Media outlets falsely claim Bill Clinton attacked Democrats in recent speech
Several media outlets have claimed that, in a November 5 speech to the American Postal Workers Union, former President Bill Clinton attacked Democratic presidential candidates for "swift-boating" his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), following her response to a question from Democratic presidential debate moderator Tim Russert about New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's (D) proposal to allow illegal immigrants to obtain driver's licenses. In fact, in his speech, Bill Clinton criticized Republican attacks on Democrats and the role the media play in contributing to such attacks.
From Clinton's speech:
PRESIDENT CLINTON: [T]he point I'm here to make to you is whoever you're for, this is a really big election. We saw what happened the last seven years when we made decisions in elections based on trivial matters. When we listened to people make snide comments about whether Vice President [Al] Gore was too stiff. When they made dishonest claims about the things that he said that he'd done in his life. When that scandalous Swift boat ad was run against Senator [John] Kerry [D-MA].
When there was an ad that defeated [former Sen.] Max Cleland [D] in Georgia -- a man that left half his body in Vietnam. And a guy that had several deferments ran an ad with Max Cleland's picture with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, because he dared to vote against the president's version of the Homeland Security bill.
Most Americans still don't know the truth. The president was against the Homeland Security bill for eight and a half months. And [former White House senior adviser] Karl Rove told him they were going to lose the 2002 elections unless the American people were scared about terror again. So, they decided to be for a bill they'd opposed -- and they put a poison pill in it.
That bill was designed by the president to take the job rights away from 170,000 federal employees that had no access to secure information, no access to secure technology, no business being treated like CIA agents. Look, we need to be able to fire CIA agents without going through a long process in the public, right? ... But we don't need to treat secretaries at FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] that way. I mean, the whole thing was a scam.
So Max Cleland said, "I didn't go to Vietnam and leave one arm and two legs to come home and hold my job by stripping the job rights from 170,000 good, hard-working Americans. I won't do it. So they put an ad on comparing him to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
Why am I saying this?
Because, I had the feeling, at the end of that last debate, we were about to get into cutesy land again. "Ya'll raise your hand if you're for illegal immigrants getting driver's licenses." So, we'll then let the Republicans run an ad saying, "All the Democrats are against the rule of law."
I don't -- look, I think it's fine to discuss immigration. We should. Illegal immigration needs to be discussed, and it's fine for Hillary and all these other guys to be asked about Governor Spitzer's plan -- but not in 30 seconds, yes, no, raise your hand. This is a complicated issue. This is a complicated issue.
So, do I hope you'll vote for my wife? You bet I do. It'd be good for America and good for the world. But, more than that, I came here to tell you today: Don't you dare let them take this election away from you. This belongs to you and to your children -- and to the future of America.
Don't be diverted. Don't be divided. Our best days are still ahead, claim them. Thank you.
A November 7 New York Times article reported, "Jay Carson, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton's campaign, said Mr. Clinton had not been referring to Democratic candidates' criticisms of his wife but to Republicans' criticism of her debate performance." Yet several media outlets described Bill Clinton's comments as an attack on Hillary Clinton's Democratic rivals.
In a November 7 blog post, Greg Sargent of Talking Points Memo similarly noted the media's misreading of Clinton's comments.
For example:
From the November 7 edition of the New York Daily News:
Democratic White House candidates ridiculed Bill Clinton Tuesday for suggesting they were trying to sink Hillary Clinton's bid with slimy Swift boat-style attacks.
It was a rare rebuke of the popular ex-President by Sen. Clinton's rivals, who pounced on her debate stumble last week to challenge the aura of invincibility her campaign cultivates.
Barack Obama told The Associated Press he was "stunned" when Bubba on Monday compared criticism of his wife's waffling with the 2004 television ads that questioned the patriotism and Vietnam heroics of President Bush's Democratic opponent, John Kerry.
"How you would then draw an analogy to distorting somebody's military record is a reach," Obama said.
Chris Dodd deemed Bill Clinton's suggestion "outrageous."
"To have the former President come out and suggest this is a form of Swift-boating ... is way over the top in my view," he added.
Bill Clinton theorized the recent Democratic debate in Philadelphia, in which Hillary Clinton was criticized for zigzagging on Gov. Spitzer's controversial driver's license plan, veered dangerously close to intraparty character assassination.
From the November 7 edition of the New York Post:
Bill Clinton found himself in an unusual and uncomfortable position yesterday - drawing intense fire from Democratic presidential candidates and a brushback from his wife's own campaign.
Barack Obama and Chris Dodd both took rare shots at the former president for claiming that critics of Hillary's stance on giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants were unfairly trying to "swift boat" her.
"To have the former president come out and suggest this is a form of swift boating ... is way over the top in my view," said Dodd, a Connecticut senator.
Obama fumed: "I was pretty stunned by that statement."
It's the first time any Democratic candidates have attacked Bill Clinton, who is enormously popular among party members.
The rebukes came after Bill took a swipe at his wife's rivals. He likened recent Democratic attacks against his wife to a "scandalous" 2004 ad by John Kerry's fellow swift boat Vietnam veterans, questioning the candidate's military valor. He also compared the controversy to a 2002 ad that linked former Sen. Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
After recalling the earlier political attacks, which still set Democrats seething years later, Bill Clinton said, "I had the feeling that at the end of that last debate, we were about to get into cutesy land again."
In a stunning in-house slap at the former president, a senior adviser to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said the former president's remarks were not part of campaign strategy and were considered counterproductive by her advisers.
From the November 7 edition of CBS' The Early Show:
HANNAH STORM (anchor): What do you make of Bill Clinton criticizing Hillary Clinton's Democratic rivals, saying they were swift-boating her?
O'REILLY: You see, I don't believe anything the press writes about Bill and Hillary Clinton at all.
STORM: Oh, really?
O'REILLY: No. I think they make it up. You know, it's -- and I do this because they make stuff up about me. They make stuff up about any controversial figure. So, they're sitting around going, "What can we say about Bill Clinton?" We tracked it yesterday, and we couldn't find any Swift boat reference that Bill Clinton --
STORM: So you're saying he never said it?
O'REILLY: I don't know. I couldn't find it. I didn't report it. I couldn't find it. I had a segment last night on The Factor. I couldn't find it.
STORM: What's Barack Obama's stance, then?
O'REILLY: I don't know.
STORM: Because he's criticizing Bill -- he's taking on Bill Clinton.
From the November 6 edition of MSNBC Live:
NORAH O'DONNELL (host): And the news today, interestingly, Bill Clinton is now weighing in on this subject about whether there's a lot of piling on on his wife.
TODD: It is. He did it from another way. I mean, he sort of tried to deflect the criticism and say, "Oh, Republicans are now criticizing our answer on the driver's license for illegal immigrants," saying it reminds him of the whole Max Cleland and John Kerry -- the swift-boating of John Kerry -- and the Max Cleland attacks from 2002. It does make you sort of shake your head. You're like, "Wait a minute. So is he accusing Democrats of swift-boating?" -- because it's mostly been Democrats that have been critical of Senator Clinton on that answer. Sure, we had Rudy Giuliani and a couple of Republicans take a few cheap shots, but this was a Democratic debate that this happened.
O'DONNELL: It is an interesting tactic because Bill Clinton is going to be campaigning for his wife later this week in Iowa, and we can already see he's going to defend her and say, "Don't touch my wife, that's a swift-boating, that's essentially what's been done to John Kerry and Max Cleland."
TODD: It's interesting. We're now almost a week since that debate. They are spending a lot of time spinning out of it. It does feel as if -- you can't help but wonder: Have they seen something in their polling? Did they see something in their focus groups that didn't go well? And they want to make sure that they're fixing this and fixing it quickly. I mean, that was always the whole idea of the Clinton war room back in the '92 campaign, is never let a charge go unresponded to.
Justice and Truth in the USA - FACT CHECK:
Once again the "Swift Boat" ads are brought up without noting that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were honorable Vietnam Veterans who, in fact, told the TRUTH as they knew it.
Furthermore, the FEC dismissed most of the charges against the Swiftboat Vets for Truth, and gave them a small slap on the wrist fine for a paperwork violation.
Kerry was always free to sue Swiftboat Vets for libel if they ever lied about him, but Kerry never filed any lawsuit against them.
"...the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were honorable Vietnam Veterans who, in fact, told the TRUTH as they knew it." - Justicetruthus8276
Oooo, hush everybody, a mindreader walks among us. Though not a startlingly ept one.
Here, Justandtruthy, I'll give you a chance to redeem yourself. How many fingers am I holding up?
Those are your thumbs...
Well, Justnotrelatedtotruth, you don't read minds and you sure aren't observant. Not to mention your pithy revelations don't even reside on the same planet as truth and justice.
It was just one finger. On my right hand. And kinda in the middle of the rest of the fingers on that hand, if you know what I mean.
I think it's high time for you to adopt a more suitable nick. Ubermagoo would certainly fit...and it's got a nice poetic ring, don't you think?
