after Bush praised Kerry's service and condemned all 527s. It made him seem selective in his whining and I think that really turned off quite a few voters.

And you say Bush is dumb? That was a political masterstroke.

Craig J. Ries wrote:
"As for bitter, you haven't seen nothing yet, particularly if Bush wins the farce... err, election."

This is just a sad sad statement. Are you threatening to throw a big nasty tantrum if Bush wins again? Well, I hope you don't wear yourelf out too much because another four years is a long time to be fuming.

Well, the President's "dog and pony" show has just ended, and finally, at last, John Kerry takes the offensive by going out in public in the middle of Ohio at midnight to refute and respond. And he's going at it real well, making time and making points and driving home his message......and.....what does CNN do? They cut the speech off before it's over so Larry King can have his panel yak for 20 minutes!

What the hell were they thinking?!

Maybe they were thinking that their sponsors aren't going to be happy if we don't cut this ineffectual lying blow-hard off at the time that he told us we be done!

"told us we be done!"

Should be:

told us he would be done!

"Maybe they were thinking that their sponsors aren't going to be happy if we don't cut this ineffectual lying blow-hard off at the time that he told us we be done!"

I don't recall them cutting President Bush off. Did I miss something? You were of course referring to the President, were you not?

Sarcasm.....drip....drip....drip.....

So Bush would like us to give him four more years to do all the stuff he said he would do four years ago? This was not a sitting President's speech, this was the speech of a guy who is running for President for the first time.

I would guess it doesn't matter if the person on screeen is Bush, Kerry, the Pope, or Bruce Banner getting slightly irritated; if you're at CNN, there's one person you don't piss off, and his name rhymes with Parry Bing.

Bush got a honorable discharge from the Air National Guard. Bush never made it an issue of the campaign or his presidency.

Bush made it an issue once he showed up in that flight suit to declare that the war in Iraq was over.

This is just a sad sad statement.

Hardly. Bush is tearing this country limb from limb, and people are sitting there and supporting him for it.
That's what's sad.

Even more sad is that people fail to see it - they'd rather be blinded by the bumbling dumbass who claims to lead us.

Bush made it an issue once he showed up in that flight suit to declare that the war in Iraq was over.

Then you don't mind that since Kerry based his candidacy on his Vietnam service that the SBVT are making an issue of what his did while there?

BS, IMHO. Both were discharged honorably, and Kerry received his purple hearts and medals for service. Both of these issues need to go away.

Hardly. Bush is tearing this country limb from limb, and people are sitting there and supporting him for it. That's what's sad. Even more sad is that people fail to see it - they'd rather be blinded by the bumbling dumbass who claims to lead us.

Because from this side of the aisle, we see the Democrats tearing the country limb from limb. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

To resopnd to Catori:

((Posted by Charles K at August 29, 2004 08:18 PM
WHY HAS KERRY CHANGED HIS STORIES? This isn't a matter of "flip-flopping" or anything, this is absolute fact, the Kerry campaign has conceded that the SBV were correct on at least two counts, and a third is on the horizon. Considering those are the only two that have really come under scrutiny, a 100% rate of truthfulness is hard to ignore.

Pick a source. Any source. At this point even you should have been able to find the deceptions of the ads. If not, go back and read this thread again. There are plenty of links posted.))

Ummm...ok, you know what, you need to read what you're responding to. You have a habit of ignoring what someone says; this is the second time I've had to point this out to you on this thread alone. Anyway, I was talking about the two issues that the SBV brought to light...Cambodia and the self-inflicted Purple Heart, both issues which the Kerry campaign has admitted that the SBV are right about. And yet, you bring up the ads...ok, well, yeah, Bill has already explained why the ads are correct...I think it's incumbent on you to say why the ads are FALSE, not point to articles that discredit a couple of the members (ignoring the fact that there are over 200) and use that as an excuse to not listen to what they're SAYING. I mean, bu that logic, since a handful of Kerry's statements have turned out to be discredited, EVERYTHING he says and represents must be a lie. I'm sure that you, not being hypocritical, agree to that statement.

((Posted by Charles K at August 30, 2004 06:31 PM
Those of you who choose to believe the lies Democrats spread about our Commander in Chief, but support our troops in Iraq 100% are hypocrites.

First, I haven't seen lies and secondly, no sir, and I can not say this firmly or strongly enough. Disagreeing with our president, his approach to this war and our occupation of Iraq does NOT mean I disrespect the men and women who serve there. God love them all. They do their duty in a dangerous occupation and are worthy of honor and respect regardless of anyone's politics. Shame on you for using them as a political football.))

Once again, read what you respond to. I listed a number of lies that Kerry and the Democrats have told about Bush, but I'll go ahead and recopy them from earlier in this thread:

Bush went AWOL: Lie.
Bush lied about WMDs: Lie.
Bush is connected with the SBV: Lie.
Anyone who speaks outagainst Bush is punished: Lie.

Now, the rest of your rant tells me that you didn't bother to read my entire post either, as it is nothing more than a rewording of Karen's post. Go yell at her.

Then you don't mind that since Kerry based his candidacy on his Vietnam service that the SBVT are making an issue of what his did while there?

Only if they're full of it, and I think some of them are.

Because from this side of the aisle, we see the Democrats tearing the country limb from limb.

What, did this come from "The Great Uniter"?

Bush has caused the most division in this country probably since Vietnam. It's easy to see why the comparisons are made between Vietnam and Iraq.

Obviously some in that generation didn't learn any lessons.

Craig,
Actually, people did learn lessons from Vietnam. They learned that if we're going to fight a war, we'd better be in there to win. They learned that you should constantly let your troops know you support them, both in words and in deeds, and that you appreciate their sacrifice. They learned to not take actions based on what is politically popular, but on what it takes to win. They learned that if the media start calling a military a "quagmire" (after only three weeks in Iraq!), you ignore them and achieve your goal. They learned a lot of things that have made this war successful (and before you start, the WAR was amazingly successful, we are now dealing with keeping the peace). Unfortunately, most of the people who learned these lessons are Republicans. Some Democrats, like former Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn and Joe Lieberman have learned this lesson as well, but as Zell Miller pointed out their lk is few and far between these days.

Also, the "divisions" of the '60s have always been overstated. There have always been issued that divided the nation, greatly, from the visions of Kennedy vs. Nixon to Nixon himself and his impeachment to Ford's pardoning of Nixon to the pardoning of the draft dodgers who went to Canada to carter's inept handling of the hostage crisis and horrible economic record (but he's a nice guy!) to Reagan's dealings with the Soviet Union, Central America and "Reaganomics" to Clinton's health care plan and impeachment.
Emotions ran high during these times and on these issues as well.

