I want to thank you for the banner link to the dirt cheap ammo place. I bought some Remington Vipers for my soon-to-arrive Henry AR-7, and as a new gun owner, I had no idea that you could buy 50 bullets for $1.67. Whatta country!
Posted by: Palandine on March 5, 2003 09:57 AMJust bought a few hundred rounds for my new 1911 from Cheaper Than Dirt. Pretty good prices, and no hassles shipping to Illinois, either (most online vendors either won't or make you jump through hoops). Thanks for the link.
Posted by: Spoons on June 6, 2003 08:02
 |
|
|||||||||||||||||
A Journal of Opinion: Home of the Libertarian Center Editor: William Quick See Terms of Use here. The birthplace of the
The opinions expressed by me herein are mine alone, and do not in any way reflect or represent those of any of my employers, past, current, or potential.
MeStuff Archives
The Bear Flag League
Blogs Hosted On Blogspot
Ace of Spades HQ Blogs Usually Available
Aaron's Rantblog
|
August 20, 2004
Off-topic gives a 404, so I'll post here: Uh-oh: "BugMeNot is now, well, not." Looks like their webhost pulled the plug Posted by Chuck on August 20, 2004 08:55 AM | Read the rest... | Link to this comment Please post your off-topic and general interest items here. Comments are working now.
Buy This Book! Read This Book!
Unfit for Command : Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry
August 20, 2004
Up The Revolution! Roger L. Simon: They Were All William Calley Now I wonder... even more than I previously did... why the Senator chose to base his campaign on his Vietnam service. Why would he want to do that, other than the obvious innoculation against Bush's anti-terror record?Interesting question. Here are my thoughts. I base them on my own experience as a contemporary and, at the time, ideological fellow-traveler of Kerry's. We thought we were right. No, more than that, we knew we were right. We had the blazing certainty of the true believer. We were going to tear down the walls, destroy the temples, render the palaces of the tyrants into rubble, sow the ruins with salt, and start over again, this time with free pot and acid for the masses. Some of us learned to regret our mindless certainty. And some of us, to this very day, remember those times as the best days of our lives. Unfortunately, in order to render those memories convincing still, those who carry them untarnished have had to ignore or forget the terrible things many did, said, and wished for in the service of The Cause. They had to whitewash their own recollections. I realized I'd been wrong, admitted it both to myself and in public, and continued on with my life, sadder, as they say, but probably wiser, and well-innoculated against the virus of True Belief by a strong dose of rationalism acquired the hard way. But some of us - and I number Kerry among them - have had to bend and twist reality for so long in order to maintain that heroic inner image so carefully built all those decades ago that reality itself has become as malleable as memory. In short, Kerry actually believes his Vietnamese and post-war "revolutionary" activites are still as staunchly regarded as heroic by most Americans as he believes that to be true himself. The technical term for that sort of break with reality is "insanity." I think Kerry may not care. He has long been known as an opportunist, and perhaps a sociopath, and is just doing what he does - lying. I don't think the electoral people appreciated either the power of blogs or the influence of 527s, and as a result had no idea what was going to happen. Kerry thought he could cover it all up with the compliant bastards of the main stream media. First try - it worked. The Swifties did a press conference on May 5, and almost nobody heard about it. The MSM that did report it (and many did not) took prepared Kerry spin and made it half of their stories - the spin, of course, was pure ad hominem - these guys were republican hit men, etc. Stupid ideas, actually, given the 527 laws. So having vanquished the SBVT, Kerry decided to run with the war hero motive. When I saw him do that at the convention... well, I was watching him walk right into an ambush. I couldn't believe he and his people were so stupid. Sure enough, a few days later the SBVT first ad appeared. The media stonewalled it but it went through the internet like mad. All the bloggers were talking and analyzing and beating up Kerry. And then to top it off, the book the media had been ignoring sat at Amazon #1 for a long time (may still be there) and may hit NYT #1 this week, which would really frost the toads at the NYT. Finally, there was too much pressure for the press to hold back. So the big media released stories about the ad, naturally doing their best to discredit everyone associated with it. The NYT was especially eggregious in that way. But the word got out. Furthermore, I've heard that it's all over the military, and the veterans' world is bubbling. And just as Kerry responds to the ad, finally making it a story that the media must cover, out pops another one - even more damaging. This would be fun except for the fear I have that the SOB might win anyway. Also, I think our freedom-restricting congress has made it impossible for 527's to run any more ads soon. Posted by John Moore on August 20, 2004 10:09 PM | Link to this comment I think Kerry may not care. He has long been known as an opportunist, and perhaps a sociopath, and is just doing what he does - lying. I don't think the electoral people appreciated either the power of blogs or the influence of 527s, and as a result had no idea what was going to happen. Kerry thought he could cover it all up with the compliant bastards of the main stream media. First try - it worked. The Swifties did a press conference on May 5, and almost nobody heard about it. The MSM that did report it (and many did not) took prepared Kerry spin and made it half of their stories - the spin, of course, was pure ad hominem - these guys were republican hit men, etc. Stupid ideas, actually, given the 527 laws. So having vanquished the SBVT, Kerry decided to run with the war hero motive. When I saw him do that at the convention... well, I was watching him walk right into an ambush. I couldn't believe he and his people were so stupid. Sure enough, a few days later the SBVT first ad appeared. The media stonewalled it but it went through the internet like mad. All the bloggers were talking and analyzing and beating up Kerry. And then to top it off, the book the media had been ignoring sat at Amazon #1 for a long time (may still be there) and may hit NYT #1 this week, which would really frost the toads at the NYT. Finally, there was too much pressure for the press to hold back. So the big media released stories about the ad, naturally doing their best to discredit everyone associated with it. The NYT was especially eggregious in that way. But the word got out. Furthermore, I've heard that it's all over the military, and the veterans' world is bubbling. And just as Kerry responds to the ad, finally making it a story that the media must cover, out pops another one - even more damaging. This would be fun except for the fear I have that the SOB might win anyway. Also, I think our freedom-restricting congress has made it impossible for 527's to run any more ads soon. Posted by John Moore on August 20, 2004 10:10 PM | Link to this comment It’s interesting to see how MSNBC has dropped its pretense and joined Kerry’s bucket brigade. MSNBC’s main page proclaims “Kerry files complaint after Swift Boat veterans linked to Bush.” Early in the text, MSNBC dangles this bombshell “…media reports have exposed connections between Bush, his family and other high-profile Texas politicians.” Who knew? MSNBC also moved Columnist Eleanor Clift to the marquee with the hook “Are Swift Boat charges a diversionary tactic?” while the title inside is “Fighting a phony war: Is the real aim of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to divert attention from Iraq?” And that’s the last that’s said of it until the very last line: “For an incumbent president in as much trouble as Bush, fighting a war that’s been over for nearly 30 years takes voters’ minds off Iraq.” I haven’t checked MSNBC’s reports from the Olympic Games, but perhaps a pair of similarly detachable flailings bracket the text of the sports pieces, too.