JUSTICE,
This is an issue that is a little close to my heart. As a Vietnam veteran I find it detestable for anyone who wasn't there to question the courage of someone who was. Now, I understand these swiftboat guys were there, but, the fact remains that all but ONE of the guys who served on KERRY'S boat support his heroism. You see, in a combat situation you become very close to the guys in your platoon and closer to the guys in your squad. You trust each other, WITH YOUR LIVES. Now, for example, when I was there I interacted with the guys closest to me. There were plenty of other guys there whom I saw but actually never talked with. It's kinda of like seeing some guy in high school everyday for four years but never talking to him. My point is that you are willng to take the word of someone who never served closely with John Kerry over the guys who he served with and interacted with everyday. It makes no sense for you to continue with this lie. Those guys who accused John Kerry made their observations from a distance, so to speak. It would be like some guys from another division telling people that I was a coward in combat when the guys in my squad would say different. Who ya' going to believe, there kiddo? The guys he served with daily or some other dudes who never stepped on Kerry's boat? Oh yeah, what abut the brave green beret that Kerry fished out of the water. Was he lying in his recollection of events?
It's so easy for folks who have no idea of what real danger is to make judgements about danger. I put you in the same swift boat with O'Reilly, Hannity, Boortz, Limbaugh, Cheney, and Bush. All you guys know everthing about friendship in combat but mysteriously have never seen combat. Go figure.
This is an issue that is a little close to my heart. As a Vietnam veteran I find it detestable for anyone who wasn't there to question the courage of someone who was.
As a non-Vietnam vet I find it detestable when someone thinks that being a veteran closes the debate.
But more to the point, I never questioned Kerry's service in 'Nam. It was other VIETNAM VETS whose service was every bit as honorable as yours who made the allegations against Kerry.
And finally, it was Kerry and the "Winter Soldiers" who libeled other Vietnam vets (like you) as soon as they got home from the war. So if it is wrong for the Swiftboat Vets to attack Kerry, was it not also wrong when Kerry did the same thing?
Be consistent!
Consistency is the key here my friend. First of all I challenge you to show me where I even insinuated that nonvets shouldn't have an opinion. My point remains that folks like you, deem the Swift Boat ads to be TRUTH (as you so eloquently put it) while at the same time discounting Kerry's and his boat mates accounts as false merely because he didn't sue them? That is your insinuation. If not, you will need to clarify. Secondly, I have no problem with any vet who came home and protested the war. The difference here is what I call the credibility gap. Your comparison is invalid due to this gap. The idiots who propogated this crap in 04' never served. They had no clue what happenned over there. They took the Swift Boat guys account as gospel and discounted Kerry's, his crew, and the guy he saved. You only further this ideology by castigating Kerry for not suing them. Are we clear???? Lastly, Kerry had credibility in his statements. He served, he was there. Some may have found his statements to be terrible, but to attack his courage and question his service record as retribution is disgusting. And you have the audacity to tell me to be consistent???? Yikes!!!
Thank you. Well said.
I am not a vet, but my father was a WWII vet & my brother is a Vietnam vet who agrees with Kerry on Vietnam.
One of the Swift Boat Vets in the ad is an asst. district attorney in my country. He signed an affidavit that "Kerry was not being honest" etc. He never served with Kerry and when confronted, said he "believed" the other vets amongst the swift boat group, who also didn't serve with Kerry!
oops I meant, assistant district attorney in my county.
Secondly, I have no problem with any vet who came home and protested the war.
You changed the subject. I was not talking about vets who protested the war. I was talking about vets, like Kerry, who came home and started telling lies about other soldiers.
Remember the Winter Soldiers?
Nice way to dodge the entire post. Feh, you people got nuttin'.
Feh, you people got nuttin'.
This sounds like something a 'wise guy' might yell at a copper in Jersey.
Makes me miss the Sopranos.
I changed the subject??????????? OOOOOOO.Kaaaaaaay then. To which lies of John Kerry's are you referring to sir? It is my understanding that Sen. Kerry testified before Congress and that testimony was based on testimony given by over 150 veterans. Sen. Kerry then summarized this testimony for the Congressional hearing. To call them lies, you would have to prove that he knew that the stories given to him by the Winter Soldiers were false and he testified to them anyway. Good luck with that. In any event, your transparent attempt to use misdirection in this debate and make it about me is rather amusing. The fact remains, that you and only you have laid the assertion on the table that Kerry was guilty of the accusations given by the Swift Vets because he didn't sue them. I then pointed out to you the fallacy in that logic which is based on the reality that the people closest to him in combat back up his record in Vietnam. I gave you examples based on real experience which supports my assertion that the guys he was with day in and day out would be more reliable than guys he never really interacted with in close quarter combat situations.
I challenged you to show me where I have indicated that non vets shouldn't have an opinion. All I heard was crickets chirping from your end. My point all along is that you seem to be calling into question Kerry's courage based on what is essentially unreliable crap spewed from these swift boat guys. The people who were with him daily and the guy who he saved says the Swift Vets are full of $h*t. But, in your blind partisan manner you chose to believe folks who never stepped foot on his boat. And you want to pull out one sentence of my last posting and accuse me of changing the subject??? I would like to think that I have painted you into a corner here, but I can't take credit for what you have unwittingly done yourself. Thanks.
Justice and Truth in the USA - Fact Check:
To call them lies, you would have to prove that he knew that the stories given to him by the Winter Soldiers were false and he testified to them anyway. Good luck with that.
Okey dokey --
Vet: Kerry Pressured Me to Lie About Atrocities
Wednesday, Oct. 20, 2004
Vietnam veteran Steve Pitkin claims that John Kerry pressured him to lie in 1971 when he claimed U.S. soldiers engaged in atrocities during the Vietnam War.
Pitkin had been a key participant in John Kerry's infamous "Winter Soldier" hearings of the same year, which concluded that the U.S. military was allegedly engaging in war crimes against the Vietnamese.
------------------------------------------
----------WinterSoldiers.com
o In his April 1971 speech to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, John Kerry claimed that war crimes committed by the American military against Vietnamese civilians were "not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis..." War crimes in Vietnam were actually quite rare.
o Kerry claimed that war crimes were being committed "with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." In fact, military personnel were warned that "if you disobey the rules of engagement, you can be tried and punished." War crimes were never a matter of policy, and were prosecuted when discovered.
o Kerry charged that the war in Vietnam was a racist war, that "blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties." Research published in B.G. Burkett's book "Stolen Valor" and other sources shows that casualty rates for black and white soldiers during Vietnam closely matched the proportion of America's overall population represented by each race.
--------------------------------------------------
Mission Accomplished By David HorowitzFrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, November 15, 2004While Warner was being tortured John Kerry and his fellow traitors manipulated Warner's mother to testify before Jane Fonda's Winter Soldier Investigation, a collective perjury organized to help the enemy win the war. In Stolen Honor there is actual footage, retrieved by Carlton Sherwood which shows the leftists who staged the Winter Soldier Investigation making up their tales. The Winter Soldier Investigation was designed to produce the anti-American propaganda that Jim Warner and his fellow POWS braved torture because they refused to do the same.
O.K. JUSTICE, It is obvious you are having a hard time here with real debate. Now, my first question would be; Did Newsmax (conservative hit site alert) ever attempt to obtain Kerry's side of this Pitkins' story? Hmmmmm. Methinks you are trying to validate your pitiful argument with shoddy journalism. I expected no less. Furthermore, why do yo think noone else in that room that day has not come forward? This is rather pitiful, JUSTICE. You believe the Swift Vets over the actual men on Kerry's boat, and now you believe one man out of 150. If this is all you got, you got nothing. Now, you have moved on to making a blanket accusation that Kerry arranged this grand conspiracy to pressure these 150 men to lie so he could take these lies to Congress, and now one, only one, has seen the light so to speak. This crap of hey man, if you don't lie you have to walk back to Baltimore is laughable. Yikes, I bet he was scared to death... I Love it...Lie or walk home!!! Now that is some pressure. Do you not see the comedy in this?
I find it rather hard to believe that out of the 150 people only one has come forward and changed their story. Seems to me that if this whole thing was a farce, you would have a hell of alot more than one person "setting the record straight". It's really getting too easy to destroy your arguments. Start training, kid. You're young, make a comeback.
Honestly Justice were you there in Vietname with either the Swift Boat vets or John Kerry? His boat mates were there. You were not. You probably weren't even in Vietnam. Where I come from, when you don't know about something and talk about it, you show ignorance and we tell people not to speak on things they don't know. I would request you follow that advice in public forums. It will save your face, anonymous or not, comments like that do not help your side. If you want legitimate conversations, comment on the speech and media portrayal of said speech, not on the Swift Boat Veterans garbage of the past. That is garbage, which was left on the curb and needs to stay there.
If you want to argue that since John Kerry did not sue for libel he is admitting guilt. Not thinking at once that he just didn't want to give the energy, or a variety of other reasons - I can think to explain the multiple times I could have sued for something but did not.
