"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
Did that voice inside you say, "I've heard it all before"?
In August, Sidney Blumenthal noted similarities between Gen. David Petraeus and former Secretary of State Colin Powell:
As Gen. David Petraeus prepares to deliver his report in September on the "surge" in Iraq, he is elevated into the ultimate reliable source, just as former Secretary of State Colin Powell's sterling reputation was exploited for his delivery of the case for invasion before the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, a date that will live in mendacity, for every statement he made was later revealed to be false; Powell regretted publicly that it was an everlasting "blot" on his good name. ... He was Petraeus before Petraeus, the good soldier before the good soldier, window-dressing before window-dressing.
As Blumenthal observed, Powell, like Petraeus, enjoyed a "sterling reputation" that was used to enhance the credibility of his case and to discourage scrutiny.
It is impossible to overstate just how thoroughly the vast majority of the media bought what Powell was selling. Without pausing to examine his claims or the credibility of his evidence, they declared his U.N. address a home run. The media's swift and fawning reaction to Powell's speech is one of the true low points in their coverage of the Bush administration and the Iraq war -- and that is no small feat.
Eric Alterman, now a Media Matters Senior Fellow, explained in a September 22, 2003, column for The Nation:
When Powell went before the UN Security Council in February 2003, reporters treated his accusations against Saddam Hussein as if akin to tablets passed down by Moses from the mountaintop. A study by Gilbert Cranberg, former editorial page editor of the Des Moines Register, discovered a nearly perfect storm of wide-eyed credulity in coverage of the speech. We heard and read of "a massive array of evidence," "a detailed and persuasive case," "a powerful case," "a sober, factual case," "an overwhelming case," "a compelling case," "the strong, credible and persuasive case," "a persuasive, detailed accumulation of information," "a smoking fusillade ... a persuasive case for anyone who is still persuadable," "an accumulation of painstakingly gathered and analyzed evidence," so that "only the most gullible and wishful thinking souls can now deny that Iraq is harboring and hiding weapons of mass destruction." "The skeptics asked for proof; they now have it." "Powell's evidence," we were told, was "overwhelming," "ironclad ... incontrovertible," "succinct and damning ... the case is closed." "Colin Powell delivered the goods on Saddam Hussein." "If there was any doubt that Hussein ... needs to be ... stripped of his chemical and biological capabilities, Powell put it to rest."
Another Media Matters Senior Fellow, Paul Waldman, detailed more of that coverage in his 2004 book Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You:
[S]ince they regard him so highly, the press declined to investigate the charges Powell made before the UN too closely. Instead, they hailed his appearance as having settled once and for all the question of whether we should invade Iraq. The editorials the following day were nearly unanimous. Speaking for many liberal commentators, the Washington Post's Mary McGrory wrote, "I don't know how the United Nations felt about Colin Powell's 'J'accuse' speech against Saddam Hussein. I can only say that he persuaded me, and I was as tough as France to convince." "Secretary of State Colin Powell's strong, plain-spoken indictment of the Saddam Hussein regime before the UN Security Council Wednesday embodies something truly great about the United States," said the Chicago Sun-Times. "Those around the world who demanded proof must now be satisfied, or else admit that no satisfaction is possible for them." "In a brilliant presentation as riveting and as convincing as Adlai Stevenson's 1962 unmasking of Soviet missiles in Cuba, Powell proved beyond any doubt that Iraq still possesses and continues to develop illegal weapons of mass destruction," said the New York Daily News. "The case for war has been made. And it's irrefutable." The Hartford Courant said Powell's presentation was "masterful," while the Portland Oregonian found Powell's presentation "devastating" and "overwhelming ... We think he made his case." The headline in the Dallas Morning News read, "Only the Blind Could Ignore Powell's Evidence." The editors of the San Antonio Express-News, who also found his presentation "irrefutable," thought you didn't have to be blind to disagree, but you did have to be an Iraqi sympathizer. "Only those ready to believe Iraq and assume that the United States would manufacture false evidence against Saddam would not be persuaded by Powell's case," they said.
In Bill Moyers' Buying the War, former CBS anchor Dan Rather explained that he and his colleagues gave Powell's presentation to the United Nations extra weight not because of its content, but because of Powell himself:
RATHER: Colin Powell was trusted. Is trusted, I'd put it-in a sense. He, unlike many of the people who made the decisions to go to war, Colin Powell has seen war. He knows what a green jungle hell Vietnam was. He knows what the battlefield looks like. And when Colin Powell says to you, "I, Colin Powell, am putting my personal stamp on this information. It's my name, my face, and I'm putting it out there," that did make a difference.
MOYERS: And you were impressed.
RATHER: I was impressed. And who wouldn't be?
But journalists and pundits weren't just impressed with Powell. They uncritically treated what he said as gospel. They declared it "irrefutable." Not "un-refuted" -- irrefutable. Impossible to refute.
David Gergen, for example, declared on CNN that Powell had delivered "conclusive, compelling evidence" that "effectively destroyed" the arguments of "opponents of the president's policy." (If that sounds familiar, you may remember what Gergen said about his friend David Petraeus' testimony while serving as a CNN analyst last week: "[A]fter hearing him with that blizzard of facts and statistics and charts, it's going to be very hard for Democrats now to say, let's pull the plug.")
Worse, the media suggested that anyone who disagreed with Powell was a liar or a fool.
Powell's U.N. address occurred on February 5, 2003. A look at the editorials and columns that appeared in the next day's edition of The Washington Post makes clear how quickly the media ran to Powell's side.
The Post itself led things off with an editorial headlined -- what else? -- "Irrefutable" that declared, "AFTER SECRETARY OF STATE Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. ... Mr. Powell's evidence ... was overwhelming."
The Post's columnists took it from there. Four Washington Post columnists wrote on February 6 about Powell's presentation the day before. All four were positively glowing:
- Richard Cohen, in a column headlined "A Winning Hand For Powell," declared that Powell's presentation "had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hasn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool -- or possibly a Frenchman -- could conclude otherwise." Cohen was careful to make clear that he based his own conclusion not upon an examination of Powell's arguments and evidence, but on Powell himself: "The clincher ... was the totality of the material and the fact that Powell himself had presented it. In this case, the messenger may have been more important than the message."
- George Will, under the headline "Disregarding the Deniers," wrote that "Powell's presentation, its power enhanced by his avoidance of histrionics, will change all minds open to evidence. Thus it will justify disregarding the presumptively close-minded people who persist in denying ... what? What are people denying who still deny the need for force? That Iraq has weapons of mass destruction? Or that Iraq is resisting the inspections? No, they are denying only that force is needed." Will directly equated those who were not convinced by Powell's performance to "[p]eople determined to believe that a vast conspiracy assassinated President Kennedy." "People committed to a particular conclusion will get to it and will stay there," Will wrote -- and, hard as it is to believe now, he was referring to those who disagreed with the Bush administration.
- Mary McGrory, in a column headlined "I'm Persuaded," insisted that she had been "as tough as France to convince" of the case against Saddam, but that Powell had done it. How had the great man won over this stalwart opponent of the war? "His voice was strong and unwavering. He made his case without histrionics of any kind, with no verbal embellishments." McGrory offered no critical assessment of the evidence Powell presented; she indicated instead that she was swayed by the performance.
- Jim Hoagland, in a column headlined "An Old Trooper's Smoking Gun," lauded Powell's presentation as a "convincing and detailed X-ray of Iraq's secret weapons and terrorism programs" that "exposed the enduring bad faith of several key members of the U.N. Security Council." Hoagland wrote: "Speaking as 'an old trooper,' the ex-general showed, through technical detail, the illogic of Iraq's protestations that it has been importing aluminum tubing for short-range rockets and not for nuclear weapons. Nobody uses this kind of tubing for rockets, Powell said convincingly. ... To continue to say that the Bush administration has not made its case, you must now believe that Colin Powell lied in the most serious statement he will ever make, or was taken in by manufactured evidence. I don't believe that. Today, neither should you."
Not only did all four buy what Powell was selling, they did so without an examination of the goods. The salesman's smile, his voice -- and his impeccable credentials as an "old trooper" -- were enough.
Worse, three of the four directly attacked anyone who would dare disagree with Powell. You'd have to be a "fool" or a "Frenchman" to disagree with Powell's assertions, according to Cohen. Will added that such foolishness would require the closed mind of a conspiracy theorist. Hoagland concluded that skeptics were guilty of "enduring bad faith" and seemed to speak for the entire punditocracy when he observed that to remain skeptical of the Bush administration's case required the belief "that Colin Powell lied." And that, of course, was unthinkable.
Even after it became clear that Powell's address was not only quite refutable, it relied on forgeries and supposed British intelligence dossiers that were in fact plagiarized from the Internet, many journalists steadfastly refused to criticize Powell. In his book Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush, Eric Boehlert noted that ABC's Ted Koppel hosted Powell for three "in-depth interviews" on Nightline. In the first appearance, according to Boehlert, Powell "was not asked one question about his U.N. performance despite the fact that observers had already detailed the obvious errors in Powell's presentation. In fact it took the international press just one week to detail the holes in Powell's speech. But eight months later on Nightline, Koppel paid no attention to that fact." In what must surely be a coincidence, Koppel and Powell are, according to Boehlert, "good friends."
Less than five years ago, America's news media enthusiastically embraced Powell's U.N. address -- an address that we now know was riddled with untruths and bogus "evidence." But the nation's leading journalists and commentators bought it and shouted down skeptics. They bought it not after examining and assessing the quality of Powell's evidence, but because "Powell himself had presented it." They shouted down skeptics not because of the quality of the evidence, but because of the quality of the man. To be a skeptic required believing "that Colin Powell lied"; thus, being a skeptic was unacceptable.
Why dwell on that now? Because the media's coverage of David Petraeus in 2007 is depressingly similar to their treatment of Colin Powell in 2003.
Compare Tucker Carlson's questioning of a Powell skeptic in 2003 to Wolf Blitzer's questioning of a Petraeus skeptic in 2007.
