MSNBC's Robach compared pro-Obama 527 with discredited Swift Vets group
On the June 22 edition of MSNBC Live, anchor Amy Robach equated Vote Hope, a newly launched 527 organization formed to promote the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), with the 527 group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (now known as Swift Vets and POWs for Truth), which produced ads smearing and misrepresenting the Vietnam military record of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in the six months leading up to the 2004 presidential election. In introducing a discussion on the Vote Hope group with NBC News political director Chuck Todd, Robach said: "Three years after the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth slammed John Kerry in the harshest attack ads of the 2004 presidential race, the first similar group of this campaign ads have been formed." However, Vote Hope has not released any television advertisements at this time, and as Todd noted, there is no evidence that the organization will produce "similar" attack ads.
According to its website, Vote Hope's goal is to "get 500,000 early votes pledged and banked for Obama" leading up to the California Democratic primary "by registering and organizing people to vote by mail, and by organizing early voting in key geographic regions." The website also mentions "educating and mobilizing voters about Obama in many non-traditional ways, including online social networking, concerts, faith-based tours and other cultural events." The site does not indicate that television ads will be part of Vote Hope's strategy. Todd said: "There's no evidence that it's going to be somehow a group that's going to launch negative attacks on Obama's opponents." Todd also claimed that "what's interesting" about Vote Hope "is that it is registering as a 527," which Todd described as "one of those markings that have been a bogeyman of sorts of campaign politics."
Media Matters for America has extensively documented the falsehoods and smears regarding Kerry's military record spread by the Swift Vets.
During the segment, MSNBC ran two alternating on-screen captions that compared Vote Hope to the Swift Vets. The first caption read: "First 'Swift-Boat'-Style Group Formed in 2008 Presidential Race," while the second read: "What Role Will 'Swift-Boat'-Style Groups Play in 2008 Campaign?"
From the June 22 edition of MSNBC Live:
ROBACH: Good morning everyone. I'm Amy Robach. Three years after the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth slammed John Kerry in the harshest attack ads of the 2004 presidential race, the first similar group of this campaign ads have been formed. The group is called Vote Hope 2008 and was created to help Barack Obama. For today's first read in politics, let's check in with NBC News political director Chuck Todd. Chuck, thanks for being with us.
TODD: Good morning.
ROBACH: So, what do we know about this group?
TODD: Well, it's been founded by a couple of California Democratic donors, major activists and their -- it's a group that's supportive of Barack Obama. There's no evidence that it's going to be somehow a group that's going to launch negative attacks on Obama's opponents. On their website, they're very much talking about how they want to support Obama, try to raise a bunch of money to try to help him in the California primary, because California's primary is about a month after the first four or five contests, but what's interesting about it is that it is registering as a 527.
This is one of those groups -- one of those markings that have been a bogeyman of sorts of campaign politics. [Sen.] John McCain [R-AZ] has criticized them. Barack Obama has also criticized these groups, so it'll be interesting to see how many of them pop up. Frankly, it's surprising that this is the first one -- first major one, on any side.
ROBACH: Yeah, and Chuck, so if someone like Barack Obama, who has -- more so perhaps than any other candidate -- run on this positive theme where he wants to have politics different from years past, does he have any say or any control over what this group disseminates?
TODD: Well, he doesn't, and it's part of what I think we're seeing, this open-source campaign politics. You know, last week, we had the Obama Girl video, which was done by a supporter, but not somebody the campaign sanctioned. Remember the Apple ad that attacked [Sen. Hillary Rodham] Clinton [D-NY] basically, but again, it was made by a supporter, not somebody that was sanctioned by the campaign, so it's going to be quite difficult frankly for all the major contenders I think to police this stuff, and what'll be interesting is: How hard will they try?
You know, will the Obama campaign, you know, ask these groups, you know, "Don't do this. Don't spend this money." What will they be asked to do? You know, and, look, this is going to be the same for the Clinton camp, [Former Gov. Mitt] Romney [R-MA], [Former New York Mayor] Giuliani [R], you name it. I think all of the campaigns are going to see this happen.
Humm, comparing a group known for lying with another group simply because they were formed under the same tax code proves what again?
Oh, that's right...nothing at all.
Is it just me or is this Robach from the Fox Noise College of Idiot Reporting and Useless Conjecture?
Great job comparing a known group that was proved to be a paid assassin (against Kerry) to that of a presidential campaign (Obama's) simply because it was created under the same tax code (527)
Robach needs a raise!
If Media Matters is going to spin more obviously than anything it complains about in its headlines, it will forever remain just another anonymous lefty website with no traffic.
The Swift Boat vets were "discredited" by whom?
The far left. A lot of people in both parties think they were telling the truth, which isn't much of a surprise since Kerry only had 3 or 4 defenders in a group of almost 60 men.
Max,
Since you are so inclined to be so typically right-wing lazy in doing your homework.......
you said:
"The Swift Boat vets were "discredited" by whom?"
Try here or here or here
A cursory examination of some of the founding members histories (like those of PNAC) tells enough of the story about how easy it is to discredit these clowns.....
John O'Neill, Roy Hoffmann or William Edward Franke to name just three.
Max, I realize that people like you have a hard time accepting the fact of reality.......
I see.
The swifties were lying because...FAIR said so? Salon? That could not have been more weak.
Next time just say "Media Matters AND Hillary's press secretary said so". That will carry the same intellectual weight as Salon and FAIR, lol. Since the word "Annenberg" means nothing to you, I'll let that pass.
Since the point went so far over your head that it's currently being sucked into a jet engine at 35,000 feet, I know people on left discredited them, but that doesn't exactly prove much does it?
The whole thing is a case of 'he said vs. he said', and we'll never know the whole truth, so for Media Matters to declare them "discredited" as though it's the gospel truth is asinine. It's also typical for the left in general. If that's they way they do things here at Media Matters then I can, with more evidentiary justification than I can fit on one website, declare David Brock "discredited" and say the same thing about this whole very odd website that he founded.
Sorry, troll, but sticking your fingers in your ears and trying to block out the truth won't change the facts.
You lose. Deal with it.
