Generation X of American Politics

[awesome possum]

Was it a smear for people to go after Bush because of his National Guard service?

Oh, and for all those who joyfully pile on the "Tea Baggers", I think the Dallas group got a pretty good dig in on Keith Olberman. He apparently went on a rant about how there was no diversity in the Tea Party movement, and they fired back with a pretty clever video.

http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2010/02/genius-ad-dallas-tea-party-group.html

This post is full of fail.

It was a smear when the Swift Boaters lied and distorted the truth to make the Democratic candidate's strongest suit (being a veteran of a war) into his weakest. They made Kerry out to be a cowardly turncoat who practically deserted his post. You're saying that's equal to questioning George W. Bush doing everything in his (daddy's) power to avoid seeing anything resembling combat?

[awesome possum]

I wonder whatever gave us the impression that the Tea Bag--Partiers were racist?

B...bu...but they had BLACK PEOPLE in their video!!!

[The Progressive]

If the issue is Kerry's truthfulness, then it does matter. And I didn't think the argument against him on this count would be as solid if it wasn't for the number of times he repeated it and the "seared" comment.

I really don't see this point, given how trivial it is. Given that the events happenned decades ago, how far or which exact date he might have crossed into the Cambodian border is utterly trivial and those who keep harping about it as some sort of relevation about the "truthiness" of John Kerry is simply a ploy at distraction.

The truth was that the VVAW was very political, wanted the war to end, and some prominent members weren't above misrepresenting the truth to achieve that end. There were certainly war crimes, but a lot of the stuff that came out of Winter Soldier was just not true.

Again, you keep saying that a lot of "stuff" that came out was not true, but cannot specify what those "stuff" are. However, "since the first day of the WSI event and for more than thirty years since, individuals and organizations have sought to discredit or at least minimize the painful revelations brought forth at that event. Critics have claimed that participants were frauds; that they were told to not cooperate with later investigators; that their testimonies were inaccurate or just plain fabricated.[18] To date, no records of fraudulent participants or fraudulent testimony have been produced."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Soldier_Investigation#cite_note-Gerald_Nicosia_2004.2C_Page_84-89-9

Anyway, the entire point of this tangent was that while I'd agree the SBVT weren't always right, they also raised legitimate issues that they had every right to make. The thing that really pissed them off, with justification, was that Kerry made it sound like every officer in Vietnam was complicit in war crimes. That's simply not true, and if I were someone who served with him, I'd have been furious about that too.

I think the second thing that bugged them was that Kerry took advantage of a "three wounds and you're out" policy to shorten his combat term to less than four months. His admiral has stated that Kerry was the only officer under his command to take advantage of that provision, though plenty of other officers were entitled to. In the military ethic, he bailed on everyone he left behind because of minor wounds, and among officers, that doesn't sit well. So when he tried to make his Vietnam experience such a central part of his campaign, it pissed them off.

I'm puzzled that you could even make this argument given the comnplaints you make over Kerry's journal entries about Cambodia. If the swiftboaters' entire arguments are based on lies about Kerry's wounds and medals and the denials of wartime atrocities, then what legitimacy could there be in their manufactured effort?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Is lying the same as telling the truth?

So you've got no problem with truthful criticisms relating to Kerry's time in Vietnam? I thought the point of your post was that even truthful comments relating to Kerry by SBVT were "smears". In terms of truthfullness, I discussed the Cambodia claims above. And while you can't call him a "liar" for Senate testimony because he admittedly was repeating stuff he had been told, a great deal of it turned out to be untrue or, at the minimum, unverifiable. It also was truthful for them to point out that he bailed on them after a few months and didn't serve out the bulk of his tour with his unit

They made Kerry out to be a cowardly turncoat who practically deserted his post. You're saying that's equal to questioning George W. Bush doing everything in his (daddy's) power to avoid seeing anything resembling combat?

Yes, when the underlying issue is the right of independent groups to purchase radio, TV, or print advertisements critical of candidates.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I really don't see this point, given how trivial it is. Given that the events happenned decades ago, how far or which exact date he might have crossed into the Cambodian border is utterly trivial and those who keep harping about it as some sort of relevation about the "truthiness" of John Kerry is simply a ploy at distraction.

If the issue was whether Kerry ever lied, then it is completely relevant. You, and voters, were free to give it whatever weight you chose.

Again, you keep saying that a lot of "stuff" that came out was not true, but cannot specify what those "stuff" are.

I'm not going to regurgitate every single allegation made at the Winter Soldier meeting. There are entire books on that that I've referenced in links. At this point, it's a link war. However, if you're going to claim that all those things were truthful, it is remarkable that there was not a single prosecution after those incidents were investigated.

