Senate rebukes MoveOn.org for Gen. 'Betray Us' ad

[stephanie]

moveon blew it with this move..

by Frank James

The Senate approved, by a 72 to 25 vote, a symbolic, Republican-initiated resolution condemning the recent MoveOn.org ad that called Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. "Betray Us," with 22 Democrats voting with the Republicans.

The resolution, introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) as an amendment to a defense authorization bill, had this statement of purpose:


"To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."

That official statement didn't mention MoveOn but it didn't have to. Everyone knew it was directed at the liberal group that has provided a lot of volunteers and donations to Democrats in recent years.

It was a vote meant to demonstrate the genuine outrage felt by many lawmakers, and not just Republicans, at the personal attack the ad represented on a widely respected military leader during war time.

But it didn't hurt, from the GOP's perspective, that it helped burnish the party's pro-military image and that it put Democrats in a difficult position politically since MoveOn.org has become an important force in Democratic Party politics.

Ever since the ad ran last week, Republicans have demanded that Democratic presidential candidates renounce the ad and MoveOn.org. The Democratic candidates have refused to publicly criticize MoveOn.org though Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) said the ad was wrong.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) had offered an alternative to Cornyn's resolution that meant to support the troops without singling out the Petraeus ad and, by implication, MoveOn.org.

The statement of purpose of her resolution read thusly:


Read the rest and lots of WHINING comments at...:coffee:
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/09/senate_rebukes_moveonorg_for_g.html

NAYs -—25
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 3
Biden (D-DE)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)

[AFbombloader]

Symbolic or not, :clap:

[jimnyc]

Why do Democrats hate to condemn those who impugn a man who has dedicated his life to our country?

[stephanie]

This ad is going to be used in a lot of campaigns...

I can see it now...

Way to go....moveon..:cheers2:

[Abbey Marie]

Another awesome thread by Stephanie! :clap:

It's a shame that Biden and Obama did not vote. Were they away campaigning, or hiding under their desks?

[BoogyMan]

Excellent post!

The fact that some are still capable of doing the right thing is heartening.

Having said that, the fact that the predictable list of MoveOn owned miscreants doesn't surprise me much.

[hjmick]

Another awesome thread by Stephanie! :clap:

It's a shame that Biden and Obama did not vote. Were they away campaigning, or hiding under their desks?

Obama had voted minutes earlier for an alternative resolution by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. That resolution condemned the MoveOn ad as an "unwarranted personal attack," but also condemned political attack ads that questioned the patriotism of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga.

[retiredman]

Obama had voted minutes earlier for an alternative resolution by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. That resolution condemned the MoveOn ad as an "unwarranted personal attack," but also condemned political attack ads that questioned the patriotism of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga.

so, I take it that the Boxer resolution did NOT pass?

That would make sense. Impugning the patriotism of servicemen, veterans and heroes is only repugnant to republicans if the ones being impugned are not democrats.

[hjmick]

so, I take it that the Boxer resolution did NOT pass?

That would make sense. Impugning the patriotism of servicemen, veterans and heroes is only repugnant to republicans if the ones being impugned are not democrats.

Correct, it did not pass.

Now, speaking only for myself, I find any attack on any serviceman, retired or active, of any rank, any branch, quite repugnant. However, the time to pass a resolution condemning such attack ads is not three years after the fact. IMO

[retiredman]

three years ago, the party that paid for those ads had majorities in both houses of congress.

[JohnDoe]

so, I take it that the Boxer resolution did NOT pass?

That would make sense. Impugning the patriotism of servicemen, veterans and heroes is only repugnant to republicans if the ones being impugned are not democrats. It surely appears that way...

[Gunny]

I was going to say I can't believe a couple of liberals who claim to be intelligent are defending such a hosed-up, extremist organization, but then ... yes I can.

[retiredman]

I was going to say I can't believe a couple of liberals who claim to be intelligent are defending such a hosed-up, extremist organization, but then ... yes I can.

I hope you are not talking about me...if you are, you need to show where I have EVER defended Moveon.org.

I'll wait.

[Dilloduck]

I hope you are not talking about me...if you are, you need to show where I have EVER defended Moveon.org.

I'll wait.

so are you saying there is a one to one comparison between the moveon ads and swiftboat ads ?

[JohnDoe]

so are you saying there is a one to one comparison between the moveon ads and swiftboat ads ?i don't know what mm thinks dillo, but my simple answer is YES. :D

jane

[retiredman]

I really get tired of you trying to paraphrase every single goddamned post I make. I am saying that I have never defended moveon.org. is that really so hard for you to understand?

[darin]

I hope you are not talking about me...if you are, you need to show where I have EVER defended Moveon.org.

I'll wait.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=121149&postcount=9

[retiredman]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=121149&postcount=9

you really have a tough time with the language, don't you? That is nowhere near a "defense" of moveon.org.

you're getting creepy obsessive again..... get out the jergens and leave me alone.

[darin]

you really have a tough time with the language, don't you? That is nowhere near a "defense" of moveon.org.

you're getting creepy obsessive again..... get out the jergens and leave me alone.

Spin...you spin faster than..uh...something that spins fast? I dunno...but I do know you're lame, and your weak-sauce attempts to backpedal make you a laughing stock.

[Dilloduck]

I really get tired of you trying to paraphrase every single goddamned post I make. I am saying that I have never defended moveon.org. is that really so hard for you to understand?

I know what you are saying. I didn't accuse you of supporting moveon. I thought I would go ahead and just ask that question . That's the subject matter here I think. It seems as if you are saying that you think that what the swifties and moveon did are pretty much the same thing.

[retiredman]

I don't need to spin at all. I just use the language with precision and you don't. I have never defended moveon.org. fact.

[darin]

I don't need to spin at all. I just use the language with precision and you don't. I have never defended moveon.org. fact.


Ooh! if you say so!

:-/

[Joe Steel]

so are you saying there is a one to one comparison between the moveon ads and swiftboat ads ?

Of course there's no comparison.

The MoveOn ads are true.

[retiredman]

I know what you are saying. I didn't accuse you of supprting moveon. I thought I would go ahead and jsut ask that question . That's the subject matter here I think. It seems as if you are saying that you think that what the swifties and moveon did are pretty much the same thing.

pretty much...both inappropriate.