In 2003, Carlson was a co-host of CNN's Crossfire. When Vermont Congressman (now Senator) Bernie Sanders expressed skepticism about Powell's presentation, Carlson expressed shock and demanded to know why Sanders did not believe Powell: "Wait, wait, wait, wait. I'm sorry. I think we're making news here. Possibly. Colin Powell, the secretary of state, got up before the U.N. yesterday and said in no uncertain terms that this happened. Are you saying he's lying? ... Do you not take his word?"
Earlier this week, Blitzer interviewed television host and comedian Bill Maher. When Maher indicated that he did not believe Petraeus' claims that his testimony was prepared completely independently of the White House and Pentagon, Blitzer pounced: "Let me point out. General Petraeus, who has been a military officer for more than 30 years, the first thing he basically said out of his mouth last week is, 'I didn't show this testimony to anyone. I wrote it myself. I didn't have it vetted by the chain of command. Not by the White House. Not by anyone at the Pentagon. Not by anyone in Congress.' Don't you believe him when he says that?"
Later in the interview, Blitzer described Maher as having "attack[ed]" Petraeus "personally" for saying he didn't believe that Petraeus' testimony was independent of the White House and Pentagon.
There is an obvious commonality between Powell and Petraeus that no doubt drives some of the media sycophancy toward them, particularly the incredulity at any suggestion that they might not be telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Both are longtime military men, and highly decorated ones at that. As I noted last week, Blitzer actually walked CNN viewers through an examination of the medals on Petraeus' chest that was more detailed than many news reports about the testimony he delivered.
Journalist Chris Hayes argues that the national discourse has come to be dominated by a "cultural and political ethos" he describes as "the Cult of the Soldier":
It's not surprising that during a time of war, civilians and politicians hold an elevated opinion of the nobility and valor of warriors. After all, it is ostensibly for our collective benefit that a tiny fraction of American citizens voluntarily endure (over and over) some of the worst horrors of human existence as both the target of violence and its implacable agent. But the Cult of the Soldier is something more than mere gratitude or appreciation. It's the insidious belief that since warriors transcend the petty and corrupt world of politics, they are uniquely equipped to make the nation's decisions about war and peace.
[...]
In sending General Petraeus to Capitol Hill, the White House was trying to have it both ways: to smuggle in a radical and unpopular agenda under the sainted mantle of an outstanding soldier. When MoveOn called this move bullshit by taking out a full-page ad in the Times accurately pointing out that Petraeus was "cooking the books" to paint a rosy picture, not only Republicans but the majority of mainstream pundits acted as if the group had violated an unspoken taboo. The Washington Post's Richard Cohen sniffed that the ad "recalls the ugly McCarthy era," adding that "MoveOn.org and the late senator from Wisconsin share a certain fondness for the low blow."
Cohen's comparison of the MoveOn ad to "the ugly McCarthy era" is an interesting one. That era draws its name from Joseph McCarthy, a United States senator from Wisconsin. McCarthy's actions can be boiled down to using the power of the United States Senate to condemn people for their political views.
The MoveOn ad in question doesn't seem to fit that bill. The ad, whatever you think of its merits or propriety, was simply a case of private citizens criticizing a government official and government policies. That isn't McCarthyism; that's private citizens exercising one of the most sacred rights a democratic nation has to offer: the right to disagree with, and criticize, the government.
But Cohen, like much of the Beltway media, ran frothing after MoveOn for more than a week, barely needing the prodding the Republicans so eagerly gave them. As Eric Boehlert explained earlier this week, MoveOn's ad got far more cable news attention than did the deaths of nine American service members in Iraq the day the ad ran -- 250 times as much. Not only that, the coverage of the ad rarely explained its actual contents or assessed its accuracy. Instead, reporters and pundits simply screeched about the outrage of the language used to describe Petraeus. Little attempt was made to assess whether the ad was right that Petraeus was misleading the Congress and the nation about Iraq. All that mattered was that his honor had been challenged. It was Petraeus that mattered, according to the media, not his testimony -- just as it was Colin Powell, not the actual merits of his presentation, that mattered to Richard Cohen in 2003.
Paul Krugman noted earlier this week:
To a remarkable extent, punditry has taken a pass on whether Gen. Petraeus's picture of the situation in Iraq is accurate. Instead, it was all about the theatrics -- about how impressive he looked, how well or poorly his Congressional inquisitors performed. And the judgment you got if you were watching most of the talking heads was that it was a big win for the administration -- especially because the famous MoveOn ad was supposed to have created a scandal, and a problem for the Democrats.
[...]
But here's the thing: new polls by CBS and Gallup show that the Petraeus testimony had basically no effect on public opinion: Americans continue to hate the war, and want out. The whole story about how the hearing had changed everything was a pure figment of the inside-the-Beltway imagination.
What I found striking about the whole thing was the contempt the pundit consensus showed for the public -- it was, more or less, "Oh, people just can't resist a man in uniform." But it turns out that they can; it's the punditocracy that can't.
And so, for more than a week, the media played along with the Republicans' absurd little game. They pretended the MoveOn ad criticized every member of the military, which it clearly did not. They acted as though there was no substance to the ad, only insult. They seemed to stipulate that Gen. Petraeus, by virtue of his title, was exempt from such criticism.
All of this came to a head yesterday, when the United States Senate voted, by a 72-25 margin, to officially condemn private citizens for criticizing their government.
Whether one agreed with the substance of the MoveOn ad or found the wording offensive, there should be something disconcerting about a government body formally condemning private citizens for criticizing the government.
Surely journalists, of all people, should recognize how chilling it is for the Senate to take such action. But I can find not a single journalist who has made that point, or even raised the question of the appropriateness of such a government action in a free society. Nor did most of the news reports about the vote include necessary context. I have not seen a single news report, for example, that told readers how frequently the United States Senate condemns citizens for speech acts critical of the government. I suspect (and hope) it is quite rare. But that context was absent from media coverage of the vote.
To be sure, there have been some journalists who have criticized the vote. Keith Olbermann and Dan Abrams and Joan Walsh, among others, noted the absurdity of the World's Greatest Deliberative Body taking the time to condemn a newspaper ad when there are more serious things going on -- like, say, a war. Others noted the hypocrisy of Republicans voting to condemn the MoveOn ad, but voting against condemnation of their ideological allies who mocked the military service of John Kerry and Max Cleland.
But I find no journalist who has yet spoken out against our elected representatives formally condemning private citizens for criticizing their government.
Isn't that, ultimately, at least as important as speaking out against private citizens for the words they use in criticizing their government?
One of the key differences between a democracy and a dictatorship is that, in the former, no one is exempt from criticism because of his or her title. America elects presidents; we do not serve kings.
In 2003, the news media believed everything Colin Powell said simply because of who he was and shouted down any who dared disagree. They based their faith in Powell's presentation on their faith in Powell -- on their stipulation that he was honorable and honest. The results were disastrous.
In 2007, another highly decorated military veteran was sent out by the Bush administration to make its case for war. Again, much of the media uncritically accepted his claims and shouted down those who disagreed. As with Powell, David Petraeus' personal honor, stipulated to by the media, seemed reason enough to believe him. No need to examine the evidence.
And this time, much of the media cheered on the United States Senate as it formally condemned American citizens for daring to be impolite in their criticism of the government.
Those journalists are not only repeating the mistakes of 2003, they're adding new ones.
Thank you Mr. Foser for spelling this out. To a discerning press corp this whole Patraeus thing would have been taken with a proper grain of salt. It's not like he was completely irrelevant necessarily. But his history of sometimes indiscriminate praise of what have turned out to be terrible policy decisions should have at least cast a shadow of incredulity on the whole Report set up.
For me, unencumbered by the trees in the faces of the professional press corp the forest was quite plain. The whole Report was a cheap stunt. Right away I had old righties blowing up at me for politely questioning the General's word because apparently he has the vision of the gods and the good character of Jesus Christ Himself. Clearly they were pushing this guy's reputation through the roof on purpose. In other words, his report was going to support Bush's desires for Iraq, no matter the facts on the ground. They wouldn't have sparkled his rep so intensely if they didn't know what was coming down the pike. I'm no professional press genius, but to me, these characters are definitely tipping their pitches.
Clearly the folks at Moveon knew the setup as well. Unfortunately someone over there has a bad sense of the game they're playing because they walked right into the very trap they had spotted. So now the new stunt is using the ad as a distraction from the war itself. This of course could have easily been mitigated if the Democrats had the instinct to call the GOP on their grandstanding instead on vindicating it. Now they walk right into the trap set for them.
Is this stuff just too dumb to believe that they're pulling it? What is wrong with the political instincts on the left in this era? It was refreshing to see Barak Obama at least being the one Senator with the good sense to refuse voting on this ridiculous resolution and calling it for what it was. Sure hope he is the sign of things to come.
I was with you right up to your third paragraph.
MoveOn did not have a 'bad sense of the game' they nailed it. If they had put out a polite add questioning betrayus it would have been ignored and gone unnoticed. Clearly their wording made sure that didn't happen.
One other thing that has been pointed out elsewhere but not here is that there is a question mark after their headline on the add. This was to give betrayus the opportunity to surprise MoveOn by telling the truth.
The main problem with the moveon.org ad was that it was just bad politics. It was a personal attack that simply failed.
The Senate vote condemning the ad was bad enough. But, in all honesty, what is worse than bad politics is the excuse that the right-wing does the same thing.
Shouldn't we have higher standards than this? As a person who has served his country, I personally resented the attacks on the general.
Indeed, cynicism is what feeds the right and increasing the noxious cloud always tends to help them in the end. Not understanding how that ad would have played with the public and with the mainstream media showed an arrogance of perspective. I can agree with the sentiment that the general has allowed himself to be made a shill. But by trying to play it that way politically simply ignores the sensibilities of the people you need to reach. It just looked like a cheap, even juevenile personal attack. And we're surprised that the press would ignore the meaning of it? Thought they might take the time to examine the implications of it and speculate as to why Moveon sees the general as a betrayer of his country? Maybe they should. But counting on them doing this reveals a serious lack of understanding of the playing field. They threw a bomb into the endzone in a baseball game.