[alguien]

So you've got no problem with truthful criticisms relating to Kerry's time in Vietnam? I thought the point of your post was that even truthful comments relating to Kerry by SBVT were "smears". In terms of truthfullness, I discussed the Cambodia claims above. And while you can't call him a "liar" for Senate testimony because he admittedly was repeating stuff he had been told, a great deal of it turned out to be untrue or, at the minimum, unverifiable. It also was truthful for them to point out that he bailed on them after a few months and didn't serve out the bulk of his tour with his unit

The one criticism I've heard (and it seems pretty minor) is that Kerry's boat may not have been in the exact geographic location he thought it was on a particular day over 30 years ago. And this was buried in a whole host of lies, paid for by known Republicans receiving known Republican support.

Please point me to the equivalent from the Left with Bush's "combat" experience.

FLoW, you have thoughtful posts at times, but also a very repetitive and irritating case of thinking apples are oranges.

Not to mention, as I understand it, everyone and their grandmother would take a three-wound clause out, so that kind of criticism baffles me.

Yes, when the underlying issue is the right of independent groups to purchase radio, TV, or print advertisements critical of candidates.

Honestly, this reads like you care more for corporation's right to express themselves than the truth.

[The Progressive]

If the issue was whether Kerry ever lied, then it is completely relevant. You, and voters, were free to give it whatever weight you chose.

No, the central issue was Kerry's service for his country during the Vietnam war and how does such services compared to Bush. The inability to discern this has led to 4 additionally abysmal years, so congratulations?

I'm not going to regurgitate every single allegation made at the Winter Soldier meeting. There are entire books on that that I've referenced in links. At this point, it's a link war.

You made the claim, repeatedly. Either back it up or quit trolling ..... it's really not that complicated.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The one criticism I've heard (and it seems pretty minor) is that Kerry's boat may not have been in the exact geographic location he thought it was on a particular day over 30 years ago. And this was buried in a whole host of lies, paid for by known Republicans receiving known Republican support.

Kerry identified that specific event as a personal epiphany in his life that he subsequently milked for political advantage at every opportunity. The absolute critical detail in the story is the location. If it turned out he invented the story because it sounded good, I think that's relevant.

Not to mention, as I understand it, everyone and their grandmother would take a three-wound clause out, so that kind of criticism baffles me.

Not true at all, as his Admiral pointed out. Along the same lines, I personally was involved in three separate situations with servicemembers who had the legal right to get removed from a combat assignment because of a different federal exemption, who chose combat and deployment over being removed. One of the individuals changed his mind right when the fecal matter was about to hit the rotating blades, and we had to pull him from our unit and send him back for a noncombat assignment in the rear. After things were over and he rejoined the unit, we took a unit picture of everyone who deployed, and he slid into the unit. He was rather roughly removed physically from the photo by peers who didn't take too kindly to his bailing out on a technicality.

If you take the proverbial million dollar wound, nobody will begrudge you. But if you've essentially just gotten scratches and its a technicality, that will not go over well at all, especially among officers.

Honestly, this reads like you care more for corporation's right to express themselves than the truth.

I certainly care more about the constitutional principle than I do whether a particular ad was truthful or not. Absolutely.

[The Progressive]

Kerry identified that specific event as a personal epiphany in his life that he subsequently milked for political advantage at every opportunity. The absolute critical detail in the story is the location. If it turned out he invented the story because it sounded good, I think that's relevant.

This is getting even more absurd. Kerry's point was that his experiences in Vietnam has contributed to his antiwar perspective and as a motivation for his political aspiration. To seize on a single inconsequential dispute on a single event as a ploy for distraction is to make mountains out of molehills.

If you take the proverbial million dollar wound, nobody will begrudge you. But if you've essentially just gotten scratches and its a technicality, that will not go over well at all, especially among officers.

The man was shot and wounded and left under clear and allowed procedures, to call that "scatches" or "technicalitiss" makes one seems like a petty armchair chickenhawk.

[Swordfish]

Perhaps next you guys can debate the Florida recounts in the 2000 election. Or possibly thw Whitewater scandal.

Did you hear that Clinton lied under oath?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You made the claim, repeatedly. Either back it up or quit trolling ..... it's really not that complicated.

Or a mod will mysteriously appear once again, yes, I understand your methods. Anyway, I did back it up on the previous page, but you evidently did not read the link. So I'm now stuck, because as the link pointed out, the Winter Soldier meetings consisted of three days of videotaped statements from over 100 people. So unless I somehow manage to reproduce all that testimony, I'll be banned as a troll, I suppose. Well played, sir!

I suppose I can just put the link in again, and point out that there is an entire book referenced in the link that covered the subseqent investigations in detail.

http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?page=20031112091257277

[alguien]

Kerry identified that specific event as a personal epiphany in his life that he subsequently milked for political advantage at every opportunity. The absolute critical detail in the story is the location. If it turned out he invented the story because it sounded good, I think that's relevant.

