Drudge, Lowry revived falsehood that Obama didn't vote to condemn MoveOn Petraeus ad
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: The Drudge Report and the National Review's Rich Lowry falsely claimed that Sen. Barack Obama didn't vote to condemn MoveOn.org's 2007 newspaper advertisement critical of Gen. David Petraeus. In fact, Obama did vote for an amendment by Sen. Barbara Boxer that condemned the ad, as well as other attacks on past and present members of the armed forces, as the USA Today blog post to which the Drudge Report linked points out.
Internet gossip Matt Drudge and National Review editor Rich Lowry revived the falsehood that Sen. Barack Obama did not condemn MoveOn.org's General Petraeus ad. On June 30, the Drudge Report falsely claimed that Obama didn't vote to condemn MoveOn.org's 2007 newspaper advertisement critical of Gen. David Petraeus and ran the following headlines -- "Obama: I will never question others' patriotism..."; "Criticizes MoveOn.org for 'General Betray Us' Ad..."; "BUT DIDN'T VOTE TO CONDEMN AD..." The latter headline linked to a September 20, 2007, post on USA Today's On Politics blog, which noted that Obama "did not vote on" an amendment by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) that, in the words of the amendment, "repudiate[s] the unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus by the liberal activist group Moveon.org." However, while Obama was not present for the vote on Cornyn's amendment, which passed, the USA Today blog post to which Drudge linked reported: "The AP said Obama did not vote on the resolution even though he had voted 'minutes earlier' for an alternative that condemned the MoveOn ad as an 'unwarranted personal attack,' but also condemned attack ads that questioned the patriotism of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., both Vietnam veterans." Indeed, Obama did vote for a separate amendment offered by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that condemned the ad, as well as other attacks on past and present members of the armed forces. Lowry echoed Drudge while appearing as guest co-host on the June 30 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, claiming that "there was a vote in the Senate ... and Barack Obama did not vote to condemn that ad."
Additionally, a June 30 article in The Hill, to which Drudge also linked, reported that "in a major speech on patriotism, [Obama] criticized MoveOn.org for referring to Gen. David Petraeus as General Betray Us last year. ... Obama did not vote last year when the Senate approved a measure condemning the controversial Petraeus ad." A separate June 30 Hill article also stated of the ad: "Obama did not vote last year when the Senate approved a measure condemning the controversial Petraeus ad." Similarly, a July 1 Wall Street Journal article (subscription required) reported that when the MoveOn.org "ad first launched in September Sen. Obama defended Gen. Petraeus but didn't vote when the Senate approved a measure condemning the ad." However, neither The Hill nor the Journal noted that Obama voted for the Boxer amendment.
As Media Matters for America documented, the Boxer amendment "strongly condemn[ed] attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization." The amendment stated of the MoveOn.org ad: "On September 10, 2007, an advertisement in the New York Times was an unwarranted personal attack on General Petraeus, who is honorably leading our Armed Forces in Iraq and carrying out the mission assigned to him by the President of the United States." It also criticized Republican-backed attacks on Sen. John Kerry's (D-MA) military service, as well as attacks on Vietnam veteran and former Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA). Fifty senators voted in support of the measure, while 47 voted against. As Media Matters noted, under an agreement reached by the Senate leadership, a cloture vote and a vote on final passage were combined for this and other Iraq-related amendments, meaning that the amendment needed 60 votes to pass.
From the June 30 Hill article:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Monday, in a major speech on patriotism, criticized MoveOn.org for referring to Gen. David Petraeus as General Betray Us last year.
The Illinois senator said politics too often seems "trapped in old, threadbare arguments" that he called "caricatures of left and right."
This, Obama added, was "most evident during our recent debates about the war in Iraq, when those who opposed administration policy were tagged by some as unpatriotic, and a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal."
Obama did not vote last year when the Senate approved a measure condemning the controversial Petraeus ad.
The Democrat argued that "given the enormous challenges that lie before us, we can no longer afford these sorts of divisions."
MoveOn.org, a powerful left-of-center interest group, endorsed Obama in the Democratic presidential race.
