Dick Morris reportedly planning to "Swift Boat" Sen. Clinton
In his January 20 column, nationally syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak wrote that "Former Clinton Adviser" Dick Morris is "asking for a contribution between $25 and $100 or more to finance a critical film documentary of Sen. Hillary Clinton." According to Novak, in a mailing sent out by The Presidential Coalition, a group run by Republican activist and discredited former congressional staffer David Bossie, Morris wrote: "If you liked how the Swift Boat Veterans turned the tide against John Kerry, you understand how a top Clinton aide can turn the tables and stop a Clinton-style liberal from becoming the next president of the United States."
Morris writes a regular, syndicated column that appears in The Hill, a Washington, D.C., newspaper, as well as several other newspapers nationwide. Morris' columns are also featured on his personal website, Vote.com, as well as conservative media outlets such as Human Events Online, NewsMax.com, right-wing pundit David Horowitz's FrontPageMag.com, and Family Security Matters.
As Media Matters for America documented, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (now Swift Vets and POWs for Truth) conducted a smear campaign against Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) during the 2004 presidential campaign, falsely attacking and distorting Kerry's Vietnam service record. Media Matters has also documented numerous Morris falsehoods and smears of Democrats. Most recently, Morris falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) voted against an amendment to a Senate ethics reform bill that would have prevented legislators from hiring family members to their campaign committees and political action committees. In fact, Obama voted against a measure to table, or effectively kill, the amendment. Morris subsequently apologized and retracted the allegation.
In addition to his syndicated column, Morris frequently appears on Fox News as a "political analyst," and has often attacked Sen. Clinton. As Media Matters noted, on the December 18 edition of Hannity & Colmes, Morris claimed he would "leav[e] the country" if a presidential ticket of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) were to win the White House." On the December 5 edition of The Big Story with John Gibson, Morris called Sen. Clinton a "liar":
MORRIS: Well, that's the -- it's one of these Hillary lies. When she learned that Bill had been with Monica [Lewinsky] because of the stain on the dress, she had to pretend that she didn't know a year earlier when he told her, so that she could defend having called it a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Here, she spent two years telling New Yorkers she's undecided about running for president so they'd get her -- get them to re-elect her to the Senate, and now she has to go through this pantomime, the charade of decision-making so she doesn't look like a liar for the last two years --
GIBSON: All right now, what about Barack Obama --
MORRIS: -- which she is.
According to the group's website, The Presidential Coalition "exists to educate the American public of the value of having principled conservative Republican leadership at all levels of government." The website features whitewashed profiles of every Republican president since Abraham Lincoln. For example, Richard Nixon's profile contains no mention of the Watergate scandal, instead noting simply that Nixon "resigned in 1974." George W. Bush's profile contains no mention of the Iraq war, but simply notes that "after the September 11th irruptions, he announced war on terrorism, and with that made victory."
I cant think of a better reason to vote Clinton-Obama than to get this sleazy, worthless maggot Dick Morris out of the country. The Democrats should put that promise on a bumper sticker.
How about "A vote for Clinton is a vote for AIPAC"? That would make a very truthful campaign slogan for her presidential bid.
I got a better one
How about "A vote for Clinton is a vote for AIPAC"? That would make a very truthful campaign slogan for her presidential bid.
* - redking75687
Are you kidding me? I work at an Orthodox Jewish school, and I can tell you that not one of the dozens of rabbis there would vote for Clinton under any circumstances.
I thought that the "problem" Clinton had was that she was too pro-Palestinian state? That wasnt so long ago. So which is she- in the pocket of your alleged "Israel lobby" or "Anti-Israel?" You cant have it both ways.
There is a very REAL & POWERFUL Israeli lobby which has managed to *INFLUENCE* every U.S. administration regarding our Middle Eastern foreign policy. Of course Hillary or whomever the next President is will follow suit....much to the detriment of our OWN self-interests.
Do you really believe that a least part of the reason we invaded Iraq was not on behalf of the Israeli government?
Think again.
"much to the detriment of our OWN self-interests."
Ya, that's right. We should just work with the Palestinian terrorists rather than ally with a peaceful country. We should just abondon Israel when they're one of our best allies in the War on Terror. And maybe we should just give the Palestinian terrorists the Gazi strip as well. Oh wait, that's right, we already did that. And what good did that do? The Palestinian terrorists snuck across the Israeli border, captured several Israeli soldiers, and started a brutal war. Gotta love those Palestinian terrorists.
"Allies" don't dump millions of dollars into Congressional, Senatorial, and Presidential campaigns in an effort to subvert the US government into becoming a puppet state that uses it's military to carry out the psychopathic vendettas of an extremely racist war criminal state.
Your reading comprehension could use SOME work.
Where in my post did I use the words "Palestinian" or "terrorists" OR suggest that we "should just work" with any ONE group or country and "abandon" the other? WHY are you putting words in my mouth?
Now take a deep breath, relax & try to absorb what you read. What I said is:
*There is a very REAL & POWERFUL Israeli lobby which has managed to *INFLUENCE* every U.S. administration regarding our Middle Eastern foreign policy*
Do you deny this?
I'd like you to read the following article [now I realize you probably don't read anything unless Hannity or Rush recommend it]--but PLEASE do yourself a favor and click on the link--and expand your mind:
[link to www.lrb.co.uk]
And just a friendly suggestion, stop regurgitating the current administrations talking points...and learn to think & speak for yourself!
Hi Jeter...Truth will go to your website to find something to attack you on. You say Truth REJECTOR. I like to say he's The Truth Detector? NOT! It's really amazing when he attacks my fellow Vietnam Verterans. Coming from the Chicken Hawk that he admits he is, he doesn't have the credentials to be attacking War Veterans like myself and others. I'm trying to figure out how to start new paragraphs? With this new posting Technology.
And...If Truth does not find what he needs at your WebPage he'll drop the debate, "Cut and Run" and show up later on a new thread.
Hey Sam,
While I don't expect a reply from Truth, mainly because he'd be hard-pressed to refute it, I'm hoping he'll still take the time to read the article.
Conservatives like Truth never veer from the GOP talking points. I just wish he'd read or listen to OTHER points of view.
IF he reads this post I would highly recommend that he pick up a copy of 'Hubris' [by Michael Isikoff & David Corn], it will open his eyes about Iraq & how Bush, Cheney & the rest lied to get us into this war.
As far as making new paragraphs...all you need to do is hit ENTER on your keyboard when you come to the end of your FIRST paragraph and it will create a *space* allowing you to start a new paragraph. Then just REPEAT each time you need to begin a new paragraph.
Hope that helps :-)
Thanks Jeter.....For that WebPage and for the Paragraph tip. I am used to just hitting the return key, but I'll try the enter key this time. I'm on a Mac. New paragraph. When I clicked on Preview it looked ok but after posting I lost all my paragraphs. I'm learning a little about debating at that site you posted. Thanks Again. I wish I could find an operators manual for this new posting feature.
ISREAL...... A peaceful nation?
Thats like saying:
Kim Jong Il is a man for humanity!
BushCo believe's in democracy and transparency!
Isreal, as a whole and those that think that way should be ashamed of themselves!
Isreal can be given some leeway, as it pertains to what happened to the Jews at the hands of the Nazi's.......
But I'm sick and tired of Isreal using their 'victim' status as a way to shut up those that don't agree with what they do.... suddenly those that question Isreal's motives are Anti-Semites.....
Certainly no one can claim that the Palestinians aren't the bears of blame also....... but it is wrong and very unwise to blanket Isreal with the claim that they are still victims!
Hillary Clinton will be featured at Aipac’s annual Northeast regional dinner on February 1 in NYC.
And here's her speech at a 2005 AIPAC conference: [link to www.justhillary.com]
Just Google Hillary + AIPAC. Plenty of material out there on her devotion to a foreign country at the expense of her own.
scary that he was Bill's main advisor?
Can you elaborate on that? Your comment is a little vague regarding why Dick Morris is Sleazy, etc. Hillary has contradicted herself many times. You should read Peter Schweizer's - Do as I say not as I do. Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy. There is a whole chapter on Hillary. Dick Morris may not get everything right about her but I don't believe he's far off.
Dreamed up by Dickie while he had some prostitute's toes in his mouth, no doubt.
Sorry, Dick. People are onto this stuff now. Not going to work this time.
Ex-Senator Rick Santorum had the honor of being the #1 Dick in the country but I think that Morris"The Mouse" has captured the title "hands-on". Mr. Morris, you are the new Dick of the year.
May I simply ask you Mr. Morris, if not for political sleaze, what would you do to earn a living? Dick, I must remind you that your Alice in Wonderland approach to destroy the Clinton's is going to back-fire. You will only increase her chances because the sane Republicans can see through this. But, thank you in advance for helping the Democratic Party sweep to a larger majority in both Houses and the White House whether it be Hillary or any other member of the party. Also, would you print the audit trail of the donations you will collect?
chopped liver?
Or can one only be "Dick of the Year" once?
