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 25, 2004
Please post your off-topic and general interest items here.
Buy This Book! Read This Book!
Unfit for Command : Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry
August 25, 2004
Pretty Much The Way I Feel, Too NBC sides with Kerry; Fox News more anti-Kerry than pro-BushThis seems logical, at least from a conservative viewpoint. If Fox is actually slanted conservative (instead of just in comparison to the other nets), then they aren't going to be terribly happy with big-spending, campaign-finance reforming, new entitlement building GWB. But they will absolutely loathe John Kerry. Missing Person's Report If you're looking for your Michele fix, she's here. So am I supposed to blogroll this one, Michele? Are you gonna be here for a while? Or should I just link you every day? If The Profile Fits, Wear It MLive.com: NewsFlash - Racial profiling alleged in Muslim arrest BALTIMORE (AP) %u2014 The oldest daughter of a man described as a high-ranking Hamas operative said Wednesday that police used racial profiling when officers stopped her family's sport utility vehicle while her mother made a home video of the Chesapeake Bay Bridge.Obvious Muslims filming videos of obvious terror targets had damned well better be getting a second, and even a third look. The US Constitution never was, nor was it intended to be, a suicide pact. What's her point? Posted by Toren on August 25, 2004 09:49 PM | Link to this comment BJ Clinton's Favorite Journo Hoping to Spin Pollicy Bush Overtakes Kerry in Latest L.A. Times Poll WASHINGTON -- President Bush heads into next week's Republican national convention with voters moving slightly in his direction since July amid signs that John F. Kerry has been nicked by attacks on his service in Vietnam, a Los Angeles Times Poll has found.Those Times surveys that guage that useless and misleading metric of "registered voters" are always slanted 5-10 points in favor of the Democrats. Kerry has been "nicked," all right. Nicked in the jugular, and now he's bleeding to death. There's More To Come The people who keep track of these things expect 2004 to be the first billion-dollar election in American history. Yet the single most effective ad campaign of the election cycle has thus far cost only about $500,000: the campaign launched at the beginning of this month by the new anti-Kerry group, Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.Here's the real reason that ad works. Everbody but the most partisan and oblivious liberals knows that Kerry - with his lantern-jawed grandiosity and his arrogantly condescending French manners, doesn't pass the smell test. So when some honest folks came along and explained in great detail about that stench emanating from Boston, folks flocked to find out what the real story was. I wonder when BJ Clinton will start to leak some of the "archives" I'm quite certain he has stored up like a malignant squirrel against any of the Hillbilly's potential competition for sovreignty over what remains of the Democratic Party? Shouldn't take long, is my hunch. Not only does he not pass the "smell test" but it was also a lesson in advertising. Somebody ancient once said "nothing is so effective as the truth well told. And this ad just told the Swifties truth very well. However, it was the Democratic effort to silence both the ad and the book that hit hardest. The GOP said jack shit over Ferenheit 9-11; the cheap shots from all the Donk blogs, and the four books attacking him but ONE ad and book against them sends the Democrats off the deep end. THAT doesn't pass either the smell or stench test. Posted by Frank DeMarco on August 26, 2004 03:11 AM | Link to this comment No Secrets, Kerry, You Sniveling Weasel! The Blogosphere. You just gotta love it. Now that Kerry’s book is available to the masses, the Blogosphere will analyze the book sentence by sentence. The resulting revelations from his book will provide us a month of non-stop fun. Posted by Jake on August 25, 2004 10:10 PM | Link to this comment A One Man 527. Max Cleland, who made a staged appearance at the Bush ranch Wednesday, was appointed by President George W. Bush to the board of directors of the Export-Import Bank in 2003. The same Max Cleland who is spending nearly all of his time attacking President Bush is, amazingly enough, a Bush political appointee.A couple of answers come to mind as well. A. Cleland is a typical Democrat pol, that is to say, a greedy, treacherous pig, who B. Accepts appointment from GWB because Cleland will do anything for money. Next question: Who else is paying him this time around? Cleland has become Kerry’s puppy dog because he follows Kerry everywhere and barks when Kerry gives the command. Plus Cleland rubs his face in Kerry’s crotch every chance he gets. Posted by Jake on August 25, 2004 08:40 PM | Link to this comment Kerry Has Since Admitted He Was Lying About the First