You must be a rather powerful and accomplished attorney to have successfully negotiated the vaunted "you lose cuz I say so" argument.
I am humbled to have posted near you, so to speak.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
- Max41 / Saturday June 23, 2007 12:00:40 AM EST
His crew, the men that served with him in every engagement in question, and every patrol on the 'river of death,' for which he volunteered for in an extended deployment, are the sources that exposed O'Neil and his gang of liars! Not one of those who appeared in the add, or the film ever served with Kerry on the swift boat, or in a group mission. Not one!!
30 years of O'Neil's frustration with smearing Kerry for Colson had finally took hold when the Fairness Doctrine died and the truth was no longer required! That's right, they lied, pure and simple, and only a lowlife Neo-Con would say otherwise just like wearing a "Band-Aid Purple Heart" on their nationally televised convention while sending men/women into battle for their lies!
Shame on you, may your sons and daughters be treated better after their service than the way you would treat others!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Just out of curiousity, Max, what type of proof are you looking for?
To put it simply. Kerry went to Vietnam, was shot at by bad guys trying to kill him. Bush may have dodged a champagne cork or two. Out of the two contenders Kerry wins the "Biggest Bravest Brass Balls" award. Hell, give it to anyone who ever just stepped on the tarmac over there during the Vietnam war. Bush still looses in this category. End of story. Next.
Factcheck is non-partisan, but I noticed you didn't mention it in your response. Guess you're either too lazy to look or you're afraid of the truth.
I certainly did mention it. Since you know nothing of the Annenberg Center at Penn, I'll leave it to you to learn.
Nonpartisan. ha.
It's moot anyway, Kerry got his tail kicked and is forever irrelevant...until the next time he's divorced and broke and needs to marry another heiress, which is pretty much his only accomplishment.
When was Kerry broke?
"John Kerry, after more than 10 years in the Senate, was nearly broke in May 1995, facing a daunting 1996 election test against popular Republican Gov. William Weld when he married the widow of the richest U.S. senator.
The late Republican Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania left his wife, Teresa, $600 million. Kerry's net worth, according to his official disclosure submitted in 1995, ranged from a plus-$34,995 down to a minus-$130,000."
[link to www.cnn.com] it not for his marriages to the occasional wealthy heiress you wouldn't know who John Kerry is.
Were it not for the occasional...
"it not for his marriages to the occasional wealthy heiress you wouldn't know who John Kerry is."
I knew who Kerry was because of his anti-war activities during the Vietnam War, but I had no idea he was ever broke. In hindsight, those attacks from the Right about his wealth were completely uncalled for.
Why would the Annenberg Center be considered partisan?
I know that Walter himself was a right wing Republican. Are you implying that he funded a left wing organization?
still waiting on max's answer to this one...
Many posters have debunked everything the SBV's ever alleged, and they've done it time after time after time.
Just because you're pretending you're not a sockpuppet who hasn't seen that proof repeatedly doesn't mean that those same debunkers need to do it all over again just so that you can take this thread off topic.
The topic is that these new groups are not comparable in any way besides the umbrella IRS rulings that govern their origination. Those regulations are not sufficient to link these differing groups in the way that this reporter did.
As Media Matters Jamison Foser said in the weekly roundup posting
Media Matters documents examples of news reports that contain flaws that advance a conservative agenda or undermine progressive causes. In most cases, we neither know nor care whether the reporters, editors, and producers involved are conservatives, liberals, anarchists, or royalists. We focus on specific flaws in the content of their reports, not on trying to ascertain their intent.I bow to your superior mastery of the topic, and am embarrassed to have tangled logically with all those specifics from your irrefutable source, "many posters".
I will add however that no matter what your impeccable source, "many posters" has debunked, you can't deny that any soldier in the armed forces in those days had a right to be offended when Kerry testified that his fellow "comrades in arms" (the people who can't stand him) "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam".
Many of his claims were fabrications written by anti-war activists who'd never been to Vietnam.
But again, Kerry lost and he is moot.
"you can't deny that any soldier in the armed forces in those days had a right to be offended when Kerry testified"
I can deny it.
You'll deny they had a right to be offended?
I didn't say they had to be, just that many were offended (including almost every soldier he served with).
But you're saying they had no right? Who the hell are you, God?
Nice to meet you, when's the next great flood?
I'm a Nam era vet. I have no hard spot with Kerry. I'd feel alot better today if he were the president.
"You'll deny they had a right to be offended?"
If they actually listened to Kerry's testimony, he was putting all the blame for the atrocities that took place on the current administration; he was not condemning the troops in any way. It’s just like what happened at Abu Ghraib during this war. All of us here were saying that Rumsfeld, Gonzalez, Bush and Cheney should be prosecuted and not those low level soldiers. The administration is responsible for what took place at the prison.
The Swift Boat liars should have just said that they thought his testimony was dishonest, that it angered them and therefore Kerry should not be president. Instead, they chose to lie and smear him. These people are despicable."But you're saying they had no right? Who the hell are you, God?
Nice to meet you, when's the next great flood?"
May 19, 2169
Tiny Print:
“The Swift Boat liars should have just said that they thought his testimony was dishonest, that it angered them and therefore Kerry should not be president. Instead, they chose to lie and smear him. These people are despicable.”
he was not condemning the troops in any way
You don't even know when you're not telling the truth do you?
You're the one who doesn't know his butthole from a hole in the wall.
Kerry was not disrespecting any soldiers with his comments. He was relaying testimony from many soldiers, and was faulting the administration.
Repeated repeatedly debunked talking points doesn't magically make them true. Many posters have debunked this and many other of your points repeatedly. The fact that you want to pretend you're not a sockpuppet who has seen those proofs multiple times before doesn't magically make that true either!
Again, the irrefutable "many posters" source.
Tough to rebut that, heh.
Your continual attempts to discredit and smear a decent man tell about you, not him. You don't care about the truth, and you have blinders on when the evidence is there repeatedly in front of you.