[manu1959]

I don't need to spin at all. I just use the language with precision and you don't. I have never defended moveon.org. fact.

so is acusing the general of the armed forces, who is fighting a war on behalf of the american people, of betraying the american peolple.....

right or wrong.....

[retiredman]

Ooh! if you say so!

:-/

I do say so...and you link to the previous post is pretty supportive of that. I did not defend them in the least.

now...go get that jergens and leave me alone...you really creep me out.

[retiredman]

so is acusing the general of the armed forces, who is fighting a war on behalf of the american people, of betraying the american peolple.....

right or wrong.....

answered in post #24

[darin]

I do say so...and you link to the previous post is pretty supportive of that. I did not defend them in the least.

now...go get that jergens and leave me alone...you really creep me out.

You're a move-on apologist. You know it. I know it. And the American People know it.

[Dilloduck]

pretty much...both inappropriate.

In some ways they are pretty much alike but I bet you also could argue that in many ways they are very different.

[manu1959]

answered in post #24

sorry i was hunting and pecking......

so anyone that would support those types of actions would be wrong as well.....

[retiredman]

no...I am not. and you don't know shit from fat meat about me, buddy.

[darin]

no...I am not. and you don't know shit from fat meat about me, buddy.

so says a move-on.org apologist and freedom-hater.

[retiredman]

sorry i was hunting and pecking......

so anyone that would support those types of actions would be wrong as well.....

I would disagree with them on that issue, that is certain.

[retiredman]

so says a move-on.org apologist and freedom-hater.

go play in traffic little boy and let the grownups talk.

I do not apologize for that organization and I certainly do not hate freedom.

are you trying to act like a parody?

[darin]

go play in traffic little boy and let the grownups talk.

I do not apologize for that organization and I certainly do not hate freedom.

are you trying to act like a parody?

So - you are more than a move-on.org apologist and freedom-hater...you're a so-insecure-you-have-to-get-in-the-last-word move-on.org apologist and freedom-hater. Howniceforyou.

[retiredman]

So - you are more than a move-on.org apologist and freedom-hater...you're a so-insecure-you-have-to-get-in-the-last-word move-on.org apologist and freedom-hater. Howniceforyou.

are you through?

[darin]

are you through?

Nearly.

[manu1959]

I would disagree with them on that issue, that is certain.

it bothers me that prospective presidents of this nation voted to support what moveon did during a time of war ....

a commander in chief is the head of the military.....

not sure i want the commander of my military supporting taking the piss of my generals

[retiredman]

Nearly.

thank GOD!

[retiredman]

when you get four stars and have to brief congress, you get thick skin. I would be more upset at future CinC's dissing real ground pounders

[Dilloduck]

i don't know what mm thinks dillo, but my simple answer is YES. :D

jane

What did Gen. Patraeus do to warrant him having his loyalty questioned ?

[darin]

thank GOD!

See? You stalking me? you REALLY seem to crave dialog with me.

[darin]

What did Gen. Patraeus do to warrant him having his loyalty questioned ?

Accepted the Job GWB offered.

[manu1959]

when you get four stars and have to brief congress, you get thick skin. I would be more upset at future CinC's dissing real ground pounders

you mean like this.........http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXaoavV1d4s

[Gunny]

I hope you are not talking about me...if you are, you need to show where I have EVER defended Moveon.org.

I'll wait.

Then your presence in this thread is to WHAT exactly .....? Looks an awful lot to me like trying to deflect blame away from so august an organization as MoveOn.org to whichever Republican du jour you wish to blame.

In fact, you went so far as to make a statement in defense of MoveOn's by attacking "Republicans" and their presumed support for only conservative military types.


You're going to call it something else though, aren't you?

[manu1959]

i think the paper that published the add should be rebuked as well.....

[retiredman]

I get so tired of that lame ass misquote. He said that our troops, bursting into homes in the dead of night terrorized women and children. terrorize and terrorist are two different words with two different meanings.

Now if you wanna say "close enough" then you use the language with all the precision of a sloppy house painter. I got no time for that.

Let me ask you a question:

If YOUR home were broken into in the dead of night be a band of armed men speaking a foreign language and not understanding yours...do you think it is possible that YOUR wife and kids might be scared shitless?

[Dilloduck]

I get so tired of that lame ass misquote. He said that our troops, bursting into homes in the dead of night terrorized women and children. terrorize and terrorist are two different words with two different meanings.

Now if you wanna say "close enough" then you use the language with all the precision of a sloppy house painter. I got no time for that.

Let me ask you a question:

If YOUR home were broken into in the dead of night be a band of armed men speaking a foreign language and not understanding yours...do you think it is possible that YOUR wife and kids might be scared shitless?

What did Gen. Patraeus do to warrant him having his loyalty questioned ?

[retiredman]

You're going to call it something else though, aren't you?

yeah...I am... I am going to call it what it is: highlighting the hypocrisy of republicans who cry crocodile tears for Petraeus's honor yet attack the military career of heroes who happen to be democrats. Kerry. Murtha. Webb.

[retiredman]

What did Gen. Patraeus do to warrant him having his loyalty questioned ?


I say again...nothing. where have I ever defended the attacks on Petraeus?

[darin]

yeah...I am... I am going to call it what it is: highlighting the hypocrisy of republicans who cry crocodile tears for Petraeus's honor yet attack the military career of heroes who happen to be democrats. Kerry. Murtha. Webb.

Kerry and Murtha dishonor their own service. They both (Your favourite word alert) Berated our soldiers and encouraged our enemies. Wasn't Republican doing...it was their words.

[manu1959]

I get so tired of that lame ass misquote. He said that our troops, bursting into homes in the dead of night terrorized women and children. terrorize and terrorist are two different words with two different meanings.

Now if you wanna say "close enough" then you use the language with all the precision of a sloppy house painter. I got no time for that.

Let me ask you a question:

If YOUR home were broken into in the dead of night be a band of armed men speaking a foreign language and not understanding yours...do you think it is possible that YOUR wife and kids might be scared shitless?

i didn't use any words smart guy....i posted a video.....they were his words....

so was he dissing the ground pounders for terrorizing a famliy or was he complimenting them.....