Catori,
1.) McCain is definitely more popular with the MEDIA, I'll give you that
2.) Re: Refugees returning to Iraq
"Of course they are, Jim. It's their home. Residents return after any disaster to their homes to pick up the pieces and try to rebuild".
However, Catori, if the situation in Iraq were truly as bad as the media and protesters continue to portray it has been and is, as chaotic, and if as many Iraqis were truly as fearful and resentful of the "oppressor" U.S. as is commonly portrayed, then there would be a dire refugee crisis. Iraq had four refugee crises in the 20th century, one during 1958 and one during the war with Iran. The fact that there is no refugee crisis refutes the theory that Iraqis are generally worse off and hate the U.S. "occupation".

"Kerry made a statement about the war in Iraq that includes the word Sensitive".
No. Incorrect. Kerry was talking about the War on Terror,not Iraq specifically.
"Cheney quoted him in his speech and then immediately asked the audience if the victims of 9-11 would agree it should be a more sensitive war."
Seing as how he was talking about the War on Terror, I see no problem with this statement. (But it's heartening to know thatKerry is now directly attacking Cheney as being unfit to criticize him because he "did not serve". Wonder how that would have been reported if Papa Bush said that about Geraldine Ferraro.

"(You see) any negative incidences as "Bush Bashing". No, I don't asking tough questions and digging for important answers is an essential function of our press. However, I can think of no other issue/subject in recent memory that got so much attention with so little new information. I remember asking why the Kurds and others who support us weren't given more coverage, or at least as much coverage as Al-Sadr. I was told that since the Kurds have been supporting us, their stories are not news. But Al-Sadr is. And the Iraqi prisoner "scandal" got over a month of heavy exposure, despite not having any new info. It was all speculation; "How does this hurt Bush?", "Will Runsfeld resign?" Damn, it sure was important to show "leash lady" nonstop for six weeks. Compare that to the Oil-For-Food scandal? How much press has that gotten in general and especially compared to "leash lady" and her friends? What about the Iraqi men with severed hands who visited the White House. That was a non-story to the media. Why? Because they were in campaign mode, and they would not let go of an issue they knew was hurting Bush, even constantly trying to link it to him.
THAT is "Bush Bashng".

"I follow no man blindly."
Neither do I. Please don't nfer that I do.

Jerome:
(But it's heartening to know thatKerry is now directly attacking Cheney as being unfit to criticize him because he "did not serve". Wonder how that would have been reported if Papa Bush said that about Geraldine Ferraro.

Me:
Was Ferarro attacking Bush's war record? That difference seems very significant.

Seeing as how Cheney has not attacked Kerry's WAR record but his Senate record, the difference is nil.

>>"Cheney quoted him in his speech and then immediately asked the audience if the victims of 9-11 would agree it should be a more sensitive war."

>Seing as how he was talking about the War on Terror, I see no problem with this statement.

Well, for one, he ignores the context of the full quote, making a typical high-rhetoric, low-content allegation rather than discussing facts; for another, here's an exchange between Cheney and a conservative radio host a few days before this flap.

HEWITT (8/12/04): Will the Najaf offensive continue until that city is subdued even if that means a siege of the Imam Ali shrine?

CHENEY: Well, from the standpoint of the shrine, obviously it is a SENSITIVE area, and we are very much aware of its SENSITIVITY. On the other hand, a lot of people who worship there feel like Moqtada Sadr is the one who has defiled the shrine, if you will, and I would expect folks on the scene there, including U.S. commanders, will work very carefully with the Iraqis so that we minimize the extent to which the U.S. is involved in any operation that might involve the shrine itself.”

In the broad sense that any mention of sensitivity is derisible (I may just have made up that word), Cheney's as bad as Kerry, and a flip-flopper to boot.

^
Just a note: the emphases in the above are mine, not Cheney's.

"Kerry made a statement about the war in Iraq that includes the word Sensitive"
"Cheney quoted him in his speech and then immediately asked the audience if the victims of 9-11 would agree it should be a more sensitive war."

Actually, what I found in the speech was the following: "Even in this post-9/11 period, Senator Kerry doesn't appear to understand how the world has changed. He talks about leading a "more sensitive war on terror," as though Al Qaeda will be impressed with our softer side. He declared at the Democratic Convention that he will forcefully defend America — after we have been attacked. My fellow Americans, we have already been attacked, and faced with an enemy who seeks the deadliest of weapons to use against us, we cannot wait for the next attack. We must do everything we can to prevent it — and that includes the use of military force."

Uh, where's the part about immediately asking the audience if the vitims of 9/11 would agree etc etc? Is that from another part of the speech or did you quote this from memory?

Oh, that's right -- it was the Swift Boat Liars who are attacking Kerry's war record! Still, you'd think this administration would appreciate Kerry's response: after being attacked, he strikes back at the wrong target.

But in all seriousness, Cheney and Bush are attacking Kerry's record using the Swift Boat Liars as a smokescreen. Literally, you're right, but in practical terms, you're being completely disingenuous.

Rob

Peter,
Sorry if people are giving you a hard time. Please know that this Pro-Bush, Conservative Republican will always buy whatever it is you write. I love your writing, and your political views do not prevent me from enjoying your work. We live in the world's greates country where we are allowed to debate, and I for one respect your opinions, right or wrong, and your right to speak your mind.

*********************************************
Well, the President's "dog and pony" show has just ended, and finally, at last, John Kerry takes the offensive by going out in public in the middle of Ohio at midnight to refute and respond. And he's going at it real well, making time and making points and driving home his message......and.....what does CNN do? They cut the speech off before it's over so Larry King can have his panel yak for 20 minutes!

What the hell were they thinking?!
*********************************************

They figured why waste their time on this looser who the polls show is being clobbered by GB.

thankyouverymuchgoodnighteverybody.

On a serious note, and I do mean serious, I do wish President Clinton a speedy recovery.

Joe V.

I have actually found myself anxious at times in thinking of the possibility of W back in office for another 4 years and at hearing some say they believe it is a definite...... and then I remind myself that George and Kerry will actually be debating one another and a still peace comes over me. :)

e actually found myself anxious at times in thinking of the possibility of W back in office for another 4 years and at hearing some say they believe it is a definite...... and then I remind myself that George and Kerry will actually be debating one another and a still peace comes over me. :)"

I don't quite see why. It'll be the same as with Gore: Bush will come across as the folksy, self-effacing guy who Americans want to kick back and eat barbecue with, and Kerry will come across as the guy whose grades blew the curve on high school social studies tests. In this age of television, most people don't vote for the best-informed or most intelligent; they vote for the guy they're most comfortable seeing on the boob tube in their living room (not that getting the most votes seems to matter that much, really.) The only way Bush loses is if he starts screaming at the top of his lungs and then punches out Kerry's wife...and even then he might still win.