WRONG. The claims came from the Winter Soldier meetings a transcript of which was sent to the Pentagon and they never refuted a word of it. Also Nicolas Turse went to the National archives and got examples of military documentation of EVERY ONE OF THOSE EXAMPLES. Feel free to put your head in the sand and pretend that there were no attrocities committed in Vietnam or that they were our dirty little secret and should never have been mentioned but dont expect anyone NOT a brainwashed wingnut to take it seriously.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0438,turse,56936,1.html
You people don't even know the basics do you?
The Winter Soldier Investigation was inspired by Mark Lane's book Conversations With Americans which claimed to recount horrific atrocities by US soldiers in Nam. Lane is a conspiracy freak whose book on the JFK assassination makes Oliver Stone look credible.
Even though Lane's book was roundly trashed even by anti-war activists, Senator Mark Hatfield entered it into the Congressional Record at which point, naturally, investigations into atrocities were demanded.
When the Naval Investigative Service (NIS) attempted to interview Lane's sources, who supposedly witnessed the atrocities, most refused to cooperate even though they were told that they would not be asked about what they did personally. The "witnesses" who did cooperate didn't offer any specifics about war crimes.
The NIS found in their investigation that many of the most revolting crimes were reported by people who had appropriated (stolen) the names of real Vietnam vets. Guenter Lewy details all of this in his book America In Vietnam.
Kerry did so much damage to soldiers who served in Nam it's astounding, in that people like me were raised wondering why so many people hated the troops, spit on them and called them baby killers. He helped legitimize the stigma of the Nam soldier who's just a maladjusted loser. He did all of this because, as the troops in his unit admit, he needed "an issue" to jump start his political career. So he trashed his fellow soldiers. What a guy.
Kerry also made it sound as though war crimes were the norm.
In fact, between '65 and '73, 201 soldiers and 77 Marines were convicted of serious crimes against the Vietnamese. Do the math yourself, it's not a lot of troops %-wise.
Kerry gave credence to the lie that those who served and died were reluctant draftees with an unfairly high number of poor or racial minorities. Actually, 86% of those who died were white and 12.5% were black (blacks were 13.1% of America at the time). Two-thirds of those who served volunteered, and these volunteers accounted for 77% of combat deaths.
Kerry made it sound like all who went regretted it, saying in his testimony "We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this administration has wiped their memories of us."
However a 1980 survey by the V.A. found that 91% of Nam combat vets were "glad they had served their country" and 80% didn't feel as though they were taken advantage of.
Neil Sheehan wrote this about the book that gave Kerry his fraudulent "evidence":
"This book is so irresponsible that it may help to provoke a responsible inquiry into the question of war crimes and atrocities in Vietnam. "Conversations with Americans" is a lesson in what happens when a society shuns the examination of a pressing, emotional issue and leaves the answers to a Mark Lane."
That's the start of Sheehan's NYTimes book review. Here's the rest of it (if you like John Kerry, stop reading now):
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/smearing.htmThat tiny print is Sheehan's book review.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/smearing.htm
Sorry doesnt hold up. First of all Turse found examples of EVERY ACT KERRY CLAIMED in the National archives. As for the Winter Soldiers well lets turn to Turse's study
On its website, the SBVT tries to debunk the Winter Soldier Investigation by using the same rhetoric that apologists for the Vietnam War have long employed: They paint the vets who attended the Detroit meeting as a parade of fake veterans offering false testimony. "None of the Winter Soldier 'witnesses' Kerry cited in his Senate testimony less than three months later were willing to sign affidavits, and their gruesome stories lacked the names, dates, and places that would allow their claims to be tested," the SBVT claims. "Few were willing to cooperate with military investigators."
While numerous authors have repeatedly advanced such assertions, U.S. military documents tell a radically different story. According to the formerly classified army records, 46 soldiers who testified at the WSI made allegations that, in the eyes of U.S. Army investigators, "merited further inquiry." As of March 1972, the army's CID noted that of the 46 allegations, "only 43 complainants have been identified" by investigators. "Only" 43 of 46? That means at least 93 percent of the veterans surveyed were real, not fake. Moreover, according to official records, CID investigators attempted to contact 41 people who testified at the Detroit session, which occurred between January 31 and February 2, 1971. Five couldn't be located, according to records. Of the remaining 36, 31 submitted to interviews—hardly the "few" asserted by SBVT. Moreover, as Gerald Nicosia has noted in his mammoth tome Home to War, "A complete transcript of the Winter Soldier testimony was sent to the Pentagon, and the military never refuted a word of it."
The assertion that the vets proved uncooperative and refused to provide useful, identifiable information has also been a typical device used to refute the WSI. In this case, the Winter Soldiers themselves played directly into the hands of their detractors by trying to have it both ways: They wanted to expose atrocities as a product of command policy while denying individual soldiers' responsibility in committing the crimes.
But in fact—and despite later claims to the contrary by their pro-war critics—most of the Winter Soldier participants had publicly given accounts with their own names, unit identifications, dates of service, and sometimes rather detailed descriptions of locations—namely, all the information needed to proceed with investigations. In practically all the specific Winter Soldier cases, such probes were never done.
As for your point that only a few were prosecuted the Toledo Blade won a Pulitzer Prize for their series of articles on the Tiger force and their 18 month orgy of attrocities and NONE of them were ever prosecuted so that really doesnt show much. I have no doubt that the VAST majority of soldiers in Vietnam were good people who wouldnt have THOUGHT of committing any warcrimes the problem is some of the POLICIES were warcrimes which was what Kerry was talking about. Free fire zones. Bombing dikes which we HUNG Nazis for after WW2. Kerry made it clear in his testimony he was not blaming the grunts on the ground doing their jobs but those making the POLICIES.
Thanks for proving you didn't read Sheehan's NYT review of the book in which Kerry got his "evidence".
When you do, get back to me.
Thanks for proving you have your head up your butt, and you reject reality.
You dont get to demand I do anything idiot. You didnt post a link. I am not searching for your book review which is someones OPINION. As opposed to say DIRECT EVIDENCE from the national archives and referencing a Pulitzer Prize winning series of articles. Ya got nothin except schooled. When you have or can at least RECOGNIZE a cogent argument you can get back to ME.
You dont get to demand I do anything idiot. You didnt post a link.