[retiredman]

i didn't use any words smart guy....i posted a video.....they were his words....

so was he dissing the ground pounders for terrorizing a famliy or was he complimenting them.....

you posted a video entitled: Kerry calls troops terrorists. those weren't his words.

and he was dissing the policy that put americans doing work that should be done by arabic speaking iraqi troops.

[manu1959]

yeah...I am... I am going to call it what it is: highlighting the hypocrisy of republicans who cry crocodile tears for Petraeus's honor yet attack the military career of heroes who happen to be democrats. Kerry. Murtha. Webb.

are republicans not allowed to question the integrity of the other side? the democrats question bush and all his folks all the time and published an add taking the piss out of the comander of a theatre of war and 25 dems on the potential comander in chiefs from the dem side supported it.....

seems kerry murtha web and the rest are fair game.....

can't have it both ways

[darin]

what's funny about that kerry clip?

He said Iraqis should be the ones terrorising families, violating culture stuff and junk...Anyone else catch that?

[manu1959]

you posted a video entitled: Kerry calls troops terrorists. those weren't his words.

and he was dissing the policy that put americans doing work that should be done by arabic speaking iraqi troops.

did kerry diss the ground pounders yes or no......

[manu1959]

what's funny about that kerry clip?

He said Iraqis should be the ones terrorising families, violating culture stuff and junk...Anyone else catch that?

yes i laughed so hard when i watched that live when he said it.....

[JohnDoe]

Accepted the Job GWB offered.Perhaps they did consider that a betrayal in trust....?????


Regardless, this faux outcry from the right is just a political ploy to rally their supporters.... no more, no less....imo.

They haven't appeared to give 2 hoots about slamming Veterans who also served their country well, like Max Clealand and John Kerry.... and even McCain back in 2000.... this is why their "over acting" on this, makes me sick to my stomach....but heh, you can go along with it, if you like and make it something if ya want....but where were you when your own side did the same thing?

There are so many more important things going on with our country than this tiny weenie issue imho.

Why do you think President Bush has acted like he relinquished his CIC position to General Petraeus.... so that Petraeus could take the heat for him, maybe? I dunno? But Prsident Bush has played it to the hilt imo....


jd

[Dilloduck]

so, I take it that the Boxer resolution did NOT pass?

That would make sense. Impugning the patriotism of servicemen, veterans and heroes is only repugnant to republicans if the ones being impugned are not democrats.

Democrats complained when one of their OWN veterans was attacked however they have no qualms about attacking a general that was approved 81-0 by the senate.

[manu1959]

Perhaps they did consider that a betrayal in trust....?????
Regardless, this faux outcry from the right is just a political ploy to rally their supporters.... no more, no less....imo.
They haven't appeared to give 2 hoots about slamming Veterans who also served their country well, like Max Clealand and John Kerry.... this is why their "over acting" on this, makes me sick to my stomach....but heh, you can go along with it, if you like and make it something if ya want....but where were you when your own side did the same thing?
There are so many more important things going on with our country than this tiny weenie issue imho.
Why do you think President Bush has acted like he relinquished his CIC position to General Petraeus.... so that Petraeus could take the heat for him, maybe? I dunno? But Prsident Bush has played it to the hilt imo....


jd

yes, sorry, we forgot, the only group allowed to be indignant is the democrats.....

[darin]

They haven't appeared to give 2 hoots about slamming Veterans who also served their country well, like Max Clealand and John Kerry.... and even McCain back in 2000.... this is why their "over acting" on this, makes me sick to my stomach....but heh, you can go along with it, if you like and make it something if ya want....but where were you when your own side did the same thing?


Again - were you not alive back then? Did you forget those focks dug their own graves by their own words?

[Dilloduck]

I say again...nothing. where have I ever defended the attacks on Petraeus?

You haven't. You just equate it to what the swifties did to Kerry. The swifties at least tried to present some facts, witnesses, events--made SOME kind of effort to validate thier claims. Moveon didn't present anything but an insinuation that Petraeus betrayed Americans.

[JohnDoe]

did kerry diss the ground pounders yes or no......nope! :)

he was dissing the Bush administration and their policy.

But, republicans took advantage of his comment and twisted and turned it and ran it in every paper under the sun and put it right in front of the troops faces to humiliate them and make them think that they were thought of badly by all Democrats. yes, I remember quite well, how the republicans tried to make the troops feel bad, while saying it was the Dems that did it....
:(
jd

[JohnDoe]

You haven't. You just equate it to what the swifties did to Kerry. The swifties at least tried to present some facts, witnesses, events--made SOME kind of effort to validate thier claims. Moveon didn't present anything but an insinuation that Petraeus betrayed Americans.

The majority of the swift vets facts were PROVEN TO BE LIES....or did you miss that part? One accusation after another, debunked....I believe FACTCHECK>org may still have the actual facts still available, somewhere on their site?

;)

jane

[Dilloduck]

nope! :)

he was dissing the Bush administration and their policy.

But, republicans took advantage of his comment and twisted and turned it and ran it in every paper under the sun and put it right in front of the troops faces to humiliate them and make them think that they were thought of badly by all Democrats. yes, I remember quite well, how the republicans tried to make the troops feel bad, while saying it was the Dems that did it....
:(
jd

I thought the purpose of politics was to make the other side look like shit.

[Dilloduck]

The majority of the swift vets facts were PROVEN TO BE LIES....or did you miss that part? One accusation after another, debunked....I believe FACTCHECK>org may still have the actual facts still available, somewhere on their site?

;)

jane

Moveon was smarter than the swifties AND Dan Rather---they didnt waste any time or money on backing an allegation with any stories or witnesses. They just blatantly ran an add. Didn't matter to them if anyone believed it or not.

[JohnDoe]

I thought the purpose of politics was to make the other side look like shit.

IT IS dillo, you are right, but it is too bad that they don't leave the troops, out of that politics imo....trying to get the foot soldiers upset with their fellow Americans is not in the best interest of our country.....but it seems every chance the repubs get, they try to bring the troops in to it for their own political purposes imo.

and the same with moveon.... they should have just gone after the CIC, he is ultimately responsible, not Petraeus, if they were unhappy with the decision.

jane

[manu1959]

nope! :)

he was dissing the Bush administration and their policy.