Purple Heart, Too John Kerry's real 'band of brothers' "Politics as usual."Mark Steyn notices the same thing I did - the curious difference in the size of Kerry's "Band of (Paid) Brothers" versus the many-times-larger number of Swift Boat Veterans opposing - with signed legal affadavits and specific recollections - Kerry's (many, many) versions of the events in question. Steyn also notices that the only specific notice the Kerry camp - or their allies in the mainstream liberal media - have taken of the Swift Boat Vets' charges is, every week or so, to admit that the Swifties were right about something, and Kerry was lying. Both Kerry and the Times delude themselves if they think all this is not having a deleterious effect on the Kerry But that's the one thing that liberals and the left are absolutely superb at doing: Deluding themselves. Right. Lying to themselves. And over here, as is not the case in an actual communist country, they have to become vicious liars to maintain their delusions. Kerry lied as he threw medals that weren't his over a fence and worked with people to slag the real heroes. Now Michael Moore is collecting 'letters from soldiers in Iraq' which he will use to slag the honor of today's heros. Kerry and the dems feted him a few weeks ago. What more needs to be said? Posted by Tom Cohoe on August 25, 2004 09:41 PM | Link to this comment Brinkley the Hagiographer Meet Matthews the Donk Hit Man Masquerading As A Journalist PRESTOPUNDIT -- "Kerry in Cambodia" Wall-to-Wall Coverage: TRANSCRIPT -- DOUGLAS BRINKLEY MATTHEWS: Let me go to Doug Brinkley on a hot point on this program. Doug, there was a woman on the show the other night, Michelle Malkin or something, who was discussing in rather loose terms the idea that maybe John Kerry had purposely wounded himself to win a Purple Heart. Where would she get such an idea?Apparently drooling thug Chris Matthews has given up all pretense, and is now openly acting as nothing more than a bully boy for the Democratic Party. Not that he was ever anything else. (Thanks, Henry!) See below. What bollocks. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 25, 2004 05:54 AM | Link to this comment Michelle Malkin "or something". Nice. Bill's right - the mask is off - this guy is deliberately working to get John Kerry elected. YGB - it's time to take your head out of the sand. TV (Harry) Posted by Inspector Callahan on August 25, 2004 06:57 AM | Link to this comment Kerry has now admitted that he falsified his claim to his first Purple Heart. That Purple Heart allowed Kerry to leave Vietnam 8 months early and get out of the Navy even though he had 2 years left to serve. That makes Kerry has deserter from Vietnam and AWOL from the Navy. He owes the Navy 2 more years of active duty. What does Kerry owe the Navy for desertion? Posted by Jake on August 25, 2004 07:21 AM | Link to this comment An oldie but a goodie: Q. What's the difference between Chris Matthews and a catfish? A. One is a nasty, scum-sucking bottom-feeder with an ugly demeanor...and the other one is a type of fish. The only problem I have with all this is that it may give Matthews, undeservedly, a moderately higher public profile than he has most of the time. He ranks, in my opinion (with emphasis on "rank"), several steps below Jerry Springer. I don't care for O'Reilly, either, but he's almost the soul of virtue compared to Matthews. Posted by JB on August 25, 2004 07:24 AM | Link to this comment ONeil had Colmes foaming at the mouth last night. Always thought he was a "somewhat rational" lefty. Posted by Larry on August 25, 2004 08:50 AM | Link to this comment Someone below mentioned how Matthews (whom I once liked) is so rapid-fire and stepping on his guests (which even then drove me nuts). I thought of a wonderful sight if one of his guests were inclined to do it. Imagine CM interviewing someone, and, every single time CM opened his mouth, the interviewee would immediately STOP TALKING completely.... wait three to five seconds.... begin to answer, CM interupts and the subject immediately without hesitation just shuts up.... waits five seconds..... etc etc. It would immediately become patently obvious that the subject was unable to say anythig at all, and I swear Matthews would go nuts trying to deal with it. Posted by Andrew X on August 25, 2004 09:40 AM | Link to this comment How about this for a Constitutional Amendment... Former members of the Carter administration are banned from speaking on issues of public concern. Posted by Daniel on August 25, 2004 12:25 PM | Link to this comment
August 24, 2004