Since you're unable to recognize a link, look for this:
Max41 / Saturday June 23, 2007 06:02:28 PM EST
Right above that, you'll find what's called a "link". Good luck. I didn't realize this would be a challenge for you. We're rootin' for ya!
I don't think you understand my point, and that may be my fault. Then again, since you're still not sure what a web link looks like...never mind.
You went scrambling around to find evidence that people were raped, ears were cut off, limbs were cut off (hey it sounds just like the Al Qaeda torture manual that the mainstream media ignored...the only "torture" that matters happens at Abu Grabowski in Iraq right?).
Why did you waste your time looking for such a link? No one is contesting that it happened. My point is that Kerry used bad information to trash people who didn't deserve it, info that came from a book so thoroughly discredited that it was ripped apart by anti-war journalists.
Only 278 US Armed Forces personnel were convicted, and if you want to throw in a few dozen more for the hell of it, I don't care. It's still a tiny percentage of the troops we had over there. Kerry did all he could to make it sound like it happened all the time.
Kerry trashed all of them for only one reason: to begin his political career. You can pretend all you want that he was only trashing the brass and their policies, but I've met way too many vets from that era who feel differently and most of them couldn't care less about politics. They just think Kerry's a dirtbag.If you are so naive that you think he was only going after policy/policy makers, perhaps you wouldn't mind putting your Visa credit card number in your reply to this post.
No one will use it for anything. I promise.
This is part of what Sheehan wrote about the man whose "evidence" Kerry used. Sheehan talked to author Mark Lane and asked him why he didn't bother to verify his stories:
"Mr. Lane did not bother to cross-check any of the stories his interviewers told him with Army or Marine Corps records. I asked him why in a telephone conversation.
"Because I believe the most unreliable source regarding the verification of atrocities is the Defense Department," he said.
But what about simple and obvious facts like those in the cases of Onan and Schneider which might throw light on the credibility of his witnesses? I asked.
"It's not relevant," he said.
This kind of reasoning amounts to a new McCarthyism, this time from the left. Any accusation, any innuendo, any rumor, is repeated and published as truth. The accused, whether an institution or an individual, has no right to reply because whatever the accused says will ipso facto be a lie. Those on the left who cherish their integrity might do well to take a careful look at Mark Lane's methods."
I like that last part.
"Those on the left who cherish their integrity might do well to take a careful look at Mark Lane's methods."
No wonder Kerry didn't bother to take a look at Lane's methods. He doesn't cherish anything but wealthy single women...every few years that is.
so all you've got is one book review from the "liberal" NYT. Despite the direct testimony from the archives, despite every evidence reported in the newspapers. And then you make the nasty comments about Kerry's marriages. This reflects very poorly on you and any attempt at credibility.
Mary,
Since your reading and comprehension skills are sorely lacking, allow to make this point, again. If I have to make it again later today for you, I won't be at all surprised.
I've never contested even one atrocity that happened during that war, so for you and Solon to keep mentioning examples of atrocities is funny, but pointless.
Kerry is a self-serving, egotistical brat who went after his fellow soldiers in order to begin his political career.The fact that you people see nothing sleazy about that says a lot about you. I'm sure you'll be very happy if Hillary is our next president.
You wrote "you've got is one book review".
Wrong. I have the book review, I'd bet my life you didn't read, and an entire book, Guenter Lewy's America In Vietnam, which catelogs all the phony "witnesses" and phony troops Kerry used for his "evidence". The fact that some other guy somewhere in Nam did what KErry said is meaningless. He used bogus evidence, which should discredit him. Since you have, well, interesting standards, or none at all, this doesn't bother you. That's your problem.
If you're upset about my point that Kerry has to marry rich women in order to have money, you'll to get over that, since that's the pattern Kerry has followed all his life. He's never made any money doing anything, aside from marrying rich babes. This kind of person, in my world, is known as a "loser".
Your use of quotation marks in describing the "liberal" NYT tells me that you're so far out there on the fringes that you think the NYT is a moderate or conservative paper.
This just makes me feel sorry for you.
The Times' former ombudsman Daniel Okrent, to whom you and your pals will attach no credibility simply because I'm using him to make you look silly, has said this about whether or not the Times is a liberal paper:
Of course it is.
...These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed.
...Start with the editorial page, so thoroughly saturated in liberal theology that when it occasionally strays from that point of view the shocked yelps from the left overwhelm even the ceaseless rumble of disapproval from the right.
[link to www.nytimes.com] the NYTimes staff has no problem admitting it's a laughably, obviously, "thoroughly" liberal paper, but Mary, Media Matters poster extaordinaire, says it isn't.
Whom to believe...tough call.
“Kerry is a self-serving, egotistical brat who went after his fellow soldiers in order to begin his political career.”
He did it to stop an unnecessary and ill-conceived war that threatened to kill many more troops if it continued.
“The fact that some other guy somewhere in Nam did what KErry said is meaningless. He used bogus evidence, which should discredit him.”
They were accounts from troops who had been there and he used it in his testimony to condemn an administration who drafted eighteen and nineteen year olds to fight an unnecessary war where it was extremely hard to distinguish friend from foe. He wasn’t blaming the troops (things happen in war especially after seeing a buddy get shot or blown up); he was condemning an administration that put the troops in an impossible situation.
“since that's the pattern Kerry has followed all his life. He's never made any money doing anything, aside from marrying rich babes. This kind of person, in my world, is known as a ‘loser’.”
Who Kerry marries is no business of yours. Concentrate on your own marriage and stop being jealous.
“Your use of quotation marks in describing the "liberal" NYT tells me that you're so far out there on the fringes that you think the NYT is a moderate or conservative paper.”
The editorial pages are pretty liberal but the actual reporting in the newspaper could have been written by the fringes of the republican party especially during the run-up to the Iraq War.
“These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others.”
With the possible exception of gay rights, those are not liberal issues; they’re mainstream issues.
Jealous of a loser who can only acquire wealth through marriage? Can you explain why anyone would be?
I grew up one mile from Teresa's home in Fox Chapel, and know Johnny Heinz (the late senator's son). I spent more than a few afternoons having a blast on that hillside overlooking the Trillium Trail. Google map it, it's the house with the pool southwest of the intersection of Dorseyville and Squaw Run road. It was just a farmhouse back then, Teresa has added a few buildings.