But, republicans took advantage of his comment and twisted and turned it and ran it in every paper under the sun and put it right in front of the troops faces to humiliate them and make them think that they were thought of badly by all Democrats. yes, I remember quite well, how the republicans tried to make the troops feel bad, while saying it was the Dems that did it....
:(
jd


funny ... he said the US soliders were terrorizing familys .... if he wanted to criticize bush why mention the soliders?

[manu1959]

The majority of the swift vets facts were PROVEN TO BE LIES....or did you miss that part? One accusation after another, debunked....I believe FACTCHECK>org may still have the actual facts still available, somewhere on their site?

;)

jane

so which things were true ..... how about these ..... did kerry shoot an unarmed vc in the back yes or no? .... did he meet with the enemy in paris yes or no ..... did he call our soliders war criminals and say he witnessed war crimes in front of congress, yes or no ....

[Dilloduck]

IT IS dillo, you are right, but it is too bad that they don't leave the troops, out of that politics imo....trying to get the foot soldiers upset with their fellow Americans is not in the best interest of our country.....but it seems every chance the repubs get, they try to bring the troops in to it for their own political purposes imo.

and the same with moveon.... they should have just gone after the CIC, he is ultimately responsible, not Petraeus, if they were unhappy with the decision.

jane

Then to struggle for some level of consistency here, I'll just say moveon and the swifties are bad groups who are abusing our military for their political purposes and hoping the rest of their respective party members will just follow along like sheep.

[JohnDoe]

so which things were true ..... how about these ..... did kerry shoot an unarmed vc in the back yes or no?

he shot a vietcong who had a launcher that he had used to fire at them, yes he dropped that and ran, with the ability to gain arms again, and try to shoot at them or kill them and kerry then shot him is what was in his medal report.

.... did he meet with the enemy in paris yes or no...this, i don't know enough about to argue soundly, but i believe kerry was not alone and went with a delagation of Americans with permision.... but i would have to double check that....

..... did he call our soliders war criminals and say he witnessed war crimes in front of congress, yes or no ....

no, he repeated what the many vets told him they did or were witnesses to, while in vietnam....

do you deny that atrosities took place there?

j

[avatar4321]

What did Gen. Patraeus do to warrant him having his loyalty questioned ?

told the truth about whats going on in Iraq.

[avatar4321]

Democrats complained when one of their OWN veterans was attacked however they have no qualms about attacking a general that was approved 81-0 by the senate.

Not only that but when one of their veterans gets attacked by other veterans who were there and claiming that the things he says happens didnt happen. Not to mention who later changes the story about a dozen times. while said veterans story stays the same.

But apparently the truth doesnt matter.

[JohnDoe]

Then to struggle for some level of consistency here, I'll just say moveon and the swifties are bad groups who are using our military for their political purposes and hoping the rest of their respective party members will just follow along like sheep.


pretty much! :(

[avatar4321]

The majority of the swift vets facts were PROVEN TO BE LIES....or did you miss that part? One accusation after another, debunked....I believe FACTCHECK>org may still have the actual facts still available, somewhere on their site?

;)

jane

No they werent. Unlike John Kerry, they had one story and they were there. Kerry kept changing his story every single time he was caught on something.

Personally I am going to take the eye witnesses whose story remains the same to the one who changes every time he gets caught.

[Dilloduck]

pretty much! :(

I know----we can start a "swifties suck" thread and people can post about swifties in one thread and moveon in this one ! :coffee:

[JohnDoe]

Originally Posted by Dilloduck
What did Gen. Patraeus do to warrant him having his loyalty questioned ?


general P., went before congress and told them the surge was working, when just the previous week, figures were released that showed more people in iraq had been killed THIS YEAR thru august than ALL OF LAST YEAR.

figures were released that SHOWED iraqis being killed outside of the city of bagdhad were UP 60% OVER the previous year to date.

figures also released showed that the biggest suicide bombing in a year had taken place in the kurdish area just 2 weeks earler than his ''report'' of all being hunky dorey.

general p, showed only the figures in baghad when he said violence is down.... this was cherry picking the figures, don't you think?

in addition to this, American soldier deaths are up this year over last year and 9 out of the 11 benchmarks congress had for the surge to be ''working'' were not met.

regardless, move on should not have blamed gen. p. for following orders and reporting only on bagdhad....

[Dilloduck]

general P., went before congress and told them the surge was working, when just the previous week, figures were released that showed more people in iraq had been killed THIS YEAR thru august than ALL OF LAST YEAR.

figures were released that SHOWED iraqis being killed outside of the city of bagdhad were UP 60% OVER the previous year to date.

figures also released showed that the biggest suicide bombing in a year had taken place in the kurdish area just 2 weeks earler than his ''report'' of all being hunky dorey.

general p, showed only the figures in baghad when he said violence is down.... this was cherry picking the figures, don't you think?

in addition to this, American soldier deaths are up this year over last year and 9 out of the 11 benchmarks congress had for the surge to be ''working'' were not met.

regardless, move on should not have blamed gen. p. for following orders and reporting only on bagdhad....

The "surge" wasn't impelmented everywhere in Iraq so other areas naturally they had more casualties. The primary focus of the surge was Baghdad so no--I don't think he cherry picked numbers as much as he was reporting on the area where the surge was concentrated.
Benchmarks are political and that was NOT Patraeus' dept.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030901839.html

Petraeus did NOTHING do deserve the insinuation that he was a traitor and I haven't seen any moveon stats, witnesses , or evidence to prove otherwise. Apparently one can take out an ad in the paper that say anything--no proof required.

[JohnDoe]

The "surge" wasn't impelmented everywhere in Iraq so other areas naturally they had more casualties. The primary focus of the surge was Baghdad so no--I don't think he cherry picked numbers as much as he was reporting on the area where the surge was concentrated.
Benchmarks are political and that was NOT Patraeus' dept.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030901839.html

Petraeus did NOTHING do deserve the insinuation that he was a traitor and I haven't seen any moveon stats, witnesses , or evidence to prove otherwise. Apparently one can take out an ad in the paper that say anything--no proof required. I agree, he reported on only Bagdhad and that was not betraying anyone! Moveon went too far and as I said, if they were upset with what was being spun, there is only one CIC in this country and he would be to blame, not General P.