His evil attempt to hurt Senator Clinton wont work. He is a discredited person. There is no stopping Senator Clinton, anything the Republicans try to do wont work in 08, the county has grown tired of the lies and war crimes.
Dick Morris is an evil man pure and simple.
is stealing Michael Moore's tactics.
>>"is stealing Michael Moore's tactics."<<
Morris doesn't need to steal. He's simply reading the right-wing Smear Manual.
left wing smear manual but applied to Hillary.
>>>"You mean left wing smear manual but applied to Hillary."<<<
No, I mean Morris will use the right-wing Smear Manual on Hillary.
See-I can be just as, um, quick-witted as you.
Its all a matter of perspective. The left resorts to pettiness, name calling, and sarcasm. I think you've provided an example to my point. Why are you guys like that? Why can you just talk?
Freudian Slips 'R' Us
Its [sic] all a matter of perspective. The left resorts to pettiness, name calling, and sarcasm. I think you've provided an example to my point. Why are you guys like that? Why can you just talk?
Presumably you meant "Why can't you just talk?" Well, guess what, we certainly can. But if you think that somehow those on the left have cornered the market on "pettiness, name calling, and sarcasm," I would suggest you haven't read much here.
Here's looking forward to your first entry with substance, kiddo.
More like stealing Karl Rove's tactics. Can you Republicans conduct any election without resorting to smear tactics? Michael Moore was just one independent propagandist. Smear tactics are an institutional staple for the Republican Party. Ever wonder why so many people think you guys are the lowest form of scum? But, hey... I'll bet all of you went to church today and prayed to baby Jesus for help in beating the Democrats to a bloody pulp. Such nice people...
The Dems wrote the book on stealing elections.
Think Chicago. Think dead people voting.
the republicans hire a company to jam democratic phone lines so people are unable to arrange a ride to the polls. three are convicted for the scheme. one is james tobin, bush's 04 new england chairman. the national republican party pays his almost one million dollar legal bill.
>>"Chicago...Think dead people voting."<<
Please understand: Every time we ask somebody here to vote Republican, they say we'd have to kill 'em first.
Doris, Explain what you mean by war crimes. I'm a veteran of the war in Iraq and I would like to know what we have done that compares to slamming two planes into two buildings and murdering 3000 people or kidnapping people and cutting their heads off. Please tell me what you're talking about and how I should not take that comment as being offensive to all service members who have to play by a set of rules when the enemy does not. Also, answer this question, "What would you do to ensure that we are not attacked by terrorists again?"
"I'm a veteran of the war in Iraq and I would like to know what we have done that compares to slamming two planes into two buildings and murdering 3000 people or kidnapping people and cutting their heads off."
-----
Remember "shock and awe?" It was a deliberate targeting of civilians that resulted in the deaths of far more people than were killed on 9/11. Remember, these were innocent people killed because our President lied to us and said that the leader of the government of the country we bombed was involved in the 9/11 murders. He wasn't.
The deliberate targeting of civilians is the definition of a war crime, pure and simple.
I don't recall Bush ever saying Iraq was involved with 9-11.
What!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!?
Even last week l had someone comment about Bush going after Saddam because of 9/11!!!
Did you miss all those unsubtle hints of Saddam's link to Bin Laden?
I realise that history is a alien concept to rightwing americans but really, you have to try harder.
I don't know what to say other than that's completely not true. We hit legitamate military targets. Our enemy purposely targeted a civilian workplace. You should also know that our enemy likes to hide among civilians in order to create civilian casualties so that they can point fingers at us and say "Look , the Americans are killing innocent civilians." We take every step to not hit civilians while they target them outright. I've seen it first hand. Have you? Also, What did the president lie about? He never said that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11. We hit Iraq for other reasons and perfectly good ones at that. I can go into that if you want. Also, the question remains. What would you do if we were hit by terrorists? How would you prevent an attack? How would you deal with a terrorist?
"We hit legitamate military targets."
-----
No, we didn't. We indiscriminately targeted residential sections of the country.
How do I deal with terrorists? By going after them, and not lying that someone who had nothing to do with the terrorist actions of 9/11 was responsible. GWBush has said he doesn't think much about the man responsible for 9/11. He was too busy pinning the blame on someone who was not involved.
And yes, GWBush conflated 9/11 and Iraq every chance he got. So did Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell.
They were all either incompetent, in which case they had no business being in their jobs, or they were lying through their teeth, in which case they had no business being in their jobs.
Easy to refute,
Again, that's completely not true. We don't target civilians. I don't know how to say it other than that. Al Jazeera (sp?) will tell you differently but consider the source. We hit residential sections that had military targets of one type or another in them. The enemy on the other hand specifically targets civilians or hides among them and uses them as sheilds. Question: Where are you getting your information from? Why do you think that we indescriminately targeted residential neighborhoods?
Question: How would you go after them? What would you do? What does going after them mean? Hit squads? Special Forces? Invasion?
Also, How do you inflate 9/11? It stands on its own. An attack bigger than Pearl Harbor. Doesn't that warrant retribution?
In all reality I'm not pro-war. I've seen war and its brutal and disturbing and I'll think about Iraq everyday for the rest of my life however, as bad as it is, I do not want to live in a country or be associated with a people who are content to go belly up when they get hit. There is something wrong about that.
"We don't target civilians. I don't know how to say it other than that."
-----
Then you don't know what you are talking about. The British medical journal Lancet reports over 600,000 deaths in Iraq. Do you think there were that many "insurgents?"
Civilian populations were targeted by "Shock and Awe." That was the purpose.
There is one way you could say it other than what you have posted. Learn what you are talking about and stop covering for the president.
I think you need to clarify that. I have a hard time believing that the short shock and awe campain resulted in 600,000 deaths. Also, you're confusing the insergency with Saddam's Army. I think that 600,000 is the total Iraqi casualty rate since the invasion. There were no "insurgents", or as I prefer to call them - terrorists killed in the shock and awe campain because that was directed against Saddam's army. There wasn't an insurgency yet. That came after he fell. If the 600,000 applies to the shock and awe campain then I'm willing to bet that the majority of those were part of his army and thus legitimate targets. But if it is the total casualty rate since the war then the majority has been caused by the terrorists themselves. Again, and I keep saying this. They target civilians. They did it on September 11th and they do it now in Iraq. The majority of Iraqi civilian casualties are caused by terrorists. You've read a journal from a foreign country. I've been there. The Iraqis have no love for terrorists. The would like them gone, prefferably dead, so that they can live their lives in peace.
Also, I'm covering up for no one. I didn't feel like going to Iraq. I wish the whole thing never happened but then again I know that there are dangerous people in this world. So you don't need to start getting personal. I'm just having a conversation. I just don't happen to agree with you thats all.
Furthermore. You have not answered the question. What does go after them mean? How would you do it? The left never talks about this. All I hear is criticism but never an alternative plan. How do you stop a terrorist? Hit squads? Assasinations? How would you go after them?
BGOLAS,
"How do you inflate 9/11? It stands on its own. An attack bigger than Pearl Harbor. Doesn't that warrant retribution?"
ETRWN wrote "conflate" to combine or fuse two separate things, not "inflate." And if you don't think that Bush, Cheney, Woolsey et. al. didn't conflate Saddam and the 9/11 attacks, you weren't paying attention.
Now it was midafternoon on 9/11 before I knew that my wife and two older sons were alive. If there had been a different trajectory on a piece of masonry or fusilage, she wouldn't be. But as I said to my oldest son at the time, "I want to kill the people who did this. I don't want to kill their cousins." Well the people who gave us 9/11 are still out there, because we lost our focus and turned to Iraq, effectively attacking their "cousins." They are now making a comeback in Afghanistan, because we didn't complete the job.
I've also had enough of war, and if only because of my memories of Vietnam I was opposed to this war. The stress of fighting in someone else's country, not knowing if the kid who's smiling at you will frag you as soon as you turn your back, makes atrocities inevitable, then and now. When an IED takes out your buddy, upon whom do you visit retribution? How many buddies do you lose to invisible enemies before you snap?
Now it may be, although I doubt it, that we had a chance to succeed in Iraq, and we could have nurtured a democracy there. But to think that democracy would just spring up on its own after Saddam was gone, was unbelievably naive. It's an old American problem: thinking that the rest of the world would choose to be like us if they only had the chance. In any case, any chance we had was squandered in the first few weeks after Saddam's statue came down, when we failed to secure the place. You might find this interesting reading:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012101282.html?referrer=email
As for never targeting civilians, we like to think that about ourselves, but it's not true. You're too young to remember, but in days when we were a little more honest in our use of language (before PR was all) we referred to our fire bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan as "terror bombing." That's no longer politically correct. (See, the right does it too.) Through the entire cold war, national security doctrine was based on SAC and then missile borne hydrogen bombs, each 1000 times more powerful than Fat Man and Little Boy, most targeted at a CITY in the Soviet Union. Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima, by the way, contained no military targets.