PAD

me:
>I actually found myself anxious at times in thinking of the possibility of W back in office for another 4 years and at hearing some say they believe it is a definite...... and then I remind myself that George and Kerry will actually be debating one another and a still peace comes over me. :)"

PAD:

>I don't quite see why. It'll be the same as with Gore: Bush will come across as the folksy, self-effacing guy who Americans want to kick back and eat barbecue with, and Kerry will come across as the guy whose grades blew the curve on high school social studies tests. In this age of television, most people don't vote for the best-informed or most intelligent; they vote for the guy they're most comfortable seeing on the boob tube in their living room (not that getting the most votes seems to matter that much, really.) The only way Bush loses is if he starts screaming at the top of his lungs and then punches out Kerry's wife...and even then he might still win.

I guess that I consider the upcoming debates and not only believe that Kerry will make Bush look like the babblng fool that he is and/or Bush will fall prey to something that he has in many interviews.... that being his frequent inability to take criticism graciously without getting flustered, openly annoyed, angry, or not actually responding to the main point of the question or statement made. I honestly believe we'll see all of this and only hope that the undecided are able to see it and respond accordingly.

I've said it before and still truly believe that Bush and Chris Rock are very similar. Both are extremely unimpressive without a good group of writers behind them. Their indepedent thought and creativity is very limited.

Hopefully the italics work this time round:

Don't just repeat the spin. Kery has promised to release ALL of his records. He hasn't. He has claimed that he can't because he has an agreement with a writer (which is SO much more important than letting the American public see the facts for themselves, dontcha know.). The writer disagrees.

There is no spin here. No where did I say Kerry released the material to ALL reporters. He selected a number, they reviewed them, and said nothing new was discovered.

You say several times that Michael Moore was at the Democrat convention because he was writing articles for USA Today.

My mistake. Since the conversation had pivoted to the GNC I misread. He was at the GNC for USAToday.

I don't think either of these are deliberate lies.

NEITHER was a lie and I resent like hell your implications that I would lie.

Yes, inconsequental. Bush got a honorable discharge from the Air National Guard. Bush never made it an issue of the campaign or his presidency. It was all the Democrats who tried to make it an issue.

And as someone else pointed out, Bush made his service an issue as soon as he played fighter pilot last year. The absence of confirmation of his service in the guard, especially when coupled with the admission of a texas democrat that he regrets pulling strings to get Bush into the guard http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A60319-2004Sep3.html
calls his entire claim of honorable service into question and more than casts doubts on the political strings pulled to get him out of service.

I will tell you this, though. Bush absolutely punked Kerry regarding the whole SBV situation. After the SBV raised several good questions (ie; Christmas in Cambodia which was seared ... SEARED ... in Kerry's memory and Kerry's post-Vietnam testimony) and Kerry started to whine about the SBVs and tried to *block* their ads and *block* their book, all Bush had to do was say "I think Kerry served honorably, and I don't think those ads or all other 527s have a place in this campaign. I call to stop all 527s and I hope Kerry does the same."

What part of denouncing them first does not get through to you? Kerry did so weeks before and asked the same of Bush. he was silent until he thought the SBV's had done their job.

And then Kerry refused to, saying "it's not enough! whiiinnne!"?

Post proof of this. I recall his calling on Bush to denounce the SBVs, I recall Bush refusing. now wonder if that might be because of the major contributors that backed the ads?

And you say Bush is dumb? That was a political masterstroke.

I don't think I've said Bush is dumb. I don't believe he's the smarted bean in the pod and his college transcripts and speech transcripts back that assumption up. But you're fooling yourself if you think Bush singularly plots his own campaign path. He has a number of strategists holding his hand all the way.

Posted by Craig J. Ries at September 3, 2004 09:25 AM
Bush got a honorable discharge from the Air National Guard. Bush never made it an issue of the campaign or his presidency.

Bush made it an issue once he showed up in that flight suit to declare that the war in Iraq was over.

This is just a sad sad statement.

Hardly. Bush is tearing this country limb from limb, and people are sitting there and supporting him for it.
That's what's sad.

Even more sad is that people fail to see it - they'd rather be blinded by the bumbling dumbass who claims to lead us.

Exactly!

Posted by Charles K at September 3, 2004 12:02 PM
To resopnd to Catori:

((Posted by Charles K at August 29, 2004 08:18 PM
WHY HAS KERRY CHANGED HIS STORIES? This isn't a matter of "flip-flopping" or anything, this is absolute fact, the Kerry campaign has conceded that the SBV were correct on at least two counts, and a third is on the horizon. Considering those are the only two that have really come under scrutiny, a 100% rate of truthfulness is hard to ignore.

Pick a source. Any source. At this point even you should have been able to find the deceptions of the ads. If not, go back and read this thread again. There are plenty of links posted.))

Ummm...ok, you know what, you need to read what you're responding to. You have a habit of ignoring what someone says; this is the second time I've had to point this out to you on this thread alone. Anyway, I was talking about the two issues that the SBV brought to light...Cambodia and the self-inflicted Purple Heart, both issues which the Kerry campaign has admitted that the SBV are right about. And yet, you bring up the ads...ok, well, yeah, Bill has already explained why the ads are correct...I think it's incumbent on you to say why the ads are FALSE, not point to articles that discredit a couple of the members (ignoring the fact that there are over 200) and use that as an excuse to not listen to what they're SAYING. I mean, bu that logic, since a handful of Kerry's statements have turned out to be discredited, EVERYTHING he says and represents must be a lie. I'm sure that you, not being hypocritical, agree to that statement.

Okay. You know what? You're the most disingenious person I've seen post here. Ck, you can't address issues brought forth by the SWV and not address the ads themselves. The ads have been disproved over and over. Keep living in your illusion until November and then we'll wake you. It wasn't a "couple" of members discredited but the entire group that spoke in the ad. Their comments were either disproved or serious doubts placed on them by their unstated agendas. Your own words show your hypocracy. You decry Kerry for making a mistake on a date and make the if/then argument that since he erred with the date then of course everything he says must be a lie yet the Swift Boat Vets have had large holes blown in their statements and you still cling to the invalid idea they somehow they're telling the truth. riiight. Back in the little room you go. While you're in there you might want to also review the fact that many of the vets who's statements were morphed and twisted on the SBV website have asked for them to remove their name from the page.