From the June 30 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
LOWRY: Let me get back to Obama's speech today. I thought it was a very nice speech. There are a couple things that jumped out at me, though.
One was he made an oblique condemnation of MoveOn.org. If you remember that ad they ran attacking General Petraeus as General Betray Us when he testified last year. What I thought was interesting is when that controversy was hot, when that ad came out, there was a vote in the Senate, and this was during the Democratic primaries, when Barack Obama was pandering to the left wing of the party, and Barack Obama did not vote to condemn that ad.
So to me, this is just another instance where, in the primaries, he did what he had to do to pander to the left, and now he's moving to the center. Is that really the new politics?
MAYOR ANTONIO VILLARAIGOSA (D-Los Angeles): I think what both candidates want to do is speak to America, center. They want to do that because both parties are trying to claim the center. And that's not something new in this campaign. You've seen that in every campaign since I can remember.
LOWRY: But Barack Obama -- but Barack Obama is supposed to be the new politician.
From the July 1 Wall Street Journal article:
Sen. Obama used the speech to take a swipe at MoveOn.org, the liberal activist group that has been a staunch backer of his campaign since early February. He critiqued the group for launching an ad last year that refers to Gen. David Petraeus as General Betray Us.
"Our politics still seems trapped in these old, threadbare arguments," Sen. Obama said, "...[when] a general providing his best counsel on how to move forward in Iraq was accused of betrayal."
When the ad first launched in September Sen. Obama defended Gen. Petraeus but didn't vote when the Senate approved a measure condemning the ad. "All of us respect the service of Gen. Petraeus and all of our brave men and women in uniform," he said in a statement.
A spokesman for MoveOn.org declined to comment on the speech.
From the Drudge Report, accessed at 2:50 p.m. ET on June 30:
Why does anyone expect to see anything truthful on Drudge's web site, seeing as he's not even truthful about his own sexuality:
http://www.nndb.com/people/079/000026001/
WZ
Once again you miss the point and the truth, on purpose. He voted minutes before on a softball piece, and avoided voting on the resolution that was much harsher, and used more specific terms in denouncing the ad. Kind of like his "present" votes as a state senator. He was afaird to vote against the stronger resolution for fear of upseting the dem base. He chickened out. MMFA is being very dishonest when they say he was not there for the vote, he was, and chose to leave to avoid voting on it.
Once again WZ, you show what an idiot and a total partisan you are. A second rate hack with visions of grander, and no intellect whatsoever to back it up. I feel sorry for your ex-wife.
POV, I think you've already had this explained to you, so you're either playing dumb, or are just genuinely dumb.
Obama voted for the stronger resolution, the one that was broader in covering disrespect of all military persons.
I'm sorry, I know you would have hoped for a PC, Special-Olympics type vote that gave comfort and special consideration only to the sissy Republicans, but you should thank Obama and the others that voted for the one that didn't give conservatives the entitlements they were begging for;This was an opportunity for the Repooplickens to "man up" for a change and eschew the coddling they've grown used to.
And I feel sorry for your current wife.Although I did give her 2 bucks for the bus last night, so she probably got home OK. Har!
Sorry Private Sanders, you are wrong again.
You are well aware that the vote he skipped specifically listed General Petraues and not just the militray in general. I think you are jealous of his stars. His dodge was as weak as your DIS-HONEST attempt to rewrite history. As for your wife, I made her walk, she was not worth the two buck investment.
Once again WZ, you show what an idiot and a total partisan you are. A second rate hack with visions of grander, and no intellect whatsoever to back it up. I feel sorry for your ex-wife.
Truth be told, POV, you're one of the biggest isiots around here. If I'm a "second-rate hack", you're fifth-rate at best. And where intellect is concerned, I've probably forgotten more in my 55 years on this planet than you ever learned.
And I fail to see what my ex-wife has to do with anything in this thread. She died ten years ago this week of heart and kidney failure.
"Truth be told, POV, you're one of the biggest isiots around here".
You have lost a lot in your 55 years. As soon as i figure out what an isiots is, I will get back to you. Dumb a$$.