Add to this the use of napalm and defoliants such as Agent Orange in VietNam and weapons such as "Daisy Cutters" today, and I think "we never target civilians" is as inoperative as "we never torture."
Now I'm sure that some will think, given what I've just written that I'm "unAmerican," or a "blame America first lefty." That's weakminded drivel. It's not, or at least not according to the Founders, "unAmerican" to look squarely at facts and follow them unflinchingly, even if they take you into uncomfortable places.
It's inevitable, when you go to war, that you will be brutalized, and do terrible things, the consequences of which will last for generations. That's one reason that a nation which considers itself moral, should never engage in a "war of choice."
I honor and thank you for your service; I grieve for your fallen buddies; I know your war will always be with you, but I hope you find peace.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/21/AR2007012101282.html?referrer=email
Conchobhar, Thanks for your service as well. Its good to see comments without sarcasm also.
The thing that makes me afraid the most though is another event happening again. I have a family also. When we were over there and received letters we burned the addresses because we didn't want anyone over there to know where are families are over here. Maybe it was overly cautious but you know how you feel about taking chances in a situation like that.
The other thing is, and I may be wrong about this, and feel free to tell me so but when we pulled out of Vietnam there was not much fear of an attack on US soil. Now thirty odd years later we have an enemy that has the means and will to come over here and hurt our own. Imagine what made you afraid in Vietnam and then imagine that there was a possibility that it could follow you home. Do you remember when they took over that elementary school in Chechnia (sp?)(I think it was Chechnia I can't remember exactly.) There is nothing stopping them from doing that here. I fear that more than a bomb.
I'm not disagreeing with you in fact I've had many a conversation with my buddies when I was there about how it was pacified in 2003 and because we backed off we lost it and now had to "retake ground/territory" that we already had.
I don't think that any real democracy will happen soon. You're right, its not that simple. These guys are not used to freedom. I know them more than most because I was an advisor. I lived with them. I made friends with them and I went out into the streets with them. When I went on patrol it was me, another American, and a platoon of Iraqis. I feel bad for them. Many I could count on as friends and I would hate to think of what a pull out would do. Don't get me wrong. I don't want to go back and go through it again. As for targeting civilians, we have made mistakes in the past and hopefully we will not forget them. All I know is that I didn't see of that when I was there from Americans, but I did see the enemy do it all the time. I'm not going to go into it, but that's what they did. All the time.
The last issue is that of coming back to a country that is divided. Its hard. This thread is a good example. There is a lot of sarcasm and name calling and not enough real talk. Anger solves nothing.
BGOLAS,
The school was in Moscow, but it makes your point. The Chechens brought the war to the Russian capital.
It's a well known saying by now, but that doesn't make it any less true. Yes, they will follow us home. My great fear is that because we widened the war into Iraq we gave credence to those who claim that we're making war on Islam. Thus we've given al-Quaeda a recruiting gift that keeps on giving. It was reported today that they've captured al-Quaeda-in-Iraq documents referring to sending operatives here on student visas. "Aspirational" rather than operational now, but let's face it...
I'm also very worried about what, and who, we'll be leaving behind. Specifically, the Iraqis such as your translater, etc. who worked with us. What happens to them? It's a matter of some shame to me as an American that, until today, the only public figure I know of who mentioned that we've incurred a "moral obligation" to the people of Iraq was David Cameron, the head of the Tory (God help us) Party in England. Most American politicians left and right, are now saying "We've done all we can, now it's time for the Iraqis to step up." And Iraqis who have worked with us can't get refugee status because, according to the State Department, Iraq is a "democracy," and they have nothing to fear!
You're right about anger solving nothing but, along with Col. Wilkerson, I have a major problem with those who, never having "heard a bullet whistle past their ears," so blithely sent you over there.
If you went out on a regular basis, or even once, with only one other American, I stand in awe of your courage.
Thank you for your response to my post. I was hoping I hadn't insulted you. All the best to you and yours.
C
Conchobhar, Thanks again for your response. I don't know. I'm torn. Its a bad situation all around. There are so many "ifs" and so many people with opinions on how they would do things or would have done things. I think the tactics need to change. I'm not sure what to do but I have several ideas. I do know that its hard on our guys doing two, three, or more tours. I read the other day that one guy had the record with nine tours. We're getting worn down.
Again I like to come up with ideas because complaining solves nothing. There's a lot of complaining and arguement on this site and all it does is put us more into our respective trenches.
If we do pull out, may be we could offer aslylum to those Iraqis who have helped us. I have no illusions about what's going to happen to them and their families without our presence there. We'd have to have some sort of vetting process if we do that though because the enemy will try and get in that way. We'd also have to "circle our wagons" so to speak, because without us there the enemy will use that to gain strength and materials and come at us again. Tightening the borders would be unpopular with the Mexicans and the rest of the world but I think we'd have to do that for a while, a long while. These people waited out the crusaders, they'll wait us out also. We'd probably need some sort of American version of the the Israeli mousad(sp?). Some group to go out into the world and hunt these guys, to keep them from getting strength and getting together in large groups. Like the Israelis did with the Nazi officers after WWII. I think the international community would go for that. Britain and Spain have been attacked. The Europeans know that they're not immune but they don't want a war like we have. I think they would go for this though.
Also, I think that we need to stop being so polarized over here. We're Americans. We have a good thing going here. The problem is before us as it is. We can argue amongst ourselves or we can do what we're good at which is to come to a comprimise that works and then solve the problem. I don't know. What do you think?
BGOLAS,
What do I think? Like you, I'm torn, to put it mildly. I once heard the pop historian Will Durant say that to be optimistic was to insult history, while to be pessimistic was to insult humanity. Pretty apt, in this situation. I desperately hope I'm wrong, but I think we've turned a serious threat into an existential one. We're like a T-Rex that has chased a bunch of velociraptors into a tar pit, and now we're thrashing around, while they skip about on the crust we've broken through. How do we get out? No good options.
It seems clear to me that we at least have to end our isolation from our allies. Whether we can do that under the present administration is a big question. Their idea of "consultation" seems to be for the President to tell Congress, or whoever he's "consulting" with, why he's going to do what he's going to do. I don't know if anyone in this administration or its media adjunct is capable of recognizing that, not only do our allies have valuable perspectives, but sometimes they're even right when they disagree with us. Germany and France, prewar, as an example.
But we can no longer go it alone. Just as the "stovepiping" of intelligence contributed to the fall of the Twin Towers, continued estrangement from our European allies and their intelligence services would invite even greater disasters.
We already have our own Mossad; it's the CIA. The Directorate of Operations is, or was before the recent shuffling of intelligence agencies, the major "black ops" player. The problem here is that we're playing catch-up, dealing with a culture and world view that we don't understand, with few agents who speak the languages of our targets. There was a time that an agent could have gotten close to Osama, as John Walker Lindh (unfortunately not an agent of ours) did, but that time is long past. Also, given the sorry record we've compiled in terms of loyalty to our locally recruited assets, what intelligent person would work with us, unless he or she were a double agent? In addition to that, of our "allies" in the region, Saudi Intelligence is suspect and ISI(Pakistan) is clearly aiding the Taliban and al-Quaeda, and has been for years. Check out "Ghost Wars," by Steve Coll.
The ISG has come up with some recommendations I think worthwhile, especially that one about talking to our enemies. Syria, I've recently learned, has absorbed one million Iraqi refugees, and this is straining their resources to the breaking point. This would indicate that continued chaos in Iraq isn't in their interest. Nor would Iranian hegemony be to their liking. We should try to exploit that. We also seem to have been having some real success isolating Iran from the worldwide financial system, thereby weakening further an already weak economy and undercutting Ahmadinijead at home. This gives us a hammer. Also, as I'm sure you know from your time in Iraq, no Sunni, be he Saudi, Syrian (all right, the rulers are Alawites, but the majority is Sunni) or Jordanian, wants to see a Shiite Crescent with its power center in Persia. (Interesting note: no Iranian I've ever met, except diplomats, have said they were from Iran; it's always, "Persia.") Forgive the digression. My point is that a deft hand at diplomacy might work, and mitigate the disaster that I fear lies ahead. The problem, as I see it, is that our diplomatic "muscles" have atrophied over the last six years. I once heard the late Michael Ledeen of the AEI say that diplomats weren't to be trusted because living abroad and learning to respect the cultures and peoples among whom they were posted made them forget their job was to "further American interests." That attitude seems to have defined this administration to this point, and I don't know if they have the flexibility of mind (which I consider a component of resourcefulness, and the President seems to regard as weakness) to do the diplomacy effectively. I sure hope they can get it together, because two years is too long to wait, and our strategic position is weakening with every day that goes by.
Lest we forget that on about the 3rd or 4th day of the Shock and Awe, our flyboys dropped four(4) 500pound bombs on a restaurant in a residential area because of reports the Saddam was, get this, EATING at a the restaurant. I guess he was using those civilian waiters as a shield. The real question would be, who made the reservations... you did your job but never say civilians are killed only because the bad guys use them as shields. And thanx for your service.