And why would there be more deaths outside of Bagdhad naturally because of the surge? Gaffer mentioned that it could be the bad guys on the run and caught/killed by us ....but I am uncertain if this really explains it all?

[JohnDoe]

No they werent. Unlike John Kerry, they had one story and they were there. Kerry kept changing his story every single time he was caught on something.

Personally I am going to take the eye witnesses whose story remains the same to the one who changes every time he gets caught.

fyi

http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html

http://www.factcheck.org/swift_boat_veterans_anti-kerry_ad_he_betrayed.html

[musicman]

fyi

http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html

http://www.factcheck.org/swift_boat_veterans_anti-kerry_ad_he_betrayed.html

FYi, you're a few years behind the curve on this one. Factcheck.org's profoundly serious conflict of interest problems with their Swift Boat Veterans coverage is old news, and a matter of public record.

http://qando.net/archives/003752.htm

Sloppy, sloppy work; truly a black eye for factcheck.org. This partisan hit piece, masquerading as objective reporting, didn't help John Kerry in 2004; it's certainly hasn't improved with age. I'm surprised you even brought it up.

[actsnoblemartin]

Ive never been a fan of moveon.org, just another lame 527 group with an agenda.

When did the agenda go from morality, decency and truth to pure partisanship, half truths, and mean spiritedness?.




Another awesome thread by Stephanie! :clap:

It's a shame that Biden and Obama did not vote. Were they away campaigning, or hiding under their desks?

[jimnyc]

he shot a vietcong who had a launcher that he had used to fire at them, yes he dropped that and ran, with the ability to gain arms again, and try to shoot at them or kill them and kerry then shot him is what was in his medal report.

VERY disputed report and I'm not sure we'll ever hear the exact story. Too many stories from too many people that were all supposedly there. But the facts do show there was an enemy, previously had a weapon, and Kerry shot him. Whether it rises to the level of deserving a silver star is what is disputed and certainly not for me to judge. I find his purple hearts more disturbing. Barely any injuries at all, likely self inflicted or from friendly fire NOT during combat, and he recommended the purple heart to himself.


this, i don't know enough about to argue soundly, but i believe kerry was not alone and went with a delagation of Americans with permision.... but i would have to double check that....

I checked many sources and it appears the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) sent their own delegation to meet with the Viet Cong, and John Kerry was the leader. He admitted this much to the Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. I saw nothing on the multitude of pages I read that stated they were given permission by the US Government.


no, he repeated what the many vets told him they did or were witnesses to, while in vietnam....

I've read his testimony before Congress and this is true. I still personally find it despicable that he would make heresy allegations against his fellow soldiers during a time of war.

And let's not forget when Kerry "threw away all the medals he received while in Vietnam", only to find out later he never threw HIS OWN medals away and actually kept them. Quite a show from an "honorable" soldier.

[retiredman]

You haven't. You just equate it to what the swifties did to Kerry. The swifties at least tried to present some facts, witnesses, events--made SOME kind of effort to validate thier claims. Moveon didn't present anything but an insinuation that Petraeus betrayed Americans.

the swifties lied their asses off. I really don't want to take the time to rehash the details and dig up links, but the guy, for example, who claim that there was no enemy fire when Kerry's and crew got their bronze star turned out to also have won a bronze star for the very same action and HIS citation discusses that same enemy fire. Kerry's CO who NOW claims that Kerry was "unfit for command" ranked him the absolute highest in Coastal Division 11, recommended him for his silver star, and then, a quarter of a century later, came all the way to Boston to appear with Kerry during his previous senate reelection campaign and tell crowds what a hero he had been. Hundreds of "swifties" who claimed to have served with Kerry - bullshit...any sailor knows that the only real judges of an officer's character are the sailors that serve under him. All but ONE of Kerry's crew remains fanatically loyal to him to this day. The sailors on other swiftboats knew as much about Kerry's leadership style as I would have known about the leadership style of the skipper of some other ship in my squadron....which is next to nothing.

The swifties were mad at Kerry for his winter soldier speech....so they lied about his service in Vietnam.... I wouldn't piss on any of them if they were on fire.

[retiredman]

funny ... he said the US soliders were terrorizing familys .... if he wanted to criticize bush why mention the soliders?

did you LISTEN to the video? It would appear not.

[JohnDoe]

VERY disputed report and I'm not sure we'll ever hear the exact story. Too many stories from too many people that were all supposedly there. But the facts do show there was an enemy, previously had a weapon, and Kerry shot him. Whether it rises to the level of deserving a silver star is what is disputed and certainly not for me to judge. I find his purple hearts more disturbing. Barely any injuries at all, likely self inflicted or from friendly fire NOT during combat, and he recommended the purple heart to himself.



I checked many sources and it appears the VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against the War) sent their own delegation to meet with the Viet Cong, and John Kerry was the leader. He admitted this much to the Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. I saw nothing on the multitude of pages I read that stated they were given permission by the US Government.



I've read his testimony before Congress and this is true. I still personally find it despicable that he would make heresy allegations against his fellow soldiers during a time of war.

And let's not forget when Kerry "threw away all the medals he received while in Vietnam", only to find out later he never threw HIS OWN medals away and actually kept them. Quite a show from an "honorable" soldier.

you mean like Abu Ghraib, no one should have said anything about the TORTURE that took place or the prisoners they killed? You think that should have been covered up untill this war in Iraq is over? This would have allowed the atrocities to continue....

Well, I don't buy in to that.. I believe we should have covered something like that up and lie about it....

read the 2 fact check articles....

IT WAS A DISGRACE to say the least what the republicans via their politico swift vets did to Senator Kerry via their LIES.... and you bought in to it Jim?

:slap:

jd

[jimnyc]

you mean like Abu Ghraib, no one should have said anything about the TORTURE that took place or the prisoners they killed? You think that should have been covered up untill this war in Iraq is over? This would have allowed the atrocities to continue....

Well, I don't buy in to that.. I believe we should have covered something like that up and lie about it....

read the 2 fact check articles....