Nobody Wants The Label If any proof were needed that the Sixties were dead, the subterfuge of the Democratic Party would be Exhibit A. Instead of running under their own colors, or barring that, changing them, they have decided to sail beneath a false flag, as if under a cloud of shame. That in itself is tacit admission that they can no longer walk in their own guise; and what is worse that they cannot look themselves in the face, nor go into battle daring to win nor willing to lose in their own name, as is the mark of men.Wretchard underlines something I pointed out here a while back: What is the worst thing you can call a liberal? A liberal, of course. The sixtys aren't dead, they are being camoflaged. The heat is going to be white hot on the Swiftboat vets as applied by the msm. So we must continue to apply the heat as well. Posted by Lou Hebert on August 24, 2004 08:16 PM | Link to this comment Another thing you could add here is Youth. The recent AOL poll that is 55-45 for Bush in a youth dominated media should give everyone pause. Could the Youth be sick and fucking tired of listening to a bunch of "60s assholes" rehashing their pasts? I must also observe that all have seen "The Deerhunter" and all are moved by the bravery of the soldiers. I don't think it is possible to ignore the effect this movie has on the young, a movie that is shown on TV once every few months Posted by duhduke on August 25, 2004 05:38 AM | Link to this comment duhduke, If you can spare a moment, can you please say a bit more about this? For instance, (if I may generalize crudely) some in the Sixties crowd thought themselves visionaries of a Higher Truth, and infinately superior to those who came before... when in fact they were a sort of Lost Generation, and did far more harm than good. Were the Twenties folks similarly deluded and ultimately dangerous, or did they simply fail to grasp that their time had been replaced by your time, and that you had your own, unique popular culture?
Posted by Lastango on August 25, 2004 07:47 AM | Link to this comment duhduke: Well here's a second from the Department of Old Farts. (Though, being more than a year younger than you, I retain the title "Somewhat-Old Fart".:-) My children and children-in-law are hopeless Bush haters. My grandchildren are exactly the opposite. I get along much better with my grandchildren. The overwhelming conservative tendencies of younger folks is, of course, a leading indicator of where the country is headed over the next 25 years or so. The boomers will be retiring and dying off as the current conservative youngsters take hold of the levers of power. Posted by Dean Douthat on August 25, 2004 07:48 AM | Link to this comment lastango: I can testify also to the contempt and ill-will that obtained toward the "flapper" generation by those who struggled through the Depression and WWII. The Depression was widely blamed on the irresponsibility and greed of flappers. One of my favorite movies is "Chicago" which captures the incredible social degeneration of the 1920's and encapsulates its contemptible absurdities. The generation following the flappers (aka "Greatest Generation") and the current generation of youngsters equally disrespected their predecessors for much the same reasons. Take a look at the current generation of youngsters and those close behind. I'm talking the current 18-30 year olds and those in their immediate footsteps, that is, current high schoolers. I'm proud to say that these age ranges include five of my grandchildren. Pay close attention to them for I believe they will be looked back on 50 years hence as another "Greatest Generation". Posted by Dean Douthat on August 25, 2004 08:02 AM | Link to this comment Dean D: Then God help them. After all, it was the greatest generation, was it not, that John Kerry was denouncing in his testimony before Congress? No? Think about this: If Kerry wasn't denouncing the average troops, but the top leadership, who were these people? Who were the LBJs (Silver Star, awarded by MacArthur), Matthew Ridgeways (CJCS when we first entered Vietnam), Westmorelands, but men who had cut their teeth in World War II as "the Greatest Generation"? Indeed, who were "the Greatest Generation" in the 1960s, but the very people that the protestors and marchers repeatedly denigrated as "the Man," corporatists, bourgeois, etc.? The main difference will be that, whereas the "Greatest Generation" only had to be jeered by their children, the next generation that has a rendez-vous with destiny is likely to be spat upon by both their grandparents (at least some of them) AND their children (if history holds true). Posted by Dean (not Douthat) on August 25, 2004 08:16 AM | Link to this comment IIRC the men who fought the Spanish-American War wanted to do so partly because they were themselves sick of the generation before them bloviating onward on how wonderful they were during the Civil War. Posted by Mikey on August 25, 2004 09:29 AM | Link to this comment Newsweek Poll, 7/29/04-7/30/04: "Suppose the election were being held TODAY and you had the following three choices for president and vice president: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the Republicans; John Kerry and John Edwards, the Democrats; and Ralph Nader and Peter Camejo, the independent or third party candidates. [Choices rotated.] Who would you vote for?" If none of these: "As of TODAY, do you LEAN more toward Bush and Cheney, the Republicans; Kerry and Edwards, the Democrats; or Nader and Camejo, the third party candidates?" 