Civilians are killed. I concede that fact. Its a war. What I'm saying is that we don't actively target civilians like the enemy does. If Saddam was in the resteraunt then the resteraunt is a target and yes the commander who makes the decision realizes that noncombatants will be killed. Unfortunately Saddam did not very often just step out into the open so that we could get a clear shot at him. I don't know about the incident that you're refering to but I'm sure that the mentality was to get him as soon as possible and that in doing so his forces would give up and there would be less of a chance of even more civilian casualties. These are the decisions that have to be made in armed conflict. They're not nice.
I had a friend of mine that prefered to use the medium machine gun on his Humvee rather than the heavy .50cal. because the medium was more accurate when the enemy fired at him from the middle of a crowd of people.
Question: If someone was standing in a crowd and was fireing a rifle at you what would you do? If you were in the cross hairs or lets say that your friend was , what would you do. Put yourself in the place of a soldier of one of the "flyboys" (pilots actually) before you judge.
War is hell.
Also, and I think this is an important point, Don't think that those pilots don't think about that. I'm sure if they were interviewed by a reporter they would give the standard answer that it was the mission etc. but don't think that it doesn't bother them. You can imagine them as old men later on in life when hopefully the world is a better place, when the veterans day parade goes by they'll be thinking of those bombs. This is the point I'm trying to make. There's a fundamental difference between us and the enemy. It doensn't bother the enemy to kill civilians. We're fighting the same type of person that highjacked a plane and slammed it into a building. There were children on that plane. Can you even imagine the mindset. I can't. I just know that people like that exist and they will force your hand. Don't think those pilots are not bothered/tortured.
I wish that I could explain it better.
>>"What would you do to ensure that we are not attacked by terrorists again?"<<
Let's invade Luxembourg. They're even more responsible for 9/11 and terrorism than Iraq was. What's that guy's name? Oscar Von Baden?
Explain. Luxemburg?
If Pearl Harbor had happened on GWBush's watch, he would have retaliated by immediately attacking Mexico.
Do you even know why Iraq was chosen?
"Do you even know why Iraq was chosen?"
-----
Yes. The Project for a New American Century. They wanted Clinton to bomb Iraq as early as 1998.
Iraq was chosen because the Administration knew they had no WMD and thought they would be easy to beat. Then their oil could be stolen from them. The question for the GOP has always been, "How in the world did our oil get under their land?"
The reason they "knew" Sadaam had WMD was because Dick Cheney still had the receipts from when he sold them to him.
Actually if you look at a map of the middle east Iraq is in the center. It also has water and a renewable food supply. It is the only country in the middle east that has the assets to become a middle eastern superpower. If it were a democracy, which is what their people would prefer over a dictatorship, then we would have friendly Islamic ally in the middle east. The only way to truly defeat terrorists is to marginalize them. The middle east is a perfect breeding ground for terrorists, poverty and lack of a free thinking mindset does that. If a democracy were to be set up in Iraq, in theory, over time the terrorist element would wither. If you have SUVs, cable TV, the internet, and a decent job, why be a terrorist. This, I can tell you, is what they want. They would have their own Islamic version of democracy but it would be analogous to what we have. I''m not saying its going to work but the idea has merit. I don't see how you could argue with that. I think you're speculating the oil angle. This president has said that we should reduce our dependence on foreign oil. That's a big statement from a Texas oilman. I think that oil is a factor but terrorism is a bigger one. Again, what would you do? You're not clear about what going after them means. How do you just "go after" a terrorist?
Also, There were chemical weapons there. Have you talked to any Kurds in northern Iraq? I've lived with some. Ask them how Saddam killed their families. You'll hear some amazing but terrible stories.
You're basing the illegal invasion and occupation of an entire nation and the deaths of 650,000 of it's citizens on a "what if"? Why don't you just come out and say we attacked them because they are Moslems. Iraq has NEVER threatened the USA....but we attacked them because.....
There is no acceptable answer. The invasion and occupation of Iraq is a war crime as clearly defined by the Nuremburg Charter and the charges that the Nazis were tried for.
You use the word illegal. He defied the united nations demands to relinquish his chemical weapons 17 times. And before you say that he didn't have them, as I've said before, you need to talk to some Kurds.
That was the excuse I concede that point. But as I've said before the point was to set up a Democracy in the middle east in order to marginalize the terrorists. Desperate people back terrorists, who are desparate themselves. Read what I wrote above. That is why Iraq was the target.
There is also more to it than that. I'll try and explain later, I have to go to work now.
Iraq possesed NO WMD since the mid-90's, when the UNSCOM destruction teams destroyed the last of them. So your complaint that Iraq had WMD is pointless.
Iraq cooperated with the UN in the months prior to the invasion. SO your point about defying the UN is again pointless.
Claiming we had to kill 650,000 people, bombing homes, families, children, all in the name of Democracy....well, that just makes you seem like a heartless killer who forces people to do your bidding by killing them and scaring them into submission...aka, a terrorist.
it doesn't matter how the Swift Boat vets smeared John Kerry because basically what they were alleging was true.
the left wing made the True But Fake rule with Dan Rather and Mary Mapes. Hurts when it gets slapped right back at you doesn't it?
>>>"it doesn't matter how the Swift Boat vets smeared John Kerry "<<<
Smears and mud-slinging don't matter to the right-wing. It's evident here every single day. Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, the Swift Boat creeps. They have no character, no morals, no consciences, no standards of decency, and give no respect. Thanks for confirming all this, but tell us something we don't already know.
Surely, Kerry can't be your only serviceman whose a lying coward? How many other of our soldiers, sailors, and airpeople are also lying cowards? How many of them should be swiftboated as soon as they step off the plane or a ship, still sunburned from Iraq?
You neocons would swiftboat George Washington if he were a Dem, although it would be called rowboating instead of swiftboating:
"He didn't really row across the Delaware! He stayed in the camp and had handwarmers in his coat pockets and My Pretty Pony longjohns beneath his britches!"
Leather, you're the commander of the Fighting 101st Keyboardists. And you keyboardists are the same ones who also denigrated triple amputee Max Cleland.
Kerry was a lying coward.
He's a lying traitor.
What do you call a lie?
"We are fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them here" "We are winning in Iraq" (statement issued as recent as November 2006 and so many other times there is not enough space to list them) "We are going to get those who attacked us" (Osama is still alive) "Bring it on" (while US troops were fighting in Iraq"
And I save the best lie for last. "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"
The meaning of "traitor" 1) one who betrays one's country, friends You should really be more careful when you assign your labels, you don't stick them on the right target.
4,000 Al Quaeda over there doesn't count as fighting them over there?
3, 000 plus US soliders dead
HELL NO!
So when atrocities are committed in the name of America, pointing out the atrocities in an attempt to rectify them is treason, but looking the other way and supporting the atrocities is patriotism? Not by my definition.
It's true, then. "Patriotism" is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Or maybe the first.
Easy to refute,
What is your plan? What would you do differently? By that I mean, "How do you "go after" a terrorist?" The war is a tragedy. That's a given. But I just don't see how we can let 3000 of our people be killed in one of our most populated cities and just let it go. Again, I would like to here a better way to make it so that we would never have to worry about terrorism again. What is your plan?
Here's the plan that works.
We remove ALL US forces from Iraq and the Persian Gulf. We stop giving free military hardware and money to Israel. We stop supporting Israeli war crimes against the Palestinian people. We force Israel to end it's illegal occupation of the West Bank. We put all the war criminals in DC on trial.
Noone would have any excuse to commit a terrorist attack on US soil ever again after that. There, problem solved.
The British got terrorism when they invaded and occupied Ireland. The Israelis got terrorism when they invaded and occupied Palestine. The US got terrorism for supporting Israel's occupation and parking half our military in the Persian Gulf. See the pattern? Unwanted military presences in foreign lands breed terrorism.
I was hoping for something a little more realistic. All I'm hearing from you is angry speculation. War Criminals in Washington? Illegal Israeli occupations? Isreali war crimes? Where are you getting your information from? Al-Jazeera is biased.
Also, what do you know of terrorists? The reason why I'm asking that is because I just don't think that what you're saying will work. From what I know of them it doesn't work that way. They don't need much of an excuse to attack. Look at that Mohammed with the bomb in his turban cartoon a while back. These guys get fired up hugely over things that we would consider minor. In addition I think that if we just completely pull out they're going to regroup and hit us again. The hornets nest is stirred up.
The problem is that the middle east is going to change weather it wants to or not. Here's why I think that. When I was leaving Iraq, from the blackhawk I could see the mud huts on the ground below. Many of them had satellite dishes. See, as poor as they are they're getting TV and the internet. The see us and europe. Our culture is infiltrating theirs. Most of them, being just like us, are tolerant and acceptant of change but there is this minority. This loud, radical, and dangerous minority that is scared by that. I think the world is getting smaller so to speak.