I would just suggest to those who believed Moveon 'nailed this,' being right in politics only wins the battle if you frame your argument in a way that the public embraces. People who are right about things lose political fights all the time. We'd probably never have wars if that weren't the case. So just falling back on being right doesn't mean this was a smart move by Moveon.
Fantastic article Jamison Foser.
Gingrich's party is still great at mock outrage. Too bad they show no outrage toward conservative pundits who call for murders and assassinations.
As for war resolutions in the Senate .... Media producers, repeat after me: FILIBUSTER.
The problem with Blumenthal calling Powell and Petraeus liars is that Sidney's boss, Bill Clinton, left the White House in January 2001 saying Saddam had WMD and was a threat to the U.S.
"Others noted the hypocrisy of Republicans voting to condemn the MoveOn ad, but voting against condemnation of their ideological allies who mocked the military service of John Kerry and Max Cleland."
No one mocked Cleland's service in a political ad. Those who went after Kerry also served in Vietnam. And, unlike Kerry, they served their full tours in Vietnam. There were more than 250 Swift Boat members. Should Sen. Boxer and other liberals who attacked these veterans be condemned?
Powell and Petreaus are liars, plain and simple. Are you not suggesting that because Clinton agreed with them in a broad sense, that they are not liars? Since when did Clinton become the standard of truth among right wingers?
Further, though Clinton may have believed Iraq had chemical weapons in a general sense (and he was wrong to bomb based on that; I protested Clinton's bombing twice), he didn't present bogus evidence as Petreaus and Powell did.
The Swift Boaters are documented liars, so no one should have taken their words seriously.
Last, you seemed to have missed the gist of the article, that one shouldn't so venerate a general that he doesn't question him seriously.
"The Swift Boaters are documented liars, so no one should have taken their words seriously."
Actually, the 250+ Vietnam veterans who made up SBVT documented John Kerry's lies. They exposed Kerry's lie about being in Cambodia on Christmas Day 1968 when Nixon was president. Nixon did not become president until 1969 and it has been proven that Kerry was not in Cambodia.
SBVT for truth also proved that Kerry did not earn a Silver Star with combat V as claimed on his web site. There is no such medal.
The main charge of SBVT is that John Kerry used minor wounds as a means of leaving Vietnam early. Kerry did not want to be there and his superiors did not want him there. That charge is being dispute and even the moonbats know it.
The 250+ members of SBVT have far more medals than the bogus ones Kerry has. They, unlike Kerry, served their full tours in Vietnam and did so with honor. MMFA and the moonbats should be ashamed of themselves for the their attacks on these brave veterans whose only sin was telling the truth about John Kerry.
You are speaking vaguely about the 250+ swift boat members. Most of the soldiers who served with Kerry back up Kerry. The other 250 have no first hand knowledge (or most don't).
Those responsible for the ads have been exposed as flagrant liars.
But in an interview with The Oregonian newspaper of Portland, French freely admitted he had no firsthand knowledge of the events surrounding Kerry's medals and that his information came from secondhand accounts from "friends."
and
In August 2004, just as the first Swift Boat ad was being aired, Elliott experienced another change of heart, confessing to The Boston Globe, "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here. ... I knew it was wrong. ... In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake."
And then, amazingly, Elliott flip-flopped again.and
Second, Kerry's medical records indicate Letson did not sign off as the "person administering treatment" on December 3, 1968, which raised doubts about whether Letson ever even treated Kerry. (Why, if Kerry's wounds were so minor, was Letson able to recall the incident so vividly 35 years later?)
Additionally, Letson claimed the reason he knew Kerry was lying about his wound was because that's what Letson overheard, secondhand, from Kerry's crewmembers: that there was no enemy fire during their mission when Kerry was injured. But Letson could not name the person who allegedly told him that tale, which was bizarre since, on the night in question, Kerry was in the company of just two other crewmembers
link
I don't know what you hare talking about with the silver star.
It seems absolutely ludicrous you could actually think the Swift Boaters are telling the truth.
Nice job at an insult, though.
The Silver Star with Combat V medal crap is nonsense.
Some clerk typing up Kerry's paperwork messed up, and included the "with Combat V" phrase from another medal Kerry got.
Kerry never claimed he got that medal. He claimed he got a Silver Star, and he did.
Blaming him for a typographical error, especially when anyone who tried to look into this charge could have seen that for themselves, is lower than low.
Kevin's full of it when he says that SBVT proved any charge. General Petraus has polluted his reputation by letting himself be used by Bush.
Thanks.
I don't know why anyone would like Kevin would actually try to defend the SBVT. Their lies are well documented.
Patraeus claimed the sectarian violence is down in Iraq, which is widely disputed by other non-partisan reports. Patraues wouldn't reveal his methodology of how he came to this conclusion. A group filed for him to release it under the freedom of information act, and you can see a summary of it on
talkingpointsmemo.com
As you can imagine, his methodology is pretty shoddy. No surprise.
FUNNYMANPANTS:
"You are speaking vaguely about the 250+ swift boat members. Most of the soldiers who served with Kerry back up Kerry. "
With that first sentence you demonstrate that you do not know what you're talking about. The Swifties are sailors, not soldiers.
In other words, you can't refute what I say, so you bring up a completely minor point that in no way refutes my argument.
the lame ass strawman of the year award for that post.
Oh man Kevin that stuff is getting thin and runny. I have to thank you guys for bothering to actually address the swiftboat thing. I'm finding it too exhausting to try to describe the elephant in the room to people. Needs to be done though.
You should be seriously embarrassed for not only believing the crap the SBVT'ers put out but also for continuing to disseminate it.
Btw, I'm no Kerry fan but that sh*t the SBVT'ers put out was a low point in this country's political process.
The problem with Blumenthal calling Powell and Petraeus liars is that Sidney's boss, Bill Clinton, left the White House in January 2001 saying Saddam had WMD and was a threat to the U.S.
by Kevin
Bill Clinton left in 2001 thinking that Saddam likely did have WMD's.
Colin Powell and many others within the Bush Administration had additional information that discounted those earlier suspicions, yet they didn't give us that updated information.
There's a huge difference between what Clinton said and what Bush and his cronies said.
Specifically, El Beradi of the UN was in Iraq looking at Iraq's nuclear program and gave Iraq an absolute clean bill of health. Iraq had no nuclear program. This was known with near certainty before the war. (You cannot easily hide a nuclear program.)
Instead of listening to El Beradi, Bush pushed the bogus case that Saddam was trying to reconstitute nuclear weapons, specifically stating that aluminum tubes found in Iraq were used for centrifugal devices. The US's own state dept came to a very different conclusion, that the aluminum tubes were not used for centrifugal devices but for rockets (as Iraq claimed).
Powell withheld this information from the UN when he made his infamous speech. He stated something like "The world thinks that the aluminum tubes are meant for rockets. We have reached a different conclusion." What Powell didn't say was that the US's own state dept, which conducted detailed tests, agreed (rightly) with the rest of the world.
The only other evidence the US had to say that Saddam had a nuclear program was that he tried to purchase uranium from Niger, a claim that Bush later apologized and said should not have gone in the State of the Union Address.
Monkeyman:
"Colin Powell and many others within the Bush Administration had additional information that discounted those earlier suspicions, yet they didn't give us that updated information."
So your argument is that Saddam fooled Bill Clinton for eight full years. However, the Bush administration was smart enough to figure out in just a matter of months that Saddam was bluffing. Great argument
See my post above.
Yes, Bush did have new information. Yes, Bush did lie.
the usual right wing amnesia. they can haul out every comment about wmd from ten years before. but somehow that two months before the invasion, when the u.n. inspectors were there and finding nothing, when it was bush who advised they be removed, somehow that period has disappeared from the right wing history book.
and all the rhetoric about how iraq is the central front in the war on terror is just a virtual repeat of vietnam. the argument was that china would dominate a communist vietnam, but the two countries fought a war in 1979. see link. iraq is not going to allow itself to be run by any other country or group. it doesn't happen. we need to learn that lesson, stop being uncle sam the babysitter, set a date and leave. iraq is as futile and senseless as vietnam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Vietnamese_War
What part of the fact that the Bush administration got additional information, and therefore should have come to a different conclusion, did you not understand?
Are you really this ignorant? Really?
It says nothing about how stupid the Clinton administration is. It says loads about how deceitful the Bush administration was, because they had more info but stuck with the old information and disregarded the new info.
MY argument which I have proven over and over is that Clinton made broad statements of belief which were being challenged by the new work being done by the inspectors. Bush most likely believed the same thing, no problem there then BUSH as opposed to Clinton told specific, flat out LIES about Iraq. THAT is the difference. The propaganda parrot talking point that Bush and Clinton were saying the same thing is ludicrous on the face of it. Cough up CLINTON pulling non existant IAEA reports directly out of his ass or sending reports to Congress long ago refuted by the experts in the field. Until you can ya got NOTHIN
As usual Kevin NEVER knows what he is talking about. First there is a difference between broad statements of belief and specific and flat out WRONG information like Powell gave to the UN. Second you are a liar about Kerry. His reports were glowing the idea no one wanted him there is a flat out lie and he left early during his SECOND tour in Vietnam. You wingnuts just shovel the lies and you dont care beans whether or not they are true as long as they further your propaganda parrot agenda
SUNDOG:
"It was refreshing to see Barak Obama at least being the one Senator with the good sense to refuse voting on this ridiculous resolution and calling it for what it was. "
Obama voted for the Boxer amendment, but lacked the courage to vote on the Cornyn amednment.
If you're going to defend the Swiftboaters at this point, I'm not sure if I'm too worried about your take on Obama. Not to be insulting but c'mon yer gonna defend the swiftboaters? Were you happy with Bush's service in the guard because someone handed CBS a forged document too? Obama lacks the courage. The swiftboaters were legitimate. Yer funny.
Obama refused to vote on the Republican bill and called it, "A stunt designed only to score political points."