POV, WZ has disabilities that affect his ability to type correctly. So, thank you for showing your true colors.
POV, WZ has disabilities that affect his ability to type correctly. So, thank you for showing your true colors.
It's truly amazing how POV makes himself look worse with each thing he posts here. He should quit while he's behind.
WZ
Your only disability of note is a total failure to have a rational discussion with anyone who does not agree with you. For a 55 year old man, you insult like a 5 year old child.
A few of your recent remarks
he's not even truthful about his own sexuality
Truth be told, POV, you're one of the biggest isiots around here
You wouldn't know a fact if it slapped you upside the head, AA. How pathetic.
Probably because you're too blinded by your ignorance to see anything,
Not only is T. Boone Pickens a liar, he's a welcher as well. But I'm sure anyone who's done business with this creep knows what a bastard he is.
Those are all comments you made WZ. What a crybaby you are. You dish it out as good as the average first grader, and cry when you are attacked, GROW UP
His "disability" has not affected his ability to attack others. Simply look through his posts to see the number insults and attacks he makes against those with whom he disagrees. Dont lecture me on civility until both you and WZ are ready to extend some.
Oh. lookie - yet ANOTHER right-winger trying to tell others how they should behave in a public forum. It's their standard ploy - if they don't like what's being said, they attack the WAY it's being said. So right now, I don't care. I have something to say that I've been meaning to say for quite some time. And while I realize it may get flagged and disappear very soon, here goes:
POV - You are a uesless piece of crap. No one here gives a damn what you think about anything, because you don't know squat about anything. Your ignorance is truly amazing. If you really wanted to perform a public service, you'd log out of MMFA, turn off your PC, and keep it off forever.
WZ
Somone needs a time out little boy. Go sit in the corner and learn how to play nice. I would never flag your remark. You are far to ammusing for that. I get to much pleasure watching some one who does nothing but attack and insult others cry when they are treated the same. See my above list of how you treat people before attacking my "tatic" to distract you. I used your own words to show what you are really like. Why dont you follow the lead of SOLON, and dissapear.
Somone needs a time out little boy. Go sit in the corner and learn how to play nice. I would never flag your remark. You are far to ammusing for that. I get to much pleasure watching some one who does nothing but attack and insult others cry when they are treated the same. See my above list of how you treat people before attacking my "tatic" to distract you. I used your own words to show what you are really like. Why dont you follow the lead of SOLON, and dissapear.
Funny how someone who made fun of my typing earlier in this thread made the following errors in one little reply:
1. In the first sentence, there should be a comma after the word "out".
2. In the fourth sentence, "far to ammusing" should be "far too amusing".
3. In the fifth sentence, "to much pleasure" should be "too much pleasure".
4. In the sixth sentence, "tatic" should be spelled "tactic".
5. In the last sentence, "dont" should be "don't".
Don't make fun of how other people post, when you're no better. And where attacks are concerned, I only attack the ignorant and the stupid. I guess that's why you're so aware of it.
Finally, I have a suggestion for YOU, POV. Why don't you follow the lead of George Reeves, Ernest Hemmingway, and Freddie Prinze. Go blow your brains out. You're not doing anyone any good here.....
WZ
Feel free to point out any typos I make, sounds like you need a job anyway. You wont see me crying like a baby about it. True to your from however, you did not address any of the nasty remarks and attacks you made on others. That is your style, hit and run. You are a no talent hack, and you cant handle anyone who takes you on.
Life is to short, and at your age, you should know that. Stop being so bitter and actually learn to debate a topic. But then again, that would require you to have reason and or common sence. You have none.
Wait, I forgot, you have a disability.
And your disability appears to be from the neck up. Remember, POV - YOU were the one who came out swinging in this thread - YOU attacked ME for no reason whatsoever, and then you claim the high road.
Well, it ain't gonna fly. Most people around here are much smarter than you (myself included), and see you for the worthless scum that you are.