As for proving the ads false: READ MAN! Most credible new sources have already reported on the documentation that supports Kerry's claims and discredits the SBV claims. As far as where kerry was on Christmas eve. it's possible and probable that he was close to Cambodia and might have thought they were across the border. Ask anyone, ANYONE who was actually in nam if they knew where they were every minute and they'll tell you "no".

((Posted by Charles K at August 30, 2004 06:31 PM
Those of you who choose to believe the lies Democrats spread about our Commander in Chief, but support our troops in Iraq 100% are hypocrites.

First, I haven't seen lies and secondly, no sir, and I can not say this firmly or strongly enough. Disagreeing with our president, his approach to this war and our occupation of Iraq does NOT mean I disrespect the men and women who serve there. God love them all. They do their duty in a dangerous occupation and are worthy of honor and respect regardless of anyone's politics. Shame on you for using them as a political football.))

Once again, read what you respond to. I listed a number of lies that Kerry and the Democrats have told about Bush, but I'll go ahead and recopy them from earlier in this thread:

Again disingenious one, you read your own words. Because I choose to believe there are MANY lies associated with this war, do not support Bush does NOT mean I cannot support the men and women serving in Iraq. They deserve and receive my ultimate respect and you do them dishonor AND degrade the american people by suggesting otherwise.

Posted by Jerome Maida at September 3, 2004 03:10 PM
Craig,
Actually, people did learn lessons from Vietnam. They learned that if we're going to fight a war, we'd better be in there to win. They learned that you should constantly let your troops know you support them, both in words and in deeds, and that you appreciate their sacrifice. They learned to not take actions based on what is politically popular, but on what it takes to win. They learned that if the media start calling a military a "quagmire" (after only three weeks in Iraq!), you ignore them and achieve your goal. They learned a lot of things that have made this war successful (and before you start, the WAR was amazingly successful, we are now dealing with keeping the peace).

We have not achieved peace. We have not won this war. This war has not been successful. I pray it can be turned around but it will be many many years before we are able to leave Iraq. We didn't go into the battle prepared. We didn't have a plan past the battle and now exiting will be an ardous and difficult process.

Posted by Jerome Maida at September 3, 2004 03:20 PM
Also, the "divisions" of the '60s have always been overstated.

Overstated? Jerome, you weren't around in the 60's were you? Look at the anger and passion that is still alive after 30 years. Talk to the vets on both sides of the issue. Thursday night in WV, someone took a shot at the GOP headquarters while some volunteers were inside watching the president's speech. Whether it was a random act of violence or a political statement of a criminal, no one knows yet. But to misread the anger felt by a large portion of the American people is terribly short sighted. (And before one of you suggests it: NO, I do not in ANY way shape or form condone violence of this type.)

If our country ends torn by another election that does not clearly define a winner then I fear for it's stability. Like Peter, when I think of four more years of Bush I become anxious. I truly believe he will bring our nation to it's knees.

posted by Jerome Maida at September 3, 2004 03:59 PM
Catori,
1.) McCain is definitely more popular with the MEDIA, I'll give you that
2.) Re: Refugees returning to Iraq
"Of course they are, Jim. It's their home. Residents return after any disaster to their homes to pick up the pieces and try to rebuild".
However, Catori, if the situation in Iraq were truly as bad as the media and protesters continue to portray it has been and is, as chaotic, and if as many Iraqis were truly as fearful and resentful of the "oppressor" U.S. as is commonly portrayed, then there would be a dire refugee crisis. Iraq had four refugee crises in the 20th century, one during 1958 and one during the war with Iran. The fact that there is no refugee crisis refutes the theory that Iraqis are generally worse off and hate the U.S. "occupation".

That's supposition and I believe invalid. Did you see the number of people after Charley who fought police to return to their homes which were for the most part destroyed? They were without shelter, water, food but still they chose to go home. Did you read the account of the Iraq team who asked Bush to remove reference to them from his campaign message? Their viewpoint was that oppression was oppression and a bullet from either side will still kill.

"I follow no man blindly."
Neither do I. Please don't nfer that I do.

Post where I said you did. however, failure to question what you're being fed will lead people to question whether this is the case.

Posted by Rob Staeger at September 3, 2004 09:33 PM
But in all seriousness, Cheney and Bush are attacking Kerry's record using the Swift Boat Liars as a smokescreen. Literally, you're right, but in practical terms, you're being completely disingenuous.

Rob

Yeppers.

JoeV
They figured why waste their time on this looser who the polls show is being clobbered by GB.

If you believe anyone is clobbering their opponent in this campaign you aren't keeping yourself informed. BTW, thanks for that example of how there's no anger or hatefulness coming from the GOP.

Catori,

The fucking problem around here is that things are taken too serious. Some of you guys need to lighten up & take a little jest. BTW, right after my comment I said:

thankyouverymuchgoodnighteverybody.

On a serious note, and I do mean serious....

which meant that the above statement was sent in jest.

the "thankyouverymuchgoodnighteverybody." is used at the end of a lot of comedy performances. & then I follwed it w/ "On a serious note...".

My advice is take a fucking chill pill & stop taking everything as an attack. It was a Goddamn joke.

Hows that for "...anger or hatefulness coming from the GOP."
Was that angry enough, 'cause after all, all you Democrats are INCAPABLE of showing anger and hatefulnes, right? You guys love everybody, don't you?

PAD,
"It'll be the same as with Gore: Bush will come across as the folksy, self-effacing guy who Americans want to kick back and eat barbecue with, and Kerry will come across as the guy whose grades blew the curve on high school social studies tests."

See, now I never got that feeling from Gore or Kerry at all. Neither exactly set the academic world on fire. As far as I know Kerry has never released his SAT scores as Bush and Gore did. Kerry does speak like many college professor I've had but if I were taking notes on only the important point of his speeches I'd have lots of space left over for doodles (I was always partial to airplanes shooting at guys in parachutes. Sometimes they'd have little word balloons going "Argh!" or "Aieee!")

Fred,
"I guess that I consider the upcoming debates and not only believe that Kerry will make Bush look like the babblng fool that he is and/or Bush will fall prey to something that he has in many interviews.... that being his frequent inability to take criticism graciously without getting flustered, openly annoyed, angry, or not actually responding to the main point of the question or statement made."

You're kidding right? You think that BUSH is the one who needs to watch out about coming across as a total tool? Kerry is the one who keeps blaming his underlings, speechwriters, secret service men, etc etc for every little thing that goes wrong. Personally I think Kerry should do well--the senate does train one to make debates and while Bush clocked Gore the last time it was more because of whatever the hell happened to Gore that made him act crazy as a pet coon than anything Bush did (other than not act like the aforementioned coon.)