That's pretty direct language for such a coward, particularly considering he doesn't have a FOX network backing him up and the 'legitimate' media have jumped right on the bus with the GOP on this stunt. Lacks the courage. Do you just say whatever it is you want to be true Kevin? Does the media noise machine help a lot in maintaining that level of cognitive dissonance? Lacks the courage. I'm gonna say the Sears Tower is made out of gouda cheese. Because I like gouda cheese. Now tell me the trick you use to get to the believing it part.
The CBS produced report by Dan Rather on GWB's Guard and Non-Service in Vietnam is a factual story. Dan has come back to fight for a freedom of the press on all news outlets.
The documents have to this day, never been proven faulty in any way. Like many other things in the news today, it's reported that way, but it has not been proven.
For those and other good reasons, Dan is back to prove his case and to expose the corporate and politcal controls on our news today.
I actually don't think those particular documents being forged would change anything. If that were the case, then it opens the door for such a cheap trick to be perpetrated any time. You hand them a document that represents the truth but is forged. As in, there may be real documents that say the exact same thing. So you forge another copy and that's the one that gets used to make the case against you. At that point, all you have to do is expose the forgery and then you're innocent? In court they could have sorted this out. In the court of public opinion, CBS dropped the case they were making about Bush's service regardless of the truth of the story. This kind of thing absolutely cannot be allowed to fly. We can't just be led around by something like that. It would have just made a better story for CBS really if they had the courage. As in, the Bush Guard story seems to check out in every way, so why would someone forge documents about something that is actually true? To make us look crooked and bury the truth of the story we were pursuing! They needed to do this just for the good of society but instead they threw Rather under the bus and tried to pretend the whole thing didn't happen. It's possible that the case Rather is pursuing could have very serious implications.
Actually, if those documents were forged, answering where they came from might be a much bigger deal than W's lame service in the Champagne Division.
Rove is an evil genius. The forged documents were by far his best political trick...and maybe the best of all time.
I hope there is a special place in hell for the clever ones.
It always makes me uncomfortable when people give this the credit of genius. It seems a mistake to give someone too much credit for being willing to be so corrupt. It's basically admiring a crook for having so much money. And it also overlooks the fact that Rove's tactics wouldn't be very effective if the press did their job.
I think that people are overestimating the value of this guy 'retiring.' His methods are still very much at work. Just witness the way the Patraeus stunt was orchestrated and how they used the Moveon ad. That's why I've been using the phrase Rovian instead of really referring to the creep himself. It's a whole approach to politics that takes advantage of the pathetic press corp and all the modern media with a level of depravity people seem to look right through. You explain some simple trick that they pull and you're either labled overly partisan or passed of as a 'conspiracy nut.' Even for the clearly documented stuff!
Of course what this environment demands of the polical criminal is pulling the most outlandish tricks you can. Hide them in plain site basically. Make it sound so goofy that anyone pointing it out can be laughed off.
It would be absolutely Rovian to create false documents that actually represent a true story that you don't want exposed. Why create forgeries that make you look innocent? That's defensive and you're never defensive, not even in your own mind. And forgeries that say what you need point right to you. There's reason for people to suspect those. They suspect you already right? So it makes more sense to create forgeries that make it look like someone else is out to get you. Apparently it's way too complicated for anyone to believe these forgeries point back to you. This wasn't even speculated about during the CBS debacle even though there was plenty of reason to doubt a need for these particular documents to prove the thrust of the Guard story. Why would someone working on the story knowingly use an unnecessary tool that would ruin their credibility? Not really such a far out question to ask.
What they would have done was actually quite simple. Plant false evidence among real evidence in a case you don't want to come to trial. Expose the false evidence and count on the lack of tenacity in the press and a court of public opinion that wants the simplest evidence to settle everything. Besides, you only need to confuse people until after the election.
After that, leave it to the 'conspiracy nuts' (and Dan Rather) to ruin their reputations by going after you in an environment where your side has the biggest bullhorn.
Rove the guy may not matter much any more. But the method he is infamous is the MO for much of the Republican Party and it will be until it stops working. It's not impossible to throw this stuff back in their faces. We need to stop thinking of this as their strenght but rather their weakness. When they jumped all over the Moveon ad, the Democrats had a chance to simply shine a light on their blatant grandstanding. Consider the alternate narrative of, "We demand that the GOP stop wasting the nations time and money simply because they want to distract the nation from their failed policies in Iraq." We've seen the numbers. We know poeple are sick of the war, sick of grandstanding and ready for this.
Again, because we're talking caucus here in Iowa, I've got to point out the way Barak Obama was willing to call the GOP Moveon resolution literally a stunt and refused to vote on it. It was a footnote to the story, but if he were leading the party, it would have been a lot more than that.
Calling someone an evil genius is like calling someone an excellent killer. Yes it's terrible and wrong...but he's good at it.
I do get your meaning Temp. I'm not really saying you're wrong I just wish the guy was talked about differently in general. Commentators refer to him as a 'mastermind' and such but they're never willing to spell out what makes him that. It's a sort of 'wink wink' approach that implies approval. In a sense, it puts them in cahoots with him. Because one of the main things Rovian tactics require is a lack of vigilance in the press.
I agree, I dont think Rove is any kind of genius. Every now and then someone comes along who thinks the rules dont apply to him and is willing to eschew all standards of decency to get his way. THAT isnt genius. It can be effective for a while. It wouldnt have been as effective for nearly as long had the press done its job as you said. No, I dont think Rove is a genius just a man with no moral standards
A legitimate press corps would make this stuff impossible. But Rove's legacy can be defeated. I think the main reason people are frustrated with Democrats is the way they continually play right into the traps set for them. They keep trying to run campaigns just like the last successful Democratic presidential bid in 96. It makes them too predictable and easily manipulated. Their top-teir strategists have just been too calculating and careful, not adjusting with the things thrown at them.
The Swiftboaters should have been the end of Bush's chances not Kerry's. No one was willing to call it what it was. Sitting around denying things doesn't really make you look very sharp in the eyes of voters. The problem is, admit no wrong doing, deny no wrong doing is currently the MO of the people by far commiting the most wrong doing to deny.
Instead of answering a single claim of the Swifties, the response properly would have been one of outrage. "How dare you hide behind a proxy group to slander the reputation of a decorated veteran?" And from Kerry himself, "This whole business is a disgrace to the honor of our entire armed forces. That's all I care to say about it. Back to the issues that concern Americans."
Instead it was this obnoxiously careful approach. The campaign became the proverbial deer in headlights. Kerry's chief strategist has since claimed that it was just a matter of the fact that they hadn't budgeted for any new tv commercials that month. Think of how lame and stiff that is.
Just as Obama called the Moveon resolution exactly what it was, a stunt, the swifties should have been called exactly what they were. When the side that is lying sticks their neck out that far, you've got to cut their heads off.
The Boxer Amendment did not contain any reference to any individual person by name, but to "the men and women of the United States Armed Forces"
The Cornyn Amendment did the extraordinary thing of mentioning an individual person by name, not just once but twice.
That's a strange thing, for the U.S. Senate to make it's business defending and/or promoting the public reputation, of an individual person, by name.
It also makes me wonder about Mr. Cornyn: Just how thin-skinned does he think a General in the U.S. Army is, that he must rush to that General's defense, and call the U.S. Senate to rush along with him...
...against the "onslaught" of a left/liberal web-site, and a newspaper ad they took out.
Just how thin-skinned does Mr. Cornyn think the General is?
Or is it that Mr. Cornyn thinks the power of newspaper ads, and left/liberal web-sites, to be so great, he must summon the authority of the U.S. Senate to confont them?
Excellent summary of the salient issues. A video clip from Iraq that has stayed with me to this day is that of a soldier who says "I wish people back home would take the time to find out what is going on over here." It is unfortunate that we have to peer through, over and around a good portion of our media to accomplish that task.
The fact is that there are several military commanders who do not agree with our Iraq strategy or lack thereof. I have experienced that personally and we can see it from the plethora of generals who have left the military to criticize US policy/strategy in Iraq. The military does not want to nor should it be in the position of deciding whether to stay in Iraq. What does it say about US that we have conflated making war with declaring war; and abdigated our responsibility in a democracy.
Someone wrote that the problem with academics and commentators is that they are more interested in whether their ideas are interesting than whether they are true. This is so sad.
Gotkids, thanks for pointing out that very important fact. It always makes me a little uncomfortable when politicians use the deserved respect due to our military to push some agenda. This posturing seems to forget the fact that one of the greatest features of our nation from the start has been civilian leadership of the military. No matter how spongeheaded a president may happen to be, we can't forget that basic facet of our Constitution.
It doesn't matter what information runs in those tiny news segments on cable tv if the "commentator" spends the next hour telling you the opposite is true. In this case, they show a bit of testimony and then spend the next hour on why the message you just saw is reasonable and all critics are kooks. On Fox, they have several shows with multiple commentators so they can go into a cultic circle over every issue defining what you should think...and as MMFA often points out IT DOESNT MATTER WHAT THE TRUTH IS in these cases...it can be spun.
A solider who honorably serves his/her country should be view with sober appreciation. Not fawned over like kids with holographic Pokemon cards. Additionally NO ONE under ANY circumstance is above criticism. Criticism leads to correction.
Very concise and well put!
Thank You Jamison Foser ...
That voice inside me said, "I've heard it all before"!!
With Powell I believed it because he was not a yes person with Bush. But even before the General Patreous report, I could project what was going to happen.
I don't respect Patreous for what he has done. He's a Yes Person for the Bush war policy. While most generals advised against a military soluton, Patreous was hand picked by Bush because he is for the surge.
Unlike Powell, I knew Patreous was chosen to, ordered to and very willing to sell the Bush War policy. -Shameful-
So I quickly supported the MoveOn ad. I still support MoveOn but they should have directed that ad at the president, not the honorable appearing general.
Don't kill the messenger. Don't attack the former Secretary's of War, State or Attorney General, or "Brownie".
They were all just following the orders from George W. Bush who has the backing of most Republicans.
Let's vote them all out of office.
What I got from this week is the impression that according to the media, anyone who is wearing a uniform is a cross between a Saint and Superman, and to criticize such a person is akin to spitting on the flag. Such a person must be officially condemned by the US Senate.