On the other hand we could use a bit of their culture in ours. They're very family oriented. Fatherhood and motherhood are taken very seriously over there. I think we could use that here.
Separate issue. - Calm down man. You're angry.
My country is TORTURING people! Damn right I'm angry!
And yes, war CRIMES, as defined by the Nuremburg Charter. Crimes against Peace, Humanity, and Civilians. Gross violations of the Geneva Conventions. Committed by the US military without accountability.
As an avid reader of world histroy, I know far more about terrorism and it's causes than most, especially those Americans like you who repeat the same tired slogans about "They hate our freedoms" or "They hate our culture" or "It's Islam that makes them violent."
We attack a nation that has NEVER attacked us, has NEVER been a threat to the USA, and you find ways to justify all the dead corpses the US has made. That makes you the terrorist, not them.
Redking, you are just wrong on so many levels. You should read what Comchobhar is saying. He does his homework.
You know, Bill O'Reilly says that when you corner or contradict liberals they just get angry and start to insult you. He says that's because they can't win the arguement. You're calling me a terrorist. Thanks alot. As if you actually know what you're talking about. Have you ever met a terrorist? I mean a real one. Not just people who disagree with you? Have you ever talked to one? I have. What are your credentials? I just want to know what you're basing your arguements on. Because you just sound like some angry person spouting off.
Terrorists! Torture! War Crimes! Imperialists! Come on. I thought I was paranoid. I think I have a valuable perspective and a unique one. I just don't happen to agree with you. Does that make me a terrorist? This is still a free country.
With all respect. What have you ever done for this country besides being born here? Where have you been other than here that has influenced your opinion?
But to address a few of your comments.
We didn't attack Iraq just because their muslim. I told you why we did it and if you're actually reading what I have to say in between feelings of extreme anger I'm not really justifying anything. What I mentioned before was the plan. May be it wasn't the best plan. May be it won't work but it does make sense. And I can see why the president went with it. I'm not happy about it but I can see his reasoning. His chief duty is to protect the country after all.
I'll try and continue this later. I have kids. Yes terrorist kids and I have to go read to them the anarchists cookbook right now. ( Actually its the hobbit but secretly I'm using the dwarves attacking smaug as a metaphore for the imperialistic, capitalistic, torturing anti-muslim Americans torturing and killing the completely innocent oppressed)
You're an avid reader? You're right? How could I compare to those credentials? I'm sure that you know much more than me because you've read books. In all reality that doesn't say anything about your authority on terrorism. Are they left wing books? right wing? center? That's like saying "Hey, I can do surgery because I've read books on surgery".
My point stands. Western culture is infiltrating middle eastern culture. And, if you listen carefully, (listen and understand what I'm saying - don't just think up your response before you're done reading like you've been doing) I think that's part of the problem. That influence can't be discounted. Its not all of the problem. Poverty, oppressive governments, lack of education are all part of the equation. I have yet to hear a valid arquement refuting that. There are a lot of countries that don't like us but yet don't attack us. Why there? There are also groups in our own country that don't like us but don't attack us. Why don't antigovernment groups produce suicide bombers (conceded there was Tim McVay but we haven't seen any attacks from them in years)? Its not as simple as what you're saying. That's all there is to it.
The world is getting smaller. It might be inevitable that we move into a period of history beyond that of individual nation states. May be the seeds are planted. We have a communications infrastructure to make it possible. That's what I'm saying. Also, and I think you need to know this, most Iraqis like us, at least that's just my experience. I know I didn't read it in a book or anything like that but that has to count for something. Especially the children. They thought we were great. What's your take on that? Really? I'm not being sarcastic when I say that. What is it?
Now, do you think you can answer without being condecending, rude, or insulting? Can you be an intellectual?
Pardon any spelling mistakes. I'm writing fast.
Tolkien would not approve of Iraq. He would not approve of the vile reasons put forth for this war crime. He would not approve of torture, of the killing of civilians in the name of "freedom" or "democracy". He would call it "orc-craft", which it is.
I grew up in Middle Earth, I spent my adolescence fighting evil and saving the day alongside Aragorn and Legolas. I can even speak Grey Elven, pedon Sindarin. Tolkien was a major factor in the development of my ethical code and ou will find no more implacable enemy of evil than I. Which is why I oppose this ILLEGAL (yes, illegal, Iraq has never threatened or attacked the USA, so the invasion was a mere fancy of our politicians, not an act of self-defence, therefore a Crime Against Peace as defined in the Nuremburg Charter) occupation of Iraq.
The definition of terrorist is a person who uses violence against civilians to acheive political aims. Therefore Bush and Cheney and every Congresscreep who voted to attack Iraq is a terrorist. And you use their justifications to support that, therefore you support terrorism.
Non gud deadeloth, unon orch.... I am a foe of Morgoth's Realm, not an orc.
the same Max Cleland that mocked National Guardsmen?
>>..."the same Max Cleland that mocked National Guardsmen?"<<
It was Max Cleland who was mocked, and it was made possible by Coulter, Free Republic trash readers, and people like you.
Wrong, Leatherbrain... The truth that came out of the Slimeball Swiftboaters for Revenge was that John Kerry was VOLUNTEERING for dangerous missions. The truth that came out of the Slimey Swiftboaters was that Americans WERE committing atrocities in Viet Nam. The sleazeball vets who attacked Kerry know the truth. They're just still pissed they never got a ticker tape parade when they returned. The entire Swiftboat Scum Bag episode is perhaps the lowest point in American politics... at least in my lifetime. Now, we're gonna watch the same despicable, dishonest, slimey show all over again. I don't know how you people can sleep at night... I know, anything to WIN, eh?
What a stupid statement! Every sailor who served in Vietnam was a volunteer, and we served our country well. There is absolutely no basis for commending Kerry as a volunteer and then accepting his allegation that we committed attrocities. I'm proud of almost everyone with whom I served on Swift Boats in Vietnam. I have no use for a person, John Kerry, who put his own self-interests above the safety of the group.
Read my post more carefully. John Kerry volunteered for dangerous MISSIONS... after he voluntarily enlisted in the Navy and after he volunteered for combat duty. John Kerry served his country honorably and told the truth about what he had seen and heard in Viet Nam. John Kerry is a decent, honorable man and did not deserve the wrath of some disgruntled Viet Nam vets because he chose to speak up (the truth) about what was happening in Viet Nam at the time.
Maybe you actually mean that you have no use for John Kerry because he violated the code of silence about what actually transpired in Viet Nam.
Served our country well? By engaging in an imperialist war that killed 2 million Vietnamese, all to prop up the hated dictator Diem and his torturing secret police state?
Yes, the US did commit atrocities in Vietnam. The CIA operated death squads and torture chambers. Incidents of war crimes commited by US soldiers abound. The use of chemical warfare is still causing sever birth defects in areas "defoliants"were sprayed on (same as in Colombia and Peru today).
There's no heroism in blind obedience and killing people who just wanted their freedom from foreign rule. No heroism at all.
The administration and its political arm via Swift Boat Veterans for Truth conducted a campaign of lies against John Kerry, a man who fought and bled for his country. You really think the Swift Boat veterans told the truth? Read Kerry's OUTSTANDING Navy performance appraisals, some of which were prepared by officers who later became part of the Swift Boat liars group. Were they lying then or are they lying now? Considering that they have a motive to lie now but didn't then, I think we know the answer. You think Kerry wasn't in Cambodia when he said he was? Read his diary -- unless you believe that he had the foresight to know 40 years ahead of time that he'd need evidence of his trip and wrote fake journal entries, his contemporaneous writings are proof that he did what he said when and where he said he did. You think Kerry lied to get his Silver Star and Purple Hearts? Read William Rood's editorial about his experiences with Kerry in the Navy. Read Admiral Zumwalt's comments about how he wanted to give the Kerry the Navy Cross, a higher award, but opted for the Silver Star because he had approval authority to award it immediately and have an instant impact on the morale of Kerrry's peers. You think Kerry lied to earn the Bronze Star with "V" device? Read Jim Rassmann's account of how Kerry saved his life under fire. "Basically true?" In fact what the Swift Boat Veterans said about Kerry was DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. As my friend who posted in this thread earlier has pointed out to me before, John E. O'Neill, the Kerry nemesis who was behind the Swift Boat liars group, never got over having been in Kerry's shadow in the Navy, or Kerry kicking his ass in the Vietnam War debate on the Dick Cavett show, or his envy of Kerry's successful legal and political career. THAT's O'Neill's motivation for lying about John Kerry.
Kerry's campaign admitted he wasn't in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968 when he claimed he was there being shot by our allies when Nixon was claiming we weren't there. Not only that but on Christmas eve 1968 Nixon wasn't president, Johnson was.
If Kerry's campaign can admit he lied, why can't you?
[link to www.slate.com]
"...A more intriguing reference—now known as "the famous good-luck-hat story"—was made in a Washington Post profile, by Laura Blumenfeld, published on June 1, 2003:
There's a secret compartment in Kerry's briefcase. He carries the black attache everywhere. Asked about it on several occasions, Kerry brushed it aside. Finally, trapped in an interview, he exhaled and clicked open his case.