I can not believe I am typing a defense for Senator John Kerry, a man I have little respect for, however the first amendment doesn't protect spreading mistruths in political discourse. People will hear your point of view, and I encourage it, only because you will invalidate yourself if you give yourself the option to speak. Since you have no valid argument about anything relevant you detract the conversation to the Swift Boat Vets, something that was extremely ugly years ago, and honestly damaging to the conversation. Please stop damaging our democratic process and speak to the points and issues not to the slime and smear. You're on a losing side but we forgive you for being mislead by propaganda, and i'm not saying the Democratic side is free from propaganda because it's not.
And now, years later, people are so overenundated with sound bites that a speech where Clinton made more important comments about the forced concision in the Debate process people are still saying disproved statements and talking points, but I also fault the media for tying to a false headline they knew people would most likely not read for themselves.
Removing from the intelligent debate required for a true democratic process hurts both you and I. You sir Justice, are enabling the ruin of our Democracy by espousing year old lies as truths and justified actions, more specifically speaking out of ignorance on things you do not know.
Swift Boat Veterans did not know first hand about John Kerry's heroism. So they were talking on something they didn't know. Follow the money. Where did the money come from for those ads to those vets. It's more of that "trickle down" economics I would argue.
Bring any Swift Boat Veteran For Truth into the conversation and this veteran will have a little talk with them and tell them they are also hurting our democracy and had hurt our Democracy. They along with you Justice should be ashamed of themselves.
"Lastly, Kerry had credibility in his statements. He served, he was there. Some may have found his statements to be terrible, but to attack his courage and question his service record as retribution is disgusting." - Achrispage6992
As a fellow Vietnam veteran (albeit U.S.N. and a tin can), I salute you and your eloquence. I strongly believe that everything you say is exactly right.
Sigh, and Justhasnoclueabouttruth has the spoon-fed audacity to write "I was talking about vets, like Kerry, who came home and started telling lies about other soldiers. Remember the Winter Soldiers?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_Soldier_Investigation
The most disturbing part of this item is that it gives the impression that BilldO may actually be the fair and balanced centrist in our media.
I hadn't heard or read Bill Clinton's speech, and actually only heard about this while catching a little of Sean Hannity at lunch today. Naturally, he didn't play any audio or read exact quotes, but repeated the same spin as above, in the middle of his creepy Stop Hillary Express obsession.
Hannity used the imaginary version as a launching pad to say that the Swift boat comparison was valid, as Hillary's opponents were telling the truth, just like the SBVT stooges.(verified by troothyjusty, above).
Hearing the righty spin on this, and assuming at least the basic premise was accurate, I thought that the Swift Boat comparison was a little over the top.HRC's Dem opponent's comments are part of politics and the primary process, not an organized propaganda campaign like the SBVT.I was almost ready to say that I'd have to "call this one" for Sans Sannity.
That close to being right for the first time ever, and it turns out he was full of crap. What a surprise.
HBL,
I agree. Boy I tell ya' reading Clinton's speech above reminds me of how good he was or is. Did you ever get to see him speak in person? Amazing.....the best communicator I ever saw.
America needs a Bill Clinton again. We have suffered from a fool in office for 8 years.
Amen!!!!! It just goes to show that intelligence does matter when electing the leader of the free world.
I totally agree--it was great reading it. Well-oranized, makes solid points, backs them up with real examples (not Iraq-Is-Vietnam-In-A-Good-Way!), and (when not paraphrased and spun) gets his point across!
This is what rhetoric should be--real rhetoric, not the sounds and styles of speechmaking with nothing behind it. Real rhetoric ENHANCES a point that is material and valid.
Suing people can be a real waste of time. There are a million instances where Media Matters could have sued for everyone who said that George Soros funds this organization.
The reason MMFA never sues for libel is that then through the process of discovery we would all learn just how much Soros controlls this organization (even though it was started by HRC!)
The fact that you're attempting to use suing for libel as some type of yard stick for the truth on what took place between the SBVT and Kerry really shows a complete lack of understanding of how libel suits work in the US.
They were poor dumb right wing tools used by the Bush administraion and then cast aside. Wonder how much they were paid like Col North under Regan
"Once again the "Swift Boat" ads are brought up without noting that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were honorable Vietnam Veterans who, in fact, told the TRUTH as they knew it."--justus
I love your posts although I will admit that I didn't really think they were that good or funny at first, but you are growing on me. You don't even bother to mention that obvious problems with the Swiftboat Vets' credibility. Like the fact that many told the exact opposite story on the record thirty years before. You have me rolling on the floor.
The FEC complaint wasn't in regards to the validity of the attack to begin with, so your remarks are irrelevant, but you seem to make a sincere argument. That is too much! Nice work at impersonating a stupid wingnut though. Very funny.
As for Kerry not suing them, that doesn't make the SBVT remarks true. George Bush still hasn't sued me for openly calling him a cocaine adled transvestite hooker. I guess that is true then. Huh? Lol. I think you better stop. Some intelligent conservatives are going to start taking exception to your unflattering mockery.
: )
Personally, though, I say keep up the good work!
: )
"Like the fact that many told the exact opposite story on the record thirty years before. You have me rolling on the floor"
I am not clear, are you talking about the Swift Boat people here or Kerry. Kerry had more positions than the Kama Sutra. But I guess the dems overlook that in a desperate bid for the White House.
No, you're right. The Department of the Navy lied, his boat mates under his command lied, the green beret he pulled out of the water lied, etc, etc, etc,. But hey, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Boortz knew exactly what happenned on that river 30 years ago. They were there right????? Oh, I forgot, they were cowards, but since they are conservatives they have the omnipotent authority to question anyones courage and patriotism. Jump right on that band wagon, POINT OF VIEW. You seem to fit right in. No free rides though, a good conservative would never accept a free ride.
Are you talking about the SBV who also received his medal for the same incident where Kerry received his medal? If he is saying that Kerry was lying about that incident, then he was lying about it too, defrauding the military in accepting HIS medal ... so, he's a liar ...
Justatroll,
You must be a mindreader, because you couldn't possibly hear anyone speak, with your head so far up your @$$.
Putting aside Achrispage's excellent post (a fine read BTW, Chris. Well said) how do explain the fact that these swifties were caliming that Kerry lied about medals he recieved? What medals he recieved were a matter of public record! And the record show that he never exagerated his record. The claim (repeated over and over) was demonstrably false. And as for the medals being fake? (Meaning poorly given?) I'll accept the judgement of the United States Military (who obviously felt they were, in fact deserved, as they were, in fact, awarded) over the voice of a single soldier being paid by Kerry's oppoenent to play the part of the malcontent.
Cranial-rectal inversion is a serious problem. Call a doctor, dude. You need help.
---"the TRUTH as they [the SBVT gang] knew it. "---
As they knew it....
Yeah, well isn't that the ultimate cop-out disqualifier....
I don't believe that the SBVT bunch influenced the election at all. Definitely not like they'd prefer to think they did. Not like they wanted to.
All that these sorry individuals really accomplished was to throw mud and since-discredited accusations at a decorated, honorable veteran out of revenge for Kerry's long-ago anti-Vietnam War stand.
JusticeTruthMyFoot -- You have fallen hook, line and sinker for the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" line of crap. Congratulations.
Most of those who were with Kerry for the incidents for which he received an award (that leaves out, literally, about 97% of the SBV"t", by the way) have no problem with him receiving those awards.
Doug Reese
Thank you Doug. These kinds of ads work initially; but eventually they backfire on those who perpetrate them;
thus "swiftboating" has come to be rightfully known as unfairly smearing.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
JustTruth?? JustTruth??
Your saying that you believe that John Kerry, the Lt. in the USN faked his service for medals??
You believe that his crew was paid off?? You believe that his command was willing to invent acts of bravery for this man's political future, money, what??
The man lost a friend to combat while he served on a fleet vessel watching the paint dry, waiting for his next orders to an embasy or NATO in Italy, he felt compelled to insert himself into the battle. He volunteered for the most dangerous Naval service in Vietnam that wasn't in a helicopter, or a jet.
He VOLUNTEERED to patrol the Delta in a Swift Boat. He was wounded and returned to service more than once. He took fire every day he went down that river, every time.
You voted for DRAFT DODGERS! TWICE!!
Just Truth!! Just Truth!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
You voted for DRAFT DODGERS! TWICE!
True enough - I did, indeed, vote for Bill Clinton!
In terms of Kerry, all I can say is that I honor his 6-7 weeks of service in 'Nam where he bravely endured a few paper cuts and got medaled up so he could skip out at the first opportunity.
Kerry served much less time in 'Nam than most of the Swiftboat Truth vets.
Well, that is six or seven weeks longer than you did, or Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, Boortz, O'Reilly, and the list goes on. If you want to call into question the Dept. of the Navy and their awarding of the medals to Sen. Kerry, the please do so. I am anxiously awaiting your eloquent argument of how the Navy and it's members are incompentent. That is what you are calling them, right? Because, competent people don't give medals to undeserving veterans. Of course, I imagine that you are weighted down by your combat medals. You know all about bravery, courage, and serving your country right? And how can we forget that from now on all medal commendations will have to be reviewed by you so WE will all know that they are for real. Here is a hint for ya.......you should really quit with this thread, you have already taken a beating most dogs would hate. Why do you want more?