Catori,
"There is no spin here. No where did I say Kerry released the material to ALL reporters. He selected a number, they reviewed them, and said nothing new was discovered."

No, Catori, he did not. He allowed a small number of reporters to view a small number of documents for a brief period of time.

Me--I don't think either of these are deliberate lies.

Catori--NEITHER was a lie and I resent like hell your implications that I would lie.

Well, that just shows how no good turn goes unstoned. With all the talk about how candidates and posters "lie" whenever they have simply made a mistake--as we ALL do--I make it very clear that I DON'T believe that Catori is trying to pull the wool over our eyes and all it does is give him an excuse to get all resentful. Whatever, man.

Catori says:
"As far as where kerry was on Christmas eve. it's possible and probable that he was close to Cambodia and might have thought they were across the border. Ask anyone, ANYONE who was actually in nam if they knew where they were every minute and they'll tell you "no"."

Again, nice try. The evidence shows that he was a good 50 miles away--much to far away to not know he wasn't in Cambodia. But look at what he said:

In a Boston Herald piece inspired by "Apocalypse Now," Mr. Kerry wrote: "On more than one occasion, I, like Martin Sheen in 'Apocalypse Now,' took my patrol boat into Cambodia.
"In fact, I remember spending Christmas Day of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese Allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real."

Mr. Kerry made similar claims on the Senate floor in 1986, adding that the memory was "seared--seared--in me." He also peddled variations on this story during press interviews over the years.

Now THIS is a lie, pure and simple. Normally I'd give the guy the benefit of the doubt. When you start saying crap like "seared--seared" you lose the benefit. When you try to use this false memory to influence policy--which was the point of his statements--you have an obligation to make sure they have some semblance of reality.

Nixon was not president in 1968. Kerry was not in Cambodia in Christmas 1968. No evidence has yet surfaced that he EVER was in Cambodia.

These truths need not mean that Kerry is unfit to be president. But don't pretend they are not tuths.

Psersonally nothing the Swift vets ads have shown would disqualify Kerry in my eyes. Now his REACTION to all this...if he runs the country with the competance he has run his campaign...

Incidentally, both TIME and NEWSWEEK both have Bush ahead by double digits now. THIS is what we call a post convention bounce. So much for the "there are no undecideds so that's why Kerry got no bounce" hypothesis.

(But I expect it to be nearly a tie again in 3 or 4 weeks, max.)

"Well, the President's "dog and pony" show has just ended, and finally, at last, John Kerry takes the offensive by going out in public in the middle of Ohio at midnight to refute and respond. And he's going at it real well, making time and making points and driving home his message......and.....what does CNN do? They cut the speech off before it's over so Larry King can have his panel yak for 20 minutes!"

I think they panicked when he opened with "I have five words for Americans," and followed with "This is your wake up call!"

Ok, ok, I know, you can hyphenate "wake up" making it "wake-up", so it works, but I'll bet lots of folks were counting on their fingers and thinking "The hell...?".

At any rate, while I know it played well to an increasingly pissed off Democrat base, I think it was a mistake. It came off looking desperate, especially when a day or two later the polls come out.

Kerry needs someone he trusts to grab hold of this campaign and slap it into shape. And it has to be soon--when Democrats start to smell blood they often jump ship. I remember the post mortems being written for Mondale and Dukakis long before the election was over, which certainly didn't improve their chances.

Catori (and I still haven't figured out tags...)
"The ads have been disproved over and over"

And NO. THEY. HAVEN'T. Criminy, you claim I'M disengenous. Just 'cause you say it, don't mean it true, man! Go look at Mr. Mulligan's post. And why do you keep harping on the ADS? I wasn't TALKING about the ads. I was talking about the Cambodia claim and the purple heart claim. Wait, let me say that again because you can't seem to understand that. I was talking about the Cambodia claim and the purple heart claim. I was talking about the Cambodia claim and the purple heart claim. I was talking about the Cambodia claim and the purple heart claim. Tell me those have been "disproved" considering the Kerry campaign capitulated?

Ok, let's play Catori logic. Clinton lied under oath, therefore his entire presidency, no, wait, the entire Democratic party must be liars! Cause apparently, all it takes is one and every single fact is thrown out.

"Again disingenious one, you read your own words. Because I choose to believe there are MANY lies associated with this war, do not support Bush does NOT mean I cannot support the men and women serving in Iraq. They deserve and receive my ultimate respect and you do them dishonor AND degrade the american people by suggesting otherwise."
Respond to the issue, please.

Posted by Joe V. at September 4, 2004 12:03 PM
Catori,

The fucking problem around here is that things are taken too serious. Some of you guys need to lighten up & take a little jest. BTW, right after my comment I said:

thankyouverymuchgoodnighteverybody.

On a serious note, and I do mean serious....

which meant that the above statement was sent in jest.

the "thankyouverymuchgoodnighteverybody." is used at the end of a lot of comedy performances. & then I follwed it w/ "On a serious note...".

My advice is take a fucking chill pill & stop taking everything as an attack. It was a Goddamn joke.

Hows that for "...anger or hatefulness coming from the GOP."
Was that angry enough, 'cause after all, all you Democrats are INCAPABLE of showing anger and hatefulnes, right? You guys love everybody, don't you?

Thank you for that excellent example of the kinder, gentler GOP.
Lemme see if I get this right, you make a comment on an internet bulletin board and then get your nose outta joint because it can't be determined it's a joke? oooookay

Btw, I am a Republican.

Posted by Bill Mulligan at September 4, 2004 12:26 PM

Catori,
"There is no spin here. No where did I say Kerry released the material to ALL reporters. He selected a number, they reviewed them, and said nothing new was discovered."

No, Catori, he did not. He allowed a small number of reporters to view a small number of documents for a brief period of time.

You say no. I read yes. I'll take the news report over your word, thanks.

Me--I don't think either of these are deliberate lies.

Catori--NEITHER was a lie and I resent like hell your implications that I would lie.

Well, that just shows how no good turn goes unstoned. With all the talk about how candidates and posters "lie" whenever they have simply made a mistake--as we ALL do--I make it very clear that I DON'T believe that Catori is trying to pull the wool over our eyes and all it does is give him an excuse to get all resentful. Whatever, man.

Oh? What part of "deliberate lie" did I misunderstand? As in it was a lie just not deliberate?

Posted by Bill Mulligan at September 4, 2004 01:11 PM
Catori says:
"As far as where kerry was on Christmas eve. it's possible and probable that he was close to Cambodia and might have thought they were across the border. Ask anyone, ANYONE who was actually in nam if they knew where they were every minute and they'll tell you "no"."