However, once you've left the service, you are fair game. Just ask Kerry and Cleland. My favorite Kevin comment was that Kerry didn't complete his full service in Vietnam- the lazy coward kept getting wounded, but those were self-inflicted, right? Meanwhile, how much time did President Chimp serve in Vietnam? Speaking of non finishing his service, Numbnuts couldn't even be bothered to keep himself coke-free so he could keep his pilot's status. There was a Senate race to work on, after all.
I also saw a similarity between Powell and Petraeus testimonies. I found both unconvincing. I could see/ feel an uncertainty in Powell's testimony, what little I saw. And Pertraeus, he really had no case to sell. No political reconciliation = no point in staying. That is what he should have said. He had a chance to be honest with the American people. He wasn’t. The goal of the surge was to create "breathing space" for the government of Iraq so that they can work together. Eight months later, only 1/14 of the Iraqi political benchmarks have been met. From that one can obviously conclude that the goals of the surge were not met and a new strategy was needed. Yet Patreaus and Crocker insisted on maintaining the current ineffective strategy based on what. Facts? No. 80% of Iraqis want the US out of Iraq; 50-60% think is alright to kill American Soldiers. Why? Unemployment: 70%, electricity 3hrs a day if you’re lucky, Water: stand in lines for hours and it may not be sanitary. Mortality rates are through the roof across the board. 4mil people displaced, civil war, and...Oh Yeah 70K-80K reported deaths directly related to the war, 750K to 1Mil if mortality rates are applied since the war began. If facts govern the Iraq Occupation strategy we would no longer be tethered there. Petraus May have taken the job in good faith in January, but he should have came back in September and told the President and congress that it is time to stop screwing that country up and reprioritize our foreign policy. If he could not do that in Uniform, he should have resigned and then stated it as a civilian. I thought the MoveOn ad headline was juvenile but they were still dead on. Petreaus had a choice between serving the needs of the majority of US citizens or selling out to President Bush and his shrinking cult of followers. He betrayed the needs of the sane majority to appease a delusional minority. My only question is why. What does he have to gain from being a Bush pawn? It shreds my heart to think about the countless thousands who will die needlessly. But there deaths are not meaningless. Their memories will haunt our consciouses and will hopefully force us to be more prudent with our military.
SAMSCOMPUTER:
"The documents have to this day, never been proven faulty in any way. Like many other things in the news today, it's reported that way, but it has not been proven. "
Never proven faulty? I guess the fact that they were produced with a computer that did not exist three decades ago is irrelevant. I guess the fact that TANG records prove that Bush completed his service is irrelevant.
Where was Rather when Colonel Holmes exposed Bill Clinton as a veritable draft dodger?
Thanks Kevin ...
Give Dan a chance to prove his case! The story itself is believed by many to be true. Have you ever wondered why a sitting president's military records are missing.
Even if he fails to prove the documents were originals they were still correct in their content and substance. Maybe they were copied because they were too hard to be presented clearly on TV. I hope the truth will be clear after the court case is done.
I also hope Dan doesn't take a big payoff to keep quiet and drop his crusade to take control of the media away from Corporations and Neo-Republicans in power today.
samscomputer:
"Give Dan a chance to prove his case! The story itself is believed by many to be true. Have you ever wondered why a sitting president's military records are missing."
Rather had a chance to prove his case already and the case he "made" was thoroughly debunked.
I think since Rather lacked the toughness to make it through Marine Corps boot camp, it's a bit hypocritical to go after Bush's service.
The case he made has been proven true. The secretary who worked for Killian has said that the information included in those memos was totally accurate.
The TANG records don't prove that Bush fully served his term of service. That lame rightwing talking point has been debunked.
http://www.glcq.com/
There was fraud with regard to his pay, and there was misconduct with regard to his failure to appear for the required duty and there was no proof that he served the required days. The Air Force lied, then refused comment when their lies were uncovered.
No it wasnt now you are just making up lies. Rather brought on the person who TYPED KILLIANS MEMOS. She verified the contents OF THOSE MEMOS. Do you EVER know what you are talking about or is regurgitating long debunked talking points all you do?
You need to keep up, Kevin.
Never proven faulty? I guess the fact that they were produced with a computer that did not exist three decades ago is irrelevant. I guess the fact that TANG records prove that Bush completed his service is irrelevant.
It wasn't proven that they were produced with a computer that didn't exist. What was proven was that there was a typewriter available that would have produced these exact documents in the exact way they looked. They probably were fakes, but was never proven, and in any case, the information included in those documents was proven to be true.
TANG records don't prove that he completed all the service required. That's been documented too. The fact that some people said that the TANG records proved that doesn't mean their statements were true! People have proven that TANG records don't prove what you say they prove.
Edumacation - look into it.
Again you spew the talking points completely without merit. I dont know if you are a liar or just completely brainwashed but those documents have NOT been proven to be from a computer and the technology for everything in those memos was available AT THE TIME. They cannot be authenticated but have NEVER been proven to be forgeries much less proven to be produced on a computer. If you ever got your information from somewhere other than rightwing websites and LYING screechmonkeys you might one day have some dim idea what you are talking about. The BS you spew as usual has been LONG ago debunked.
SUNDOG:
"If you're going to defend the Swiftboaters at this point, I'm not sure if I'm too worried about your take on Obama. Not to be insulting but c'mon yer gonna defend the swiftboaters?"
Use common sense. Do you really believe 250+ Vietnam veterans and war heroes would conspire to lie about John Kerry? And then, after three years, not a single one of them has come forth to expose the conspiracy.
Any thinking person who has read "Unfit for Command" and studied the SBVT claims vs. John Kerry's cowardly service in Vietnam knows that SBVT members were telling the truth. Anyone who attacks these brave veterans should be ashamed of himself.
Kevin Said ...
... "John Kerry's cowardly service in Vietnam" AndHe Then Said ... "Anyone who attacks these brave veterans should be ashamed of himself."
So Kevin, does it then follow that your attack on "Brave War Veteran Kerry" also means you should be ashamed of yourself too?
Don't worry, you don't have to answer that.
But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.
...
None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry's boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him.
link
FUNNYMANPANTS:
"None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry's boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him. "
That's a lie. Gardner served on Kerry's boat. This lie has been so thorouhgly debunked I can't see why moonbats continue to repeat it. In addition, the boats travelled closely together, so those on other boats witnessed Kerry's behavior. Finally, this line of argument precludes any criticism of Bush's service since none of Bush's critics served on his plane.
bold off
Yes, once again you can't refute the link I provided.
Let me quote again:
But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.
The *records* contradict the SBVT. And so do their own testimony.
One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal, Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."
And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident.
And as I pointed out in my earlier link, virtually every SBVT who did the ad turned out to be liars. You never refuted that point.
By the way, I don't think Gardner was in the ad that factcheck.org refuted, though I'm not positive. He was the only serviceman who actually served on the same boat as Kerry.
Of those who served in Kerry's boat crew, only Stephen Gardner joined SBVT. He was not present on any of the occasions when Kerry won his medals, including his Purple Hearts. Gardner appeared in two of the group's television advertisements.
All other living members of Kerry's crew supported his presidential bid, and some frequently campaigned with him as his self-described 'band of brothers'. Kerry crewmembers have disputed some of SBVT's various allegations: "totally false" (Drew Whitlow), "garbage" (Gene Thorson), and "a pack of lies" (Del Sandusky)
link
bold off
What kind of Marine calls another vet a coward when they weren't there?
Anybody who stepped foot in that hell hole was a hero. Anyone who criticizes another vets service is an asswhole.
I saw guys who served full tours in two weeks. Some left on their feet, some on stretchers and some left in body bags.
How long were you in country Kev?
You are a LIAR and scum for calling a WAR HERO like Kerry a coward. Any THINKING person who looked at the evidence would have to conclude the Swift Boat LIARS for Rent were just that liars. Of those 250 how many served WITH Kerry on a swiftboat? Oh ONE thats right. Ya got nothin. Every bit of this has been gone over again and again. YOU are far behind the times and your weak BS has been refuted dozens of times.
Have you moonbats ever considered that this web site is run by discredited journalist David Brock and others it quotes, such as Sidney Blumenthal, are also discredited journalists.
How do you will yourselves to be so gullible?
Discredited does not mean what you think it does. If you want to see a good definition of discredited, see
http://mediamatters.org/columns/200704180002
or
http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html
Have YOU ever considered you are a brain dead moron brainwashed by rightwing propaganda and without the capacity for higher brain function? Its clear to anyone that can read this is true. The gullible thing is so obviously projection as I have rarely seen anyone as ignorant or as gullible as YOU
"Give Dan a chance to prove his case! The story itself is believed by many to be true. Have you ever wondered why a sitting president's military records are missing."
The reams of records that are available prove that Bush completed his TANG service. http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp
"Even if he fails to prove the documents were originals they were still correct in their content and substance."
Not true. The content has been proven false. http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/013507.php
Rather and Mapes got caught trying to use fake doucments to defeat Bush. Their goal was not good journalism. If it had been, Mapes would not have called Joe Lockhart with the Kerry campaign to give him a heads up about the story.
The truly hypocritical thing with Rather going after someone else's military service is that for years he claimed to be a former Marine. That is a lie. Rather did not make it through Marine Corps boot camp. Any Marine knows that you do not become a Marine until you complete boot camp.
Kevin ....
Thanks for sending me to that far right WebSite. Iv'e been soiled from the experience.
Truthfully though, i'm glad you pointed me there to see what the Dark Side of the Force is up to. I even saw Darth Vader there.
Like I said before I will give Dan's law suit the chance to see the light of day. To take it's course and may the chips fall where they may.
I like his objectives and his purpose to put up a fight for control of our news outlets. I just hope he doesn't take a payoff to keep quiet about the powers controlling our news.
I wonder why people here continue to respond to Kevin. He's made it so obvious that he's a totally partisan, uninformed troll, yet we keep responding. He tells us that anyone who criticizes veterans are bad, then criticizes Kerry. He tells us that "250+ veterans" (none of whom were on Kerry's boat at the time, btw) have substantiated the Swift Boat Veterans for Smears, who are beyond reproach. Please, just stop. Trolls feed on responses. You can't tell Kevin anything because he's just like his hero George W- he knows what he knows, and Facts be damned.