Kerry did two tours. Lying about this only makes you look bad. And the paper cut comment is willfully ignorant.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/service.asp
http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
True enough - I did, indeed, vote for Bill Clinton!//
Bill Clinton opposed, and protested the war, as well avoided service with a scholarship to Cambridge.
George W. Bush supported the war openly, then pulled strings to get in the Champagne Duty in the Texas Air National Guard. The man while campaigning for a candidate that was a war supporter was AWOL from a command order to have a flight physical for his continued service in the Guard. That alone meant he should have been court martialed, and sent to the Army Infantry, and on a boat to Vietnam.
Dick Cheney flunked out of Yale, yet got a deferment, and then managed to get 4 more deferments while a vocal proponent of the war.
What a guy you are; a Swift Boat Vet that served longer, better, and braver would mean Kerry's service is tainted, if not to be fair game to be publicly insulted by the Republican Party on national television, on their own national convention floor, at a time of war, with "Band-Aid Purple Hearts."
I for one, having served honorably in the service of my country find any American that would do such a thing is no patriot, but to have one of our two partie's leadership wearing a "Band-Aid Purple Heat" with a smirk on their face would be enough to make their supporters down right Un-American!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
JusticeTruthMyFoot -- How about actually having just a little of what your name implies? Just a little, please.
How long was Kerry in Vietnam? Do you even know? The fact is, most guys in Vietnam (over 80%) were not in combat, but in support roles. Kerry was in a job that put him in harm's way on a daily basis.
Oh, and he still has the shrapnel in his leg from one of those "paper cuts".
So, he planned all those medals so he could get out of Vietnam? Pleeze! Why don't you go hang out with your buddy "Computer", as you seem to have a lot in common . . . both of you have you heads firmly up the same place.
Doug Reese
Interesting! I haven't heard anything about Bill Clinton being attacked, and I am an avid follower of the news, primarily political and economic.
However, I watched those debates, I saw Hillary Clinton stumble over her own tongue, I saw her colleagues in the Presidential Wannabe Club catch her stumbling, and I saw her campaign office cleverly, and with glib aforethought turn her colleagues' angst with her into an even more clever advertisement on Hillary's behalf.
Really good how those Clintons can make lemonade out of lemons. Very, very clever. A bit too clever for me. I didn't trust Bill Clinton when he forced NAFTA down the throat of Congress, causing this country to lose millions of jobs to other countries, such as India, the Philippines and Red China, and I trust Hillary even less.
We can only hope and pray that Hillary makes a few more gaffes and loses an election that is hers for the taking. This country doesn't need eight more years of "Billary"!
Your right SAL, the past 6 years have been so great. Peace a prosperity abound, a chicken in every pot, low gas prices, the dollar is strong, we don't nation build any longer. Boy oh boy, SAL, do us all a favor and don't forget your medicine tomorrow.
---"I haven't heard anything about Bill Clinton being attacked, and I am an avid follower of the news, primarily political and economic."---
Maybe you ought to start hearing more avidly:
"Chris Dodd deemed Bill Clinton's suggestion 'outrageous'." --NY Daily News
Oh, for God's sake, get your facts straight!
"NAFTA was initially pursued by conservative government in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari."
"After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA by 234-200 (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor, 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 independent against)."
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
Imagine! O'Reilly actually being fair and balanced about this. Things must be really bad to make BOR look good.
HANNAH STORM (anchor): What do you make of Bill Clinton criticizing Hillary Clinton's Democratic rivals, saying they were swift-boating her?
O'REILLY: You see, I don't believe anything the press writes about Bill and Hillary Clinton at all.
STORM: Oh, really?
O'REILLY: No. I think they make it up. You know, it's -- and I do this because they make stuff up about me. They make stuff up about any controversial figure. So, they're sitting around going, "What can we say about Bill Clinton?" We tracked it yesterday, and we couldn't find any Swift boat reference that Bill Clinton --
If Bill O'Reilly didn't report on things he didn't have the facts about, then his TV show would almost always consist of "Hello and welcome to the No Spin Zone. My name is Bill O'Reilly. Thank you and good night." ...
LOL, I loved that.
Yeah, that's got to be a first, but for once O'Reilly is right. The fact is, the person who's disturbing me most is Obama in the last week or so. Somebody (Trippi?) has apparently persuaded him that being a lying sack o' crap is being "strong." In fact, he's taking right-wing spin here and pretending that that's what Bill said. Read the damn transcript. He didn't. He was mostly talking about the way that right-wing spin has crept into the thinking of media types, like Russert and Matthews. Remember "Inventing the Internet"? Love Story? Naomi Wolf? Discovering Love Canal? All of those little stories came originally out of the right-wing Lie Shop, and were recycled by our "liberal media," who have still not apologized for their role in this. The media's role should be to stand up for the truth. When a candidate makes an untrue statement, like Giuliani on prostate cancer cure rates, the media owes the people the truth. Instead, you have the insider, beltway press represented by Russert and Matthews in that debate, and they think that their function is to bring down Hillary through the "Gore-ing" of Hillary.
Understand, I'm all for the criticism of any candidate as long as it's fact-based. But this crap has to be called, no matter what Dem it's pulled on.
Yeah, you'd think that after Madrasagate, Lapelgate, and Anthemgate, Obama would be a lot more sympathetic to victims of the lie machine!
Bill Clinton: "So they put an ad on comparing him to Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden."
This is one of the biggest whoppers Clinton has ever told and he keeps on repeating it. That ad did not compare Cleland to Hussein or bin Laden. It didn't even come close to doing that.
Computer
The ad did compare Max Cleland to Bin Laden becuase it showed the picture and said Cleland was "weak on terrorism". Basically implying that Max Cleland who is an American hero in my view was somehow in bed with bin Laden. It was all the if your against me your for the terrorist BS that Bush spewed in 2002, and the American people accepted it.
No, it did not "compare" Cleland to Hussein or bin Laden. I'll submit that it is a tough ad, but all it did was point out how many times Cleland had voted against the Homeland Security bill and juxtaposed that with a quote from Cleland saying he supported Bush at every opportunity and Cleland's claims that he "had the courage to lead". Watch the ad for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKFYpd0q9nE
You left out the part about pictures of Osama and Saddam leading off the ad.
Now, what do you suppose they were doing there?
They were there to show who the narrator was talking about when he said "terrorists and extremist dictators".
nice but there is no attempt to link? Your making yourself look silly trying to defend that smear ad.
No. There is NO attempt to link Cleland and Hussein or bin Laden. You are the one who looks silly. The ad is there for you to watch at youtube.
You can't be serious. Are you really trying to discount the psychological effect of the ad? Puleeze!!!!! It was crass attempt to link the two. You can defend it all day long with your equivocating, it still doesn't take away from the effect the ad had on people. It was a disgusting display of partisanship and for you to attempt to excuse it just puts you in the same category as the people who made it.
I am dead serious. You have been fooled into believing that the ad is something that is wasn't. I feel bad for you.
Look, later in the thread I show you just how this ad is a smear and was putting forth the supposition that Cleland was as dangerous as Bin Laden or terrorists. You can deny all you want, That was the goal of the ad. they wante dot depict Cleland as soft on terror and then question his courage to lead us in a time of war. If you want to support that kind of crap, then I don't fell sorry for you, it just shows what kind of person you are.
It's not a smear. Quoting someone's voting record and saying they are weak on Homeland Security matters is not a smear when it is backed up by Cleland's own voting record.
Questioning his courage to lead is a smear, especially given his past factual instances of exhibiting courage. It would be like me telling you that you and your wife had a child, but you don't have the courage to be a father, even though you are there for you child. If I said that to you in those circumstances would that not be a smear?
Way to build a strawman. No one questioned his courage in the ad. They questioned his voting record.
Oh really, I encourage you to "just watch the ad". How many times does it show us the chryon "courage to lead". No stawman there my friend.
Shows it twice. And the last line is, "Max Cleland says he has the courage to lead, But the record proves Max Cleland is just misleading." And, as someone who watched that race very closely, Cleland was misleading about his record on Defense/Security issues. The ad doesn't say he has no courage, it says that he is misleading.
You said the ad was an attempt to link Cleland with Hussein and bin Laden. Now you're saying it was questioning his courage. Which is it? Did the ad attempt to link Cleland with Bin laden and Hussein?
You silly boy. Have we painted ourselves into a corner? So I guess by your logic, the ad wasn't questioning his "courage to lead" they just put that there for........well....they just put that there.
One more time in the hope that osmosis will take effect here. Questioning his courage to lead is a smear, indicating that he is soft on defense in a time of war is equating him with being a liability to our security or a danger to our security, if you will. Now, who else in the ad was shown to be a danger to our security?????????? Oh, that's right it was Bin Laden and Saddam. The ad attempted to make that comparison. I don't understand why you just won't accept this and move on.