Again, nice try. The evidence shows that he was a good 50 miles away--much to far away to not know he wasn't in Cambodia. But look at what he said:

Yeah, 50 miles in a country you're unfamiliar with during war time when your mind is on staying alive and not getting shot..I can understand how there would be no confusion or uncertainity of your position. Excuse me, gotta go roll my eyes.

Posted by Charles K at September 4, 2004 02:15 PM
Catori
"The ads have been disproved over and over"

And NO. THEY. HAVEN'T. Criminy, you claim I'M disengenous. Just 'cause you say it, don't mean it true, man! Go look at Mr. Mulligan's post. And why do you keep harping on the ADS? I wasn't TALKING about the ads. I was talking about the Cambodia claim and the purple heart claim. Wait, let me say that again because you can't seem to understand that. I was talking about the Cambodia claim and the purple heart claim. I was talking about the Cambodia claim and the purple heart claim. I was talking about the Cambodia claim and the purple heart claim. Tell me those have been "disproved" considering the Kerry campaign capitulated?

Get a grip. Since the questions in large part were raised because of the SBV ads and because in your own statements you make reference to the ads LOL I would say they're connected. Good lord, man, even in your rant here you begin with a reference to them. The question of Kerry's medals has been answered numerous times. You choose not to accept it and continue to cling to the falsehoods. So be it.

Ok, let's play Catori logic. Clinton lied under oath, therefore his entire presidency, no, wait, the entire Democratic party must be liars! Cause apparently, all it takes is one and every single fact is thrown out.

Do you read what you write, Dude? That was your premise.

"Again disingenious one, you read your own words. Because I choose to believe there are MANY lies associated with this war, do not support Bush does NOT mean I cannot support the men and women serving in Iraq. They deserve and receive my ultimate respect and you do them dishonor AND degrade the american people by suggesting otherwise."
Respond to the issue, please.

Comprehension problems? Want me to elaborate on my comments? Don't present an if/then argument that says my questions about the war and belief in Bush's deliberate misleading of the public equates to disrespecting and dishonoring our service men and women. Your word was: hypocrite. Got it now?

I say"
Cator says:
"There is no spin here. No where did I say Kerry released the material to ALL reporters. He selected a number, they reviewed them, and said nothing new was discovered."

I reply:
No, Catori, he did not. He allowed a small number of reporters to view a small number of documents for a brief period of time.

catori says:
Y"ou say no. I read yes. I'll take the news report over your word, thanks."

Ooookay. Of course, you fail to list any news report. Here's one, from the Boston Globe:

Kerry refuses to release more records
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | April 20, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The day after John F. Kerry said he would make all of his military records available for inspection at his campaign headquarters,a spokesman said the senator would not release any new documents, leaving
undisclosed many of Kerry's evaluations by his Navy commanding officers, some medical records, and possibly other material.

Kerry, in an interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press," was asked whether he would follow President Bush's example and release all of his military records. "I have," Kerry said. "I've shown them -- they're available for you to come and look at." He added that "people can come and see them at headquarters."

But when a reporter showed up yesterday morning to review the documents, the campaign staff declined, saying all requests must go through the press spokesman, Michael Meehan. Late yesterday, Meehan said the only records available would be those already released to this newspaper.

"He is releasing all military records he has released to The Boston Globe," Meehan said in a telephone interview. In a follow-up e-mail, Meehan said it was those particular records to which Kerry was referring on "Meet the Press."

Kerry has not released the formal evaluations from superior officers, although his campaign has given a letter from a commanding officer that recommended him for service aboard Navy patrol boats and also reports for the Silver and Bronze stars that laud Kerry's actions in combat. By comparison, retired Army General Wesley K. Clark released hundreds of pages
of his records during the Democratic primary campaign, including all evaluations of him by his superiors.

Bush earlier this year released 300 pages of documents after media outlets raised new questions about the extent of his National Guard service.Those records, which Bush promised during a Feb. 8 appearance on "Meet the Press" to make available, included many military evaluations and medical records.

White House communications director Dan Bartlett, in a telephone interview, contrasted Bush's action with that of Kerry's. "The president
made a pledge before the American people, and he made his complete file available to the media and the public," Bartlett said. "They were able to
review all of his medical records, and we fully released the remainder of his military files, including evaluations and performance sheets as well as days served. The president lived up to his commitment he made to the public, and we should expect the same from his opponent."

The question about Kerry's military records came up when Tim Russert, the moderator of "Meet The Press," asked the Massachusetts senator about a story in the Globe last week that quoted Kerry's former commanding officer, Lieutenant Commander Grant Hibbard, as saying that he raised questions about Kerry's first Purple Heart. Hibbard said that he had heard from others in
the office that there were questions about whether Kerry and his crew took enemy fire, and Hibbard observed that Kerry's wound was minor, resembling a fingernail scrape. Purple Heart regulations say nothing about the severity
of the wound. The campaign earlier this year showed the Globe a record verifying that Kerry was treated for the wound and that shrapnel was
removed. That document was cited in last week's story, which was based on the forthcoming book, "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography," written by a team of Globe reporters.

Meehan said yesterday that the campaign would show that document to what he called "legitimate" news organizations. He said other records previously shared with the Globe -- including documents describing Kerry's
actions when he was awarded the Silver and Bronze stars -- would be shared with other reporters. Asked whether Kerry would release his evaluations, as Clark did during the primaries, Meehan responded: "We don't have Wesley
Clark's evaluations." Asked directly whether Kerry would release all of his own evaluations, Meehan repeated that the campaign would release only the records already made available.

Meehan similarly said no new records would be released when asked if the campaign would make public other medical records besides the one related to the first Purple Heart.

Well sir, there's the news report. You no longer need to take my word for. You're welcome.

Catori says:
"Yeah, 50 miles in a country you're unfamiliar with during war time when your mind is on staying alive and not getting shot..I can understand how there would be no confusion or uncertainity of your position. Excuse me, gotta go roll my eyes."

I think that Kerry was familar enough with the country to know that the mekong delta runs from Cambodia to vietnam...you can never be more than 100 miles or so far away from cambodia no matter WHERE you are on it.

But again, sir, you ignore the fact that while, as I said, you can allow for mistakes, what Kerry did in recounting this story over and over again, was to try to use it to influence policy.

He claimed that the US president (who was not president at the time), intentionally sent him on a secret mission into Cambodia and that this memory was "seared, seared" into his mind.

Now he admits it did not happen.