As I said before, POV - YOU were the one who attacked first, and are accusing ME of doing nothing but attack. The fact is I've seen ABSOLUTELY NOTHING you have EVER posted here that I consider worthy of discussion, since all you are capable of doing is parrotting right-wing talking points.
When you are capable and willing to THINK FOR YOURSELF, then MAYBE we can have a discussion. Until then, prepare for more of the same, since that's the only response that is appropriate for the drivel you post here.
WZ
Prepare for more crap from you.....lol..that is all you have ever been capable of. I hope you keep attacking and acting like an idiot. You are cheap and easy amusement. You say the same thing over and over, cry like a baby, talk about how unfair it is when people say mean things about you. You are better than most cable reruns.
J,
I read all that above. However voting on the amendment is not the same as voting for the final wording.
More Drudge Lies
Bill Clinton's alleged illegitimate baby
In 1999, the Drudge Report announced that it had viewed a videotape which was the basis of a Star Magazine and Hard Copy story. Under the headline, "Woman Names Bill Clinton Father Of Son In Shocking Video Confession", Drudge reported a videotaped confession by a former prostitute who claimed that her son was fathered by Bill Clinton. The Report stated, "To accuse the most powerful man in the world of being the father of her son is either the hoax of a lifetime, or a personal turmoil that needs resolution. Only two people may know that answer tonight." The claim turned out to be a hoax.[45]
Also, he "broke" the story of John Kerry's extramarital affair (never happened.) Said Alec Baldwin said he would move to England if Bush was elected in 2000 (kinda happened, but it was in 1993, and it was a joke.) Was only able to break the Clinton-Lewinsky affair because Newsweek was holding the story, but their editors wanted more evidence before breaking the story.
Matt Drudge is not a journalist...he uses the anonymity of the internet to spread rumors. Some turn out to be true, but he bats about a .400.
Never said he was. His webpage does indeed carry lots of rumors which turn out to be false. As anyone who ever looked at it knows, Drudge links to lots of stories. My point is that Drudge is correct: Obama did not vote on the final resolution to condemn the MoveOn.Org ad.
You might say he voted for it before he didn't vote for it. :-)
"And you may say you're correct, AA. I and many other here would say that you're full of crap."
Actually, if memory serves me correctly, Barbara Boxer's amendment condemned the Petraeus ad as well as the disparagement of Kerry and Cleland's war records. Guess who voted against that? Every Republican except Hagel and Specter.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00343
So no, AA may not say that he is correct, unless he also wants to direct his ire at every Republican that "voted against it before they voted for it" (except Hagel and Specter.)
I am not for ire. :-)
This attempt at verbal gymnastics is a waste of time. The simple question is, why didn't Obama vote for the amendment that was negotiated and passed?
"This attempt at verbal gymnastics is a waste of time. The simple question is, why didn't Obama vote for the amendment that was negotiated and passed?"
Because it was a politicized version of the original.
This isn't verbal gymnastics, it's one of the many, many headlines that Drudge has put up that is either un-verified or (in this case) un-true. If you want to be obtuse about this, go ahead and keep trying to re-arrange the questions you're asking. And you know, you could look this stuff up instead of asking silly questions and making us look this stuff up for you.
But I have another question: Why didn't John McCain vote for the bill that condemned the false attacks on Kerry and Cleland's war records?
Why didn't John McCain vote for the bill that condemned the false attacks on Kerry and Cleland's war records?
Because it conflicted with his nap time.
I guess when you can't argue the facts, attack. How transparent. :-)
I guess when you can't argue the facts, attack. How transparent. :-)
You wouldn't know a fact if it slapped you upside the head, AA. How pathetic.
Jylyons:
Stop playing AA's games... he just wants to argue about the meaning of "is" ... :)
Here, Barn, let me dumb it down for you. All of those words seem to have you confused. You did just ask to be shown the lie from Drudge. Here it is;
"BUT DIDN'T VOTE TO CONDEMN AD..."
No mention of the specific resolution, the final wording, or any other nonsense you're trying to pass off as a discussion here.Do you ever get tired of lying and/or not understanding the point?
However voting on the amendment is not the same as voting for the final wording.