IT WAS A DISGRACE to say the least what the republicans via their politico swift vets did to Senator Kerry via their LIES.... and you bought in to it Jim?

The stories very well may have been true, but would have carried more weight and been more believable had the soldiers in question actually testified themselves, or given notarized statements.

I believe Musicman already debunked the majority of what was in the factcheck articles you referenced, try reading what he linked to.

[actsnoblemartin]

My point is, i was never voting for what kerry did 30 years ago, nor was i for what bush did 30 years ago. I dont see the point, and think its very unfair to bring up peoples past in a political campaign. What are your ideas now, if you had any criminal acts in the last 5-10 ten years, maybe its relavent, but my gosh, we had bush wasnt there, and kerry was a swifty?. The founding fathers, would be ashamed of us, in my humble opinion. Why cant we debate the ideas, and stop the 527, character assasination, uncivil bullcrap.

Its politics not war, so stop with the fervent meanness, or atleast thats whats i want to say to the two parties today. Knock it off and act like adults dnc and rnc.


the swifties lied their asses off. I really don't want to take the time to rehash the details and dig up links, but the guy, for example, who claim that there was no enemy fire when Kerry's and crew got their bronze star turned out to also have won a bronze star for the very same action and HIS citation discusses that same enemy fire. Kerry's CO who NOW claims that Kerry was "unfit for command" ranked him the absolute highest in Coastal Division 11, recommended him for his silver star, and then, a quarter of a century later, came all the way to Boston to appear with Kerry during his previous senate reelection campaign and tell crowds what a hero he had been. Hundreds of "swifties" who claimed to have served with Kerry - bullshit...any sailor knows that the only real judges of an officer's character are the sailors that serve under him. All but ONE of Kerry's crew remains fanatically loyal to him to this day. The sailors on other swiftboats knew as much about Kerry's leadership style as I would have known about the leadership style of the skipper of some other ship in my squadron....which is next to nothing.

The swifties were mad at Kerry for his winter soldier speech....so they lied about his service in Vietnam.... I wouldn't piss on any of them if they were on fire.

[JohnDoe]

FYi, you're a few years behind the curve on this one. Factcheck.org's profoundly serious conflict of interest problems with their Swift Boat Veterans coverage is old news, and a matter of public record.

http://qando.net/archives/003752.htm

Sloppy, sloppy work; truly a black eye for factcheck.org. This partisan hit piece, masquerading as objective reporting, didn't help John Kerry in 2004; it's certainly hasn't improved with age. I'm surprised you even brought it up.


oh no...

this link of yours is SLOPPY, SLOPPY SLOPPY and has no truth or merit in it.

And it is absolutely disgusting that you and the others would question a soldiers medals that they earned and received by the US Military.

NEWS FLASH

Kerry did not issue himself his medals.

Are you saying the USA military did not know what they were doing when they issue medals to our soldiers?

SHAME ON YOU.

Are you saying that every medal that every soldier received in vietnam should be questioned and spit on as you did to kerry and his medals?

Are you questioning all medals received by soldiers like whether my father deserved the Bronze Star that he got? I mean, IF the Military JUST ISSUEs THEM with no thought then all medals given out to ALL SOLDIERS were put in question by YOU.

Your article proves you wrong....it has no merit in its premiss.


This was the most disgusting thing that republicans ever did, imho...WORSE THAN PETRAEUS and the moveon ad, MUCH, MUCH WORSE....becasue it...

IT SPAT on all soldiers that ever received medals and made us think about whether any medal received by ANY soldier was manipulated as you liars imply....

And yes musicman, nothing pisses me off more, than what happened with the lying swift vets...dispicable!

Why don't don't you go and read what the military has to say about the issuing of purple hearts, not cherry pick like this CLEARLY PARTISAN ARTICLE you gave as a legitimate link.

jd

[jimnyc]

You defend Kerry and make statements such as "spit on" in reference to his medals, but haven't addressed the fact that he himself "supposedly" tossed away his own medals!

[retiredman]

precisely. their claim that the navy just handed out silver stars, bronze stars and purple hearts is a slap in the face to anyone like me who has EVER gotten a medal while serving in the navy.

[JohnDoe]

precisely. their claim that the navy just handed out silver stars, bronze stars and purple hearts is a slap in the face to anyone like me who has EVER gotten a medal while serving in the navy.

Amen!

[jimnyc]

this link of yours is SLOPPY, SLOPPY SLOPPY and has no truth or merit in it.

Since it's not the truth, can you please point out for us what was lied about on that page?


And it is absolutely disgusting that you and the others would question a soldiers medals that they earned and received by the US Military.

Not much different than people who question a man who gave his entire life to the military and has 4 rows of medals for it, and 4 stars as well.


NEWS FLASH

Kerry did not issue himself his medals.

No, only recommended a few purple hearts for himself, for an injury that required ointment and a band aid.


Are you saying the USA military did not know what they were doing when they issue medals to our soldiers?

They knew, they gave out MANY purple hearts to those with injuries comparable to a scrape on a knee.


Are you saying that every medal that every soldier received in vietnam should be questioned and spit on as you did to kerry and his medals?

Only by those who use said medals while running for political office, and have claimed to have tossed them away (again for political gain).


Why don't don't you go and read what the military has to say about the issuing of purple hearts, not cherry pick like this CLEARLY PARTISAN ARTICLE you gave as a legitimate link.

I'm still searching around as I type this, but all references thus far point out that plenty of purple hearts were given out for superficial wounds. Now, am I spitting on those who received them? Absolutely not! I just think some are more deserving than others. There are vets who received them for losing limbs and from all accounts I read John Kerry barely bled, if at all.

[JohnDoe]

You defend Kerry and make statements such as "spit on" in reference to his medals, but haven't addressed the fact that he himself "supposedly" tossed away his own medals!

You and the ilk in the Republican Party that supported this, spit on his medals and EVERY MEDAL THAT WAS RECEIVED by any soldier in the Viet Nam war, and THAT includes my father's Bronze Star.


IT WAS WRONG, and there is no getting around it...


jd

[jimnyc]

Those critics, among them some of Kerry's fellow veterans, have suggested that a wound suffered by Kerry in December 1968 may have made him technically eligible for a Purple Heart but was not severe enough to warrant serious consideration, even for a decoration that was handed out by the thousands. Whatever the case, Kerry was awarded the Purple Heart, and, along with two others he won later, it allowed him to request to leave Vietnam before his tour of duty was finished.