18-29 year olds: Bush 32%, Kerry 51%, Nader 9%, Other/Undecided 8%. Sounds like the kids of today are in with the flappers of yesteryear... Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 25, 2004 09:47 AM | Link to this comment Anyone who believes a Newsweek (Mondale by 15 points over Reagan) poll needs help. Posted by BJW on August 25, 2004 10:57 AM | Link to this comment I think I've died and gone to a parallel universe in which liberals are the war heroes and the budget-reducers, with Kerry being one of the people promising these things despite a liberal voting record. The analysis is dead on. Liberals won't actually admit to being liberals for fear that they'll be dismissed as fools. Actually, it seems that they're being brushed off by many people for just that -- failing to admit outright where they stand politically. Why? Liberalism doesn't always work, and they can't come to grips with it. Likewise, extreme conservatism has its failings, but its followers have more respect -- conservatives tend to express their feelings unabashedly. I, for one, am more of a moderate than a liberal. I am a Kerry supporter, but that simply means I support him over Bush. I think some liberal solutions can work, where others are totally ridiculous. Hillary Clinton and Al Gore still strike me as a bit too extreme. Either of them runs, and I'll vote Republican. As far as the polls, while some are scientific, others are on a voluntary response basis. And besides, popular vote doesn't determine who wins I wouldn't trust any single one. Actually, I think this site is pretty reliable. It's an aggregate of several major polls, broken down by individual states, to track the electoral vote, the big one that determines the presidency. Posted by Alex D. on August 25, 2004 08:53 PM | Link to this comment Oops. Another (Self-Inflicted) Kerry SwiftVets.com | The Real Story on John Kerry's Military Service Washington- In a reversal of their staunch defense of John Kerry's military service record, Kerry campaign officials were quoted by Fox News saying that it was indeed possible that John Kerry's first Purple Heart commendation was the result of an, unintentional, self-inflicted wound."Hey, Chris Matthews, you drooling thug: Bite me!
Man, you're a baby. Malkin stated that the would was intentionally self-inflicted. She lied. Matthews did his job. If only other journalists would have the stones to actually question the Swifties... Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 25, 2004 05:26 AM | Link to this comment Man, you're a baby. Malkin stated that the woundwas intentionally self-inflicted. She lied. Matthews did his job. If only other journalists would have the stones to actually question the Swifties... Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 25, 2004 05:26 AM | Link to this comment Man, you're a liar. Matthews put those words in her mouth, and you know it. I saw your idiot outtake, and then I read the entire transcript. I repeat: you're a liar. As for stones, I wish they'd question your pathologically dishonest candidate - he lied about Cambodia, he lied about being in charge of another man's boat, and now he's crawling slimily back from the circumstances of his first purple heart. Some candidate you've got there, YGB. I don't much like GWB, but compared to your pile of crap, he's a freaking prince. Posted by Bill Quick on August 25, 2004 05:31 AM | Link to this comment Bill do you mean that by asking Malkin a simple yes/no question Matthews was too hard on her? Should he have held her hand and given her a glass of juice or something? He asked her SIX TIMES if she meant that he had intentionally injured himself. She ducked, ducked, ducked, ducked, ducked, and then said YES. Bill, are you a Communist pedophile? Oh... I'm sorry. By asking you that question I have clearly made you admit to being a Communist pedophile. It's clear that you can't simply say, "No, you f-ing idiot." Because if you could do that, then the idea that Matthews put words into Malkin's mouth would be fucking absurd. She said it, she didn't think he would call her on it, and then she cried about it. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 25, 2004 05:52 AM | Link to this comment Here's the complete transcript, everybody. Judge for yourself whether Matthews is a drooling thug. MSNBC - 'Hardball with Chris Matthews' for August 19 MATTHEWS: John Kerry‘s speech was part of a new strategy to fight back. Joining me is San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, and Michelle Malkin. Malkin is that the correct pronunciation? MICHELLE MALKIN, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: Malkin. MATTHEWS: Malkin, I like it better. She‘s the author of in “Defense of Interment: The Case for Racial Profiling.” We‘ll get to that in a minute, that sounds hot enough. What do you make of the president‘s—this campaign being run on behalf of the president, if not officially to try destroy John Kerry‘s war record? MALKIN: I don‘t think that President Bush orchestrated this at all. MATTHEWS: Why doesn‘t he call up and say stop it. MALKIN: Well, look he‘s already made his statement. The White House said, it doesn‘t associate itself with these 527 campaigns, any of them. And he said that Kerry has served nobly. What else do you want him to say? MATTHEWS: Well, back when we had the Willie Horton Act, back in 1988, all that Jim Baker or anybody at the White House campaign had to do was call on behalf of President Bush Sr., and say stop running that racist ad. Nobody ever did, OK. I‘m asking if you‘re speaking on behalf of President Bush, why doesn‘t he make a phone call to these veterans, including Mr. Thurlow and say stop running the ads. Why doesn‘t he do that? MALKIN: Well first I‘m not here speaking on behalf of the Bush campaign. Second of all... MATTHEWS: Well, do you think these guys should be running. MALKIN: Well, second of all, you brought up Willie Horton. I think that‘s quite interesting that you did. The underlying implication is that some how this is a Republican orchestrated thing, just like the swift boat campaign. Of course, it was Al Gore who brought up Willie Horton first. MATTHEWS: No, the ads. No the ads were ran, by something called the American Security Council supporting President Bush. MALKIN: And who made the issue—who made the issue germane, Al Gore and the Democrats. And it‘s the same thing here, John Kerry said, bring it on and the Swift Boat Veterans have brought it on. MATTHEWS: Fair enough. So you—lets get your position here on the program, since you are on the program. Your position it‘s OK, for the veteran groups to attack John Kerry on this issue? MALKIN: They are exercising their free speech, absolutely. MATTHEWS: And the president is totally innocent in this campaign. He has nothing to do with it. MALKIN: Well, I don‘t think so. Yes. Yes, there were Bush supporters who helped fund the ads. But this was not directed from the White House. MATTHEWS: When the president says publicly that he has no problem with John Kerry‘s war record, in fact he finds it noble, is that hypocritical or is that honest? MALKIN: I think it is absolutely honest. MATTHEWS: Because what? What makes it honest? Because how they are attacking Kerry? MALKIN: He can‘t—he did not control these—there was no—can you show me directive that said, Swift Boat Veterans do this. MATTHEWS: I‘m waiting for the phone call that said stop doing it, buddies. MALKIN: It is interesting. I saw the interrogation of Larry Thurlow. All I can say if the main stream media interrogated these private citizens, and did that as aggressively as... MATTHEWS: Nobody has ever called me mainstream before but thank your for the (UNINTELLIGIBLE). I guess I‘m big time now. MALKIN: Aggressively as... MATTHEWS: I think the president, if he wanted this to stop would make one phone call. Karl Rove, would make one phone call and that would be the end of the ads. That‘s what think, and you know that‘s true, right? MALKIN: Well, there... MATTHEWS: Is that true? If he wanted to stop them, he could stop them. MALKIN: No, I don‘t think he could. No. I don‘t. MATTHEWS: OK, let me go to Mayor Brown. Mayor Brown, what do you make of this salient attack from these 527 groups, they‘re called, they‘re independent groups attack the war record of John Kerry. Do you believe in any way the president could be held politically responsible for these attacks? + WILLIE BROWN, FORMER SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR: He should be held politically responsible, Chris. When I served as speaker of the California legislature as well as mayor, whenever any independent group did anything that was for my benefit, and it was a slimy and as below the belt and as dishonest as these ads are, I had for purpose of my own integrity, denounced them and asked that they be stopped, just as I would if I was just being not effective at all. Period. MATTHEWS: Let me ask but the nature of this campaign. Why is John Kerry so unsuccessful as a candidate, that he‘s allowed his challenging role to be determined to be transformed into a defendant‘s role? Instead of him carrying the fight against incumbent president which is the norm in a American society in a reelection campaign, he has become the issue himself. How did he let that happen? BROWN: John Kerry is the kind of a guy who is always laid back. He is always been dealing with people who were gentle, who were in every way respectful, who have a sense of dignity about themselves and a sense of honor. John Kerry may not be fit for the terrible battles and wars of the world of politics. He