That's Right JJ ... And...
We all know that... But know this...
When new people and regulars come to this "Far Left Swamp Pit" and other unknowing visitors monitor what's going on here, ... They will see Kevin's comments standing unchallenged. For that and other reasons, we can't let Kevin's comments just stand alone to promote the Dark Side of the Force.
You're free to comment or keep silent as you see fit. I honor and sympathize with your refusal to reply to Kevin.
Sam, I agree with both of you. You and JJ that is. This case did need to be made. You spelled it out a long time ago. Kevin's cognitive dissonance was obvious to anyone with a brain. After that his dumb strawmen and simple repetitions of belief could be ignored. Eventually, to the casual observer all the superficial arguements eventually muddy the waters and leave people with a more ambiguous impression than the facts you've outlined demand. This is why I have no patience for posters like Tommy or this guy who simply ignore logic while accusing you of doing just that. "It's just my opinion and your's. And we all have a right to our opinions. Let's at least agree on that right?" You nailed this a long time ago. Show confidence in your facts. Let him babble.
Hi Sun ... Thanks ...
Point well made ... Point well taken.
I shall heretofore make and/or adjust my comments accordingly in regards to Kevin.
We should all just respond to that behavior with a (Standard Dis-Claimer Style Reply) Such as:
- Sorry No Response Deserved - OR - Get Outta Town Jerk.
Once I replied to Kevin the Marine:
Kevin ... I know marines! ... Marines are personal friends of mine ... Kevin, you are no Marine. Marines proudly fight for our freedoms while Keven, you are here to hate that we are free.
That was in response to one of his hateful, ugly name calling attacks on Democrats, Liberals, Progessives etc. I suggested that he should reconsider all that hatred in his heart.
He did not reply to that one.
One of my excuses for spending so much time on this site recently is that it's good training. We need the loony opposition and hopefully some reasonable oppostion to develop our thoughts and sharpen our arguments. I have strong opinions and unlike these otherworldly righties I like having a check on my arguments so I know my facts are legitimate and not just what I want to believe. And I'm learning not to chase red herrings around or get all punched out knocking down straw men. This is pretty much all they have after all. There haven't been many times in American history when one 'side' of the political divide is so wrong about so much. These turkeys have made a partisan out of me. At least until the current generation of theocrats and rovians is thoroughly exposed and expunged.
No their content has NOT been proven false and Captains Quarterly is a rabid rightwing sewer. Getting your information from such morons is why you are so uninformed. The perons who WROTE Killins memos DID verify the content. Bush was not ONLY derilict in his duty by not taking his physical and suspended from flying FOR THAT REASON. His own records say he MADE UP TIME in 73 since by Guard rules time can ONLY be made up within thirty days the ONLY reason he MADE UP time is that HE WAS AWOL. Try to keep up and believing the rightwing trash you are spewing is the very DEFINITION of gullible
"The case for war has been made. And it's irrefutable."
In 1962 Adlai Stevenson goes before the United Nations General Assembly and shows the world actual photographs shot from a U2 spy plane of Soviet missle bases under jungle cover in Cuba.
Fast forward forty years later. Billions of Americn taxpayer dollars spent in research & design of satellite technology, infra-red photographic technology, ground-penetrating and heat-seeking technology, etc. Iraq is under a decade-long "No Fly Zone." The geography, compared to Cuba, is mostly treeless, cloudless desert. UN inspectors are on the ground. Iraq is supposedly a mortal enemy of America and manufacturing WMD and nukes. Given all that, and given the budgets of the CIA and NSA and Pentagon, presumably we have satellites and other intelligence gathering technology aimed in Hussein's direction, yes?
Yet the best - the VERY BEST - that Colin Powell can do is show the world a crude CorelDraw cartoon of "mobile WMD laboratories," wave a vial of talcum powder, and scare us, "Just Imagine..."
Powell asked newspaper columnists and editors to "just imagine," and like the frightened hysterical little children they are, dutifully typed their nightmares back to the public as "irrefutable" evidence.
Were newspaper editors actually expecting us to believe that technology had regressed in forty years, when Steveson showed the world photos, and all Powell could show by contrast were Jack Chick comics? I imagine they were, because the media swallowed it whole.
Thank you for this column. It almost exactly expresses my sentiments. However, what I want to know is what you think can be done about the almost infinite gullibility of Americans when it comes to making war.
I led two classes (winter and spring of 2003) at a senior citizens Institute for Lifelong Learning (in Hiighland Park, NJ) where we discusssed the impending and instituted US war against Iraq. Using all my persuasive and logical powere, I wasn't able to convince the majority of attendees (20 to 25 mostly males each session) that a war on Iraq was being cooked up with fake "intelligence." I could quote Hans Blix, Mohamed elBaradei, and Richard Clarke all I wanted, they responded with Powell, Bush and Rumsfeld. When I pointed out how laughable Powell's "evidence" was, they were totally disbelieving. (I thought the capping absurdity was citing as proof of mobile biological laborities, an artist's imagined drawing of such.) They refused even to consider any of it absurd or even suspect.
In the end, I think the"students" equated the Iraq war with Reagan's attacks on Grenada or Panama: harmless brief adventures eventuallly redounding to the credit of the US and its invincible armed forces.
With the latest votes in Congress for continuing the war and condemning MoveOn, I think I am finally losing heart. And I've been at this for a long time; I'm 78 years old and a veteran of the Civil Rights, antiVietnam War, feminist, antiCentral American policy, etc. movements.
Sincerely,
Elaine Shinbrot
Don't lose heart Elaine, your work over the years is definitely appreciated. To think that the Civil Rights movement and feminism haven't transformed our world is a huge mistake. I'd ask my wife what she thinks about it but she's at work. Her job was more important to her than mine was to me and I tend to enjoy more time around the house with our babies. (One napping other currently playing in sight in the grass.) This made our strategy for the baby years an easy and happy decision. It wouldn't have been back when you started fighting.
I had a hard time for a while deciding which of two strong, front-running Democratic candidates to caucus for here in Iowa. One of them is a woman, the other is a black man.
The right making claims of cowardice and a lack of patriotism towards the left is ironic on an Orwellian level. And it should be used against them. The response from the left has usually been, "Er gosh, it's not nice to question someone's patriotism." My oversimplified answer to your question of what needs to be done is that we actually address their accusation.
Who is it that is embracing the founding principles of this nation? All men are created equal? An ideal penned by slaveowners, we have painfully fought our way towards realizing it over the course of centuries. Who is fighting on the side of progress? Who is afraid of change to the point of violating their own stated values in order to maintain a status quo? Who is actually brave in answering our current problems? Who is genuinely pushing for freedom and not just sticking the word on their bumper?
Basically we can keep winning these fights over time because we actually are fighting for the idea of America and we shouldn't be afraid to embrace that language. Allowing them to call a murderous stupid war that cripples us militarily and drains our treasury for generations a patriotic endevor is a huge mistake. We win these fights eventually because we're right. If they do something outrageous we need our leaders to show outrage. If they try to co-opt the symbols of freedom and democracy in order to subvert those very things we need to call them on it in a big way.
We are of different generations Elaine, but I'll tell you the fire hasn't gone out and you have and will achieve great things.
I never believed Colin Powell. Because I knew who he was supporting, Bush and Cheney.
I never, ever trusted that man, starting from the 2000 election on.
Actually before when I said to friends that we would have another war with Ira if he were elected President.
He(Bush) ALWAYS had others do his dirty work for him. Read his work and government resume. He was a failed business man and a lousy governor.
Who in their right mind would have thought he would have been a good President?
"Use common sense. Do you really believe 250+ Vietnam veterans and war heroes would conspire to lie about John Kerry? And then, after three years, not a single one of them has come forth to expose the conspiracy."
Kevin, meet reality. I'm sure it will be a short-lived experience for you:
[link to www.washingtonpost.com] [link to www.msnbc.msn.com] [link to www.nytimes.com] [link to www.boston.com] [link to www.chicagotribune.com]
Regardless of the reality you will undoubtedly continue to deny, the debate at the time was who would make a better commander-in-chief. As you may recall, Kerry questioned Bush's handling of the war. In retrospect, he was right. Can we not at least agree on that fact? Iraq is a disaster. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died and been forced to flee their country since the beginning of the war. America has lost economic, moral and political clout throughout the world. And to return to the original point of this article, Petraeus has acted like an enabler with little questioning of his veracity by the mainstream press.
I think that even more interesting and worthy of analysis and commentary, than the similarities of Secretary Powell's and General Petraeus's public testimonies regarding the internal (and even international) affairs of Iraq...
...are the differences betwwen the functions of a U.S. Secretary of State, and any member of the U.S. Armed Forces, whether a General or not.
The Secretary of State is a policy maker; members of the U.S. Armed Forces are not.
The Secretary of State exercises our diplomacy with the other nations of the world; the U.S. Armed Forces does no such thing, and works when diplomacy has failed, and doesn't refer to it as an "exercise" when they do.
The Secreatry of State, as a civilian, is a Public Servant, who may be considered as serving the American People, either directly or by way of the President (who appointed the Secretary), or by way of the Senate (who confirmed that appointment); all members of the U.S. Armed Forces are under lawful orders to obey, and the only civilian they recognize in their chain of command, is the Commander in Chief.
And the greatest single difference this week, exhibited between our Secretary of State and any member of the U.S. Armed Forces (Gen. Petraeus or not), was the fact that the Secretary of State failed to appear before the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee, in the matter of briefing the U.S. Senate as to Iraq's internal and international affairs...
...(something that is the professional obligation of our Secretary of State, as our Foreign Minister; an obligation that delegated to a mere Ambassador, was an insult to the Senate and the American People this week)...
...versus the fact that this briefing of the U.S. Senate, as to Iraq's internal and international affairs, was made by a member of the U.S. Armed Forces: A Soldier who does not make U.S. Foreign Policy, and who is under lawful orders to obey the chain of command, and the Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
But I wouldn't lament too much, the failure of the Secretary of State to appear before the U.S. Senate this week (and I'm not stung too badly, by the insult of having a mere Ambassador appear in the Secretary's absence).