"Fight, fight, fight for liberation Posted by Lastango on August 20, 2004 10:51 PM | Link to this comment Not For Much Longer, Though The latest Election Projection is up. Kerry's still leading. Let's not forget my own prediction. GWB wins with 58 percent of the two party vote. Bill- I'm not sure yet, but when would you say is a cut-off date for a wager. I think Bush is toast. But what would you say... Bush wins, tickets, reasonably priced, to a SF Giants 2005 game for you. Kerry wins, 2005 Yankees tickets, reasonably priced, for me. Again, not sure if I (or you for that matter) want to do it. Post a reply in the comments, and we'll go from there. Posted by Daniel on August 20, 2004 09:21 PM | Link to this comment You're on, Daniel. Details sound fine to me. The cutoff date is the election. I won't be changing this prediction. Posted by Bill Quick on August 20, 2004 09:36 PM | Link to this comment Cool. To be fair, I'll consider the cut-off date Sept. 1, so as not to be able to take into account any possible post-convention bounce. Posted by Daniel on August 20, 2004 09:42 PM | Link to this comment There's a very interesting poster called "Samuel" over at Roger L. Simon's place. If he is who he described himself as, he just posted: have said all along, even in the darkest days that Bush would get 53-57% of the vote. Unless there is a huge catastrophe lurking to hurt Bush I am beginning to believe Bush's numbers are going to approach closer to 57% and a 40+ State margin. If this happens I expect the Democrats to get very bitter and it will hurt them as a Party.... As an ex-Democrat myself with a "Driving Miss Daisy Jew" dad from Georgia, and also having been raised in Virginia (Northern Virginia "Inside the Beltway" in Suburban Washington D.C.) I will tell you guys that the current McGovern like Vietnam climate being generated is very dangerous for Democrats, very dangerous indeed. What where the Democrats thinking? My word that liberal matrix of unreality they live in is just getting weird, I escaped not a moment too soon. --- He says he was a big dem fundraiser and involved in campaigns. Posted by Sandy P on August 20, 2004 10:49 PM | Link to this comment Bloggery This is one hell of a blog. Now appearing in a blogroll near you - mine, that is. And The Fourth Rail is now no longer the blogosphere's "best kept secret." (Hat tip: the indispensible Scott Elliott).
Even A Stopped Clock A lonely stand against the party machine HONG KONG -- The extraordinary story of a county Communist Party secretary's lonely six-year battle against corruption in coastal Fujian Province, unveiled last week on the Web site of the official People's Daily newspaper, on one level marks a personal crusade.I don't find the notion of honest Commies impossible to encompass. But that still doesn't mean I'd want to live in any society run by them. Honest commie don't mean what you think Posted by Doug_S on August 20, 2004 08:49 PM | Link to this comment Honest commie don't mean what you think Posted by Doug_S on August 20, 2004 08:49 PM | Link to this comment Honest commie don't mean what you thinkReally? So tell me - what is it, exactly, that you think I think I mean? Posted by Bill Quick on August 20, 2004 09:12 PM | Link to this comment Gorbachev was an honest communist. It's part of why the system ended: he believed in it, tried to make it work, but with a taste of freedom to the people it was all over. Posted by Dean Esmay on August 20, 2004 09:17 PM | Link to this comment Yeah, He's Nuts, But... Two weeks ago, Mr. Fischer announced that he was renouncing his American citizenship. Immigration lawyers are divided over whether stateless status, German citizenship or marriage to a Japanese citizen are sufficient to stave off extradition to the United States for trial.Make you a wager. This miserable little craphead will be coming back to the States. And although I can't stand the whining whackjob, I don't think he should be penalized for playing chess, even in Yugoslavia. I mean, what has he said about America and Americans that's so much worse than what John Kerry once said? And Kerry is actually running for President. Have to disagree on this one. I'm in the oilfiled and my business is international. The recent Syrian embargo left my group with nearly a million dollars worth of custom equipment on the docks in New York, now illegal to ship. It's now sitting in Odessa, Texas, awaiting cannibalization (best hope), or a huge write off. If I shipped that equipment after the embargo, I face jail time, and my company faces huge fines (and exclusion from potential government contacts). Mr. Fisher should face the same consequences. He chose to actively trade with an embargoed country. In plain view. With relish. Love of chess is an excuse. I love the oilfield and my business. He loves chess. Neither is a valid reason to willingly break the law. Mark
Posted by Mark on August 20, 2004 11:36 PM | Link to this comment Is YGB Directing This Campaign? Guardian Unlimited | World Latest | Volunteer Links Anti-Kerry Flier to GOP CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) - A volunteer for John Kerry said Friday he picked up a flier in Bush-Cheney headquarters in Gainesville, Fla., promoting Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group the Bush campaign has insisted for weeks it has no connection to.Lame. Just so lame. May The Biggest Man Win The terror within: a village living in fear of animal rights activists Animal rights extremists have developed a sinister new tactic, targeting an entire village that is home to a family of farmers who breed guinea pigs for medical research.When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have power. Can You Say "Islamic Hypocrite?" Telegraph | News | Human shields await bloody last stand Few of the 1991 freedom fighters have much time for Sadr, an outsider.Interesting logic. I guess that Moqtada al-Sadr is a "robber baron and his men ignorant thieves and criminals looting homes, murdering civilians and spreading terror," is not considered a sufficient reason for fighting him. If those fighting him are Americans, that is. Especially since the Americans are the ones who finally brought freedom to your benighted hellhole in the first place. Consider the Alternatives TEHRAN, Aug. 20 -President Mohammad Khatami has called on Muslim countries to hold an emergency summit meeting to help stop the violence between American forces and Shiite militiamen in Najaf, the official news agency, IRNA, reported Friday.Given that al-Sadr is orchestrated, supported, financed, armed, and ordered about like a dishrag by the Iranian Mullahs, I think this is a bit disingenuous. Especially since the transparently obvious goal of the Iranian theocracy is to foment civil war in Iraq between Shia, Sunni, and whomever else might be interested in joining in. The only problem is that, for all their bluster, the Iranians no longer have the strong side of a military balance of power in the region. That now rests with the Americans. And we should all be damned glad it does. May You Wear Your Chains Lightly Cops Disciplined for Tasering Grandmother KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Police said Friday two officers have been disciplined and department policy changed following an investigation into the officers use of a taser when arresting a 66-year-old grandmother who honked her car horn at a police cruiser.Okay, usual suspects, let's hear it for the poor, hapless cops whose only choice was to electrocute the vicious 66 year old granny. Morons. No pic? For all we know, she could be 200 pounds. So could her be her handbag. Posted by Sandy P on August 20, 2004 10:54 PM | Link to this comment Trying For Another Purple Yahoo! News - Kerry Aims to Counter Impact of Criticism WASHINGTON - The Democratic Party launched a costly round of ads Friday to buttress John Kerry (news - web sites)'s credentials to be commander in chief as the White House accused the Massachusetts senator of "losing his cool" over attacks on his war record.Heh, heh, heh. I thought the Kerry Kampaign was taking August off, ad-wise, but apparently Kerry has flip-flopped again. Careful, Big Bad John. Watch that temper. You don't want to, um, accidentally injure yourself. If he injured himself, he could come up with another Purple Heart. Doesn't political campaigning count as combat? Posted by John Moore on August 20, 2004 10:39 PM | Link to this comment
August 19, 2004
Too Bad His Strategy Is Tearing Him Up - Big Time USATODAY.com - Dishonorable charges The presidential candidates are crisscrossing the country, sparring over national security, taxes and other issues that will confront whoever is elected. But too many of their supporters seem fixated on refighting the battles of the Vietnam War era.Hmm, let's see, who was it who made his Vietnam service the centerpiece of his campaign? Lessee....hmmm....who could it have been....oh, that's right. It was John Kerry. I am criss-crossing this country on my campaign bus...much like I criss-crossed the Cambodian border in my swiftboat. Posted by Mikey on August 20, 2004 04:42 AM | Link to this comment MSNBC has a poll about who to believe the swifties or JFK JFK is way ahead.Surprise Surprise Posted by Honest Abe on August 20, 2004 01:18 PM | Link to this comment I've had a surreal feeling these past few months. Although I've told my share of "war stories" over the years, this year brings back Vietnam like nothing else has, the good and the bad from that time. I think that as long as the Vietnam generation is of the age for politics - at least another 15 years, it will have the possibility of popping up again. Before this year, I don't know of anyone except Eisenhower who ran on his war experiences, and yet every president since FDR, with the exception of Clinton, was a veteran - some decorated combat veterans (McGovern and Bush 41). Just 12 years ago we had a highly decorated combat veteran (Bush Sr's war exploits are very impressive) against a draft dodger, and the MSM had no interest in Sr's war record. Sr. had among other things a DFC - trumps a silver star every day - and he earned it. Another odd thing about this year is the two-faced nature of Kerry. On the side he wants us to focus on is this warrior (supporters would say her, but it would be the first time the word left their mouths in their whole lives), but he spent far more time being a propagandist for the enemy. Which John Kerry is it? The guy who met with the commies twice while we were at war, and produced propaganda consistent with the newly created enemy propaganda campaign, or the guy who killed commies, torched a village and machine gunned the small animals there? Then there's another question: why did he fake his bronze star when there were so many witnesses to the facts, including 4 of his fellow skippers? He didn't need it. The only medals he needed were the purple hearts so he could get the hell out of dodge, and he certainly faked one of them (the first "injury" and last awarded purple heart... just the timing should make people wonder about that). Just having served in riverine duty should have been adequate "war creds" for whatever he wanted to do, including politics, and yet he was busy making things up. Christmas in Cambodia? Amazing. And why isn't the press investigating Kerry's Band of Brothers (who will only speak through the campaign, except for Rassman)? They ignored the Swiftee stories until they could find tiny little cracks in it.