No son, you're wrong again. Is it unfair to bring up someone's voting record to demonstrate that they cared more about securing labor votes than they did protecting the country? No, it's not unfair. It's not a smear. Your original assertion was that he was compared to or linked with Hussein or bin Laden, which he clearly was not. Now, if some found it not courageous for Cleland to opt for going for labor votes over National Security, they may in fact be right. And I said the ad was tough, but my point has always been that it is a lie to say the ad compared him with or linked him to bin Laden or Hussein. There were pictures of F14's on the ad too. Was Cleland being compared to fighter jets as well?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Max_Cleland
Stop with the pitiful fighter jets thing, will ya? It lends you no credibility to endlessly continue with this littany of misdirection. You have now offically changed your argument to the ad being nothing more than a questioning of his voting record. So I guess your previous indication that the ad painted him as soft on defense is no longer valid? Make up your mind here. You know you can't rationalize the fact that if the ad was in fact calling him soft on defense it was therefore equating him as a threat ot our security. At least you recognized that, but alas, I have a good memory and your vain attempt to change this debate through misdirection will not work. The ad questioned his "courage to lead" that is a smear. It then, by your own admission, portrayed him as soft on defense. I'll ask you again, Is someone who is soft on defense in a time of war a threat to our security? We'll continue if and when I get an answer to that simple question. If you can't answer, I'll assume you have tucked your tail between your hindquarters and ran.
I already answered this ridiculous question of yours. Being soft on defense (as Cleland was) doesn't equate him with Bin Laden (as you suggest it does). The ad doesn't make that assertion at all. And, read your own posts. You are the one trying to change the argument. My initial complaint was that Clinton charged that the ad "compared" Cleland to Hussein/bin laden, which it obviously does not. Saying someone is soft on defense is so far away from saying they are a threat to the country that I am worried for you sanity for not understanding this.
This is much more that JUST saying someone is soft on defense. The ad specifies in the beginning that we are in a time of crisis. That being said, you have indicated that the ad did in fact portray Cleland as soft on defense. So now, one last time. Is being soft on defense during a time of crisis a threat to our security?
But of course one would take away from the ad that in a time of crisis, we need a Senator who takes Homeland Security seriously. You seem to think that this assertion in some way gives the impression that Cleland is a surrogate for bin Laden. That is a HUGE leap and is NOT implied in the ad. you seem to think that any time a Senator's record is questioned on national security matters, that he is being described as a "threat to our national security". If this were the case, then it would ALWAYS be a SMEAR if one candidate questioned his opponent's stand on national security or defense issues. How could one ever expose any differences between himself and his opponent if this were the case? Pointing out that your opponent is not as strong on national security issues as you are, especially in a time of crisis, is not even close to saying that he is a "threat".
Where is the entire ad with Osama and Saddam?
Come on you know better.
The far right hypocrites try to rewrite history every chance they get.
Even 5 years later, why can they just not be honest and admit, the ad was a smear ad and it did show a picture of Saddam and Osama and tried to link those two with an American hero in Max Cleland.
obviously you haven't watched the ad. I posted a link to the full ad on youtube. YOU are the ones trying to rewrite history.
You are the one rewriting history.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2002-11-06-chambliss_x.htm
OH MY GOD! Doris, WATCH THE AD FOR YOURSELF! This quote, from the link you posted, is ABSOLUTELY FALSE! "Chambliss even ran a TV ad picturing Cleland with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. "
CLELAND WAS NOT PICTURED WITH HUSSEIN OR BIN LADEN. WATCH THE AD YOURSELF.
Computer where did I ever say that Max Cleland was pictured in the same picture with Saddam and Osama?
I said it was an attempted Link. There was an implyed link . Lets link Osama and Saddam (who had nothing to do with 9/11) with Max Cleland an American hero.
How in the hell did the ad "attempt" to link Cleland with Hussein or bin Laden? It does NO SUCH THING. And the very USA Today article you posted, attempting to say that I am the one "rewrting history", was itself completely factually inaccurate. You don't have a leg to stand on here. There is no way that the ad attempted to link Cleland with Hussein or bin LAden. It doesn't even come close to "implying" a link. Believing that it does is just flat out loony.
Too easy.
If you support Cleland you support terrorism.
This is classic Rove 101.
Now, I suppose you're going to deny the far right's mantra of the past 6 years was "Support the president or you support terrorism."
Obviously YOU won't watch the ad yourself either. The ad implied no such thing. All it did was say that Cleland was weak on defense, when he claimed to be strong on it. It did this by showing Cleland's own voting record. Quit looking for grand Rovian conspiracies here and go back to your truther discussion group (are you LIHOP or MIHOP?).
I've come to expect nothing but denial from dead enders like you and you're not disappointing.
Even the authors of the ad didn't make the claims you're making.
This would be so much easier if you would just WATCH THE AD. How could the authors of the ad not make the claims I'm making, when i'm quoting the ad directly? You, like a lot of other people here, refuse to see the truth when it is right before your own eyes. I truly pity you.
Computer man
that is a smear ad, there is no question about it. You can deny it and say its a fair ad all you want. Just because you post on here to see the ad which I did does not make it true. The ad is a smear ad and Johnny and Doris are correct. What happened to Max Cleland by the GOP was an OUTRAGE.
Enligthen me. What was the "smear"? There have been so many lies about this ad it is ridiculous. Bill Clinton has lied about it more than most. There is no attempt to link Cleland with Hussein or bin Laden. Saying otherwise is A LIE.
There's no way to make the willfully blind see, just as there's apparently no way to "enlighten" you to something that's right in front of your face, plain as day. You just refuse to acknowledge it for whatever reason. Just because you claim white is really black, doesn't make it so. The rest of us KNOW it's white, despite you insisting it's black.
It's YOUR problem that you cannot see it, not our problem for identifying it. You just refuse to see. Why do you refuse to see reality? Don't know, don't really care- that's your problem to wrestle with.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
you're talking about yourself. The ad is there for anyone to see. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can plainly see that the ad is not a smear.
Whatever you say. There's no point in arguing with someone who refuses to acknowledge reality for what it is.
Not to mention is just trolling.
DING! You can't win the argument because the facts and the evidence (the ad itself posted on youtube) are on my side. So, you resort to calling me a "Troll". That's just priceless.
You are being obtuse about the intent of this ad. Here's what Cleland had to say when it came out:
"To put my picture up there with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden and insinuate I'm not fighting hard enough for national security, I just find that this is an incredible low in Georgia politics,"
While the ad's primary focus was Cleland's position on legislation creating a homeland security department, (which Bush was against before he was for it) the pictures of Bin Laden and Sadam were clearly intended to play the "fear" card.
Although Cleland supported one version of that bill, he said he woudn't support the president's preference without an amendment guaranteeing labor rights for federal workers. The ad was dishonest.
Perhaps you might consider the impact on Cleland of having such an ad played against him; a man who served and lost 3 limbs. But that would require a heart.
Cleland says, "To put my picture up there with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden ". That claim is an OUTRIGHT LIE. Watch the ad for yourself Mary. Is Clelands picture "up there with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden"? No. Cleland lied about the ad from the beginning and you continue to propagate his lie here. Shame on you.
Oh bull pucky.
The pics were in the same ad. The intention of this was picked up immediately and it apparently worked on Georgia voters too.
And you are ignoring that the ad lies about his voting. Shame on you.
The pics were in the same ad? HOW COULD THEY????!??!!!!?!? Those bastards! How dare they put Max Cleland's picture in an ad if the ad also had the picture of bin Laden! The ad also had pictures of fighter jets in it. Was the ad attempting to say that Max Cleland is a fighter jet? Did they try to say he could fly?
You are being so dishonest. Really...the ad was dishonest about his record as well as trying to scare people. This is a base appeal to the "reptilian brain" as the perpetrators of these kinds of smear ads well know.
They eventually backfire, and this ad is now notorious for good reason, despite your attempt to defend it.
It's notorious only because it has been LIED ABOUT. Examples below.
"Chambliss even ran a TV ad picturing Cleland with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden." http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2002-11-06-chambliss_x.htm
"Mr. Lieberman accused Mr. Lamont’s campaign of using “lies” and “bogus charges” to try to defeat him. He made his remarks alongside Max Cleland, the former Democratic senator of Georgia, who was defeated for re-election in 2002 after Republicans paired him in ads with Osama bin Laden because he had opposed some domestic security measures.
Thes are just a couple of the countless examples of newsmedia reprinting the lie that Cleland was compared to or his picture was on screen with bin Laden and/or Hussein. The lies have been repeated ad nauseum on the web (check wikipedia) and all of you sheep believe them as truth. It is sad.
Frankly, this ad has been misrepresented in that they didn't compare Cleland with Bin Laden. But the irony here is that their intent was clearly to scare voters, which they did, and it has come back to bite them. Nuttin' you can say now will put it right.
The ad may have scared voters who were unaware of Cleland's record. I'm glad that you admit the ad has been misrepresented. You are the only one on this whole thread who has admitted it in light of copious evidence to that fact. I appreciate that someone here has the guts to admit that the ad has been misrepresented. Thank you Mary.
And here:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20813
In those days Senator Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in a war, would not have been visually equated with Saddam Hussein in a television ad, something the Republicans did to him in 2002.
http://tinyurl.com/39dxt3
"So the administration and Max Cleland’s opponent in Georgia, Saxby Chambliss, ran ads comparing Max Cleland to Saddam Hussein and they beat him."