Because the awful sight of Condoleeza Rice, present U.S. Secretary of State and former National Security Adviser and co-architect of the Iraq invasion (and co-author of the false and falsified intelligence that compelled that invasion)...
Because the awful sight of Ms. Rice's face at this time, and in this matter, is a pleasure to avoid for the trouble and the criticism and the reminder that face makes, of how low has the U.S. Standard fallen, on the fields of the world.
And I think it was actually that trouble and criticism and reminder we were intentionally spared, when George W. Bush sent a member of the U.S. Armed Forces in her place, inappropriately and insultingly.
Boy, That was a mouth full ...
But I wouldn't of kicked her out of the bed like Bush did. I'd let her do her rightful functons of selling the Bush war policies.
If your saying it's wrong to use a general to sell this or a war I agree but it sure seems to have worked good so far.
Only more time will tell the tale.
jjamele2880:
"My favorite Kevin comment was that Kerry didn't complete his full service in Vietnam- the lazy coward kept getting wounded, but those were self-inflicted, right? Meanwhile, how much time did President Chimp serve in Vietnam? Speaking of non finishing his service, Numbnuts couldn't even be bothered to keep himself coke-free so he could keep his pilot's status. There was a Senate race to work on, after all."
Everyone knows that Kerry cheated to get out of Vietnam early. http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200405041626.asp
I already shared a link that proves Bush fulfilled his TANG service requirements.
The odd thing about the Rather forged documents story is that it was unnecessary. When Bill Clinton ran against WWII veteran George HW Bush in 1992, Rather and other liberals in the media told us that Clinton's draft dodging was not an issue. It was not an issue again in 1996 when Clinton ran against Bob Dole, another WWII veteran. However, once Kerry began trying to use his abbreviated tour in Vietnam as a requirement for the presidency, the liberal media jumped on board to help Kerry. Given that none of the Democrat frontrunners served in the military, the liberal media will treat military service as irrelevant again.
See my links above for the facts on Kerry's records.
Byron York is wrong, plain and simple.
You are persistent that's for sure.
The difference between the two Clinton races and the Kerry/bush race is that the country WAS NOT AT WAR AT THE TIME.
The fact that you don't seem to realize that WAR experience counts during a time of WAR is a sign of your cognitive impairment. Thus, neither five-deferment dick or awol-bush (he really never did complete his full stint in the National Guard, sorry) are as qualified to lead your country as Kerry was.
They weren't "Rather-forged documents". All he did was read a report created by someone else. He didn't solicit the documents, he didn't do the research, and he did not fact check any of the documents. That's not the job of someone in his position. Anchormen like him do the reading of the reports. They don't do the legwork.
It was the rightwing smear machine that said that Rather did it. All he did in this instance was read the report that relied upon documents that the White House didn't question when they were shown the documents.
If you were a fair-minded person, you'd be upset that the White House tried to set them up with documents they thought were fakes. If I have to win by not vetting documents fairly so that I can could then catch my opponents making a mistake, I'd be so ashamed of that behavior that I would not crow about it in public, Kevin.
No one knows any such thing a thing not true cannot be KNOWN. So it is just REPEATED by brainwashed LIARS like you.
jjamele2880:
"I wonder why people here continue to respond to Kevin. He's made it so obvious that he's a totally partisan, uninformed troll, yet we keep responding. He tells us that anyone who criticizes veterans are bad, then criticizes Kerry."
You've misrepresented my argument.
"He tells us that '250+ veterans' (none of whom were on Kerry's boat at the time, btw)..."
Not true. Gardner was on Kerry's boat. In addition, the swift boats travelled in groups. Many of the SBVT members served directly with Kerry. Any any case, that argument is bogus. If you applied the same argument to Bush's TANG service, no one would be allowed to criticize Bush because they did not serve on the same jet fighter.
"You can't tell Kevin anything because he's just like his hero George W- he knows what he knows, and Facts be damned."
As I have shown, "facts be damned" applies more to you and your fellow moonbats, who allow themselves to be spoon fed by discredited journalists such as David Brock.
Only one of the people responsible for the ad served on Kerry's boat. He has been discredited. (See my links above.)
The others--all of them, pretty much--who served on Kerry's boat back up Kerry.
Gardner was not on a Kerry boat when Kerry won any of his medals, so it's not true that ANY of the SBVT can debunk ANY of Kerry's actions in winning any of his medals by their own personal experience.
Monkeyman:
"Gardner was not on a Kerry boat when Kerry won any of his medals, so it's not true that ANY of the SBVT can debunk ANY of Kerry's actions in winning any of his medals by their own personal experience."
Interesting that you would say Kerry "won" his medals. That's essentially the case the SBVT were making. Medals are "earned," and it is clear that Kerry did not earn all his medals.
I love it when non-military types display their ignorance.
I love it when trolls say nonsense like you have been doing.
Win - To receive as a prize or reward for performance. {Like, to win a medal maybe?}
Win - To obtain or earn (a livelihood, for example). See Synonyms at earn1.
You want to try and tell me again that "win" doesn't mean the same thing as "earn" again?
Kevin,
You post propaganda that has been factually refuted. When we point this out, you never contest our posts; instead you start playing semantics. You obviously are not here to post serious arguments.
That is NOT clear you are a LIAR and you DEFINE ignorant
DEM2020:
"Because the awful sight of Condoleeza Rice, present U.S. Secretary of State and former National Security Adviser and co-architect of the Iraq invasion (and co-author of the false and falsified intelligence that compelled that invasion)..."
Do you have any theories concerning how Rice got the Clinton administration to falsift intelligence regarding Iraq for eight years? That administration left office in January 2001 claiming Iraq had WMD and was a threat to the U.S.
"but but but clinton..."
It's telling that you trolls think those of us who lean left have our noses so far up Clinton's ass we think he could do no wrong and that it's our knee-jerk reflex to defend him and all he did and said. Sort of like what you guys do with Bush. The only thing Clinton has to do with any of this is that because of the backlash from his dishonesty, he owns a little piece of the current debacle as well.
As I pointed out before, since when is Clinton the standard of truth among right wingers?
Clinton was outright wrong. I protested his bombing twice. But Clinton never trotted out a bogus case the way Bush and his minions did. Bush outright lied, fabricating an IAEA report, having Powell lie about aluminum tubes, and saying he believed Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger, a statement he later apologized for.
FUNNYMANPANTS:
"But Clinton never trotted out a bogus case the way Bush and his minions did. Bush outright lied, fabricating an IAEA report, having Powell lie about aluminum tubes, and saying he believed Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Niger, a statement he later apologized for."
Outright lied? If he would go that far, why didn;'t he take the next logical step and plant WMD in Iraq?
Bush fabricated an IAEA report? That would be difficult to do since the IAEA would know about that immediately.
FactCheck.org determined that Bush did not lie about the 16 words in the 2003 SOTU.
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
You just make this up as you go, don't you?
Wow, you are accusing me of making things up? You stated that the SBVT's were not liars. I posted numerous sites to dispute what you said. You never refuted what I posted.
Yes, Bush fabricated an IAEA report. I didn't mean to say he actually got out a computer and wrote a bogus report. What he did is claim that the IAEA said that Iraq was re-constituting its program. There was no such IAEA report.
Bush did apologize for those 16 words. I have read the Senate Intel report about the 16 words. In December it was determined that the British were not reliable sources about Iraq getting uranium from Niger. Yet somehow by the time the State of the Union speech came around, Bush uttered them anyway.
It really strains credibility that Bush believed Saddam would try to get uranium from Niger. Uranium manafacturing is controlled by a consurtium of foreign companies in Iraq, and each must give permission to sell uranium to another country. Getting uranium from Iraq would be like trying to walk into the most heavily guarded bank in the world and robbing it in broad daylight. Yet despite the impossibility of Saddam every actually getting uranium from this country, Bush (and the press still plays along dumb) actually repeats this ludicrous claim.
You are also posing a false hypothetical, stating that Bush couldn't have lied because then he would have planted WMD in Iraq. First of all, you are mixing up cause and effect. Bush could tell the most brazen lie and then do something that completely contradicted that lie. So your logic is completely false. However, even common sense should tell you that it is easier to lie about WMDs (after all, Bush was so sure that WMDs would be found, and that the war would go so well, that he would be vindicated and no one would remember or care about the lies), than it is to actually plant them. You think no one would notice that WMDs were planted?
And I noticed you said nothing about the aluminum tubes. I haven't even mentioned how Bush hyped air plane drones and biological weapons.
Friday, 27 September, 2002
The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist.
"There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria.
link
You'll notice the *Washington Times* article notes that after the IAEA contradicted Bush's claim, his spokesperson, rather than admit he was wrong, cited earlier accounts, which also contradicted the IAEA. That is called lying.
They DID know about it immediatly and said so THE NEXT DAY. Not only did he LIE about the IAEA report he claimed it said the polar opposite of their actual position.
As for the 16 words you can technically say he didnt lie but he KNEW there was good reason to suspect the information wasnt true. The CIA didnt believe it. They had him take it out of his Cincinatti speech a month or so BEFORE the SOTU. The British keep making the claim but it cannot be taken seriously, this is the same group that plagerized a grad students 11 year old paper to shore up THEIR White Paper on Iraq. There isnt a SHRED of evidence this ever happened and all evidence points to it NOT having happened. The Congo OFFERED to sell uranium to Iraq and they refused. Iraq already HAD 500 tons of uranium oxide. Bush was full of it the only reason he can claim he didnt lie is that he referenced the claim to British Intelligence.
It's not a theory, it's a fact, that George W. Bush's administration presented false and falsified intelligence to the American People and their Congress, and compelled and executed an invasion of Iraq based upon that false and falsified intelligence that they presented the American People, and Congress.
I don't manage to catch every action and event of our Federal Government, so perhaps I missed President Clinton or his Vice President or his Secretary of Defense or his Secretary of State or his National Security Advisor or his Director of Central Intelleigence, appearing on television and before Congress and at the U.N., presenting falsified intelligence to compel an invasion of Iraq...