That's a big goof, way more than the picture you paint of a lost, scared guy under fire thinking he is somewhere he is not.

The Swift vets nailed this one, the Kerry camp has admitted it and all the eye rolling in the world won't change things. It would be best for the Kerry camp to change the subject and move on but if they want to keep picking at the scab and pretend they aren't making the wound any bigger, be my guest.

PAD:
"(not that getting the most votes seems to matter that much, really)"
Do you have any idea how tired this sounds? The Electoral College is in place for the specific reason that we are not one huge landmass called "The United States", similar to how England is simply England.
Each state has its own "personality" and priorities. California has much more stringent environmental regulations than, say, Pennsylvania. Alabama has much more relaxed gun laws than, say, New York. Also, many states seek change in defiance of, or prior to, the federal government - Prop 209 in Californis, the Governor of New mexico who pushed for decriminalization of drugs, etc.
If you really feel we should be treated as one nation, then you would embrace total Federalism. Forget states' rights, Governors, and State Supreme Courts. The only Chief Executive in the land would be the President, and all major legal challenges would be heard by the Supreme Court (which may cause justices to retire at a much younger age due to the increased workload during their terms).
Somehow,
I don't think many would like this. You may get more stringent environmental laws "across the land", but you may also have the whole country having the same attitudes on education, gun rights and gay rights as the Deep South.
Further, the Electoral College increases the significance of even the smallest states. I believe Rhode Island has about 400,000 people (although I may be mistaken. Please let me know if I am. I know its real small, and may even be less). So in a nation of close to 300 million people, their population is 1/600th of the nation, and 1/300th +1 of what it would take to get a majority. But their three electoral votes are slightly less than 1/180th of the Electoral total, and 1/90th of what it would take to win. While the candidates are not still not going to spend a lot of time in Rhode Island, they would have far less reason for doing so if the votes were simply counted coast-to-coast, and not within state boundaries and tabulated by the Electoral College system.
The ironic thing about all of this is for a couple weeks before the election most political pundits, and then-DNC Chairman, former-Philly Mayor and current-PA Governor Ed Rendell thought the opposite of what actually happened was gong to occur. That Bush would win by huge margins in Texas and states in the South and would win the popular vote, but that Gore would win in the Electoral College. And if that had happened, I would not have been happy, but would have accepted it. Because I understand the rules and why they are in place.
And can you wrap your mind around the thought that maybe, just maybe, if Bush "wins" the debates it will be because people listened to both men, and actually liked what Bush has to say better than what Kerry has to say? I realize this is out of the box thinking, and it is much easier to believe that Bush and anyone who supports him are morons. But try it. You just might like it.

Catori,
You're joking, right? That a Kerry, a trained soldier, would not know what country he was in means that this "war hero" is either lying or was so overcome by fear that he did not even know which country he was in, which actually would make him a liability and not an asset to his unit. All soldiers obviously are aware of the constant danger they face. But the best way to prevent that is by following orders, and being aware of their surroundngs at all times. Again, most Vietnam soldiers were not a bunch of frightened, confused children who had to only worry about snipers. Both sides were extremely organized (a refreshing fact deomonstrated in "We Were Soldiers"). If Kerry did not pay attention to things like surroundings, likely signs for land mines, areas/signs that would indicate enemy or sniper activity, then he was a bumbling incompetent who is lucky he wasn't killed. Of course, that would explain how he got so many Purple Hearts in such a short span of time, even the ones that weren't for self-inflicted injuries.
Roll your eyes all you want. This lie, made while trying to make a political point and compounded with not even getting the name of the president at the time right, says a lot about him. Again, if he wants to keep bringing it up and thinks it is a winning issue...well, be sure to thank him for me if you get a chance to see him at a rally.

I guess that I consider the upcoming debates and not only believe that Kerry will make Bush look like the babblng fool that he is ...

The same way that Gore made Bush look like the babbling fool that he is in 2000?

Oh wait ...

... and/or Bush will fall prey to something that he has in many interviews.... that being his frequent inability to take criticism graciously without getting flustered, openly annoyed, angry, or not actually responding to the main point of the question or statement made. I honestly believe we'll see all of this and only hope that the undecided are able to see it and respond accordingly.

Are we looking at the same candidates?

In 2000 it was Gore who got all flustered and looked like a raving loon. Remember when he ran over to Bush's podium and how calm Bush was in that situation?

Bush does get flustered when facing a hostile "open questions" media group. That's one of his main weaknesses. But debates are not the same thing. When Bush has his stuff prepared, as he will for the debates, Bush does a good job.

As for who will most likely come off looking like a raving lunatic, just look at Kerry's current self-implosion. His "rally" after the RNC was just sad and pathetic. "Really not compassionate"? "All Hat No Cattle"? "Five words: Here is your wake up call"? He just reeked of desperation.

All Bush would have to do is just disagree with Kerry on one thing and Kerry would lose it and start screaming that Bush was questioning his patriotism and that he served in Vietnam (you do know he served in Vietnam, right? Apparently it's this huuuuuggggggeeeeee secret).

It will be a marvelous meltdown to watch.

I will tell you this, though. Bush absolutely punked Kerry regarding the whole SBV situation. After the SBV raised several good questions (ie; Christmas in Cambodia which was seared ... SEARED ... in Kerry's memory and Kerry's post-Vietnam testimony) and Kerry started to whine about the SBVs and tried to *block* their ads and *block* their book, all Bush had to do was say "I think Kerry served honorably, and I don't think those ads or all other 527s have a place in this campaign. I call to stop all 527s and I hope Kerry does the same."

What part of denouncing them first does not get through to you? Kerry did so weeks before and asked the same of Bush. he was silent until he thought the SBV's had done their job.

Where did Kerry denounce the anti-Bush ads? I haven't seen any articles on that.

Second, as I said, Bush absolutely played Kerry like a fiddle regarding the SBV ads and 527s in general. The wait was just the perfect amount of time.

And then Kerry refused to, saying "it's not enough! whiiinnne!"?

Post proof of this. I recall his calling on Bush to denounce the SBVs, I recall Bush refusing. now wonder if that might be because of the major contributors that backed the ads?

Bush denounced *all* 527s. Including the SBV ads. He said that none of them had a place in this campaign, including that ad with "that ad" meaning the SBV ads.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040823/D84L3UO01.html

"That ad and every other ad" run by such groups have no place in the campaign, Bush said when asked about the commercial sponsored by Swift Boat Veterans For Truth that has roiled the race for the White House.

In Texas at his ranch, Bush said, "I don't think we ought to have 527s," a reference to the outside groups that have poured millions of dollars over the past year into attack ads. Bush himself has been a main target of ads costing some $60 million. Bush said all of the ads should be stopped.