Bullcrap. A vote is a vote is a vote. Obama is on record for registering his disapproval of that ad (as well as others), and once again, Drudge lied.
Please show the lie.
Pick a link - any link:
Lowry and the Republican startegist on the Hannity lie-fest last night also said that the Swift Boaters told the truth.
After that, how can they have any credibility?
They did tell the truth. All Kerry has to do to disprove them is release his military records to prove them wrong.
I particularly like this section of the article:
"But Kerry refused, even though it turned out that the records included commendations from some of the same veterans who were criticizing him.
On May 20, Kerry signed a document called Standard Form 180, authorizing the Navy to send an ''undeleted" copy of his ''complete military service record and medical record" to the Globe. Asked why he delayed signing the form for so long, Kerry said in a written response: ''The call for me to sign a 180 form came from the same partisan operatives who were lying about my record on a daily basis on the Web and in the right-wing media. Even though the media was discrediting them, they continued to lie. I felt strongly that we shouldn't kowtow to them and their attempts to drag their lies out."
So he may have made a poor choice, but you can't say the SBVf"T" were telling the truth
DB, I think even AA isn't that much of a sucker that he still believes that BS. He's just a troll who likes to deflect from the topic by getting other posters to endlessly re-post the same info. debunking his talking points.
It's not even as much fun seeing him make a clown out of himself anymore, he does it on such a regular basis.
OK,I take that back, it's still fun. Tripping over those big clown feet with his baggy pants falling down. He he.
Col., If I believed that, I would dismiss his ramblings as mere nuttery and wouldn't really reply to him.
No, I believe he just hasn't been educated on the issue, so I seek to do that. When I present my objective facts and he still rejects them (which it's starting to look like he's doing), I will concede your point and will just ignore him from now on.
Don't get me wrong, DB, I wasn't trying to tell you to ignore AA. In fact, it's still entertaining to see how long his emotional aversion to facts and other anti-Republican elements can keep him treading water.
I was just reminding you not to plan on any getting any sort of satisfying discussion out of the guy. I'm pretty sure he sees failing to see the truth as a refusal to surrender. (i.e., Victory)
In the past, he even argued with a US Army advisor who served with John Kerry in Vietnam. Nothing you, or I, or anyone says will ever make him change his mind about Kerry. No release of records will be good enough for him. Nothing in the US Navy records will make him rethink his version of what he perceives to be the truth.
You'd think that all of this hatred and resentment toward Kerry would be justified if the person making the complaint or demanding the records had any first hand knowledge of John Kerry's service in Vietnam. He doesn't.
The poster does have some resentment towards his "liberal" college professors who turned him against the War in Vietnam. So, I'd take all that he has to say about any veteran with as much salt as you would from any of the other Chickenhawks, like Limbaugh and O'Reilly.
You guys make me laugh. All most of you do is simply regurgitate the standard line that that the SBVTs lied. You never get to exactly what their lies are. You just repeat the meme and devolve into namecalling.
I've had discussions with people here, one of which was another SBV. We have discussed the differing accounts and the best we came up with is that the claims are disputed.
Kerry told Russert he would release his records. He never did. Kerry told T. Boone Pickens he'd take him up on his million dollar offer. He never did.
The swifties who took up Picken's challenge did not prove the SBVT ads were false.
All Kerry as to do is release his full military and medical records to the general public and the matter would be resolved. All your bluster can't hide the fact that he so far has not done so when he has said he would.
Nothing I've seen either during the Kerry campaign or since has effectively rebutted the swifties claims.
AA:
Let's play the game your way...
What proof do you have that the Swiftboat Scumbags aren't a lying bunch of losers?? :)
No fair, Sportsguydave! AA just gets to repeat what Hannity told him and ignore everything that people have provided him to prove he's wrong.
I will vouch for AA that he did discuss the topic with a Vet on this site, and they only got as far as the issue being "disputed'. The man who was there provided first-hand evidence that AA was wrong, many other posters pitched in with additional facts that proved him wrong, and AA "disputed" everything based on his "feelings".