Did they do that?
Because I know that all of that was done by President Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice and George Tenet, on television and at the U.N. and before Congress.
I might have missed the Clinton administration doing all those things, and invading Iraq too...
Did they?
Dem02020:
I guess you missed that 1998 preemptive attack on Iraq because Clinton said Saddam had WMD.
You still haven't shared your theory on how the Bush administration got the Clinton administration to lie about Saddam's WMD for eight years.
Also, do you have any theories concerning why the Bush administration failed to plant WMD in Iraq? After all, if you're going to falsify the intelligence, why not go the next step and make sure WMD were found?
I already answered this above, but you refuse to answer the substance of my post.
First, when did Clinton become the standard of truth for right wingers.
Second, yes, there were WMDs during Clinton's tenure, in point of fact. The WMDS weren't all destroyed until after 1996 or so. At any rate, Clinton was wrong to bomb in 98. I protested that twice. His being wrong doesn't make Bush right.
And i have pointed out how Bush lied about Saddam's nuclear program, specifically with the aluminum tubes, and the uranium from Niger.
funnymanpants:
You're wrong about Bush lying about Niger and yelowcake.
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html
No I'm not wrong. See my post above.
And you don't even bother to refute the aluminum tubes issue.
kevin1007:
Everything I've said is true.
You're a sick and disgusting person, to defend the greed and the lies and the death that George W. Bush and his VP and DOD Secretary and NSA and DCI are responsible for.
You're also a fool, to think anyone is so stupid as to believe the Clinton administration is responsible for the lies that the Bush administration told, and the invasion of Iraq they compelled.
I'd bet money, that the licking of George W. Bush boots, and the death-loving cheerleading you make on his behalf, is only something you would do anonymously, here under some kind of screen name...
There are few people who say the things in public, in person, that you write here.
Not even bill kristol, not even o'reilly and hannity and broder and will and blankely say these things in public.
Would you blame the Clinton administration for the Iraq invasion and the lies told to compel it, in person and in public?
Or only on-line, behind a screen name?
Either way, it's a sick and disgusting thing you do, licking George W. Bush's boots, and cheering on the deaths of our Sons and Daughters in Iraq, by way of defending the Bush administration's lies, and their invasion of Iraq.
kevin1007, you're dismissed.
A flat out STUPID argument. The Clinton administration just made broad statements of belief. The BUSH administration outright LIED, specific outright lies as has been documented ad naseum. Rice SPECIFICALLY LIED when she said for instance that the anodyzed coating on the aluminum tubes proved they were for gas centrifuges except anodyzed coatings react badly to uranium gas and it would have had to be removed. Of course you didnt know this because you dont know ANYTHING some righting website didnt tell you. You are the weakest dumbest poster in recent memory
We as a society believe theatrical and cinema performances to be real, government and corporate leaders to be persons of at least average or above inteligence and veracity, media to be factual. Professionals of all sorts to be...professional, to be knowledgable or at least competent at their jobs and professions. Fooled again. We never seem to learn from experience, from history. You would think with thousands of years of hindsight, we would pick up on the incredibly transarent deceit fed us. Powell, despite his good looks and demeanor, was and is a coverup artist, but a poor one. He was liar-in-charge of trying to erase the My Lai massacre in midst of our criminal war on Vietnam. His performance at the UN was farcical to anyone not snowed by his falsified public reputation as a war hero. Petraeus true record in Iraq is a history of failure at all he did. I am a 20-year veteran of both Korea and Vietnam, as well as on-site thruout the first gulf war. I know a phony kiss-ass officer when I see one. General P looked like a court clown with the banks of cheap ribbon weighing his costume down.
Every US military action during both their careers have been for corporate greed-called imperialism, not national security (as required by the constitution.)
Both are highly politicalized general officers involved in illegal attack, invasion, and murderous occupation of soveriegn nations innocent of any action or threat to this country. This is the highest war crime according to International Law, of which the US is a leading signatory. Both generals of the state are actors playing the very same age-old deception of power over the people to act against their own interests, their own well-being, over their own lives.
Definition of republican: A bought off fascist whore, who authorizes killng Arabs instead of Jews.
1.2 milion and growing with years and years to go. Stand back we are heading for a world record here.
The true enemy of democracy and freedom in America is the Republican Party. They are terrorists out to destroy the American way of life.
POTUS: shill for the insurance companies, defense contractors, energy companies, pharmaceutical companies and every other greedy racist pig with enough money to make him bend over.
And no, it has not always been like this. It is a damn lie. America has never been as crippled with corruption and malfeasance as it is today, and no one cares because people have their careers to think about. Any person with honor and integrity would rather shovel horse feces than serve the government and its corporate spouse.
elephty
"Definition of republican: A bought off fascist whore, who authorizes killng Arabs instead of Jews."
I guess you failed history. The fascists killed Jews and aligned themselves with Arabs and Persians.
Looks like the discredited journalists with MMFA are attacking anti-Semites to their party. Makes sense, There benefactor, George Soros, is a fascist.
>>Looks like the discredited journalists with MMFA are attacking anti-Semites to their party. Makes sense, There benefactor, George Soros, is a fascist.
Wow! How much misinformation and how many logical fallacies can you pack in one sentence? The only one who is discredited in this thread is yourself. You keep trying to defend the SBVT, though they are documented liars. Calling someone a fascist (even if they aren't) doesn't mean you are attacking anti-semites. At worst it means you are engaging in hyperbole. Soros does not fund MMFA, as MMFA has documented again and again. Soros is not a Fascist.
FUNNYMANPANTS:
"You keep trying to defend the SBVT, though they are documented liars."
That in itself is a lie. It was Kerry who was documented to be a liar.
"Calling someone a fascist (even if they aren't) doesn't mean you are attacking anti-semites."
Poor reading comprehension on your part. You missed the part about "Jews."
"At worst it means you are engaging in hyperbole. Soros does not fund MMFA, as MMFA has documented again and again."
Not directly, but the indirect funding has been documented numerous times.
"Soros is not a Fascist."
He most certainly is.
Okay, now you are just playing games. I posted two sites that clearly showed the SBVTs to be liars. That is beyond dispute. I showed specifically how they were liars. In addition, I posted how witnesses and documents disputed the SBVTs and bolstered Kerry's case. You never bothered to refute any of the links I posted. Instead, you merely re-assert a claim without proof, as if I hadn't posted before.
Your smear on anti-semites is rather bizarre and your clarification does nothing to make it less so. No, it has not been documented that Soros indirectly funds MMFA. And you haven't provided the least bit of evidence to support your claim that Soros is a Fascist, though you do like to throw around smears.
No he isnt but you most certainly are a MORON
Soros isnt a fascist but YOU are certainly a moron. I cant believe someone as completely uninformed as you tell someone ELSE they dont know history while PROVING you absolutly dont know history. You claim the Nazis went to war with Arab and Persian allies???? You NEVER know what you are talking about
Iran was neutral then entered the war on the side of the ALLIES, idiot.
As for the Arab states
Bahrain declared war on Germany Setp 10 1939 fought under British
Libya and Egypt were INVADED BY GERMANY, Ethiopa was invaded by ITALY.
Iraq flirted with the Nazis didnt ally with anyone and was invaded by British
Liberia was neutral while assisting the Allies declared war on Germany Jan 1944
Oman Declared war on Germany Sept 1939
Saudi Arabia remained neutral while assisting the Allies
Turkey assited Axis powers declared war on Germany Feb 1945
So exacly WHAT Arab allies did Germany have and the countries they INVADED dont count.
Maybe Kevin1007 simply misunderstood the movie "Casablanca". : )
This is exactly why the corporate media must be a co-defendent at the war crimes trials.
The Swift boat jerks for Lies were holdover fascist pigs from the Vietnam War. They are what they have always been, the "Love it, or Leave it." crowd. They were paid off morons with a purpose, and four million dollars to advertise their stupid deceitful book paid for, not by the publishing company, but by a wealthy fascist pushing a fascist agenda. Scumbag is too good a word for these people.
Excellent article in my opinion. The sad part about this all is our media. They're rolling over and playing dead, again. Fortunately there are too many people who are fed up with the current situation and are letting their voices be heard.
Poor Colin Powell.
...if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal." JFK
Every person who promoted, voted(and continue to vote), or have anything to do with promoting this fiasco in Iraq have blood on their hands. Perhaps, they should look up the dead soldiers names and claim rightfully the death of these young people they killed. They should be proud and call out the names of the dead with the same pride they promote this war. Every democrat that does not vote to end this war should be dunked in the blood also.
I think most Americans believe death is followed by a trip to heaven, therefore, if they lose their lives in war it will lead them to the pearly gates. I don't think this life is a rehearsal for the next. So, I am diminished by the deaths of these young soldiers and so is our country.
"Actually, if those documents were forged, answering where they came from might be a much bigger deal than W's lame service in the Champagne Division."
Something has always puzzled me about this whole affair.
The original blog post calling the documents forgeries was traced back to Buckhead, a part of suburban Atlanta, and to a lawyer who worked on the effort to get Bill Clinton disbarred and who was one of the legion of lawyers nationwide on call to the Republican party to challenge 2004 election results.
The post challenging the authenticity of the documents came within hours of the documents being shown on tv.
Typography is an art as is the identification of type faces.
What specific expertise in the area of type identification could this lawyer had have to be able to identify a forgery after seeing the documents on a tv screen?
No expert worth their salt would put their reputation on the line without examining the documents themselves.
This leads me to believe the lawyer in Buckhead, a Republican political operative, was tipped off about their authenticity from somewhere.
This whole affair sounds like another Karl Rove dirty trick to divert attention from the contents of the documents. The damage to the reputation of Dan Rather and CBS was collateral damage.
"Those journalists are not only repeating the mistakes of 2003, they're adding new ones."
Do you get the feeling these are not "mistakes?"
i do not like the article because i do not focus on politics that much. so it was hard to concentrate while reading so i basically do not know what is going on with colin powell and whomever else.