Her husband is a loser. Get over it.
I think you're jealous. You miss having a blast on that hillside.
Sorry to disappoint, but life's still a lot of fun. Try it sometime!
You might like it.
The New York Times editorial page is undoubtedly liberal. The news coverage is another thing. The repeated articles by Judith Miller repeating falsehoods about Iraq & WMD in the drumbeat to invasion are case in point.
You don't know a thing about me. I only know you through your posts, which are petty and spiteful.
You may not agree with Kerry's politics but he demonstrated heroism in battle, which you cannot admit although it has been pointed out again and again. If you think you can say those despicable things about his marriages and get away with it, you obviously don't understand karma. I wish you well and hope you get better soon.
The repeated articles by Judith Miller repeating falsehoods about Iraq & WMD in the drumbeat to invasion are case in point.
Great, one example disproves everything, lol.
The ombudsman admited it's a liberal paper, period, in both its news slant and editorial slant.
The fact that you disagree with the NYTimes' former ombudsman means nothing to me. He knows a bit more about the newspaper than you ever will. In addition, he is honest, while you are not.
war a bit more important than gay couples, unless you are one. War is an "exception" you can drive a tank through. The former public editor's opinion was his own, as he himself pointed out. Not a very liberal opinion either, for the NYT.
God speed on your full recovery. Cheers.
Thank God you know more about the NYTimes than Okrent does, Mary.
Now we have an irrefutable source for all things related to the paper. Such arrogance.
As to my "recovery", I'm to recover from what? Having fun with old, bitter people like you?
Yes, thank God...and we're all so glad God is in charge of the universe instead of you. Knowing that, you don't have to worry about liberals, the New York Times, John Kerry or his marriage, and can concentrate on getting better.
You're not even following your own advice sweetheart.
You said that since God is in charge I don't have to worry about Kerry, his fellow liberals, etc. I don't worry about them, not because God is in charge, but because intellectually, there's just no reason to take them seriously.
You however, seem intent on worrying about me, which you keep proving by responding to my every post. But if I don't need to worry about you since God runs the show, why do keep worrying about me, which you obviously do since you keep replying?
By the way, what's it like knowing most of the lefties on this site think you're an idiot for believing in God?
The ones who do won't admit it, and a few will chime in, saying "I don't think she's an idiot", as if that somehow proves me wrong. Many far-lefties think anyone with faith is a moron.
Is that odd for you?
Take your medication and call me in the morning if you're not better.
Good night
How about the NYT sitting on the FISA wiretap story for over a year as to not influence the election?
"Many of his claims were fabrications written by anti-war activists who'd never been to Vietnam."
Would you care to back that up, Max? I don't believe it is true. Those claims were made by Vietnam vets at the Winter Soldier Investigation. I am not aware of any of them being phony VN vets. Please feel free to prove me wrong.
And I would add to what Solon correctly points out -- the overwhelming majority of those of us who actually served with Kerry (on his boat and on other boats alongside his) supported him and/or did not join up with the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth".
Doug Reese
This nonsense has been kept alive for more than 30 years and funded by pro-war activists who themselves never served in Vietnam.
I'm not offended about anything said or done by John Kerry but I'm offended and ashamed of a government that could send a generation to fight an unpopular war and then ignore their needs when they returned home.
I'm also angry that the right has wrapped themselves in the flag as they accuse those who did serve their country. They worship those in the media who support war with their words while others put their lives on the line for their beliefs.
We don't wrap ourselves in the flag, we're just glad that we were NOT the people whospit on the troops and called them maggots and ababy killers and made them feel like they weren't appreciated.
The left did that, and I look forward to watching you squirm as you try feebly with your keyboard to make it sound like liberals weren't the scumbags who did all that.
Even back then the majoriy of liberals were aware of the difference between people subject to orders and the people who gave the orders.
You want to blame all the emotional trauma sufferred by my fellow vetrans on liberals, make a case. It would be good if you could do it a little less hysterically than your perivous posts.
Nice try.
No one yelled at the soldiers returning home in the 70's "If I knew who your commanding officer was I'd spit on him, but since I don't, I'll leave you alone!"
They just called them baby killers and spat on them, they didn't worry about who told them to do what they did.
They were not conservatives, and the left will never rid itself of this reputation.
Tough.
If anyone actually did such a thing, they probably were conservative.
"We don't wrap ourselves in the flag, we're just glad that we were NOT the people whospit on the troops and called them maggots and ababy killers and made them feel like they weren't appreciated."
I'm not aware of anyone on the Left doing that. It was mostly fantasy made up by the Right.
Max is also glad he's not responsible for the giant pet alligators in the sewer and the microwaved poodle. That was....
THE LEFT !!
You're as gifted a fabricator as Bill and Hill. Or you're 13 yrs old.
Congrats.
"You're as gifted a fabricator as Bill and Hill."
Now you're just projecting here.
Loon,
You've just let the entire world know that in your opinion the angry, anti-war Americans in the 60's and 70's were conservative.
Your name, Loon, is apt.
There are nutbags everywhere like Coulter who told a Vet that people like him were why we lost Vietnam. The spitting was an urban legend it may have happened in rare cases but the left was NEVER anti Soldier I remember that time and bringing home our troops so they would stop dying was one of the big motivations for the anti war movement. Ya got the talking points but your gross generalizations are just ludicrous
Never happened. Urban legend. Only in the movies.
Think about it. Every family had someone who was in danger of being drafted. Everyone had at least, a neighbor who was sent.
Whether you were for or against the war, no one was against those who were sent to fight the war.
Anyone who witnessed something like the alleged spitting, would have stood up for the vet.
I grew up in one of the largest cities in the country. More than 500 guys a week were drafted from that city. Most wound up in Vietnam. There was a large anti-war movement in the city, and they reached out to returning vets.
Most of my friends and cousins served in Vietnam. I served in Vietnam. None of us was ever treated with any disrespect at the hands of our fellow citizens.
Bye Bye
Max,
Based on your response I wonder then.....