Posted by John Moore on August 20, 2004 01:57 PM | Link to this comment I was in the Army when John Kerry gave that testimony, and I saw the effect his lies had on the people I knew who had served in Vietnam. The advertisement understates the damage John Kerry did to our country and to those who served it honorably. Posted by Dave D. on August 20, 2004 02:42 PM | Link to this comment Just look away... this stuff will make some of you mad. More of that damn fact checking. "A series of interviews and a review of documents show a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile Texas political figures and President Bush's chief political aide, Karl Rove. Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr. Bush's father for his debate when he was running for vice president provided them with strategic advice. And the group's television commercial was produced by the same team that made the devastating ad mocking Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988 presidential election. The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the "baby killer" and the fabricator of the events that resulted in his war medals. But on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements. Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year." And more. Enjoy, ye true believers. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 20, 2004 03:04 PM | Link to this comment More of that damn fact checking. A NYT article??? Hahahahaha..... Posted by Bashir Gemayel on August 20, 2004 03:11 PM | Link to this comment So, uhm, YGB, what you're saying is that if person A knows person B who knows Rove, then person A and Rove are coordinating their efforts? Exactly how many Kevin Bacon degrees of separation are necessary, here? And if 2 isn't enough, then ONE is worse, right? Has George Soros ever met John Kerry? What about Harold Ickes (director of the Media Fund, a 527 with > $28M so far this cycle). (Answer in both cases: yes). If you want to go into "webs of connections" and use acquaintainship or even friendship as "proof" of supposed illegal coordination then let's talk turkey: The top conservative 527 is the Club for Growth, with $4.5M in this cycle. It's #8. The top 7 are all liberal/democratic-oriented groups -- as are all but one more of the top 20. The top 2 have, between them, collected almost $100M. One is Media Fund run by the DNC operative mentioned above, Harold Ickes. The other is America Coming Together or ACT, Mr. Soros's baby. [Actually, #1 is the "Joint Victory Campaign" ($41M) a partnership between #2 Media Fund ($28M) and #3 ACT ($26M)]. I'll leave it to you to google the revolving door between Kerry's staff and the leadership of these 527's -- but here's one example from that well known member of the VRWC, the Cleveland's Plain Dealer: "Jim Jordan, Kerry's former campaign manager and now a consultant to the [527] groups..." "Many of the [527] leaders have personal or professional ties to Kerry, former President Bill Clinton, organized labor and just about every leading liberal political organization." How's that for a "web" of suspicious "connections"?) Contribution data taken from OpenSecrets The Swiftees, by the way, apparently have raised less than $500k...making them small potatoes. Perhaps what bugs you, and Kerry, is not the so-called virulent 527s and their supposed hidden webs of donors -- but the contents of the charges and the fact that Kerry has utterly failed to refute them on that basis. (Hidden? google, opensecrets, msnbc...wow, really hard to find) Kerry announced that he wouldn't spend any money on ads between the DNC and RNC conventions -- so the next day, MoveOn started running ads. Coordination? By your logic, yes: because Kerry met Michael Moore at the convention, and Michael Moore spoke once at a MoveOn meeting. Kerry wants to file in court to force the Swiftees to reveal their documents and emails and phone logs to "prove" coordination? I'll take that bet -- if we also get to use federal court discovery rules to investigate the rest of the top 20 527's... (BTW, I don't discuss every aspect of my life or job with all of my friends, much less my acquaintainces. Especially when it comes to proprietary or private information, I know who should be and should NOT be involved in a given conversation. These Swiftees KNOW they would be violating the law if they coordinated strategy -- and given their military experience, they know how to compartmentalize their conversation according to need-to-know. So mere friendship is not proof of coordination; ya gotta do better than that -- with, you know, PROOF of illegal conduct. Or is everyone at the NSA or CIA or DIA, who may be friends with a foriegn national of a friendly -- or unfriendly -- country AUTOMATICALLY guilty of espionage? Or should I just go ahead and handcuff myself -- and not in the fun way -- since I'm friends with some Venezuelans and in the distant past worked on some sensitive stuff?) Now, concerning ACTUAL coordination by YOUR pals in the leftist 527s, you might want to check with Mr. Ickes before claiming that THEY are innocent while those evil swiftees are obviously puppets. As quoted in this MSNBC article, Mr. Ickes says it happens, but...it's okay when he does it: ADJOINING ROOMS. The only handcuffs on the 527s are loophole-ridden rules that say they can't both take soft money and coordinate their activities with the official party and candidates. Does that mean ACT and the Democratic National Committee poobahs never talk politics? Not exactly. Ickes admits that he occasionally tells the Kerry camp what he's up to, and he insists it's perfectly legal. In fact, you couldn't get any closer coordination without it crossing the line into possible illegality. Reporters covering the Democratic convention couldn't help but notice that ACT and The Media Fund were briefing journalists just down the hall from the DNC Finance Committee's hospitality suite at Boston's Four Seasons Hotel. Posted by Chuck on August 20, 2004 04:07 PM | Link to this comment You need look no further than Zack Exley, the moveon.org director who joined the kerry campaign earlier this year. There are 527 operatives in the Kerry and the Bush campaigns. That's why Feingold-McCain was a pointless law. Part of the beauty of the swift boat ads, and the Kerry Campaign's feeble responses and lawsuits, is that this brings 527 groups into the forefront. Not only will it attack John Kerry, it will illustrate the huge money that has been put in by rich donors. They have raised questions about "rich texas donors, who are Karl Rove puppets and front groups for Bush", I bet this puppet will look respectable compaired to some of the people who have given money to Kerry. Didn't they just arrest a major democratic fundraiser for mob ties? You know they have nothing on the Swiftees if they have to resort to such hypocracy. Posted by sam b on August 20, 2004 05:03 PM | Link to this comment JOHN KERRY committed numerous violations of the UNIFORM CODE of MILITARY JUSTICE, and there is no statute of limitations re: the USMJ; by his own words he committed and saw commited war crimes during his FOUR MONTH TOUR of DUTY, NOT ONLY AS AN OFFICER BUT A COMMANDING OFFICER, thes e are direct infractions against the "CODE", only his violations were more severe and detrimental than MEDINA/CALLEY and MAI-LAI; at best KERRY should be brought up on charges,and be given a dishonorable discharge, then he would never be in a position to hurt the vets again.. this could be accomplished if all concernd vets join together and notify their congressional/senate leaders that the vets CAN COME TOGETHER , AND PUT THEIR POLITICAL CAREERS TO BED,KERRY IS ALREADY WORRYING. THIS WOULD BE SWEET JUSTICE AGAINST THIS ARROGANT POLITICAL LIAR,HE INFLECTED OF PAIN AND EMBARASMENT ON THE POWS. BY THE WAY I AM A RETIREE Posted by Rick on August 20, 2004 06:13 PM | Link to this comment The truth is that if you have any connection whatsoever with any Republican donor in Texas, you can trace through that to some connection with the Bush family. The Swifties come out of Texas. Who is going to donate to them? Democrats? Moveon.org? Naderites (actually, they might). But the most likely donors are Republicans or conservatives of some stripe or another. JB has already explained to YGB just how tenuous both his, and the NYT's - charges are. But YGB is fond of this sort of argument, which he also used in the case of Chavez and Venezuela, and which more or less boils down to, "If they are on the same planet, this proves collusion." But what really worries the Donks is that they can't seem to kill this thing. If just keeps getting bigger and bigger. First they tried to ignore it. Now they're trying to discredit the Swifties, but in order to do that, they have to mention what the Swifties are charging Kerry with, which is the very last thing they wanted to do. And the problems haven't even begun for them. Kerry's past is a horrible joke. I still can't believe the Democrats were so stupid as to nominate him. As far as I can tell, they must have been in collusion with