"Who told you?" he demanded as he reached inside. "My friends don't know about this."
The hat was a little mildewy. The green camouflage was fading, the seams fraying.
"My good luck hat," Kerry said, happy to see it. "Given to me by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia."
On Christmas Eve 1968, Brinkley writes, Kerry and his crew:
headed their Swift north by the Cho Chien River to its junction with the My Tho only miles from the Cambodian border. … Kerry began reading up on Cambodia's history in a book he had borrowed from the floating barracks in An Thoi. … He even read about a 1959 Pentagon study titled "Psychological Observations: Cambodia," which … state[d] that Cambodians "cannot be counted on to act in any positive way for the benefit of U.S. aims and policies." [Italics added.]
Brinkley also quotes from Kerry's diary: "It was early morning, not yet light. Ours was the only movement on the river, patrolling near the Cambodian line." [Italics added.] Brinkley continues: "At a bend just as they were approaching the Cambodian border, two [U.S. river-patrol boats] met the Swift." Then, again from Kerry's diary: "Suddenly, there is an explosion and a mortar lands on the bank near all three boats." The next few pages detail a ferocious firefight, one part of which involved (as his diary noted) "the ridiculous waste of being shot at by your own allies."
Only a few hours later, in the evening, did Kerry's boat reach the stationing area of Sa Dec. "The night for once is comforting," Kerry wrote in his diary, "and you take a Coke and some peanut butter and jelly and go up on the roof of the cabin with your tape recorder and sit for a while, quietly watching flares float silently through the sky and flashes announce disquieting intent somewhere in the distance." It is in this context that Kerry then wrote, in a letter to home, about "visions of sugarplums" and thinking of "snow and roast chestnuts."
So let's review the situation. On Christmas Eve 1968, Kerry's Swift boat and at least two river-patrol boats were doing something unusual (Kerry wrote that he'd never been so far in-country) at least in the vicinity of the border—"near the Cambodian line," as he put it in his diary. And Kerry had with him a book that described a Pentagon study on psychological operations against Cambodia..."
Facts are stubborn things...
despite saying it was SEARED in his memory.
"On Wednesday, the Kerry campaign acknowledged that John Kerry probably was not in Cambodia on Christmas 1968, contrary to the senator's decades-old assertion. Speaking on Fox News' "Fox and Friends," Kerry campaign aide Jeh Johnson said, "John Kerry has said on the record that he had a mistaken recollection earlier. He talked about a combat situation on Christmas Eve 1968 which at one point he said occurred in Cambodia. He has since corrected the record to say it was some place on a river near Cambodia and he is certain that at some point subsequent to that he was in Cambodia. My understanding is that he is not certain about that date." "
[link to www.washtimes.com]
We can thank the man who wrote the book on lies, Republican Richard "Tricky-Dick" Nixon, that Cambodia comes up in the context of discussing the war in Vietnam. His secret, abhorent expansion of the losing battle illegally into Cambodia is a spin-off of Bush's equally doomed-to-fail "surge" operation.
LH:
"He talked about a combat situation on Christmas Eve 1968 which at one point he said occurred in Cambodia. He has since corrected the record to say it was some place on a river near Cambodia and he is certain that at some point subsequent to that he was in Cambodia. My understanding is that he is not certain about that date." "
You're using the above quote to support your contention that Kerry lied about being in Cambodia? That's just sad. You really need to take a course in the English language, or logic, or hatred management.
Do we believe the SBVs or do we believe the US Navy?
What does the official documentation say about Senator Kerry? It backs him and not the SB vets.
I for one am sick and tired of clowns like you dragging the good name of honorable people who've serve their country in Vietnam through the mud, to prop up this poor excuse for a president.
What does the official documentation have to say about GWB's service?Which of his medals might not have been earned? How did he handle the pressure of combat?
I hope the Iraq War Veterans are prepared for this kind of treatment. Because that's what they'll get. As soon as they start exercising their right to free speech. A right granted by our constitution and protected by a lot of good people who don't deserve to be treated the way this nation has treated them.
I expect Leather and his ilk to soon start besmirching the Iraq War veterans if they dare disagree with the neocons.
Kerry brought all of this on himself by trashing his own fellow soldiers and secretly meeting with the enemy.
It has zero to do with being anti-war and expressing free speech. I suspect you know that.
All I know is that you seem to be a bitter man, Leatherboy. Get over the Viet Nam war, Leather... it was a mistake that happened a long time ago. If you guys need to chase someone like John Kerry to exorcise your own personal demons then you need professional help.
I'm not so sure that Leatherhelmet was there. I don't remember him ever making that claim. So I'm not sure if he has anything to get over other than what he imagines to have been Kerry's slights towards other vets. If you were there Leather, I apologize.
What he and the others who denigrate Cleland, Kerry, Murtha and everyone else who doesn't agree with current policy don't understand is that there are 3,500,000 versions of the truth of the War in Vietnam.
We went there wanting to do great good, no one went with the intention of harming the people of Vietnam. As in any guerilla war, no one knew who was an enemy and no one know who was a friend.
It was an awful situation to be placed in. To say the war was mismanaged would be an understatement. The overwhelming majority of those who went did the best they could under the circumstances.
Although I think that the incidents of atrocities in the movies and the media have been greatly exaggerated, there were numerous documented cases that were proven. We, as a nation, have to admit this. We also have to put it behind us in order to heal the still open wound. Denying that crimes were committed by both sides in the Vietnam War helps no one.
I believed that the nation had sorted this through. I always thought that my generation had paid a terrible price so that this country could learn that we should never choose war without good reason. I now know, that I was wrong. We learned nothing.
"In Our Youth Our Hearts Were Touched By Fire"
- Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
>>>"What a load of trash"<<<
I'd suggest you take your boatload of gripes and bitterness directly to the highest offices of the United States Navy. Tell them their decisions were a "load of trash". Then stick around for the aftermath: the execution of John Kerry as a "traitor" (your word) to his country.
For the "SWIFT BOAT" people to be CORRECT:
... the entire Navy must be liars.
... the entire Military system of awarding commendations must be corrupt.
... every decorated combat vet cannot be believed to be a hero.
... we must question and doubt every medal displayed, and be cynical about all our war veterans; after all, a system that could have FALSELY made awards to Kerry is unreliable and corrupt.
... everyone who accepted a Purple Heart must, like Kerry, be a coward who was seeking to be transfered home (after, like Kerry, receiving 3 Purple Hearts).
... OR, it could be that the Swift Boat political hitsquad are liars.
Hmmm. The last suggestion is not only more possible, but ALL the know and supported facts lead us to believe that rightwing partisan-driven smear tactics birthed the Swift Boat Liars, and that NONE of their claims had anywhere near sufficient documentation or facts to overcome the OFFICIAL reports of the U.S. Navy.
THEREFORE, it is the Swift Boat Vets (for "TRUTH") who are traitors, smearing ALL veterans, lying for partisan gain, and who have no conscience, morals, or integrity. Yup, that's what the FACTS demonstrate. Cowards and Traitors, smearing ALL American Veterans to try to get a political gain for a collection of Chickenhawks. Disgusting.
"basically what they were alleging was true" The meaning of "alleged": 1) declared but without proof 2) so called.
The BS the Swift Boat group said was all "alleged" Kerry served, Bush ran and Dan was correct.
as long as Dan Rather runs fake documents and it supports your side, it is ok with you.
Come back when you can prove the documents were fake. That was never proven, and the secretary who typed the original memo say the contents were correct.
LOL. All Mary Mapes or Dan Rather had to do was find a typewriter that could do the job. They couldn't. The CBS investigator's document expert said they were fake. Everyone knows they were fake except you kool-aid drinkers. Even the secretary that you cite as an expert says:
Secretary: Memos are forgeries
By Jim Drinkard and Dave Moniz, USA TODAYWASHINGTON — The former secretary to a Texas Air National Guard officer who purportedly wrote memos critical of President Bush's pilot service said Tuesday that the documents are forgeries but they appear to reflect memos her boss wrote and kept in a locked desk drawer........
Knox told the Morning News that she did all of the typing for Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, Bush's commander, and she did not type the memos in question. The typewriters she used, a manual Olympia and later an IBM Selectric, could not have produced the documents, she said.
>>>As you know, the secretary is a Bush hater. Others have disputed that the documents reflect any truth whatsoever.
Has our President ever denied that he did not serve out his "tour of duty". Has anyone asked the question? Talk about True but Fake....no one can confirm that this President served his time. Even Mr. Bush.
Can you explain exactly the TRUTH within the SBVets? They threw out accusations which were never proven so how can you suggest that they are true. At least Kerry answered the questions. Once again the Cons have the market on the truth. Leather, it will be apparent to all that you cannot give one shred of truth about Sen. Kerry. Give it a shot.