Did he still go on the mission? Yes. Was it actually in Cambodia or just near it? Debatable. Was it dangerous? Certainly. I find this kind of finagling disingenuous and its comparison to criticism of Bush's laughable "combat" experience mystifying.

Not true at all, as his Admiral pointed out...If you take the proverbial million dollar wound, nobody will begrudge you. But if you've essentially just gotten scratches and its a technicality, that will not go over well at all, especially among officers.

Just out of curiosity was [ETA: your experience] in Vietnam? In any event, by the accounts I've read, nearly all of Kerry's crewmen didn't "begrudge" the man after he left, aside from one. And most of his officers, according the Wikipedia profile on him, had good things to say about the man.

I certainly care more about the constitutional principle than I do whether a particular ad was truthful or not. Absolutely.

Which constitutional principle is that? The one where whichever side has the most money is able to advertise whatever they like?

[DanteGabriel]

In an effort to move past FLoW's latest tapdancing performance, Scott Brown is apparently going to break with the GOP to support the Democratic jobs bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/22/brown-will-break-with-gop_n_472300.html

No word yet on the Tea Party reaction to this gross and pernicious betrayal.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This is getting even more absurd. Kerry's point was that his experiences in Vietnam has contributed to his antiwar perspective and as a motivation for his political aspiration. To seize on a single inconsequential dispute on a single event as a ploy for distraction is to make mountains out of molehills.

So it was just a little lie, eh?

The man was shot and wounded and left under clear and allowed procedures, to call that "scatches" or "technicalitiss" makes one seems like a petty armchair chickenhawk.

And if I was a petty armchair chickenhawk, I might take offense.

Two of the wounds required only a bandage and he missed no duty time at all. The other resulted in missing two days. Technically, they qualified for Purple Hearts.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp

Now as I've said, I think people who did not serve, but mocked him out by wearing with purple bandages, are revolting. That is a separate issue from his peers critizing him for bailing on his unit because of those injuries. As I said eslewhere, my personal experience validates that type of resentment.

[Shryke]

Did you hear that Clinton lied under oath?

I've been too busy anticipating the new ASOIAF book to pay attention. A Storm of Swords next month, A Dance with Dragons 2 years later, this series will be done before we know it!

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Just out of curiosity was [ETA: your experience] in Vietnam? In any event, by the accounts I've read, nearly all of Kerry's crewmen didn't "begrudge" the man after he left, aside from one. And most of his officers, according the Wikipedia profile on him, had good things to say about the man.

No, it wasn't. Kerry was an officer, so his peers were the other officers in his squadron.

Which constitutional principle is that? The one where whichever side has the most money is able to advertise the whatever they like?

Yup. That one!

[alguien]

In an effort to move past FLoW's latest tapdancing performance, Scott Brown is apparently going to break with the GOP to support the Democratic jobs bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/22/brown-will-break-with-gop_n_472300.html

No word yet on the Tea Party reaction to this gross and pernicious betrayal.

Hmmmm. This actually makes sense to me. Brown is a Republican in Massachusetts. He's essentially the GOP equivalent of a Blue Dog democrat. His state already has healthcare so he loses nothing by fighting against that federally and he is seen as working with Dems by Massachusetts independents to help create jobs.

[Lord of Rhinos]

Was it a smear for people to go after Bush because of his National Guard service?

Oh, and for all those who joyfully pile on the "Tea Baggers", I think the Dallas group got a pretty good dig in on Keith Olberman. He apparently went on a rant about how there was no diversity in the Tea Party movement, and they fired back with a pretty clever video.

http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2010/02/genius-ad-dallas-tea-party-group.html

LoL. Olberman is fun to mock.

[alguien]

LoL. Olberman is fun to mock.

This is very true.

[The Progressive]

Or a mod will mysteriously appear once again, yes, I understand your methods. Anyway, I did back it up on the previous page, but you evidently did not read the link. So I'm now stuck, because as the link pointed out, the Winter Soldier meetings consisted of three days of videotaped statements from over 100 people. So unless I somehow manage to reproduce all that testimony, I'll be banned as a troll, I suppose. Well played, sir!

I suppose I can just put the link in again, and point out that there is an entire book referenced in the link that covered the subseqent investigations in detail.

http://www.wintersoldier.com/staticpages/index.php?page=20031112091257277

If you're done with hanging yourself on that cross, perhaps we could get back to your intellectual credibility. Of course, self-martyrdom is a tough job and one might need more time to cries about it.

With regard to your link, it offered as "proof" two books, Guenter Lewy's 1978 book “America in Vietnam” and B.G. Burkett's 1998 book “Stolen Valor.” The first book was published barely 3 years after the war ended, with no details at all about the alleged fabricated testimonies. It ended with the declaration that no war crimes was uncovered since then.

The second book is about the life of the veterans after the war. I don't even know why the author of that blog even used it in his diatribes against Kerry, but there you go.