You're a pathetic man, AA. And if you consider that "devolving to namecalling", it's much more than you've shown yourself to be deserving of in a long time.
hahahaha
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html
I guess you forgot to keep reading, I posted this a little later on.
And as for your "you just devolve into name-calling" bit, I have not called you a name, except for small, because you won't concede your point based on the over-whelming evidence against what you are trying to argue.
So, yes, Kerry did release his military records. You're either too dumb to realize what the link above is, or you're just being obtuse.
DB,
I do believe the "Globe" you mention is the Boston Globe. Who looked at the report for the Globe? Why can't you and I look at it? We have to take some reporter's word for it like Dan Rather wanted us to believe the fake documents were truthful.
Kerry's reasoning for not releasing the records doesn't even make any sense. Kerry needed to let his critics see the military records, not what looks like to be a supporter.
Why didn't Kerry follow through on T.Boon Pickens $1 million dollar challenge?
Why didn't Kerry follow through on his promise to Tim Russert?
Sorry, but Kerry's non-release to the Globe doesn't pass the smell test.
Did you read Loonz article?
And the only records he did not make completely public are his medical records, but you know what? I wouldn't want my medical records open to the public either.
AA, if you really, really want to find out, read the article and you can find out where to find all of Kerry's records, including the after-action reports.
DB,
If Kerry released all the records why can't we see them?
If Kerry released all the records why can't we see them?
Probably because you're too blinded by your ignorance to see anything, AA.
Do I really have to do everything for you?
http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html
I particularly like the end of his silver star citation: "Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's devotion to duty, courage under fire, outstanding leadership, and exemplary professionalism directly contributed to the success of this operation and were in keeping with the highest traditions of the U.S. Naval Service."
That took me 2 minutes to find.
That took me 2 minutes to find.
Gauging by AA's short attention span, he would have already gone on to three different concepts within that 2-minute interval, including staring at two or more shiny objects and asking if it was time for his cookie yet......
Why didn't Kerry follow through on T.Boon Pickens $1 million dollar challenge?
The challenge keeps on shifting (typical conservative) when the guy is about to lose his money.
But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records.
One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal, Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."
And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident
http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html
So you see, it was all lies. Dishonoring a decorated veteran. Very un-American.
Fog,
I've seen all that. The other commander explained his reasoning at the time and his actions later. It's been a while but I do believe he offered his medal back. (I don't know if he gave it back.) He stated that everyone was getting medals at the time and he kept his mouth shut and took it.
I do believe, (and it has been a while,) the the SBVT contention is that Kerry himself wrote those after action reports.
I wonder if anyone here read the SBVT book? It has been a while, and I didn't read all of it, but if I remember correctly, their contentions are not disproved by the official documents. because Kerry wrote the reports that the medals were based upon.
We all know Kerry lied about his Christmas in Cambodia, his association with anti-war crowd, the revisions of his military record, and his unsubstantiated libel of his fellow comrades-in-arms before the Senate. It does not take away from his service but it created such enmity ith so many of his 'band of brothers' to lead them to put themselves out there for public condemnation to present what they believe to be the truth.
The Kerry rebuttals have never answered the most important questions the SBVTs brought up regarding his service. Instead the rebuttals have been to attack the accusers veracity.
We all know Kerry lied about his Christmas in Cambodia, his association with anti-war crowd, the revisions of his military record, and his unsubstantiated libel of his fellow comrades-in-arms before the Senate
Wrong again.
The bottomline is that Kerry was known to be very close to the Cambodian border on Christmas Eve of 1968 and he was independently reported to have been inside Cambodia in January and February of 1969. No one can prove that he was NOT across the Cambodian border on Christmas night in 1968. Two of his own crewmates confirm they were near the Cambodia border on Christmas eve 1968. Navy records and calculations suggest Kerry's boat could have very well been inside Cambodia on that night
And...
Some atrocities by US forces have been documented beyond question. Kerry's 1971 testimony came less than one month after Army Lt. William Calley had been convicted in a highly publicized military trial of the murder of 22 Vietnamese civilians at My Lai hamlet on March 16 1968, when upwards of 300 unarmed men, women and children were killed by the inexperienced soldiers of the Americal Division's Charley Company.