According to this source, there was more than one ad, and one DID show Bin Laden's face morphing into Clelands'.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Max_Cleland
"The issue in 2002 was civil service protections for Homeland Security employees, which Bush opposed and Cleland supported. The ad failed to point out that Cleland supported the creation of a Department of Homeland Security before Bush did. Cleland originally co-sponsored the enabling legislation and eventually supported it, but as the bill moved through Congress, he cast a number of votes against it in hopes of getting a better bill. The Republican attack ads made it look as though Cleland was voting against Homeland Security itself, and one TV ad morphed Cleland's face into Saddam Hussein's while suggesting that Cleland was indifferent to the safety of the American people. This ad was so disgusting that Republican Sens. Hagel and McCain both protested it]
In February 2004, "vitriolic right-wing ideologue" Ann Coulter wrote that Cleland should not be referred to as a war hero, as he had lost his limbs in a routine non-combat misssion. Regardless of the exact circumstances of the explosion, or its non-relation to the prior battles for which the stars were given, it is worth noting that Cleland was awarded a Silver Star "for gallantry in action" at the battle of Khe Sanh. "
LINK TO THE AD THEN! There is only one ad. It is on youtube. There is no morphing. You are proving my point how this ad HAS BEEN LIED ABOUT CONTINUALLY!! Mary, please. Just when I started to think you were a rational person...
You could be right about there being only one ad. I will ask some of my Georgia friends about this.
By the way, am I really talking to a computer?
More lies about the ad:
http://www.citypaper.com/printStory.asp?id=14668
"A bitter triple amputee, Max Cleland was driven from the Senate by a coward, Saxby Chambliss, who ran ads morphing the Vietnam veteran into Osama bin Laden."
More lies about the ad
http://seminoledemocrats.blogspot.com/2006_09_01_archive.html
Max Cleland, war hero and triple amputee from Vietnam, was shown in ads morphing into Osama, because he dared to say that Bush shouldn’t be given a blank check by Congress with no oversight for policies that weren’t working.
Just because he served in Vietnam doesn't make him immune to criticism on issues of national defense and homeland security. And your claim that this was "playing the fear card" is ridiculous. Was bin Laden not an enemy of the United States? Is it unfair to point out your opponent's weakness on homeland security when Osama bin Laden was and is a very real threat to our country? Further, Cleland put the labor constituency ahead of the actual security of the United States. Worrying about losing labor votes instead of losing American lives was one of the main reasons that Cleland lost to Chambliss.
"Further, Cleland put the labor constituency ahead of the actual security of the United States."
That is just B.S. Both "sides" wanted a Homeland Security Bill. Because Cleland wanted a different version that does not mean he put labor above security. By that logic, anyone who votes against any VERSION of a security bill has higher priorities than security. Ridiculous, and I think (hope) you realize that.
Quoting Mary above, who is on your side, the reason Cleland voted against the homeland security bill is it did not have, "an amendment guaranteeing labor rights for federal workers." That, my friend, is called putting a higher priority on labor rights for federal workers than on security for all Americans.
And, again by your logic, Cleland was anti national security because he wanted to hold on to the possibility of a bill that contained BOTH? I get it now...
Never said he was anti national security. I said that he put featherbedding for unions ahead of national security. he thought it was more important to get labor rights into the bill, then to have the bill. The bill was needed stop terrorist attacks and Cleland thought that that could wait because labor votes were more important to him and the Democrat party.
More hysteria. The homeland security bill in my view was a hurried attempt to do something about security which did more harm than good.
Back to Clinton's speech. He reflects the common understanding that the Cleland ad was a smear, which it was. These kind of attacks are inherently negative and come back round to point two fingers back to those who sponsor and support them.
It was not a smear. It was an examination of Cleland's voting record. The "common understanding" is wrong only because the content of the ad has been lied about for so long by so many. Bill Clinton himself has lied about it on numerous occasions and tells a different lie about the ad each time. Sometimes he claims that the morphed bin Laden's face onto Cleland's in the ad. Clinton is a proven liar and no one should take him seriously.
Again you are upset because the public and Clinton caught the INTENT of the ad, which was to link the scare guys with the idea that Cleland was weak on "terror"
and Clinton apparently was wrong that the faces morphed but this doesn't mean he knew otherwise. I think the morphing idea is a perfect metaphor for the theme pushed by the right wing for years. That's what they keep trying to sell the public.
When your argument is watch the video and you throw out all the written facts about this , and keep telling us to watch the video that means you are not serious. You are a troll and no longer worth my time to debate.
No, throw out all the written lies about it is my argument. i've linked above to many of them. Tons of people even claim that the ad morphed Cleland's face into Bin Laden's. There are so many lies written about this ad from the left it makes one's head spin.
Can't put lipstick on that pig but you keep trying.
You are not being serious and therefore I will no longer discuss this with you. Just because you say "watch the video" does not mean what you say is true. If you do not see the link between Cleland and Osama/Saddam then you are lost.
If you see it, then you are lost. You're seeing something that plainly is not there.
I'll enlighten you. The ad starts by showing Bin Laden, Saddam, combat footage, and saying crap like we are in a fight against terrorism and dictators while saying Cleland is lying about his courage to lead. The ad clearly attempts to portray Cleland as soft on terror and therefore a danger to our security. Who else is a danger to our security....well maybe the folks shown at the beginning of the ad????? Do you see the link now??? Look, it was a blanket insinuation that Cleland was a danger to our security just like terrorism is. It then continues to focus on the "courage to lead" crap. I would submit that a man who served in Vietnam, was wounded, rehabilitated himself, and then became succesful is full of courage. Therefore it is a smear, plain and simple. Not to mention the veiled comparison that someone who doesn't support the homeland security dept. is as a danger to our security, just like Bin Laden. Quit trying to rationalize this ad as just "tough" it was a smear of a decorated combat veteran. Not only did it put for the supposition that Cleland was soft on terrorism therefore endangering us but it also questioned his courage. It was disgusting.
Very well said Chris, great post!!
You are flat out wrong. The ad did not imply that Cleland himself was a danger to our security, but that Hussein and bin Laden. the ad said that in light of these dangers, Cleland's voting record on defense issues demonstrated that he was not strong on defense. There is nothing wrong with that kind of ad. Your attempt to say that the ad implied Cleland himself was a danger to our security on par with Hussein or bin Laden is a lie and you ought to be ashamed of yourself for trying to rewrite history.
That could be the most pitiful rebuttal that I have ever read. Are you really trying to tell me that an ad that insinuates someone is soft on defense in a time of war is not an attempt to tell us that the person is a danger to our security? Look, the ad starts by showing us the dangers to our security, it then proceeds to show us that Cleland does not have the courage to lead and based on his voting record he is soft on terror and therefore poses a threat to our security. People know who Bin Laden and Saddam are, they don't need pictures on a political ad to show them who the narrarator was talking about. It's this easy, you show pictures of Bin Laden and Saddam, then you go to a narrative of how Cleland does not have the courage to lead and based on his voting record he is soft on terror. What is the point there???? Well, one could easily say that accusing someone of being soft on terror is equating them with being a danger to our security.
Tell us, is someone who is soft on defense in a time of war dangerous?? Your answer to that question, if it is yes, only reinforces that the ad was a clear smear and insinuation that Cleland was a danger to our security, just like the folks they showed us at the beginning of the ad. If that was not the point of the ad, a disclaimer should have followed, you know so people don't get the wrong idea about a wounded Vietnam Veteran, don't ya think?
This is where your argument falls apart, "Cleland was a danger to our security, just like the folks they showed us at the beginning of the ad. "
The ad didn't say that at all. It said, very plainly, that when we face such dangers as "terrorists and extremist dictators", do you want someone who voted against the Homeland Security bill 11 times? This is a completely valid argument to make. Whining about pointing out Cleland's voting record is ridiculous. If his voting against the Homeland Security bill 11 times was a turn off to voters, then them's the breaks. How can you complain about his voting record being pointed out in an ad??? how is showing that Cleland was weak on defense in a time of great peril a "smear"? Politicians have to run on their records. Cleland's weakness on defense hurt him. His own voting record hurt him. Pointing out that Cleland voted against the homeland security bill 11 times is not a smear. It was cold hard fact. His weakness on defense caused him to lose the election.
I'd say it had more to do with the gullibility of voters and the willingness of ruthless people to do anything to win.
Instead of running on policies and merit, they run on smear and innuendo.
Quoting someone's voting record is not "smear" or "innuendo", it is fact. Cleland put the votes of labor unions ahead of homeland security. He put electoral politcs ahead of national defense. The Georgia electorate decided to toss him out based on his voting record. His chickens came home to roost.
That is absolutely ridiculous and you know it. Here is the cold hard reality. Your argument falls apart because you cannot connect the dots, even after I have essentially numbered them for you. You have said yourself in this thread that the ad was an indictment of Cleland being soft on defense.I say the ad was a clear insinuation that re-electing him would be tantamount to putting our national security at risk. Whether you like it or not, that is the same as calling him a threat to our security. Therefore a comparison was made between Cleland and terrorism, extreme dictators, Bin Laden, etc, etc. It doesn't take a genius to read between the lines here COMPUTER.