"That means that ad," he said, referring to the anti-Kerry ad, "and every other ad."

"I couldn't be more plain about it," Bush said "I hope my opponent joins me in condemning these activities of the 527s."

And the Kerry campaign's reaction?

“The moment of truth came and went, and the President still couldn't bring himself to do the right thing. We need a president with the strength and integrity to say when something is wrong. Instead of hiding behind a front group, George Bush needs to take responsibility and demand that the ad come off the air. It’s funded by his own supporters, and casts one of his own campaign officials. President Bush, it's time to do the right thing.”

Taken straight from the Official Kerry/Edwards blog here: http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/002546.html

Funny, the Kerry campaing said: "Instead of hiding behind a front group, George Bush needs to take responsibility and demand that the ad come off the air." This after Bush said all of the ads should be stopped. If Bush said that all of the ads should be stopped wouldn't that logically also include the SBV ad that the Kerry campaign is demanding being taken off the air?

Sorry, but Bush punked Kerry here. Absolutely punked Kerry.

Funny thing is, it would've been easy to turn it back on Bush. Kerry could've joined Bush in condemning all 527s as well, then turned around and reminded Bush that it was he who signed the CFR bill in the first place and made it law, thus generating the existence of 527s in the first place. Boom, it's a victory for Kerry. But nope, Kerry valued his 527 groups too much to publically condemn all 527s. Of course, when about 80% of the money raised by 527 groups are from left-leaning groups that support Kerry, it's easy to see why Kerry wouldn't want to turn down that much support. Can't piss off the MoveOn.org folks, after all.

I don't think I've said Bush is dumb. I don't believe he's the smarted bean in the pod and his college transcripts and speech transcripts back that assumption up. But you're fooling yourself if you think Bush singularly plots his own campaign path. He has a number of strategists holding his hand all the way.

I'll tell you this, Bush's campaign strategists are doing a much better job than Kerry's campaign strategists. Whose bright idea was it to have Kerry go on at midnight immediately after the RNC and scream about how Bush and Cheney were attacking Kerry's "patriotism" then scream about his stint in Vietnam.

This is everything that Cheney said about Kerry's Vietnam stint in his speech:

"The President's opponent is an experienced senator. He speaks often of his service in Vietnam, and we honor him for it."

That's it! That's all Cheney said about Kerry's Vietnam service! The word "Vietnam" comes up nowhere else in Cheney's entire speech.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/01/politics/main640295.shtml

And this is what President Bush had to say about Kerry's sting in Vietnam:

...

Yep, that's right. President Bush did not mention Kerry's stint in Vietnam *at all* during his speech.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040902_2180.html

So for Kerry to suddenly go batshit loco over the Bush campaign "attacking" his patriotism when they did no such thing is ... well ... that's just not good strategy. Kerry needs a new campaign strategist -- pronto!

Catori says:

"Get a grip. Since the questions in large part were raised because of the SBV ads and because in your own statements you make reference to the ads LOL I would say they're connected. Good lord, man, even in your rant here you begin with a reference to them. The question of Kerry's medals has been answered numerous times. You choose not to accept it and continue to cling to the falsehoods. So be it. "

Really. Let's take a look, shall we? My very first post on the issue (August 29, 1:03 pm):

"Beyond that, the bottom line is that the SBV are telling the TRUTH. All the truth? That's probably not the case, but the FACT is that the Kerry campaign has now altered their stories on TWO of the positions that the SBV brought to light. They've switched gears on the Cambodia story, and this week admitted that the first purple heart may have been for self-inflicted wounds. A third issue, the V on the silver star, is also turning out to be an issue. "

ME NOW: Do you see a reference to the ads in there? Do ya? Do ya? Oooh...notice how I even say there that maybe what the SBV are saying is 100% accurate? Oh no, you ignored that. But that's ok. Let's continue our voyage, with Catori's response (posted August 29, 4:43), which ignores pretty much everything I wrote:

"Hardly. Most of the claims were repudiated in the official records of the events. The others were dismissed as soon as Rood broke his silence.
"

Which claims were repudiated, Catori? The ones I mentioned, or the ones you decided to suddenly bring into the coversation...which you didn't actually bring in.

Let's continue with me at 8:18:
"Well, ignoring the fact that you chose not to print the VERY NEXT LINE I WROTE, I have to ask, WHY HAS KERRY CHANGED HIS STORIES? This isn't a matter of "flip-flopping" or anything, this is absolute fact, the Kerry campaign has conceded that the SBV were correct on at least two counts, and a third is on the horizon. Considering those are the only two that have really come under scrutiny, a 100% rate of truthfulness is hard to ignore."

So, I point out you ignored my post, reiterated my statement about the FACTS that KERRY CONCEDED THAT THE SBV WERE CORRECT, and SAID NOTHING ABOUT THE ADS. Still with me?

Here's your response, September 2, 8:28:
"Pick a source. Any source. At this point even you should have been able to find the deceptions of the ads. If not, go back and read this thread again. There are plenty of links posted."

And you mention THE ADS AGAIN, once again IGNORING EVERYTHING ELSE. Not ME bringing up the ads, YOU.

Finally, on September 3, I posted this:
"Ummm...ok, you know what, you need to read what you're responding to. You have a habit of ignoring what someone says; this is the second time I've had to point this out to you on this thread alone. Anyway, I was talking about the two issues that the SBV brought to light...Cambodia and the self-inflicted Purple Heart, both issues which the Kerry campaign has admitted that the SBV are right about. And yet, you bring up the ads...ok, well, yeah, Bill has already explained why the ads are correct...I think it's incumbent on you to say why the ads are FALSE, not point to articles that discredit a couple of the members (ignoring the fact that there are over 200) and use that as an excuse to not listen to what they're SAYING. I mean, bu that logic, since a handful of Kerry's statements have turned out to be discredited, EVERYTHING he says and represents must be a lie. I'm sure that you, not being hypocritical, agree to that statement."

And I bring up the issues I was talking about YET AGAIN (which are still conveniently ignored by you), and mention the ads only in reference to Bill Mulligan's post.

Soooo....now explain this line of your most previous post on the matter to me:
"Since the questions in large part were raised because of the SBV ads and because in your own statements you make reference to the ads LOL I would say they're connected."

I think I've relatively proved my point that you don't bother to read what other people post...you just want to list your talking points.

wont to know why kerry wont release his mil.rec. is it becouse he only used purple hearts to get out of vetnam.and wonts no one to know he was onley scratched.

You can't be 40680 serious?!?