And since Kerry testified, ample evidence of other atrocities has come to light.
The Kerry campaign called it a smear and said his words were "edited" out of context. The ad does indeed fail to mention that Kerry was quoting stories he had heard from others at an anti-war event in Detroit, and not claiming first-hand knowledge
Please show me the proof instead of just saying it happened. Where are those military records that show how close Kerry was to Cambodia on that Christmas. Do you not remember it was seared into his brain the radio broadcast of Nixon and the fact that Nixon wasn't even in office?
The bottom line is saying Kerry was in the general area is not proving he was in Cambodia. Yes we know he was in the area. However there is ample testimony that Kerry's boat could not go any further at the time. Nobody, including shipmates, corroborated his account of actually being in Cambodia at that time. Kerry simply lied to create a dramatic account.
As far as I recall none of Kerry's Winter Soldier Investigation actual testimony was ever proven. If I am wrong please correct me. Al Hubbard, who headed up the VVAW was a fraud and a proven liar. Forgive me for not taking you at your word that those allegations were ever proven. You provide no corroboration. Kerry impugned everyone who served in Vietnam with unsbustantiated, uncorroborated, and false testimony.
Maybe you know why Kerry's military records were revised years after the war ended and he was in Congress. The speculation is that Kerry had less than an honorary discharge due to his anti-war activities while still in the military. I've never seen any answer to that question.
This from the SBVT website.
November 1, 2004 -- More evidence accrues that John Kerry's initial discharge from the Navy was less than honorable, and a source confirms that his discharge status kept him from being admitted to the Harvard Law School. No comment from the Kerry campaign -- and no denial. See Kerry's Discharge Is Questioned by an Ex-JAG Officer by Thomas Lipscomb in the New York Sun.
That about wraps it up for me. Thanks again for the discussion and the trip down memory lane. :-)
AA, I know you've taken some shots here for your avoidance of going to VietNam, and blaming it on your liberal professors, but I think your taking it way too hard.
Get over the guilt, stop obsessing about Kerry, and just accept that when your country called, you ran. Many people did, I never served in the military. The difference is, I'm not cheering for others to go now and trying to disparage those who did inorder to make peace with myself.
You have some work to do. Start now.
This from the SBVT website.
Trying to refute a lie with a passage from the same liars' website.
Priceless.
They didn't tell the damn truth you blathering idiot. Not one single moronic soul who made those accusations were on Kerry's boat. As I have pointed out before and I'm sure folks like WorrierKing would back me up here, the best reporters of a persons experiences in combat are the ones who directly served right beside of them. It's that damn simple. If the guys on his boat say the swiftboaters are full of sh!t then dammit they would know. I pisses me off to no end to see folks like you minimize purple heart wounds when you have never been shot at or even had the courage to put your self on the line. There is an abundance of evidence that the swift boaters lied. In fact, a person who was in Vietnam at the same time with Kerry has posted here in the past and presented an abundance of evidence which showed idiots like you ared dead wrong.
The United States Navy does not make it a habit of giving out medals to undeserving persons. You should be ashamed of yourself. Not only for your lack of courage but for your ignorance concerning the facts about Kerry's service.
I've been going over the same ground with our friend AA for as long as I can remember. He will never be able to remove the blinders. He always asks for proof, but when proof is provided, he finds something to refute the official records, or as you said, he'll talk about another SB Vet who wasn't on Kerry's boat.
When challenged, he'll always provide an obscure link or quote, yet he's always demanding proof from Kerry supporters and when provided with official records form the DOD or US Navy, he'll claim that the documents were written by Kerry himself.
The corporate owned media uses this clown (Drudge) as a base of (made up) facts to use as stories to run..... WTF!
What did Drudge do to put himself in such a position? My guess is that it required knee pads!
I've said this before and I'll say it again..... I want my 4th estate back!!