You can rationalize this with word parsing reminiscent of O.J.'s lawyers all day long. The ad questioned his courage to lead, that is a smear. It then proceeded to call into question his voting record in an attempt to equate him as soft on defense in a time of war. You said so yourself. It is abundantly clear to any rational thinking person that this ad was a pitiful attempt to not only question his courage to lead but to equate him as being a threat to national security......just like the folks in the pictures at the start of the ad.
you are making a HUGE leap. Saying that someone is weak on national security is not even in the same ballpark as saying they are a threat to national security. In Cleland's case, it meant that he had higher priorities than passing the homeland security bill. He was more concerned with getting the votes of labor unions than he was with protecting the homeland. He didn't want to blow anything up or hijack any planes like bin laden, he just didn't think that passing the homeland security bill was a priority. He was weak on that issue. Saying he was weak on that in no way says that he is a THREAT to our security. It just means that he would not secure our homeland as steadfastly as Chambliss would. There is a huge difference and it worries me that you cannot see it.
This is rather easy COMPUTER. The ad was not just insinuating that he was JUST weak on national security. This is evidenced by the lead in pictures and the narrarative. Clearly the beginning point was that we are in a time of war, crisis, or whatever one wants to call it. That indication was specific to this ad. Therefore through your own admission, the ad portrayed him as soft on defense and specifically soft on defense during a time when we are fighting terrorists, extreme dictators, etc. You can't deny that. So, by pure logic alone, the ad did in fact insinuate a comparison that Cleland was soft on defense, during a time of crisis,i.e threat to our security, with the threats shown and described at the start of the ad. Your argument would have some validity it not for the specifics put forth by the ad itself in the beginning. The comparison was made and made in the context I have described. Understand rubberband?
How can you be so wrong? There was no comparison made at all between bin laden/hussein and cleland! The arc of the ad is this: We face dangers. Cleland says he has the courage to lead in the fight against those dangers. His voting record proves otherwise. Don't vote for him.
That's it. That's the whole story. His record shows that he doesn't take these dangers seriously enough, so don't vote for him. It doesn't say, nor come anywhere close to saying: We face dangers. Max Cleland says he has the courage to lead in the fight against those dangers. His voting record proves otherwise. Max Cleland is a threat to our country.
No it is this simple, the ad clearly showed us that terrorism and extreme dictators was a threat to our national security. To validate that they showed us pictures of Bin Laden and Saddam. Now, one more time, you yourself have indicated that the ad portrayed Cleland as soft on defense. The question remains, is being soft on defense during a time of war a threat to our security. If so, then the ad did in fact make a comparison between Cleland (threat to our security) and Terrorists as portrayed by Bin Laden (threat to our security). The comparison was made, pure and simple. Unless of course you believe that being soft on defense during a time of war is not a threat to our security. But the ad sure insinuates as such. In fact the ad, by doing so, only reinforces my argument for me. Why this is above you I can't fathom it's as easy as A B C and 1 2 3.
A better question is how can any rational person watch that ad and not see the connection.
That's the purpose of the ad.
It's been the thrust of every Republican campaign since 9/11.
To deny that is to reveal what a dead-ender you truly are.
The link you provided attempting to prove i was "rewriting history" says it (i quoted it above). The lies about this ad have been repeated in the liberal echo chamber so much that you take them as fact.
--"[The ad] didn't even come close to doing that."---
Aside from the bin Laden & Hussein images in the ad, the most despicable thing about it was the statement that the decorated amputee and Vietnam vet Cleland didn't have "the courage" to lead.
That alone demonstrates (as if further proof was needed) that the right-wing (currently embodied by the likes of Limbaugh, Coulter & Co.) will not allow a silly thing like simple human decency get in their way. Ever.
The ad said, "Max Cleland says he has the courage to lead. But the record proves Max Cleland is just misleading." Cleland had claimed that he supported Bush at every opportunity, but he voted agains the Homeland Security bill a bunch of times. Cleland's statement that he supported Bush "at every opportunity" was misleading. Nowhere does that ad say that Cleland lacked courage.
Why so visuals of Saddam and bin Laden?
Why show. (typo)
Simply to demonstrate the actual foes ("terrorists and extremist dictators") that the narrator mentioned as threats to our country. Bin Laden and Hussein probably appeared in ads that showed that a candidate was STRONG on national security too. Just because they are in the ad doesn't mean that Cleland was compared with them or that he was linked with them in any way. I shouldn't even have to explain this to you.
So if there was an ad of Republican with Hitler , that would be ok also right? It would tell the public what could happen if a Republican gets in office, Nazi like tactics. Ok I get your point, thanks.
If, during WWII, a Republican voted against a serious security measure to protect the homeland from Hitler 11 times, and his Democratic opponent was in favor of said measure, and the ad said at the beginning, "As America faces fascists and extremist dictators (insert picture of Hitler)..." and continued on in the same fashion as the Chambliss ad, I'd have no problem with it. Pointing out your opponent's weakness on defense issues is not a smear if their voting record proves their weakness (like Cleland's does).
the lies about this ad have been repeated ad nauseum around the net and on tv.
From Wikipedia: "Voters were perhaps influenced by Chambliss ads that featured Cleland's likeness on the same screen as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein..."
From DorrisRussell's own link trying to prove I was attempting to rewrite history: ""Chambliss even ran a TV ad picturing Cleland with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. "
And they keep on being repeated because no one will take 30 seconds to actually watch the ad for themselves.
I have watched the ad Computer, what you say and what we see are two different things. Watch the ad, yes you will see the smear. Stop trolling.
----"Nowhere does that ad say that Cleland lacked courage."----
I see. So....
Cleland's claim that he HAS courage is "misleading", says the ad. (mislead: to give a wrong impression about something -Oxford dictionary).
It's all so very clear now. The ad doesn't suggest in ANY way at all that Cleland is giving the wrong impression when he says he has courage. I don't know WHY anyone would think so....
Misleading in that he said he "supports President Bush at every oppourtunity", but then voted against homeland security bill 11 times. That was the part that Cleland was being misleading about and that was the crux of the ad.
---"Misleading in that he said he "supports President Bush at every oppourtunity""---
No.
The ad concludes, very clearly, with this clear reference to Cleland's courage, no matter what you want to pretend:
"Max Cleland SAYS (insert narrator's dripping sarcasm there) he has the courage to lead. But the record proves... Max Cleland is just misleading."
I wonder what it is with these right-wingers always having to explain ---after the fact---, what Limbaugh/Coulter/Beck/the Chambliss ad, etc. etc. REALLY meant to say?
Good one, but it won't make one dent in that robot's head.
No point in debating someone who insists that white is really black, "IF YOU'D JUST LOOK AT IT" and you're a crazy nutball for seeing that white is white.
---"Cleland's statement that he supported Bush "at every opportunity" was misleading"
The conclusion of the ad does not say that.
The conclusion of the ad refers very directly to Cleland's "courage".
It says, for the record, the following (dripping with sarcasm over the word "says", it is important to note):
"Max Cleland says he has the courage to lead. But the record proves... Max Cleland is just misleading."
Basically, this ad ranks up there with the trashiest of all time (even if you ignore the bin Laden/Hussein photos), and that's saying something.
The fact that right-wingers will write post after post trying to spin-away its smearing content only goes to prove it.
Max Cleland said he had the courage to lead, but his record proved that he did not lead. What is brought into question in the ad is Cleland's VOTING RECORD. His voting record demonstrates that even though he said he had the courage to lead, he did not lead. the ad questions his votes in light of his claim that he is a leader. The votes, combined with his claim that he has the courage to lead, and his claim that he "supports the president at every opportunity" show that he is misleading. I don't have to try to defend the ad by saying "what they meant was...", the ad is very clear. When it came to matters of national defense and homeland security, Max Cleland did not lead. He was weak and he got kicked to the curb because of that weakness.
---"What is brought into question in the ad is Cleland's VOTING RECORD."
AND --very clearly and deliberately-- Cleland's courage.
"[Cleland]' sarcasm--'SAYS'--sarcasm 'he has the courage to lead..."
What's clear is that YOU are flailing and desperate for whatever reason to scrub away the dirt in this ad. But the dirt ain't coming off, ever.
You've failed to convince even a single person.
Your time would be better spent contacting the people that created the ad, and bill them for the trouble it's causing you to try and cleanse the dirt away.
Well, you are the ones who are backtracking. First it was "Cleland's picture morphed into Osama's", then it was "on the same screen with bin Laden and Hussein", then it was "questioning his patriotism", then it was "smearing" him, then it was "questioning his courage". Now your whole argument relies on the sarcastic tone of the narrator. The facts are, Cleland was soft on terrorism. This ad pointed it out by referencing his voting record. Cleland said he had the courage to lead, but he didn't lead. Instead of securing the homeland, he was worried about securing votes from labor unions. This didn't play well with Georgia voters and Cleland lost. Stop whining about it and stop lying about the ad.