If Fox or any of their wind-talkers were to come out and say that this story that Robach spoke of was strictly her feeble-minded opinion and not factual in any way......
Would that get you to believe then that this is bunk because Fox said so?
Or do you really have a mind of your own and you are just being silly?
They were a bunch of discredit liars who were given air time by the “liberal media” who helped spread their lies. The Swift Boat liars and the “liberal media” helped reelect one of the worst presidents in American history.
Except the he said, by the Swift Boat Liars for Rent were made up mostly of people who WERE NOT THERE. The VAST majority of the people THERE at the events in question back up Kerry. ALSO it is encumbent on those making the accusations that the official record is false to PROVE their case not on the rest to prove a negative. No possible reading of the SBL'R can say they proved their case. Ya got nothin. They were discredited.
FAIR was discredited years ago with its fake Super Bowl causes wife beatings stories. By MMFA's own standards, that eliminates FAIR from being used as a source.
The Super Bowl story was dumb. It shows how a small group can trumpet something with fanfare and a press release, and it will get picked up and repeated over and over. Even after it gets debunked, many people still believe it. Kind of like the swift boat thing, eh?
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, honey.
Well they were discredited by all the newsgroups that investigated their claims and it is an outright lie to say he had only three or four defenders. ALL of the men save ONE who served WITH him on a swiftboat strongly supported him. The Swift Boat Liars for Rent were discredited by the official record, the majority of the eye witnesses and everyone not desperate to maintain rightwing propaganda.
Yeah, it's amazing...
This bubble-headed nitwit equates this pro-Obama organization with the Swift Boat liars organization--and has absolutely zero supporting evidence.
My God!! These Cons have gotten brazen haven't they?
They continue to get the talking points out into the media. They are coy.
Swift Vet boats were liars.
Robach, prove that the Obama group are liars then you can make the comparison. Until then stop smearing democratic candidates.
The shocker to me is that the Swift Boaters are finally being acknowledged as a smear group by the MSM!
Heh, you had people swearing that they were legitimate etc.
Promoting guilt by association - association with a tax code #?
""However, Vote Hope has not released any television advertisements at this time, and as Todd noted, there is no evidence that the organization will produce "similar" attack ads."" Now theres a story. Swift boat vets taking down a billionare should be the pride of any Democrat. We will see if "The Magic Negro" is just that.
Tweaker...
Your post makes no sense to me.
...Did you get the troll part right?
It is bad enough these people lied and got us into a war that has forever destroyed America standing in the world. But now we have a legitimate news source comparing a group affilated with Obama to the liars of the Swift Boats. These Swift Boat liars bought and paid for by Karl Rove and Bushie liars is in full steam for 08, they will attack and attack and attack. Hopefully we will be able to better handle them. The media needs to stop the double speaking
You left out big Dick and Haliberton.
I believe Mr. O'Neal and Mr. Kerry were at it far before Mr. Rove was ever involved in politics.
Nixon himself recruited ONeil to try to discredit Kerry.
Many Vets are still bitter about Vietnam and are on different sides of the fence about it. Some like Oneil still believe the US was right to go there and could have "won" somehow. Others believe the evidence of their own eyes that the whole thing was a mistake. Like my brother, for example. And most of his vet friends.
No, Rove isn't the initiator of this conflict. He just likes to take advantage of it now.
Oh sorry, the first part was c & p-d from the first paragraph in the above story. There is no evidence that anything will happen? Its like...HuH? Many Democrats find it amusing when a billionare stubs his toe, John Kerry. And a LA Times writer thinks Obama, who he called "the magic negro" may have the "magic" to win. I do not mind others defining me....I will play along, I have lost my pride and thus the ability to be a narcisist.
How far is it from Metal Gear to South Park Kernel?
Seriously.. this *guy* needs to give it up...
The top Swift Boat liar O'Neill keeps popping up from time to time on Hannity's show.
They're the most obvious example of the right wing's "up is down" philosphy. You know, war=peace, curbing privacy=safety, and a war hero is less qualified to be "war-time" president than an AWOL pilot.
Now this is quite interesting.
Doesn't Amy substitute for Keith Olbermann once in a while?
Given how tuned in Keith is to MMFA, will she ever substitute again?
I could be wrong but I don't think the talking heads on daytime cable news write their own copy.
You guys are spinning this story. The guest says the group hasn't turned out anything negative yet. It simply notes that it's formed under the same code, which means Obama, WHO HAS SPOKEN AGAINST THEIR FORMAT, cannot control them if they DO decided to go negative.
Where is the headline:
"MSNBC baselessly asserted that 527 groups would form to support the Clinton, Romney, and Giuliani campaigns" ?
The issue is her painting all 527's with the same brush. Even though there is NOTHING to indicate they will behave as dishonestly and disgustingly as the swift-boat liars, she refers to the Obama group as a "swift-boat style" group. That is lazy, ignorant reporting.
LOL. Give them time. That's what 527's do.
Their job is to influence, not tell the truth. She could have compared them to Moveon.org which got fined for violating 527 rules.
It's time for the 527s to go. Get rid of their tax-exempt status. If people want to form these organizations then form them but unlimited giving under a tax-exempt status needs to be removed.
The reporting is not simply saying that they're all formed under the same IRS reporting rules.
The reporting said the "SwiftBoat-style group".
These groups are not "swift-boat" style at all. Being formed under the same IRS regulations does not make them akin to the SwiftBoaters.
I found it interesting that there was a concerted effort in the piece reported on to link 527 groups solely to attack ads. Could this be yet another attempt to silence critical and supportive voices who speak independently of candidates and parties? After all, the "problem" 527's are those directly controlled by those entities (such as "Swift Boat"), while the independents simply address issues.
Of course, GE's media subsidiaries only air those ads beneficial to the parent corporation, and reject all others, so I can't help but wonder why they're making this an issue. Perhaps they wish to maintain that control, and end 527's to achieve that goal?
Standard News Fox Style
This is not the first time MSNBC as attacked Barack Obama. The first time I witness this was during the first Democratic debate. After it was over, MSNBC spin gave Hillary Clinton a clear cut victory. What they fail to report was their own polls showed Obama winning in every category over every Democratic contender debating.