What did Drudge do to earn his position? As far as I can tell, he was just a pioneer in figuring out that the internets provide a pretty good conduit for BS. Even a very basic,simply-designed website can be pretty official looking, with very little accountability.
Not that the actual mainstream media holds itself to the highest standards, but Drudge got in on the ground floor of a medium that really has no sense of history, one that finds its target audience and knows that credibility only hinges on what that audience is predisposed to believe.
Unfortunately, for every MMFA on the web, I have to believe there are many more sites closer to Drudge.
As for the Petraeus Ad from MoveOn.org......
Since they used a ? (Question mark) behind the BetrayUs part.... it was not a slap at his service to the country... it was a legitimate question to whether the general was willing or going to sell himself as a corporate owned political hack instead of a neutral and still active military service man!
We all know how that turned out..... don't we!
Drudge?
Is this the same Drudge that said without evidence that the Clinton campaign had circulated a photo of Obama in Somali garb, and Obama supporters hailed the story as a bombshell?
I guess Karma does exist.
OK,I take that back, it's still fun. Tripping over those big clown feet with his baggy pants falling down. He he.
Have I ever told you how much I love you, Col? ;D
The fact is Obama did not want to go on record as voting against bowelmovement.org and it's attack ad. The votes were 30 minutes apart, Biden and Cantwell were counted as 'not voting' in both measures (maybe they were out of town) but Obama only voted on the generic measure. Gaining political cover by saying that he was condeming those kinds of ads without directly attack his friends at bowelmovement.org, Once again Media Matters (for very little) looking for the mountain in the mole hill. But hey, at least no additional complaints from MM(vl) about people saying Obama is the "L" word!
Obama only voted on the generic measure.(PlowedCon)
By "generic", of course you mean the one condemning the disrespecting of all military, rather than only conservatives?
and wouldn't Obama voting for Boxer's version inherently be against Moveon's ad?
kernal,
maybe it's just like your description of spilled oil, the 'diluted' or 'concentrated' versions of the measure!
Heres the concentrated, non-generic version:
To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces.
"Senator Obama must be going potty---not voting"
And the diluted one, the one not mentioning the "owlmovement-bay otday orgay" ad:(shhhhhh)
To reaffirm strong support for all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces and to strongly condemn attacks on the honor, integrity, and patriotism of any individual who is serving or has served honorably in the United States Armed Forces, by any person or organization.
Obama votes Yeah! Don't worry, I did a courtesy flush!
Funny but 72 voted yea for the first one, only 50 for the second. Hmmmm.
"Funny but 72 voted yea for the first one, only 50 for the second. Hmmmm."
Strike that, reverse it.
Oh, and the SECOND one didn't mention moveon.org either, jackass.
The first vote inherently includes the second one.
deebedwedden,
Too bad, but the non-voting Obama missed hearing the 72 Yea's while in the powder room.
And, I guess I thought that you would have looked at the full measure. Check pages 3+, (a)sections 8 and (b)sections 1-3. It does specifically mention the bowelmovement.org attack ad.
http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=14e59d63-b0af-4842-b741-2055d5a15fea
The Boxcar Willie one includes comments about negative ads regarding two democratic politicians. However, It makes no mention of the negative stuff about those going after George Bush's records. Then it states that the NY Times did this but no mention of the lefty loonies at bowelmovement.org. And remember General Petreaus, not a politician removed by decades from war but one active in theater then. It would be kind of like a congressman calling our active soldiers cold-blooded killers, oops, Murtha beat us to it.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2007_record&page=S11782&position=all
So sorry to burst the ballon..
"GOP Senator's Top Staffer Busted Posting Comments Under Fake Name on Liberal Blog"
Kinda fits, don't you think?
"A fun footnote to this whole affair: One of the things "Buck Smith" said was that David Beckwith should get a raise."
My boss is eyeing me funny because I'm laughing so hard.
For the Umpteenth time, throw your IBM all caps keyboard in the trash, get yourself down to you local Circuit City, Best Buy, Staples, etc and get a new keyboard.
Right Winger is not using an IBM all caps keyboard. He's posting using his Speak & Spell....