Are you a Georgia voter?
Irrelevant.
No it's not. You claim to know what's in the minds of the Georgia voters.
Uhh... No. The election results show what was in the minds of GA voters. And what was in their minds was kicking Cleland out of office in favor of Saxby. You don't have to be a mind reader there Mary. Just read the election results.
"instead of securing the homeland, he was worried about securing votes from labor unions. This didn't play well with Georgia voters and Cleland lost."-computer
You claim that this was the voters' mind about it. Neither of us know what was in their minds, but I suspect it was the image of Bin Laden and Sadam---TERROR! & that Cleland didn't support Bush's "security" bill (puke)
**clank**
Computer, the really stupid part of your argument, that makes the whole thing fall apart, is that Cleland was FOR the Department of Homeland Security WAY before Bush was. That was what made this ad an insidious smear. It did not "quote his voting record" as you have said so often. It was a SCANDALOUS MISREPRESENTATION of his voting record, and took votes out of context.
There is NO reason why Cleland should have voted for a National Security bill that needlessly restricted the rights of federal employees. Imagine, if a National Security bill also had a clause that forbade duck hunting, would you think you had to pass the bill because otherwise you were putting duck hunters ahead of national security?! If you said, "No, I believe in the second amendment so I will only pass the bill when I find all amendments acceptable," are you suddenly AGAINST Homeland Security?
As for your oft-repeated and absurd contentions that there was no comparison intended, have you ever studied any psychology? Priming? Fire Together, Wire Together? Pavlov? If any of these don't "ring any bells" (pun intended), you are too ignorant of how the brain responds to visual stimuli to evaluate how the ad intends the pictures of terrorists.
Several media outlets have claimed that, in a November 5 speech to the American Postal Workers Union, former President Bill Clinton attacked Democratic presidential candidates for "swift-boating" his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
Bill Clinton found himself in an unusual and uncomfortable position yesterday - drawing intense fire from Democratic presidential candidates and a brushback from his wife's own campaign.
So Democrats think Billy took a swipe at them and "several" media outlets have picked up on the reporting with a similar opinion. But of course Media Matters, as the only logical arbitor of ploitical correctness and accuracy has it right?? I don't think so.
For those of you who still deny this is a front for a "Hillary for President" web site I have for sale some "Oceanfront property in Arazona, from my front porch you can see the sea, ...if you'll buy that I'll throw the Golden Gate in free".
--"I don't think so"--
Uh huh. Well, why don't YOU point out for the rest of us where -exactly- in Bill Clinton's speech does he blame the other Democratic candidates for this Swift-Boat-like tactics?
Maybe you should ask Dodd and Obamma since they are the Dem's who said he did.
Here's what you wrote:
----"So Democrats think Billy took a swipe at them and "several" media outlets have picked up on the reporting with a similar opinion. But of course Media Matters, as the only logical arbitor of ploitical correctness and accuracy has it right?? I don't think so. "----
You appear (correct me if I'm wrong) to be claiming that Democrats and media outlets are correct-that "Billy" blamed other Democratic candidates for the tactics. And you appear to be claiming Media Matters is wrong in saying that's not what Clinton did.
So, once again, I ask the question which you still have not answered:
If Media Matters is wrong, and if the candidates and media outlets ARE correct, then where --exactly-- in his speech does "Billy" Clinton actually blame other Democratic candidates?
You appear (correct me if I'm wrong) to be claiming that Democrats and media outlets are correct-that "Billy" blamed other Democratic candidates for the tactics. And you appear to be claiming Media Matters is wrong in saying that's not what Clinton did.
No. I am pointing out that Democrat candidates said Billy accused them of "Swift Boating" Hillary. The press then carries the story and Media Matters get's on the press for false reporting that Billy accused the Democrat candidates of "Swift Boating" Hillary.
Media Matters is trying to make it look like "several media outlets" are fabricating "conservative misinformation" when they are simply reporting on what the Democrat candidates are saying.
If you don't believe Billy was doing what the Dems accuse him of your issue is with them. I'm pointing out that Media Matters is once again full o' S*^t!
Maybe YOU can rationalize how -in the following two quotes from the media- the media is, in your words, "simply reporting on what the Democrat candidates are saying":
"The rebukes came after Bill took a swipe at his wife's rivals" --NY Post
and:
"Bill Clinton theorized the recent Democratic debate ... veered dangerously close to intraparty character assassination."
And I still of course don't have an answer from you as to exactly where, in "Billy's" speech he criticized the other candidates for the tactics. Third time I've asked.
Here are the quotes from the candidates who say Bill accused them of "Swift Boating " Hillary.
Barack Obama told The Associated Press he was "stunned" when Bubba on Monday compared criticism of his wife's waffling with the 2004 television ads that questioned the patriotism and Vietnam heroics of President Bush's Democratic opponent, John Kerry.
"How you would then draw an analogy to distorting somebody's military record is a reach," Obama said.
Chris Dodd deemed Bill Clinton's suggestion "outrageous."
"To have the former President come out and suggest this is a form of Swift-boating ... is way over the top in my view," he added.
The press' job is to report on the candidates and what they are doing and talking about. MMFA is accusing the press of fabricating when all they are doing is reporting on the candidates. It seems that you think the press shouldn't be reporting the story because in your (and MMFA's) opinion the story isn't true. The press is responsible for reporting the story not opinions - those the press may put in their editorial sections. If you don;t agree with Dodd and Obamma take it up with them.
MMFA is trying to spin false information on the press when in fact they do not agree with what they are reporting. That's how they are "full o' s*#t.!
---"MMFA is accusing the press of fabricating when all they are doing is reporting on the candidates. "---
The press ISN'T just "reporting on the candidates".
The PRESS ---not the candidates--- are saying this:
"The rebukes came after Bill took a swipe at his wife's rivals" --NY Post
and:
"Bill Clinton theorized the recent Democratic debate ... veered dangerously close to intraparty character assassination." --NY Daily News
The press--not the candidates--said those things.
Is that difficult for you to comprehend? Are you impaired somehow?
Is the press correct? If so, WHERE (5th time) in his speech does Clinton say those things?
Go back and read the story - Who is claiming that Bill accused the candidates of "Swift Boating "Hillary?
Is it Dodd and Obamma, or the press?
Never been to Arazona, they tell me its nice.
Don't see Bill's words above supporting your claim. As I read them they seemed dam fine and worth repeating.
My post is not about Bill's words. It is about Nedia Matters spinning this as "conservative mininformation" when it is the Democratic candidates who were whining about what Bill said.
No, it did not "compare" Cleland to Hussein or bin Laden, it accused him of being weak in the fight against terrorism. I'll submit that it is a tough ad, but all it did was point out how many times Cleland had voted against the Homeland Security bill and juxtaposed that with a quote from Cleland saying he supported Bush at every opportunity and Cleland's claims that he "had the courage to lead". Watch the ad for yourself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKFYpd0q9nE
Again your ad does not show its entiretly , with Saddam and Osama and then the Max Cleland smear. it was one of the most disgraceful ads in American history, smearing someone who gave his legs for his country and using the terrorist scare . The who thing makes my stomach turn. How you can defend that ad is beyond my thinking.
The link shows the entire ad. Quoting someone's voting record is not a "smear". Saying that they are weak on defense, by quoting their voting record, is not a "smear".
Again, please watch the entire ad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKFYpd0q9nE
Get a life, Computer. You guys have beaten this horse long enough. Every reputable blogger and journalist agreed that the ad was a smear and it has been denounced for years. When an opinion is this widespread, and it is just an opinion, just like yours, it's credibility is strengthened. So, regardless of your current opinion, conventional wisdom has ruled. It was a smear ad.
What happened to Max Cleland and John Kerry were dispicable acts created by the most hateful, evil people on the planet.
To have a political attack machine manned by the cowardly, lying likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Boortz, Cheney, Rove. et al, try to drive over the top of two war heroes is beyond comprehension.
There is no defense of such heinous activities.
The Great Uniter has divided us worse than I ever thought possible.
I never thought I would actually miss Bill Clinton!
"You're like, "Wait a minute. So is he accusing Democrats of swift-boating?" -- because it's mostly been Democrats that have been critical of Senator Clinton on that answer."
This is where Todd goes off the rails.
If it were mostly Democrats that were critical of HRC's answer the story would have been dead a week ago.
"O'REILLY: You see, I don't believe anything the press writes about Bill and Hillary Clinton at all.
O'Reilly is clearly schizophrenic.
He has one personality for his Fox audience and one for everybody else.
- justicetruthus8276
"Once again the "Swift Boat" ads are brought up without noting that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were honorable Vietnam Veterans who, in fact, told the TRUTH as they knew it."
Does that include the other swift boat skipper who claimed Kerry was not under fire during the famous incident when he rescued the Green Beret from the river... even though that skipper's own commendation from the same incident describes enemy fire?
Regarding the ads against Max Cleland:
"Republican Sens. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John McCain of Arizona -- both Vietnam veterans -- were so irate that they complained to their party about the ads until the Saddam and bin Laden photos were removed.")