It has gotten to the point where it is standard practice to Swift Boat the whole Democratic Party in every political story they report. The playing field is seriously one sided and it is slanted to the right.
There have been reports by bloggers of interest of MSNBC going the whole day in Republican mode. I notice some of this as the gas prices rose to record high prices. MSNBC ran the Oil company line about refinery fires being the cause for high prices. They did this, with the help of their special commentator, not one time a day, not twice a day, but 7 times in one hour. Not one time did they mention there was another theory for high prices floating around. In any event, they fail to convince me you make gains from refinery fires. The last I heard company fires equal company losses, except in the case of the oil companies. Strange indeed.
Fox news, MSNBC and CNN are doing the presidents biding in Iraq. On a all daily basis, they have crated Al Qaeda in Iraq. Within a two month span Al Qaeda has gone from a 5% to 7% percent influence to now running the main opposition and fighting force against America. How is that for a civil war? So the next time funding comes up in congress, you can bet Al Qaeda in Iraq name will be written all over it. The president will not give up on the Saddam Al Qaeda connection.
Without the help of Fox news and the now growing number of wantabees, this claim Al Qaeda is running things in Iraq would not be possible. Have you scene Al Qaeda yet? I haven't.
The media is so misleading these days I am not sure what to believe. I can tell you this: I don't believe the hype.
Joseph
what's that "b" doing her last name?
I could be wrong but I don't think the talking heads on daytime cable news write their own copy.
johnny_nyc8351 is right. Robach, like a lot of television news readers, does nothing but read the words on a teleprompter which were written by some anonymous writer. In reality, complaints should be directed at the writers rather than at those good looking, young women who now seem to dominate TV. Unfortunately, we'll never learn the names of the writers and I'm sure they are well paid and well integrated into the corporate structure.
The Swift Boats attacks against John kerry were particularly despicable and vile. Our local paper, The Oregonian, had a two page spread from the New York Times that showed all their funding sources with ties to Karl Rove, as well as the serious allegations of the group vs. the testimony of his crew who were actually present. Only one of his crew supported the Swift Boaters, and he was reprimanded by Kerry for being a loose cannon who wanted to kill wantonly. None of the other swifties even served with Kerry. One of the people who signed a sworn affadavit was one of our local assistant district attorneys. It came out here that he didn't even know Kerry. A doctor who claimed to have treated Kerry wasn't listed in documents as the doctor who treated him.
They were all liars, all their claims were debunked thoroughly in the newspapers, and the people who still believe their lies are too lazy to read long articles, too willfully ignorant, and don't give a damn about the truth.
WEll, we saw what the Obama 527 groups could do with their recent Swift Boat-style attacks on Sen. Clinton. Those attacks were disgraceful and indicated that Obama's racist feelings against South Asians.
There was no such attack by a 527 group supported by Hillary that attacked Obama.
Why is the truth so threatening to you?
What racist feelings are you refering to? Is it possible to provide a link from a reputable news source when you make these statements? If not just say this is my opinion . We can cut the BS out at that point. If you do not like Obama just say it, but do not like on here to make petty points.
MMFA is not going to win over any veterans with its continuous smearing of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. SBVT had over 250 members, all of whom served in Vietnam (unlike John Kerry, most completed their tours there). SBVT members earned dozens of medals for bravery. One member has a Medal of Honor.
For MMFA, which is made up of a bunch of effeminate guys like David Brock, who never served a day in uniform, to attack these Vietnam veterans is truly disgusting. I hope a special place in Hell is reserved for these veteran-bashers.
You mean during Kerrys SECOND tour. That is 250 people who were IN Vietnam but only ONE of them served WITH Kerry. The Swift Boat Liars for Rent made unsubstantiated baseless claims that were refuted EVERY TIME by the majority of the eye witnesses of EACH account.
And posters like YOU are made up mostly of morons like YOU who can only parrot propaganda like a demented Myna bird and THAT is disgusting
First, telling the truth is not a smear and calling the SBVT an organization based on lies is not a smear. It is exposure.
You seem to have also forgotten that Kerry also earned medals.
Nobody has ever claimed that any of the members of SBVT did not earn medals. Their service has NEVER been attacked by anybody.
Why is it that conservatives have a problem with anyone who attacks veterans while doing that exact same thing except with lies?
Like you for bashing John Kerry?
DOUGREESE:
"And I would add to what Solon correctly points out -- the overwhelming majority of those of us who actually served with Kerry (on his boat and on other boats alongside his) supported him and/or did not join up with the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth"."
This is a falsehood. See this graphic. The majority of the officers Kerry served with did not support him. http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php
Kevin,
Yes, many of the Swift Boat Veterans for “truth” earned medals for valor. However, no Swift Boat guy earned the Medal of Honor. You are thinking of Bud Day, a POW (and certified hero), who never saw a Swift Boat in Vietnam, much less serve on one.
Yes, when all was said and done, there were 250 (254, actually) members of the SBV”t”. When they began in May 2004, there were about 190. So, in the course of all that publicity, they only gained about 60 additional members. That wouldn’t seem strange if not for the fact that over 2,500 guys were eligible to join the SBV’t”.
250 out of 2,500 – impressive? To some perhaps, but not to others.
And as for those 254, well, most never saw Kerry in Vietnam. This was because they served at a different time, or a different base, or both. SBV”t” spokesman John O’Neill is but one example of the many that “served” with Kerry in the broad sense, but never laid eyes on him in Vietnam.
As for my statement (“the overwhelming majority of those of us who actually served with Kerry (on his boat and on other boats alongside his) supported him and/or did not join up with the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth".) being false, all I can say to that is – No, it is not. It is factually correct in every way.
You need to beware of the SBV”t” talking points. They will lead you down a road that causes false assumptions and gives false impressions, and that road will seldom lead you to the truth . . . the complete truth.
to be continued . . . .