MMFA is correct in posting this issue. The Swiftboating that happened in the Kerry campaign doesn't belong in any political race, by either Republicans or Democrats. That said, there is plenty of honest criticism of Hillary that could be made into a documentary that challenges her aspirations to be President by just look at her voting record and lack of fight and seeing how she's went along with the Neocons on so many policies. Hillary said last week that she will spend the next 2 years fighting Bush on policy. What about her last 6 years in the Senate, which was only notable for a few jabs? In 2005, she was one voted for confirmation of Rice as Secretary of State, despite Rice being part of the Neocon deception campaign to get us in Iraq. Even Kerry and Kennedy had enough sense to vote against Rice. Clinton voted for the Patriot Act taking away our rights. In 2002, when Democrats still has a majority in the Senate, Clinton voted to give Bush authorization to start the war in Iraq (23 Senators had enough sense to vote against it). Clinton co-sponsored a bill against flag burning. Clinton has pretty much the same foreign policy as the neocons. And who is one of Clinton's fundraisers? Rupert Murdoch, owner of Fox News. I expect the Democratic Party response for promoting Clinton will be the same losing one as the last two presidential elections: She's better than the Republican candidate.
Yeah, they're gonna sell her as a far-left liberal when her voting record is pure right-wing. But the corporate media won't allow a real liberal to get elected president, that would upset the Master Plan.
The presidential biographies at the Presidential Coalition were obviously written by someone whose acquaintance with the English language is less than intimate. I hope those nice Republicans at the Presidential Coalition are not hiring undocumented foreign workers to do their writing for them.
you know how kinky some of those conservatives can get. i went to the richard nixon link from "the presidential coalition", and it said he "lowered constrictions" on china and the ussr.
apparently nixon also put an end to "american enthrallment" in indochina.
Morris' site says absolutely nothing about Teapot Dome, probably the second most infamous scandal after Watergate. About Herbert Hoover, no mention is made of the shameful Bonus March incident, in which American troops fired on American veterans, and about which FDR said, "This elects me."
In a truly mind-boggling "hand is quicker than the eye" exchange, he omits any mention at all of possibly the worst US president ever, Andrew Johnson-- technically a Southern Democrat to be sure, but elected as Vice-President on the Republican ticket; the man who began the long transformation of the Republicans from the party of Abraham Lincoln to the party of Jefferson Davis. If he were alive today, he would've thrown in his lot with Strom Thurmond and the other hatemongering Dixiecrats who have now become the backbone of the Republican Party.
If Lincoln were alive today, he would be a Democrat. If Teddy Roosevelt were alive today, he would be a Democrat.
He'd be a democrat, too.
I agree with LeatherHelmet. If JFK were alive today, he would be a conservative Republican.
I agree with LeatherHelmet.
Wow, great minds really do think alike.
If JFK were alive today, he would be a conservative Republican.
Possibly, but it's hard to imagine a conservative Republican of today founding the Peace Corps. Unless, of course, that organization's motives were actually the opposite of its title, as with the intentional misnomers "Patriot Act," "Clear Skies Initiative," "No Child Left Behind," etc. It takes a modern conservative Republican to commit such an act of fraud as these.
If Jesus were alive today, he wouldn't be for long.
If Jesus were here today the Neocons would Crucify him on site.
That's right Sam.And they'd also tell everyone why he's not as good a Christian as they are.
Hey King......I'm trying to figure out how to make paragraphs. [Enter Twice] Is there some instructions somewhere for this new posting technology? [Return Twice] I'll see how it works this time around. See Ya Later.
I wish I could help Sam. I write my post, then hit the preview button and it looks great. Then I submit the post and it doesn't format the same as in the preview. If I figure it out, I'll pass on the info.Take care.PS: I previewed this post and it looks great.After each sentence, I hit the return key twice.
Nah...he'd be a Green.
JFK cut taxes, guess he would be a republican.
JFK had a conscious. That does not seem like a Republican trait.
fooled around on his wife?
What do you mean he had a conscious?
JFK fooled around with multiple women. That seems like a Democratic trait.
>>>"JFK fooled around with multiple women. That seems like a Democratic trait."<<<
You're right. The Democratic trait is fooling around with women. The Republican trait is young, male pages.
Guess Gary Studds was a republican too.
Dickie sounds more demented than Glen Close did in Fatal Attraction.
Dick, seriously man you've got to get over the Clintons. They've moved on, you should too.
That chip on your shoulder must be awful heavy....
JFK also -
resolved a crisis with the Soviet Union without the use of armed force
was beginning a dialouge with civil rights leaders
and was beginning the process of withdrawl of American troops from ANOTHER war in Asia we should not have gotten involved in - Vietnam
Republican? NAAHHH, doesn't sound like one . . .
"was beginning a dialouge with civil rights leaders"
Republicans are bigger supporters of civil rights then Democrats. Democrats want civil rights for everybody except white males. Affirmative action is nothing more than reverse discrimination, and most Democrats promote this discrimination.
You should know that Hannity sh*t won't fly here.
Check your facts, or play a fool. You're convincing me you're the later.
The only time Republican want anything the do with civil right is when there is a photo op and they need "black" people to complete the picture op. Have you noticed how many black people appear when Bush makes a speech. That many black people didn't even vote for Bush. And can you recall when house and senate republican appeared in front of Frederick Douglas's home for there photo op?
Please cry me a river for all those "poor white males".
recall that Condi Rice is the Secretary of State and how John Kerry and Al Gore's election teams were lilly white.
Republicans actually put blacks in positions of authority, not just flap their gums about it like democrats.
Uhhh....no, Leatherbrain...
Gore's campaign manager, Donna Brazile, was an African-American.
As usual, you're debunked.
Leather is hopeless. He made this statement about "lily-white" Kerry and Gore campaigns a few days ago, I responded with your Brazile FACT, and here, less than a week later, he lies about it again.
We know he has no credibility. The only mystery is if he is completely incapable of learning or if he doesn't care about truth. Could be a two-fer.
>>"Republicans actually put blacks in positions of authority"<<
Last time I checked, there wasn't even one black Republican in Congress. You guys have a problem finding blacks who want to join your group.
And Rice has been a miserable failure in so many ways that I wouldn't put her on my resume, if I were you.
"Republicans actually put blacks in positions of authority, not just flap their gums about it like democrats."
The last time a Republican did anything substantial benefitting blacks he was assassinated. Then along comes those "sleazy" (apparently only because they had sex with genuine women, allegedly) Kennedys and lo and behold they spring Martin Luther King out of a Cracker Dixiecrat jail (a Republican stronghold now) and force open school doors for black students. And coincidentally those two Democrats got assassinated too. Come up more recently and Black Democrat Ron Brown has his plane fly into a mountain in an unexplained air crash during the Kosovo conflict. A CIA "spook" acquaintance (no pun intended) told me he believed Brown's plane was intentionally targeted with false beacon directional signals from the ground... The Republican Party is all for civil rights, if you can afford them. Their mantra of "free markets" allows ANYONE into their club, but only if they can pay the doorman the fee at the entrance. As a good example, anyone recall in Sept. 2006, perhaps as a celebratory gesture towards the 9-11 attacks on NYC by Saudi terrorists, the Bush Administration granted 15,000 brand spanking new student visas to Saudi Royal Brats to study here in the United States. The entire out-os-state tuition costs of about $30,000 per year are being paid personally by the Royal House of Saud. See, ANY person of color, even those directly related to the most damaging "terrorists" in our nations history can have opportunity in a Republican America, if they got the money.
Surely you realize, Helmet, that a lie repeated 1,000 times does not eventually become truth. It's still a lie, which I suppose makes you a willful liar.
It's been demonstrated to you here repeatedly that Democrats do not shy away from having voluntarily diverse election committees. Why do you insult yourself by insisting upon perpetrating this lie that they have not?
Republicans were supporters of civil rights. But the Democrats who were against civil rights switched parties. They became Republicans.
"resolved a crisis with the Soviet Union without the use of armed force"
Hmmm. So did Reagan. I guess he should be considered a Democrat as well.
Is this how you remember history, or do you just make it up as you go along?
The wall came down during the daddybush admin. All Reagan did was say; "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall." He just happened to say it when their economy was in the toilet, and their citizenry was ripe for revolt. It was a no-brainer, [good thing he was Republican.]
that's how it seemed at the time. I doubt if you're going to get through to TD and LH, as they've been programmed for years with the ideas that Reagan destroyed communism and Republicans lower taxes.
you think Jimmy Carter destroyed communism.
And now he's trying to bring it back.
I think communism destroyed itself, and you're trying to bring back the fear of it .
Fearing communism or its looming return is to fear a toothless, legless crocodile. It isn't going anywhere any longer, and it's bite is no longer deadly.
I blogged on the Hill in response to Dick Morris’s retraction: And twice my blog was deleted - not because I said anything abusive or incorrect.