From the medic who treated him:


What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about 1 cm. in length and was about 2 or 3 mm in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle.


I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps.


I doubt that it penetrated more than 3 or 4 mm. It did not require probing to find it, did not require any anesthesia to remove it, and did not require any sutures to close the wound.


The wound was covered with a bandaid.


http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405041626.asp

[jimnyc]

You and the ilk in the Republican Party that supported this, spit on his medals and EVERY MEDAL THAT WAS RECEIVED by any soldier in the Viet Nam war, and THAT includes my father's Bronze Star.


IT WAS WRONG, and there is no getting around it...


jd

He spit on them himself over 30 years ago, long before I even had a clue who he was! And throwing your father's medal in for emotional effect doesn't change a thing. I thank him for his service and I applaud him receiving a bronze star, but he didn't toss his over a well while condemning the war and fellow soldiers.

[jimnyc]

More food for thought:


"KERRY REQUESTED A PURPLE HEART," says Admiral Schachte. The wound was accidentally self-inflicted, he says. ("'Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 (grenade launcher),' Schachte said in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C. He said, 'Kerry requested a Purple Heart.'")

That's not malfeasance or anything, but it certainly plays to his image as an opportunist who worked the system to get out of combat as soon as possible.http://instapundit.com/archives/017423.php

And a similar article from national news in case the prior link is looked at as biased:

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/kerry/articles/2004/08/28/retired_rear_admiral_contends_kerry_wound_not_from _enemy_fire/

And another:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5840657/

[JohnDoe]

Since it's not the truth, can you please point out for us what was lied about on that page?



Not much different than people who question a man who gave his entire life to the military and has 4 rows of medals for it, and 4 stars as well.



No, only recommended a few purple hearts for himself, for an injury that required ointment and a band aid.



They knew, they gave out MANY purple hearts to those with injuries comparable to a scrape on a knee.



Only by those who use said medals while running for political office, and have claimed to have tossed them away (again for political gain).



I'm still searching around as I type this, but all references thus far point out that plenty of purple hearts were given out for superficial wounds. Now, am I spitting on those who received them? Absolutely not! I just think some are more deserving than others. There are vets who received them for losing limbs and from all accounts I read John Kerry barely bled, if at all.

Jim, it is IN THE RULES for Purple Hearts, just read them.... a purple heart is not recommended by any commander in the military, it is issued automatically upon certain circumstances... and if ever in doubt, the rules say, it goes in benefit of the soldier.

Kerry, a young, right out of college officer could not and did not have the Power to manipulate the Military honor/awards system and to imply he did, was dispicable.

Gees, he volunteered to go to Nam Jim, where was Bush, where was Cheney where was Wolfowitz, where was Rumsfeld, where was Pearle, where were these republican leaders of our country? They sat back and said NOTHING when Kerry was being attacked for his service to OUR country, while they hid like yellow bellies during the Viet Nam war.

[jimnyc]

Jim, it is IN THE RULES for Purple Hearts, just read them.... a purple heart is not recommended by any commander in the military, it is issued automatically upon certain circumstances... and if ever in doubt, the rules say, it goes in benefit of the soldier.

But he DID in fact recommend purple hearts for himself, and then ultimately got out of service early as a result.


Kerry, a young, right out of college officer could not and did not have the Power to manipulate the Military honor/awards system and to imply he did, was dispicable.

And to deny the FACT that he recommended himself for the award is dishonest.


Gees, he volunteered to go to Nam Jim, where was Bush, where was Cheney where was Wolfowitz, where was Rumsfeld, where was Pearle, where were these republican leaders of our country? They sat back and said NOTHING when Kerry was being attacked for his service to OUR country, while they hid like yellow bellies during the Viet Nam war.

And that does NOTHING to change the facts surrounding Kerry's actions. I have more respect for a man that hasn't served but respects those who have, over a man who served, recommended himself medals, and then tosses them away and condemns the very soldiers who are still in the midst of a war.

[JohnDoe]

He spit on them himself over 30 years ago, long before I even had a clue who he was! And throwing your father's medal in for emotional effect doesn't change a thing. I thank him for his service and I applaud him receiving a bronze star, but he didn't toss his over a well while condemning the war and fellow soldiers.

THIS has nothing to do with the LIES the swift vets and their followers put out, does it?

well, does it? NO is the answer.

[Dilloduck]

Jim, it is IN THE RULES for Purple Hearts, just read them.... a purple heart is not recommended by any commander in the military, it is issued automatically upon certain circumstances... and if ever in doubt, the rules say, it goes in benefit of the soldier.

Kerry, a young, right out of college officer could not and did not have the Power to manipulate the Military honor/awards system and to imply he did, was dispicable.

Gees, he volunteered to go to Nam Jim, where was Bush, where was Cheney where was Wolfowitz, where was Rumsfeld, where was Pearle, where were these republican leaders of our country? They sat back and said NOTHING when Kerry was being attacked for his service to OUR country, while they hid like yellow bellies during the Viet Nam war.

I thought we were comparing the military records of the military men who who insulted. Moveon isn't exactly know for their bravery under fire.

[JohnDoe]

But he DID in fact recommend purple hearts for himself, and then ultimately got out of service early as a result.



And to deny the FACT that he recommended himself for the award is dishonest.



And that does NOTHING to change the facts surrounding Kerry's actions. I have more respect for a man that hasn't served but respects those who have, over a man who served, recommended himself medals, and then tosses them away and condemns the very soldiers who are still in the midst of a war.


And did the Swift vets and cheney and bush respect someone who did serve? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, THEY DID NOT. So make up your mind Jim, was that showing RESPECT for someone that HAS served? NO

[jimnyc]

THIS has nothing to do with the LIES the swift vets and their followers put out, does it?

well, does it? NO is the answer.

I guess we disagree on the supposed lies. I'll take the word of an Admiral over someone who joined an anti-military group and condemned our soldiers.