Kevin (continued),
You switched what I said about “most of us who actually served with Kerry”, to officers -- and then you posted the link to that SBV”t” photo. That’s the photo of some of the officers who served with Kerry. Here’s the names of a few who weren’t in the photo, who didn’t join up with the SBV”t”, but who served with Kerry in every sense of the word:
Lt.Jg. Don Droz – present for the Silver Star and Bronze Star incidents
Lt.Jg. Bill Rood -- present for the Silver Star incident
Lt.Jg. Charles Gibson -- present for the Silver Star incident (actually on Kerry’s boat that day)
Lt.Jg. Peter Upton -- present for the Silver Star incident (actually on Kerry’s boat that day)
Capt. Bill Hirschler -- present for the Silver Star incident (Army)
Lt. Doug Reese -- present for the Silver Star incident (Army)
Lt. Jim Rassmann – present for the Bronze Star incident (Army)
Lt.Jg. Jim Russell – present for the Bronze Star incident
You made the statement that “The majority of those who served with Kerry did not support him.” That statement is false. It isn’t a lie, you aren’t a liar, but it is false.
Most of those 254 “SBV”t” members did not see Kerry in Vietnam. Even fewer served with him out in the field – I’m not talking about being on the same boat, but on other boats, out together on the same mission.
Silver Star incident -- 25 guys involved. None disputes him receiving that award -- and that includes the one, and only, member of SBV”t”.
Bronze Star -- about 33 guys present. I believe six of them are members of SBV”t”, and dispute, in some way or another, what happened that day.
In the course of your reply to Dan Grady, you got into a personal attack because you think Dan never served in uniform. In your opinion, he doesn’t have the right to “attack” veterans in the SBV”t”.
It probably isn’t a good idea to have such a qualifier. I could take that to the next logical step and say that the only people who could comment here on Kerry’s service were those who served with him, in Vietnam . . . . . . and, what the heck, go even further and say, in combat.
But I won’t do that, because then I’d be talking to myself.
Everyone has the right to comment. Everyone has the right to reply. False statements can be made by anyone, regardless of whether they served or not.
Doug Reese
Kevin,
Feel free to point out the lies.
Your personal attacks reduce, if not totally eliminate, any credibility you may have on this forum.
No one pays me anything for my comments. I have not lied about anything.
Continue your shameless attacks if it makes you feel better. The Marines I know have more character than that.
Doug Reese
Don't worry about Kevin, Doug. He may be a "uniform queen" and gullible , but I think he's harmless.
He is NOT a liar. HE, unlike say YOU, knows what he is talking about. Its not that he is a liar its that YOU are a moron.
Not going to refute any of it?
DANGRADY:
Your post contains several lies. Kerry did not volunteer for service on the rivers. He volunteered for service along the coastline. The mission of the swift boat was changed after he volunteered.
The majority of those who served with Kerry did not support him. See the graphic on this page: http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php
My guess is that you, like the MMFA sissies, never served a day in uniform. This Marine says how dare you attack the Vietnam veterans who made up the SBVT.
FOGHORN:
"They're the most obvious example of the right wing's "up is down" philosphy. You know, war=peace, curbing privacy=safety, and a war hero is less qualified to be "war-time" president than an AWOL pilot."
George W. Bush fulfilled his TANG obligation.
If you believe a veteran is more qualified than a non-veteran, I assume you voted for Bush 41 and Bob Dole, two WW2 veterans, over Bill Clinton, a veritable draft dodger, in 1992 and 1996. Clinton deployed our military 40 times, so saying Clinton was not a "war-time" president won't work as an excuse.
I don't know why you cling to your fantasy that liberals hate our military. If attacking SBVT is proof of hate for the military, then by definition attacking Kerry is also proof of hate for the military. Fact is neither side does. Hopefully someday you will wake up an realize that you have been HAD.
I have to wonder how many of the moonbats here attacking the SBVT served any time in the military. I would bet that fewer than 10% have. It's just amazing how these non-veteran moonbats find it so easy to attack 250+ Vietnam veterans who have earned dozens of medals for bravery. One SBVT even earned a Medal of Honor. How dare you attack these veterans in order to defend John Kerry, a man with so little honor and integrity that he gamed the system to get out of Vietnam nine months early.
Do you ever feel embarrased Kevin?
EWESTON:
"Do you ever feel embarrased Kevin?"
I have to ask the saem question of those of you who never served in uniform yet have no problem attacking 254 Vietnam vets simply because they came forward to tell the truth about John Kerry. Kerry was no war hero.
You are a liar and a moron. YOU are willing to attack the medals of ALL the people who ever served and won them on the basis of claims REFUTED BY THOSE ACTUALLY THERE. They are liars. YOU are a liar. YOU are also a moron. Get over it.
Why is it that you come here supporting the SBVT and accuse us of insulting these people, yet in the same breath, you insult Doug Reese who served with John Kerry?
Were you there? Did you serve in Vietnam? Or are you fighting the great keyboard war?
All the postings about the swift boat group prove once again that the country has never gotten over our engagement in Vietnam, despite the ending of the war over 30 years ago. It speaks to the facade that too many Americans have about themselves, that we are somehow nobler and better than any other people on the earth and deserve to dominate.
Only time will bust that myth, as the desire to fight wars for bloodlust, pride and treasure fade and the country evolves into something better.
Back to the main point of the thread: I found the swift boat lies particularly despicable and would expect that Vote Hope 2008 would have no resemblance to that Rove operation.
Does anyone thing Amy Robach came up with this stuff on her own?
This is corporate propaganda that was put into her mouth from above (or below, depending on your perspective ;-).
It is no surprise/accident that a network owned by General Electric would want to torpedo (Swift Boat!?!) a rising star in the Democratic party.
The closer Obama gets to having real power the worse this kind of thing will get.
As I've indicated Kevin, I am a Nam vet. Not a combat vet. I was aircrew. There were risks, but not any I'll compare to ground combat. With that qualifier I'll ask you to stop using people like me to beat on people you don't like. Cowardice doesn't begin to describe your actions.
What memories are you bringing out in those vets. What nightmares long forgotten get a new lease on life to torture their owners. Their pain is worth taking a few bogus swings at Kerry, apparently so. Who's supporting the vets?
Add my name to the chorus of Vietnam Vets disgusted by people like Max and Kevin. They are disgraceful.
So we are agreed then. Obamas group is nothing like the Swft Boats group then, yes?
The comparison should never have been made in the first place.