I simply stated twice politely ( it got deleted twice) , that dick Morris’s hate was due to him being busted in a prostitution scandal , when he was a big time democrat and that Clintons dropped him from their inner circle after his act. This specific and single act by the clintons and democrats lead to his flip flop to Fox and the constant anti democrat rhetoric. I got this response on email from a guy at the Hill. Guess the Hill( blogs) don't allow any truths that opens ones eyes to so called 'new conservative Dick Morris', but allows Clinton's affair to be blogged and spoken freely. What's good for the goose here aint good for the gander..
Christian Rougeau(crougeau@thehill.com)
yes, it got deleted....twice.
you can see what got through, maybe you want to take note of that?
no specific references to pundit's sex scandals , please.
thanks, C Rougeau
Google anytime on Dick Morris and his being busted with Prostittute and follow how he fell from the graces... by the Clintons and now lives to be anti- democrat and anti clintons.. Shoot you even see this scumbag and his prostitutes images online. Idiot got caught being photographed...
Since when do bottom feeders like him not get called out.
PART 2( NEW EMAIL) Another EXCUSE SENT BY HILL STAFFERS PROTECTING DICK MORRIS, asking not to speak to truths about Dick morris. Email received this morning. As you will note HILL blog is about friends and family allowing Republican folks who work for them immunity from the web. YOU cannot speak truths about Dick morris there
-----
From: Christian Rougeau [mailto:crougeau@thehill.com] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 11:06 AMTo: xxxx@xxxxx.comSubject: RE: deleted commentif you knew my politics, you wouldn't make that accusation. Here's the difference. DM works with, and for us regularly. He also works with his wife as a regular business partner. it's fair to say that they are a close team. therefore, we are not bringing up something as painful to our colleague's personal life as that. We don't work closely with Clinton. Say what you want about Clinton or GOP politicians or any other politician, as long as it furthers the debate. When you start brining up sex scandals about those we choose to serve as pundits, that's when we draw the line. You wouldn't say all that to him face to face, with his wife standing *right there*, would you?I love Media Matters. They are great. Few blocks away. Almost got a job there. Ah well. You certainly can be subtle, but get your point across at the same time on a comment to a post, no?
The reason that Dick Morris hates the Clinton's, particularly Hilary is because of his one night stands. He got caught and got fired by the Clinton's. Now I do not particularlty care what DM did in his private life. I would have just as soon not known about it. However, it is obvious to me that he has a personal vendetta against the Clinton's and it shines like new money. He is trying to settle a score which can never be settled. There is no room in politics for the kind of vindetta that DM has against Clinton or any other person running for office. The things he said again Barack Obama were intended. I don't care how many apologies he makes he intended every word of what he said to get out to the public. Sean Hanity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Dick Morris, the swift boat veterans and all the other pundits like them are a disgrace not only to the republican party but to all citizens of the United States. These are evil people who do not have the best interest of the United State or its citizens in their hearts. They are dangeous, evil sick minded people who will say anything about anyone to push their own agenda. I use to be a republican but not any more. I would be ashamed to call myself a republican.
for two years makes her a liar, then that would make John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and every other Republican candidate that has not announced their candidacy for 2008 a liar too. Presently they are all saying that they are undecided. Therefore they are all liars.
Also, why does Dick Morris have a problem with Hillary Clinton not announcing her 2008 run way back in 2004? We all knew McCain and Giuliani are going to run in 08 way back then too AND THEY ARE STILL UNDECIDED TODAY.
"Democrats want civil rights for everybody except white males." - The Truthiness Defecator
" . . . goodness knows white males don't get a fair shake in this country . . " - Al Franken
-------------------------------------------
"Republicans actually put blacks in positions of authority, not just flap their gums about it like democrats." - Leatherhead
Now, Leather . . . I already went over this the other day on the other thread, you need to start paying attention . . . for those of you who missed it, a recap:
First AfricanAmerican Male to hold a Cabinet position - Robert C. Weaver, HUD Secretary, 1966, appointed by President Johnson
First AfricanAmerican to serve on US Supreme Court - Thurgood Marshall, 1967, appointed by President Johnson
First AfricanAmerican Female to hold a Cabinet position - Patricia Roberts Harris, HUD/HHS/Education Secretary, 1977, appointed by President Carter
---------------------------------------
"Hmmm. So did Reagan [resolved a crisis with the Soviet Union without the use of force.] I guess he should be considered a Democrat as well." - The Truthiness Defecator
And what crisis would that be? If you're referring to the Berlin Wall coming down - sorry, no sale. The Wall came down in November 1989, when Ray-gun had been out of office almost a year . . . and the Soviet Union ceased to exist after 1992, when he was almost four years into retirement . . .
Would like to know one thing, though: you wingnuts constantly harp on Clinton's supposed "non-response" to the USS Cole bombing of October 2000 . . . can any of you recall the Ray-gun response to the USS Stark attack of 1987?
Exactly. ------------------------------------------------- Rightwingnut talking points; the gift that keeps on giving . . .
Remember the Republican response to Sadaam Hussein gassing his own people?
They sent Don Rumsfeld over to shake Hussein's hand and sell him more of the gas used to kill those people and the helicopters used to deliver it.
Funny how that works, isn't it?
Saddam gets hanged in his shame. Rummy gets a retirement ceremony with full honors.
I suppose the lesson of American politics is to do what you want, as long as you never get caught.
This "hit piece" may actually backfire on this sleazy nephew of the equally sleazy Roy Cohn. The people that already hate the Clintons will always buy into the trash Morris and Fox sell but its effect may embolden Hillary's base and the fence sitters to rally around her. This little man needs way too much attention and unfortunately the Murdoch's of the world and Fox news will always give voice to it. There ought to be a law stopping these criminals in their tracks.
Leather Hat:
BREAKING NEWS!
PRESIDENT BUSH SAID:
“OK, I admitted all the mistakes I made in My Iraq War. Now I have a “New Way Forward.” I now promise not to make those mistakes in My Iran War.”
I’m just kidding Hat, but Hey, it’s not funny is it.
Why won’t Bush listen to all the Experts? Instead, he just Hires “YES” people. Why won’t he allow more Americans to share the Sacrifices of our poor Troops and their Families, Hat?
PRESIDENT BUSH:
A lot of people are Sacrificing. They Sacrifice “Peace Of Mind” when they see all the horrible war news on their TV’s.
[link to www.pbs.org]
Why didn’t Bush answer the call for help when we needed him in The Vietnam War. John Kerry and I were there serving your country for you. What War Zone did you serve in Hat?
Why won’t Bush give Peace a Chance. Why won’t Bush Negotiate with anyone Hat. I think it’s disgusting when you cut down people who served our country Leather Man.!
MORE ON THE TELLING BUSH ANSWERS:
LEHRER: Asked, If this war is so important then why have you not asked more Americans to Sacrifice like the troops and their families have?
BUSH: - "Well, you know, I think a lot of people are in this fight. I mean, they sacrifice PEACE OF MIND when they see the terrible images of violence on TV every night. I mean, we've got a fantastic economy here in the United States, but yet, when you think about the psychology of the country, it is somewhat down because of this war."
BUSH: "Now, here in Washington when I say, "What do you mean by that?," they say, "Well, why don't you raise their taxes; that'll cause there to be a sacrifice." I strongly oppose that. If that's the kind of sacrifice people are talking about, I'm not for it because raising taxes will hurt this growing economy."
A Very Telling Answers! "Peace of Mind," is a Sacrifice? Raising Wartime Taxes, is a Sacrifice? Bush Strongly opposes sharing of the Sacrifice!
LEHRER: Asked: Mr. President, why, if this war is so monumental and so important, have you not considered a program to involve Other Americans in this Struggle?
BUSH: "Yeah, I have considered whether it ought to be compulsory, non-military service, I guess is the best way to put it. I'm not for compulsory military service, by the way. I think the volunteer army is working and we got to keep it strong."
SUMMARY:
The poor and middle class volunteer's and their loved ones suffer the Sacrifices for the Iraq War. Mainly, the Super-Rich benefit from the WarTime Tax Cuts.
The Pelley interview was also painful to witness Without Followups and here is the WebPage Link:
The PBS Jim Lehrer interview:
[link to www.pbs.org]
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/politics/bush_interview_20070116/index.html
It looks like you figured out how to put spaces between the paragraphs Sam.
If this post deosn't have spaces between the paragraphs, I know I'm doing something wrong.
I get a wonderful giggle when I think someonelike Dick Morris feels like he can make judgments about anyone, especially Mrs. Clinton. Remember this is the guy who had a hooker in his room when he was taking Security calls.
I guess some folks just are not careful about who they listen to. I think Clinton is so angry at Mrs. Clinton sincer she saved her marriage. What exactly was Morris's wanna-be relationship with Presidemt Clinton?
You know I have always wondered what he wanted his relationship with Bill Clinton to be. It seemed to me that he has always come across as jealous of the relationship between Bill and Hilary. It was like he had a fantasy about Clinton that he just couldn't get fulfilled and it made him so angry. His anger and bitterness toward them and particularly against Hillary is not your normal everyday anger. There is something different about it.