And why deflect? Your statement was about spitting on the medals or those who received them. I countered by stating the facts about what Kerry supposedly did with his medals. You then bring in irrelevant speak of the swift vets rather than respond to Kerry's own actions.

[jimnyc]

And did the Swift vets and cheney and bush respect someone who did serve? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, THEY DID NOT. So make up your mind Jim, was that showing RESPECT for someone that HAS served? NO

I believe the Swift Vets, Cheney & Bush have shown more respect for our veterans that you or I could ever hope to do. They showed disrespect to someone who chose to use his service as a means to run for political office based on rhetoric and lies.

[avatar4321]

You and the ilk in the Republican Party that supported this, spit on his medals and EVERY MEDAL THAT WAS RECEIVED by any soldier in the Viet Nam war, and THAT includes my father's Bronze Star.


IT WAS WRONG, and there is no getting around it...


jd

The truth is never wrong

[avatar4321]

THIS has nothing to do with the LIES the swift vets and their followers put out, does it?

well, does it? NO is the answer.

Again they didnt lie. They had one story and stuck to it contrary to Kerry whose story changed every single time he told it. Like I said, who should we believe? The troops who were there and whose story is consistant? Or the soldier whose story changes every single time its told and then turns around and maligns the previously mentioned soldiers for their service.

Kerry's entire carreer has been on the backs of those people who honorably served in Vietnam. He has lied about his fellow soldiers. He lied about his own service. And even if he was a war hero his actions since the war have disgraced him.

[retiredman]

Again they didnt lie. They had one story and stuck to it contrary to Kerry whose story changed every single time he told it. Like I said, who should we believe? The troops who were there and whose story is consistant? Or the soldier whose story changes every single time its told and then turns around and maligns the previously mentioned soldiers for their service.

Kerry's entire carreer has been on the backs of those people who honorably served in Vietnam. He has lied about his fellow soldiers. He lied about his own service. And even if he was a war hero his actions since the war have disgraced him.


no...they DID lie.

his fellow swiftboat commander Larry Thurlowwho claimed that Kerry had NOT received enemy fire in the engagement for which he, Kerry, was awarded the bronze star, also received a bronze star for the exact same engagement and his citation refers to enemy fire. A lie.

the CO George Elliot who gave he a stellar fitness report that ranked him #1 in all boat commanders in CD11 came to Boston harbor a quarter of a century and told the crowd there at a Kerry for Senate rally that Kerry was a hero and a great leader. Is the swiftie book, he calls Kerry unfit. EIther he lied then, or he's lying now.

Here is a quote from the fitrep he gave Kerry:
"In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG [Lieutenant Junior Grade] Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion, while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several KIA [Killed in Action]. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach."

unfit for command? really??? Man...all the rest of those bozos in CD11 must have been REALLY fucked up!

swifties = liars

[retiredman]

and if you wanted to find out what sort of naval officer I was, you would NOT get very good information asking a sailor on another ship moored down the pier. You WOULD get good information if you asked my crew, my department, my division....

the sailors on Kerry's boat, with only one exception, are fanatical in their loyalty to him even to this day.

[truthmatters]

Again they didnt lie. They had one story and stuck to it contrary to Kerry whose story changed every single time he told it. Like I said, who should we believe? The troops who were there and whose story is consistant? Or the soldier whose story changes every single time its told and then turns around and maligns the previously mentioned soldiers for their service.

Kerry's entire carreer has been on the backs of those people who honorably served in Vietnam. He has lied about his fellow soldiers. He lied about his own service. And even if he was a war hero his actions since the war have disgraced him.


Go get the individual lies you are talking about or shut your mouth.
You are doing nothing but regurgitating what you have been told to say by talk radio or faux news. Prove one claim you have about Kerry or prove you are a liar who spreads rumors like a spoiled school girl.

[Nukeman]

Go get the individual lies you are talking about or shut your mouth.
You are doing nothing but regurgitating what you have been told to say by talk radio or faux news. Prove one claim you have about Kerry or prove you are a liar who spreads rumors like a spoiled school girl.
:lol::lame2:
POT MEET KETTLE
:lol:

This is too rich coming form you who only regurgitates web sights and really has no independent thought of your own!!!!

You also refuse to answer explicit questions put to you and dance around everything....:poke:

[Yurt]

Why do Democrats hate to condemn those who impugn a man who has dedicated his life to our country?

IMO, they do not respect the same freedoms you and I do. Instead of securing the freedom they believe should exist, they break down current infrastructure in order to get their way. They do not engage in constructive criticism, for once they think about "constructive" they realize that the bulk of their argument is lost.

It takes a certain kind of person to demean the person who plays a large part of your PERSONAL security. We are not talking about walking nazis, we are talking about a man who is trying to make this country safe. If they have something constructive to say, say it. But they are so fucking stupid that they would call a military general a "betrayer." They have no honor. They have no idea that what they are saying is like calling an innocent person a murder/rapist/molester. Then again, they don't care. Their way at all cost.

[musicman]

oh no...this link of yours is SLOPPY, SLOPPY SLOPPY and has no truth or merit in it...

...Why don't don't you go and read what the military has to say about the issuing of purple hearts, not cherry pick like this CLEARLY PARTISAN ARTICLE you gave as a legitimate link.

jd

You'll note that I've elected to ignore your hysterical deflections, and address only those precious few portions of your response that pertain to the issue I raised: factcheck.org.

You - who speak of "legitimate links" - cite a source which has sold out its most valuable commodity - its credibility. I cordially invite you to address - without the feigned outrage and baldfaced misdirection - Q and O's principal assertion:

"In the past, I've found FactCheck.org to produce good and solid arguments which counter much of the spin you're likely to see on both sides of the political spectrum. I was surprised and disappointed in this particular attempt to analyze the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's ad.

It appears to be biased, has a very incomplete and inaccurate analysis, commits horrible logical fallacies and frankly was not at all "factual". If you're going to name yourself "FactCheck.org", you'd better make sure the product you produce lives up to the name."

FactCheck has serious credibility and conflict of interest problems on the Swift Boat issue. FactCheck is the principal source of your assertions - the only citation you have thus far offered. Will you address their credibility problems? Will you refute the substance of the Q and O article? Have you a citation to offer from a source which has not - cheaply and transparently - sold itself out?