Karl Rove, who probably had a hand in picking Kerry. After all, Kerry and Rove both work in Washington, and I'll even bet they've spoken to each other a couple of times. What more proof do you need? Posted by Bill Quick on August 20, 2004 06:18 PM | Link to this comment Hey, YGB: How do you like that "Ass on a Platter"...? Come back any time you want more. (Thanks, Chuck!) Posted by Toren on August 20, 2004 08:21 PM | Link to this comment YGB How long are you going to keep repeating the utterly idiotic friend of a friend of a friend McCarthyite attempts to discredit the SBVT? You know damned well that they got money from Republican donors, and they have said so. SO f*cking what? As others have pointed out, vastly greater sums of money, including one from a billionaire who specializes in controlling countries are flowing into Democrat 527 coffers. So why don't you shut up until you have something that is: 1) not repetitive 2) not stupid Posted by John Moore on August 20, 2004 10:44 PM | Link to this comment And Tom Oliphant's daughter working for the Kerry campaign is, what, Y? Unassailable? Do you think his readers or those who listen to his interviews have a right to know? Posted by Sandy P on August 20, 2004 10:59 PM | Link to this comment Release The Real Records, Big Bad John Inside Politics - The Washington Times: Inside Politics - August 19, 2004 Uneven military service records have proved toxic to John Kerry's campaign for president, prompting him to post his full military record on his Web site (www.johnkerry.com) for critics to peruse.Heh, heh, heh. Worse and worse. By the way, "full military record?" Has Kerry signed that 180 form? If not, I won't believe anything like his "full military records" have yet seen the light of day. Everybody ready? Alllll together now... (one - two - three - and -) SIGN THE FOOOORMMM, BIGGG JAWNNNN!!!! S'pose maybe we need to start holding up posters at his campaign rallies, saying "When Will Kerry Sign His Form 180, And Release His FULL Military Records?" - Followed by "Bush Already Released His", and "What Is Kerry Hiding?" Posted by JB on August 20, 2004 05:59 AM | Link to this comment I wrote this two days ago: "I know you're pushing this (and pushing this, and pushing this...) because you feel it will damage Kerry. I think at this point there's as good of a chance as not that it will hurt Bush." The Swifties have another ad buy coming down the pike, at it seems quite possible that they'll be pushing the "self-inflicted wound" spin. I'll say it now. If this is indeed their angle, this will blow up in their (and Bush's) face. These words from Larry Thurlow are absolutely incredible: “I’m saying that he had a plan that included not only being a war hero, but getting an ‘early out.’” Stand by your man, Swifities-at-Heart. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 20, 2004 07:16 AM | Link to this comment >These words from Larry Thurlow are absolutely incredible Why do you say that YGB? They are only incredible to someone far removed from military life. These guys served with Kerry. Who would know better? These guys are the ones who went with Kerry for "debriefs" at the O club. I grew up with these men around me and I know for a fact that they are not lying. This is not blowing up in Bush's face. Posted by Chef Mojo on August 20, 2004 07:32 AM | Link to this comment "I grew up with these men around me and I know for a fact that they are not lying." Details, please. I'm genuinely curious about your connections. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 20, 2004 07:41 AM | Link to this comment YGB, The only details I am comfortable giving out around here are the fact that my father was an Naval officer at An Thoi at the same time as Kerry. That and the Navy is a pretty tight knit group of people. If you care to, you may email me for further details. Posted by Chef Mojo on August 20, 2004 10:48 AM | Link to this comment Fascinating: In one day's worth of threads, YGB simultaneously: DEFENDS Kerry for not releasing his records, b/c the bad guys are out to get him and will distort them; Lambasts Bush for not releasing his records, b/c he's clearly hiding the fact that he was AWOL; Demands records from Chef Mojo, in an open forum. With a defender like this, small wonder that the Dems expect that what Kerry said last week, last month, last year should be deemed irrelevant. YGB doesn't bother trying to maintain a level of consistency within one day. Posted by Dean on August 20, 2004 11:38 AM | Link to this comment Smarter Than Kerry? Impossible! Jeff Jarvis links to the WaPo "expose" of Larry Thurlow, and asks: : I don't give a hoot about the Swift thing but I will be curious to see today whether all the Swifties out there link to this.As one of Jeff's commenters replied, "Oh, now you're interested." To which I add, "Sure, Jeff, I've linked to it either directly or indirectly at least twice today. And will you be linking to Thurlow's reply to the WaPo smear-job?" Which, by the way, is nothing new - YGB was peddling it here weeks ago. The mainstream media - always a day, er, week, er, month late - although I'm flattered that WaPo is now stealing from my comment sections instead of just my own posts. I'm beginning to see a pattern here, though. I think whoever is conning Swiftie strategy is way ahead of Kerry and his backers, as well as his orchestrators and supporters in the media. It's almost as if they have planned their responses to each of these Kerry defenses well in advance, so that every attack on the Swifties only serves to A: Bring a devastating response, B: Increase the visiblilty of the Swifties' charges, and C: Do even more damage to Kerry and his defenders. I suspect O'Neill is conning the strategy. He is a very sharp cookie - #1 in his law school class, successful business lawyer in Houston - also very respected including for his honesty. And he is bound and determined to spread the word about Kerry, as are the other members of that group I have talked with. Posted by John Moore (Useful Fools) on August 20, 2004 12:02 AM | Link to this comment YGB was ahead of the Washington Post? That just rocks. Posted by Mikey on August 20, 2004 04:45 AM | Link to this comment Sorry John, but O'Neil will waste much of his breath. My director at work hates Bush. We were in a meeting when he made a 'vomment' about W and the upcoming election. I asked him "You're seriously going to vote for Mr. Cambodia?" His response? "He's not Bush" Posted by Sharp as a Marble on August 20, 2004 05:38 AM | Link to this comment Hey, Sharp - tell that director to vote his conscience (if he has one), and vote for Nader. He's "not Bush", either. Back when YGB was trying (and failing) to blow up Thurlow's statements, I put in commentary regarding the likely scenario - upon having reviewed that, and in light of greater access to info since then, I would venture one more observation regarding the matter: Thurlow was a boat commander there before Kerry got there, and he was there for a long time after Kerry got his three-Purple-Hearts-and-out ticket home (a few days after the action in question, Kerry's last combat patrol). Thurlow did a full tour in Nam - Kerry did not. Thurlow's not running for national-level public office - Kerry is. All that tells me that Thurlow's account of the combat action in question is the one to believe, not Kerry's. I think there's more to the strategic guidance of this than just O'Neill - from all accounts, as a group, the Swifties have little commonality beyond their shared service time and their shared interest in holding Kerry's feet to the fire regarding his military record and his lack of fitness to be CinC/POTUS. I think it's quite likely that, in the days prior to their first press releases and the release of the book and the ads, they will have strategized as a group over likely outcomes and the responses they should be prepared for. Although O'Neill seems to be the likely "point man", I would expect that others among the group will be directly involved in planning for the continuing strategy. Posted by JB on August 20, 2004 06:34 AM | Link to this comment I peddle quicker than the WaPo could possibly dream. Anyway, he's your choice when it comes to Thurlow. 1) He's a liar. So... liar or flaming hypocrite turned opportunist? If I'm Kerry, it's a cold day in hell that I release my records at this point. The Swifties have shown their intentions. T'aint "truth" that they're after. It's a loser strategy to even throw them a bone. To be fair to the WaPo, I initially read about Thurlow's inconsistency at another site (don't remember which) and looked into it myself. I am but a humble messenger. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 20, 2004 06:43 AM | Link to this comment Oh yeah, YGB is VERY humble. He'll even tell you so himself. Alternate universe: Thurlow gets the Bronze Star after he's out of the service and doesn't care about correcting the error. Liar? Or glad to be home and out of the service? YGB speculates, you decide. Posted by Jack on August 20, 2004 07:00 AM | Link to this comment To be fair to YGB, he beat the Washington Post by nearly two full weeks in spite of the fact that a) he isn't paid to do investigate things like this, and b) the WaPo has a staff full of reporters who are paid to investigate things like this. No offense to YGB, but I don't think this makes the MSM look very good... Posted by Tom on August 20, 2004 07:08 AM | Link to this comment "Thurlow gets the Bronze Star after he's out of the service and doesn't care about correcting the error." Of course he doesn't care about correcting the "error" because he has a bronze star! The only reason someone would be stupid enough to "care" about correcting such an "error" was if he... gee... I dunno... had the slightest bit of respect for the military and his fellow man and didn't want to be given a prestigious medal that he knows he didn't earn. It's good that you acknowledge both my humility and the idea that your scenario could only happen in an alternative universe, though. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 20, 2004 07:08 AM | Link to this comment YGB, you neglect another possibility: He accepted an award which he BELIEVED was for "helping to rescue a boat that was mined" and that he also believed the "true" events of the day were worthy of the award. "He said he believed his own award would be fraudulent ***if*** it was based on coming under enemy fire." (But what if he believed the true events -- minus Kerry's 'under fire' embellishments -- were the basis for the award?) "He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation." IOW, Thurlow did something that was pretty damn spiffy, and got an award for it. Then, he finds out that the citation includes language describing an...embellished...version of the true events. What do you do? Reject the medal entirely -- or rationalize to yourself that the actual events also deserved the award? (Especially when that rationalization may in fact be true; personally I duno what justifies a bronze star, silver star, etc. I do know you're not supposed to submit yourself for them). I'd say that rationalization a pretty minor sin, and not the major transgression imputed by the charge of "hypocrisy".
All of the preceeding assumes that the citation recently released reads the same as the citation Thurlow got back in 1969. We already know that there are two completely different writeups for Kerry's Silver Star. One was signed by Hyland, with a second cert signed by SecNavy Lehman -- who didn't BECOME SecNavy until 1982. The other was signed by Zumwalt. The funky thing is the writeups are different but the dates are the same. We also know that the Bronze Star cert for Kerry was signed by Zumwalt with a second cert signed by Lehman. (Interesting pattern) Of course, Mr. Lehman's service as SecNavy never overlapped Lt. JG Kerry, so why did he go around and sign all of these certs, when the "original" certs were still there? (It wasn't to replace the "tossed over the fence" medals, because Kerry has already admitted he never threw away his own medals; just someone else's medals and his own ribbons.) Why are there TWO different versions of the Silver Star citation, signed by different non-Lehman people? Note that SecNavy Lehman's service did overlap with that of Senator Kerry. It seems to me that a plausible explanation of all this is that somebody went thru the official Navy records and "updated" them; perhaps to curry favor with a Dem Senator during the Reagan military buildup. Including rewriting the Silver Star citation -- and getting the new one signed by Hyland & Lehman (but neglecting to destroy the original one with a less-heroic writeup signed by Zumwalt.) Perhaps also by rewriting the Bronze Star writeup -- but this time destroying the original Bronze Star writeup. To cover THAT, you'd also have to rewrite all of the citations issued to any other participants in the action -- including Thurman's. So perhaps the citation Thurlow received "back then" -- if an awardee actually GETS the citation itself, and not just the medal -- reads differently than the one that currently exists in Thurlow's official Navy file. I'd like to see (both of) those if they exist. I'd also like to know whose signature is on the current official Navy citation for *Thurlow's* bronze star. Posted by Chuck on August 20, 2004 08:01 AM | Link to this comment YGB's characterizations of Thurlow bring us to Max "ZERO-Purple-Hearts" Cleland that John "Three-Purlple-Hearts" Kerry rolls around as a campaign prop. Cleland admits in his autobiography that his Soldier's Medal and Silver Star were essentially sympathy medals. In the 1986 edition of his autobiography Strong at the Broken Places, Cleland wrote of his receiving the Soldier’s Medal “for allegedly shielding my men from the grenade blast and the Silver Star for allegedly coming to the aid of wounded troops….” “There were no heroics on which to base the Soldier’s Medal,” wrote Cleland on page 87. “And it had been my men who took care of the wounded during the rocket attack, not me. Some compassionate military men had obviously recommended me for the Silver Star, but I didn’t deserve it.” (Emphasis added.) Two pages later he added: “I was not entitled to the Purple Heart either, since I was not wounded by enemy action.” (Emphasis added.) So, YGB, you gonna lump Cleland in with Thurlow as a "liar or flaming hypocrite turned opportunist" since he doesn't disclaim his Silver Star everytime Kerry rolls him on stage and mentions it? Posted by Lynxx Pherrett on August 20, 2004 08:44 AM | Link to this comment I'm just astounded that YGB, armchair quarterback-at-large, feels that he has the standing to question the awards given to Vietnam vets. How did you figure out that... Of course he doesn't care about correcting the "error" because he has a bronze star! The only reason someone would be stupid enough to "care" about correcting such an "error" was if he... gee... I dunno... had the slightest bit of respect for the military and his fellow man and didn't want to be given a prestigious medal that he knows he didn't earn. So, you managed to "divine" Thurlow's mindset from whatever LLL crystal ball you use. Are you prepared to offer any proof that your statement above is supported by some facts? For example, some quotes from Thurlow saying that he hasn't "the slightest bit of respect for the military and his fellow man" would be helpful. As I gaze upon my own "shadow box", I can point to two medals that I got that were not "earned" in the way you believe they should be. I know I did a great job and worked hard for my men and was given that award. I earned those medals even though I still chuckle at the citations. Suddenly, I'm supposed to believe that I don't have "the slightest respect for the military and [my] fellow man"? Oh, and BTW, how exactly are you helping your candidate's case by using the old, tired line: "Well, it's OK if my candidate did something wrong, because everyone else is doing it, too"? Posted by Mark Atwood on August 20, 2004 08:53 AM | Link to this comment Well, I've finally come up w/the response as to why I'm voting for W, but need to hone it to a 15/30/s soundbite. Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it. And/or There was an appeaser in the office when Iran attacked us, now that we are finally engaging them, I see no reason to put another appeaser and communist sympathizer in office. Then I could really let it go about how Cabana Boy's beliefs killed over 1.5m Vietnamese, bring up the CA poll, and how many millions do you think will die this time? Mudd will be the least of our problems if we leave them to fend for themselves again like we did in 1991. Posted by Sandy P on August 20, 2004 09:08 AM | Link to this comment I have a nagging hunch about all this. Let me be clear that I have not an iota of proof or rational argument for what I'm saying. I'm thinking there was a major "sexing up" of Kerry's record and/or citations by the Navy under pressure from a Senator. That's not very original, I've seen it discussed in several places including right here. The hunch I have is that the SBVT folks have the goods on this, including original and dated copies of altered records and they are just waiting for the right moment to spring the trap. Posted by Dean Douthat on August 20, 2004 09:16 AM | Link to this comment Wow, Lynxx. Couldn't have explained the difference better myself if I'd tried. Max Cleland, on his own and in his own biography, stated that he felt that his own medals were not deserved. Thurlow instead refused to discuss his own medals, attacked Kerry for his, and then only when found out for his chicanery decided to try to spin his own deceit. I also enjoyed the offhanded slap at Cleland's injuries by saying that Kerry "rolls (Cleland) around"... a nice touch. You must be a scream at the VFW get-togethers. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 20, 2004 09:26 AM | Link to this comment That dog won't hunt, YGB. If Thurlow had written an autobiography highlighting his Bronze Star and was now disclaiming it (the inverse of what Cleland has done) you would have a point. But that isn't the way things are. Cleland had written he "didn't deserve" his Silver Star, but he did accept it. Fit that in with your description of someone who "had the slightest bit of respect for the military and his fellow man and didn't want to be given a prestigious medal that he knows he didn't earn." However honest Cleland was in his autobiography, he has since allowed the Kerry campaign to trade on his having been awarded that Silver Star. Posted by Lynxx Pherrett on August 20, 2004 09:49 AM | Link to this comment Let me add something else here. I have no animus toward Max Cleland, nor am I bothered that he received the Silver Star from superiors who essentially decided to gift him one because of his injuries. I am, however, confounded that Cleland willingly allows himself to be used as a prop by the Kerry campaign. He's on that stage primarily because hale-and-hearty Kerry has no visible injury to account for any of his three purple hearts. If Kerry really must have a Vietnam veteran in a wheelchair on stage, Ron Kovic would be more appropriate. Posted by Lynxx Pherrett on August 20, 2004 10:48 AM | Link to this comment YGB, I was a Spec/5 in the Big Red 1 serving in Germany. 1970-1972. Got lucky I didn't go to VN. Didn't like the army, didn't like VN. Got some unit citations and some other ribbons I'm sure. I never looked into it and don't give a shit. When my time was over, I went home and forgot about it. My brother was a Marine number 2 seat pilot in an F/4 during Tet. He's got ribbons that he doesn't give a shit about either. 5 years in the Marines and he was glad to get out and forget it all. Our father was a lifer Navy officer and he doesn't drool about his ribbons and accomplishments either. You are foaming-at-the-mouth moon-barking mad. Posted by Jack on August 20, 2004 01:18 PM | Link to this comment The only foam is from my occassional root beer. And of course, the rabies. I do love the name calling, though. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 20, 2004 02:37 PM | Link to this comment Figures...barking moon-bats always seem to love name-calling. Posted by JB on August 20, 2004 02:45 PM | Link to this comment I Shall Be Released FactCheck.org Bush Nails Kerry's Poor Attendance at Intelligence Committee Hearings Roberts: Well, it's in a closed hearing. . . . The easiest way out of this is for John Kerry and John Edwards to request of Senator Rockefeller and myself to release the attendance hearings; not only the public hearings, which they have rebutted, but the closed hearings. . . .There are more and more things Kerry should release, but won't. Why not? Because they reveal him to be a liar, a self-aggrandizing slug, and amazingly ill-suited to be, not only President, but even a Senator. Massachusetts have been terribly served for the past two-plus decades by its Senators, but at least Teddy "The Swimmer" Kennedy is generally considered to be an effective legislator. Didn't Kerry get called on the subject of intelligence briefings, when he said he hadn't had time to schedule any? To what extent is his need for said briefings due to his non-attendance at meetings of his own committee? Since Kerry's staffers said he was the Vice Chairman, shouldn't he have made a point of attending those meetings? (I know, it was actually Bob Kerrey, but if you're gonna try to propagate that sorta thing, you're gonna wind up w/ questions that stem from it.) Posted by Dean on August 20, 2004 07:08 AM | Link to this comment Tar Baby HARKIN: DENOUNCED CHENEY'S 'DODGE,' BUT NOT EDWARDS'. August 19, 2004 -- Dick Cheney a "coward" because he didn't serve in Vietnam.As I said earlier, they've gone mad with terror. The Swift boat vets just won't go away, and the more that particular onion gets peeled, the worse Kerry looks. Kerry wanted to make Vietnam the central issue of his campaign, and now he's getting what he wished for - in spades. Except for some reason it isn't turning out quite the way he'd hoped. The Swift vet charges have cracked all the major media, even the NYT. Their book is near the top of the NYT best seller list. The blogosphere has been throbbing with these issues for weeks, and now the mainstream media, despite its liberal bias toward Kerry, can no longer avoid them or make them go away by simply ignoring them. I've always known Kerry was a horrible candidate, and I breathed a silent cheer when the idiots in the Donk party thrust him to the nomination. Now, in trying to defend the indefensible, even Kerry supporters are spiraling down in flames. Harkin, for instance, has always billed himself as a fighter pilot braving the skies over Vietnam. Except he didn't: And it would seem that when Harkin -- who didn't serve in Vietnam combat but who lied about it, and whose actual military service seems rather similar to Bush's -- calls Dick Cheney a "coward" because he didn't serve in Vietnam, well, it ought to be worth mentioning. Shouldn't it be?The Donks are destroying themselves. Enjoy. It's going to get a lot worse for them. I was talking to my parents on the phone the other day and they didn't know a thing about Christmas in Cambodia.........they usually watch the news, too. Thats my measuring stick, the word isn't out yet. It's amazing what the big stations can get away with, we'll see how long it lasts...If only there was a blue dress with Kerrys DNA on it that would resolve this once and for all... Posted by michael on August 20, 2004 05:07 AM | Link to this comment it is amazing to me that the Donks can sit there and lie, and commit such craven hypocrisy it would make the Arab world blush, but how much of this stuff is actually getting to the people who don't already have an opinion? Is the "nuance" of the Swiftees allegations simply going over the head of people to whom Kerry's truth problem would actually affect their vote? Posted by J. Lichty on August 20, 2004 07:36 AM | Link to this comment Kerry and those working with him are, for the most part, not Democrats; rather they are committed Socialists. Thus their affinity for Europe and for Communist dictatorships such as Viet Nam. The leftist base which is violently anti-war (heh) understands that Kerry is dishonest as the day is long as he tries to move toward the center. They understand that, if elected, he will simply "nuance" himself over to their leftist positions. None of this moral turpitude bothers them in the least; it is, as always in Communist/Socialist ideology, in service of higher truth Posted by Dean Douthat on August 20, 2004 09:24 AM | Link to this comment Or Is There Some Reason You're Afraid To Do That, Hmmm? One of YGB's favorite anti-Swift boat vets talking points just got destroyed. My favorite bit? This: Swift Boat Veterans for Truth—a group claiming that Kerry has been untruthful about his swift boat service, and to which Pees, Chenoweth and Thurlow belong—called again on Kerry to allow the Navy to independently release all of his military records by signing Standard Form 180, which he has thus far refused to do. A complete examination of his records, they said, could prove who wrote the report on which this commendation was based. It could also verify or falsify some of the Swift Boat Veterans' other claims that Kerry has been dishonest about his service.Come on, Big Bad John. Sign that 180. Release your records. I'm sure that even that dedicated seeker after truth, YGB, will agree with me on that much. After all, according to his position, such a release would clear your name, destroy the credibility of the Swifties, and reveal them for the Bush puppets YGB claims they are. I commented above without seeing this thread. It fits better here. If this is Thurlow's way of "destroying" anything, I think I'd like him to keep "destroying" Kerry. He'll guarantee a landslide for JFK at this pace, something I had never considered a possiblity. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 20, 2004 06:48 AM | Link to this comment Looks like the Swfties need to hire new help to carry the water for them... these current spinners just aren't working out too well. (Video clip) What an absolute pile feces you are supporting. The transcript is below, but it doesn't do justice to the actual interview. MALKIN: Well, yes. Why don‘t people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg. They are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound. (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you‘re saying? MALKIN: Did you read the book... MATTHEWS: I‘m asking a simple question. Are you saying that he shot himself on purpose. MALKIN: I‘m saying some of these soldiers... MATTHEWS: And I‘m asking question. MALKIN: And I‘m answering it. MATTHEWS: Did he shoot himself on purpose. MALKIN: Some of the soldiers have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds. MATTHEWS: No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose. MALKIN: That these were self-inflicted wounds. MATTHEWS: Your saying there are—he shot himself on purpose, that‘s a criminal act? MALKIN: I‘m saying that I‘ve read the book and some of the... (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle. MALKIN: Some of the veterans say... MATTHEWS: No. No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose. MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that. MATTHEWS: Tell me where that... MALKIN: Self-inflicted wounds—in February, 1969. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 20, 2004 06:55 AM | Link to this comment Oh my God, this is funny stuff. Malkin is crying all over her blog about getting called out for her bullshit, and she's denying that she ever said that Kerry shot himself on purpose. Boy, she's going to be in the bobblehead doghouse for a while... Shorter Malkin: "My friend's cousin was at a party, and he heard a guy say that he read somewhere that John Kerry eats puppies. Why don't you ask him if that's true, Mr. Matthews?" Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 20, 2004 07:00 AM | Link to this comment John Kerry and Max Cleland - twins separated at birth. John-John got injured grenading some rice. And his third PH was for a BRUISE on his arm. YGB, keep it up. Everybody needs a good laugh at your expense. Posted by Jack on August 20, 2004 07:06 AM | Link to this comment Meanwhile, back on-topic... So - what do you say, YGB, shouldn't Kerry sign that Form 180, thus releasing the whole record (not just the parts he's willing to put out himself)? Or would you rather not know that much? We already know Kerry lies - or "misremembers" - about other parts of the centerpiece of his campaign, his brief combat career; witness his "seared" memories of Christmas 1968 in Cambodia, which he now admits didn't happen that way (and quite likely didn't happen at all - even the couple of members of his boat crew who seem to stand with him don't appear to back him up on the going-to-Cambodia deal at any time). Why does anyone have any further reason to accept his statements without corroboration from his Navy records? Shouldn't he sign that Form 180? A simple "yes" or "no" will suffice - although, if you say "no", it might be a good idea to explain just why he shouldn't sign it. Oh, and let's be clear on another item you seem to be obsessing about herein: a) Malkin's ambush interview by Matthews has nothing, really, to do with this topic thread, and b) Malkin did not state that Kerry shot himself (or "caused himself self-inflicted wounds", or whatever other phraseology you want to use), she said that the people who wrote the book stated that Kerry had wounded himself - it's, obviously, not the same thing. Now - back to the subject -what was that about the Form 180 signing? Posted by JB on August 20, 2004 07:18 AM | Link to this comment No, she said that the Swifties claim he shot himself on purpose. Video and transcript above. Thurlow himself claims that Kerry "had a plan that included not only being a war hero, but getting an ‘early out.’" Again, there isn't a snowball's chance in Hell that I would throw a bone to this bunch of crazies and release anything. I would let them keep running off at the mouth with loonier and loonier theories until the whole world saw them for what they are. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 20, 2004 07:22 AM | Link to this comment As for the whole Cambodia crap, let me clear this up. Kerry claimed he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve. Compare that to your boy W, who fabricated three or more years of active flight duty in his own biography. Specifically, Flight Suit George claimed that after learning to fly the F-102 fighter jet, he was turned down for Vietnam duty because "had not logged enough flight hours" to qualify for a combat assignment. Before going on to recall the "challenging moments" that involved close formation drills at night during poor weather, he adds: "I continued flying with my unit for the next several years." Twenty-two months later, W was grounded because he failed a physical by refusing to ever show up. He then spent the next several years possibly reporting sporadically to Alabama, even though he apparently went incognito so that no one would see him. He made up several years of flight time that never happened. But hey... he's a Republican. No need to discuss that any further. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 20, 2004 07:40 AM | Link to this comment Young Clueless Brown rides again... "...I'm sure that even that dedicated seeker after truth, YGB, will agree with me on that much..." Sorry, Bill, but it's become "searingly" clear that YGB is now fully revealed as Young Bullshit Brown - he doesn't really want the truth, he just wants to keep on believing that he's right, and everyone who expresses doubts as to Johnny Ketchup's honesty, integrity and fitness for command is wrong. Posted by JB on August 20, 2004 07:45 AM | Link to this comment Instapundit linked to this page, where some vets from the Gridley say Kerry lied about his service onboard that ship too. Posted by growler on August 20, 2004 07:45 AM | Link to this comment Gee, Young Bullshit Brown - First, you say "...As for the whole Cambodia crap, let me clear this up...", as if you're actually going to address something about Kerry (off-topic though that particular item may be) - Then, you take off on this - "...Compare that to your boy W, who fabricated..." - and proceed to piss away a couple of paragraphs of absolute, unadulterated, previously-discredited drivel about Bush, having absolutely no discernible relationship to Kerry or his "I-went-to-Cambodia-sometime" misinformation. More Young Bullshit Brown: All bullshit, all the time. Hey, YGB, your town just called - they want their idiot back. Posted by JB on August 20, 2004 07:59 AM | Link to this comment YGB, I'm calling B.S. on you. You just cherry picked the exchange between Matthews and Malkin, and obviously did not include what Malkin said about "Hardball" last night, in that the wounds were self-inflicted not because he intentionally shot himself, but because he was hit with shrapnel from his own weaponry. Not only that, Matthews had not even read the book! So, for those of you who are interested in what happened, I suggect you see the transcript, then go read Michelle's view and decide for yourself. Posted by David Beatty on August 20, 2004 08:49 AM | Link to this comment Mmmm... Bullshit goofballs... Davey-boy? Not only did I read Malkin's blog, I linked to it. Please, please, please read it, everyone. It's a beautiful illustration of sour grapes. Matthews asked her this question: "What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you‘re saying?" She ducked the question six times, and she then finally answered "Yes." Go cry to momma. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 20, 2004 09:03 AM | Link to this comment YGB, are you able to differentiate the meanings of self-inflicted wound, and shooting oneself on purpose? Nowhere in the transcript does Malkin make the claim that Kerry did it on purpose. She's pointing out that Kerry's wound was probably self-inflicted, and most likely an accident. There's a difference, but I just want to know if you are unable to understand the difference, or just unwilling? Posted by Trevor on August 20, 2004 09:13 AM | Link to this comment YGB, did you even READ the free chapter of "Unfit For Command" that the SBVT had on their site? None of them said that Kerry shot himself, nor did Michelle Malkin. They said that Kerry wounded himself with a grenade that he threw which fell short, and that small bit of a grenade fragment in his arm led to his first Purple Heart. I believe he also got grenade shrapnel and rice in his buttocks for his third Purple Heart when he threw another grenade into a rice bin that was too close. That was written up at the same time as the "contusion" on his arm from the Rassmann incident. If you saw Kerry throw the ball to the soldier at Fenway Park during the Democratic Convention, you can well understand why his grenades kept falling short. Kerry throws like a girl. You don't come off as well-informed if you try to rebut something you haven't even read, YGB. Posted by BarCodeKing on August 20, 2004 09:17 AM | Link to this comment MATTHEWS: No. No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose. MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that. Are you insane? Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 20, 2004 09:28 AM | Link to this comment > But hey... he's a Republican. No need to discuss that any further. Kerry's acceptance speech was basically "vote for me because of my Vietnam service". Did Bush ever say "vote for me because I was in the National Guard" or "vote for me because I took a joy ride to a carrier"? It's clearly fair to judge Kerry on the basis that he suggested. If you think that it's appropriate to also judge Bush on that basis, then it's also appropriate to judge Clinton on that same basis, a position that Kerry explicitly rejected. Is YGB going to tell us that he supported both Dole and Bush I because of their superior military record? Posted by Andy Freeman on August 20, 2004 09:48 AM | Link to this comment MATTHEWS: No. No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose. MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that. MATTHEWS: Tell me where that... MALKIN: Self-inflicted wounds—in February, 1969. No, I'm not insane, YGB, she corrected herself right after she made the statement you selectively quote. Why am I not surprised that you'd be willing to stoop to such a cheap trick? Posted by Trevor on August 20, 2004 09:53 AM | Link to this comment Young Goodman Brown, calling me Davey-boy is insulting and I insist on an apology. If you can't call me Dave, David, DRB, or David Beatty, don't respond to me. If it were my blog, I'd ban your ass. I read her blog entry as well as the transcript. You misrepresented both the transcript and her description of the events. I pointed out the fact that you did not show all the facts. Trevor posted the relevant information here. Posted by David Beatty on August 20, 2004 10:14 AM | Link to this comment YGB, Usually, you're pretty reasonable. On this, you've jumped the shark. Relax, have a cup of coffee, or something. Then read this post again, with a non-emotional persona. A couple of things: 1.Thurlow is willing to have his records unsealed; Kerry is not. Doesn't that bother you? 2.Malkin NEVER said he injured himself on purpose. You're reading too much into this. If I am cleaning a loaded gun, and it goes off and shoots my toe off, I did NOT do it on purpose, for example. But it is still self-inflicted. 3.Bush more than proved he was there in the ANG, and did not go AWOL. Yet you still keep harping on this. Kerry did not prove that he didn't lie. Doesn't that bother you? The fact is the SVT have Kerry dead to rights. And you're letting your emotions cloud your judgment. Try to cool down, and re-visit the situation. I think that will help. TV (Harry) Posted by Inspector Callahan on August 20, 2004 10:58 AM | Link to this comment Ummm... Mr. Beatty? Lighten the fuck up, eh? Read this (and many other threads) to see the exciting and anatomical various on my moniker that get posted here. FYI, Davey-Boy was a cheesy wrestler from the 80s who went by the equally cheesy nickname "The British Bulldog". If you'd feel better, I'd be happy to refer to you as "The Dynamite Kid," who was his tag team partner. No, I am not proud that I remember such things. Yes, it is worthy of ridicule. As for the rest of this foo-fah... I provided a video link. I provided a transcript. I provided a post to her own asinine excuses for her conduct. Trevor posted a portion of the exact same transcript that I did... probably a cut 'n paste from my own comment above. If you see all of that and conclude that I am trying to cover anything up, then there is truly nothing that I can do for you. So again David, if it isn't too insulting and at the risk of being permanently banned from your blog, go cry to momma. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 20, 2004 02:48 PM | Link to this comment The longer quote from Malkin does not “correct” anything. She goes from saying he shot himself to saying his wound was self-inflicted. I don’t see any meaningful difference in that distinction. The idea that if Kerry had been a regular Joe, then no one would remember him seems obviously wrong. For example, I’m pretty sure the guy he pulled out of the water while the Vietcong were shooting at them would probably remember Kerry. The evidence that Kerry is telling the truth is in the recollections of his contemporaries. The evidence that the Swift Boat Veterans are telling the truth is in the recollections of their contemporaries. Oh, plus Kerry has 3 Purple Hearts, 1 Silver Star and 1 Bronze Star, from the record of the events of those actual days. I have no idea what a Form 180 is, or what it would reveal. But I do remember that President Bush’s military records were still being released as recently as last month. And there sure are a lot of military records available at the Kerry-Edwards website. And while I’m complaining about everyone else, let me throw this out to YGB. You’re doing a good job pointing out the obvious problems with bashing Kerry’s service record. But that page you link to with the “W” in your comment about Bush’s awol-problem—it’s nonsense!! Every outgoing link from it is either obvious Bush-hating ranting--or actually exculpatory of Bush!!!!! I find it hard to believe that bashing your opponant's military service is beneficial to you in the long run. Posted by ? on August 20, 2004 03:05 PM | Link to this comment ? - The Form 180 is a simple release form, allowing a service member's entire military records to be viewed publicly (barring, of course, any national security issues). If Big Jawn wants to run on his military record - and his behavior during and since the DNC in Boston shows clearly his intent to do so - the whole record should be shown - not just the part he's willing to put on his website or publish in his bio materials. Bush has, long since, consented to the release of his entire records - Kerry has repeatedly ignored requests that he do the same. If he has nothing to hide - why won't he sign the form? YGB now contends that he thinks Kerry should continue to refuse to reveal the whole record, using the lame-o excuse that "he shouldn't give in to these demands" - not a real big surprise; YGB seems to be o.k. with not knowing anything more than he thinks he already does. "Don't confuse the issue with the facts - my mind's already made up". Right? Posted by JB on August 20, 2004 05:19 PM | Link to this comment In The Fine Print So what? Likely voters is the only statistic that matters. What do you bet that if these results had been reversed, and it was Bush leading the registered voters demo, that would have been mentioned only in passing, in the next to last graf of this story? The Boston Globe has a focus group they've been following in Ohio. Granted, it's only five people. But still interesting nonetheless. Give the article a look. Posted by growler on August 19, 2004 07:58 AM | Link to this comment These Hispanics Don't Chicken Out - Bravo! SAN SALVADOR, El Salvador (Reuters) - El Salvador sent a new contingent of troops to join the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq on Thursday despite repeated threats from Islamic militants that they would strike against the country in retaliation.What does El Salvador make and export? Is any of it stuff I can buy to replace the German and French goods I won't purchase ever again if I can help it? After the story about the El Salvadore troops attacking "insurgents" in Iraq using their knives after running out of ammo, I looked for some El Sal products. The only thing I found (lucky for me) was beer. It was on sale for $0.99 for a quart bottle. I can't say it was great, but it certainly was at the right price. Posted by JohnO on August 19, 2004 07:41 AM | Link to this comment Their biggest exports are coffee, sugar and shrimp. Posted by growler on August 19, 2004 08:01 AM | Link to this comment Their biggest exports are coffee, sugar and shrimp. Do you know of any brands of coffee that are straight or largely El Salvadoran? (El Salvadorian? Or...what's the correct adjective form here?) Posted by dangermouse on August 19, 2004 03:56 PM | Link to this comment Did You Ever Offer Aid and Comfort to North Vietnamese Enemies of the United States? Key Briefings for Kerry Delayed (washingtonpost.com) Aides to President Bush and John F. Kerry are sparring over the terms for intelligence briefings for the Democratic presidential nominee, delaying the post-convention overview typically given to the challenger.Considering that based on his own history, Kerry himself would have to be considered a prime security risk, and unfit for clearance - not to mention the sort of people he probably has hired as aides - I can certainly understand the need for a thorough vetting before permitting these people access to classified information rated any more secret than "Distribute immediately to the New York Times." Kerry's Vietnam era Record is one in support of the Vietnamese Communists and shows he was ashamed of the American Military. Why should we throw away 30+ years of his resume to buy his 4 month story of battle heroics? A hero to the Cietnamese Communists and to the US Navy? Only John Kerry could live with that. You're right... he can't be trusted. Posted by Oceanguy on August 19, 2004 08:45 AM | Link to this comment It hit the news today that Teddy Kennedy was on the "do not fly" list for a long time, and had to pull strings to get his name removed. It's been declared "a mistake", but if one were not completely serious one might wonder which was the mistake: putting him on the list, or taking him off of it again? Posted by Steven Den Beste on August 19, 2004 05:24 PM | Link to this comment I'd take him off the "do not fly" list immediately...and put him on the "do not drive" list. Posted by John "Akatsukami" Braue on August 20, 2004 03:48 AM | Link to this comment |
|||||||||||||||||
Very nice -
No good deed goes unpunished, as always -
Posted by JB on August 20, 2004 05:50 AM | Read the rest... | Link to this comment