may be absolutely perfect as a president. But in term of a candidate, he probably has a series of imperfection that‘s may be fatal in his successful, in his pursuit of a successful candidacy. That‘s not to take anything away from his integrity. He should have been doing exactly what he‘s doing today. He should have been doing that from day one. MATTHEWS: Do you think Massachusetts politics is softball? BROWN: I think Massachusetts politics is always been very respectful of the other person‘s view and very committed to the idea they don‘t want to seem negative and they don‘t want to be criticized for an absence of integrity. MALKIN: He is a boy in the bubble, Chris. And... MATTHEWS: What does that mean? MALKIN: He hasn‘t been subjected to this kind of heat. And as Willie Brown is suggesting, if he can‘t stand the heat from his fellow veterans, do we really want to trust him to stand up to Islamic extremists? By the way, it‘s not just—not just these right wingers who have been questioning his record. The “Boston Globe” isn‘t, aren‘t operatives of the Bush campaign and they have said the same thing as the veterans did about all three incidents regarding the purple hearts. You were hammering Larry Thurlow about specific name. BROWN: He volunteered twice. He volunteered twice in Vietnam. He literally got shot. There‘s no question about any of those things. So what else is there to discuss? How much he got shot, how deep, how much shrapnel? 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. MATTHEWS: This is not a show for this kind of talk. Are you accusing him of shooting himself on purpose to avoid combat or to get credit? MALKIN: I‘m saying that‘s what some of these... MATTHEWS: Give me a name. MALKIN: Patrick Runyan (ph) and William Zeldonaz (ph). MATTHEWS: They said—Patrick Runyan... MALKIN: These people have... MATTHEWS: And they said he shot himself on purpose to avoid combat or take credit for a wound? MALKIN: These people have cast a lot of doubt on whether or not... MATTHEWS: That‘s cast a lot of doubt. That‘s complete nonsense. MALKIN: Did you read the section in the book... MATTHEWS: I want a statement from you on this program, say to me right, that you believe he shot himself to get credit for a purpose of heart. MALKIN: I‘m not sure. I‘m saying... MATTHEWS: Why did you say? MALKIN: I‘m talking about what‘s in the book. MATTHEWS: What is in the book. Is there—is there a direct accusation in any book you‘ve ever read in your life that says John Kerry ever shot himself on purpose to get credit for a purple heart? On purpose? MALKIN: On. MATTHEWS: On purpose? Yes or no, Michelle. MALKIN: In the February 1969 -- in the February 1969 event. MATTHEWS: Did he say on it purpose. MALKIN: There are doubts about whether or not it was intense rifle fire or not. And I wish you would ask these questions of John Kerry instead of me. MATTHEWS: I have never heard anyone say he shot himself on purpose. I haven‘t heard you say it. MALKIN: Have you tried to ask—have you tried ask John Kerry these questions? MATTHEWS: If he shot himself on purpose. No. I have not asked him that. MALKIN: Don‘t you wonder? MATTHEWS: No, I don‘t. It‘s never occurred to me. Posted by Bill Quick on August 25, 2004 06:32 AM | Link to this comment YGB, You wrote: I read the transcript. Your statement is a lie. What I don't understand is why people like YGB and Chris Matthews are willing to whore themselves for the likes John Kerry. Jim English Posted by Jim English on August 25, 2004 06:37 AM | Link to this comment Self-inflicted does NOT equal "intentionally" self-inflicted. I cut myself with a knife when I was 10. It was self-inflicted, but by no means intentional. And at NO time did Malkin say Kerry "shot himself", as Matthews implied. This should be an incredibly simple concept for even YGB to understand. Posted by JohnO on August 25, 2004 06:58 AM | Link to this comment 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. MATTHEWS: This is not a show for this kind of talk. Are you accusing him of shooting himself on purpose to avoid combat or to get credit? MALKIN: I‘m saying that‘s what some of these... MATTHEWS: Give me a name. MALKIN: Patrick Runyan (ph) and William Zeldonaz (ph). Again... Bill, are you a Communist pedophile? Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 25, 2004 07:07 AM | Link to this comment It's dark and you're lost in the woods. Along comes a man with a flashlight and he offers to lead you to safety. You follow. Out pops out a guy from behind a tree and warns you that the man you are following is fool who wanders around in woods and has no idea about how to get out. But, he does have a flashlight and you continue to follow him. A short time later, you find yourself sinking into a bog. As the muck rises over your nose, you continue to take comfort in the fact that at least you followed the only guy with a flashlight. Now you are in over your head YGB. Posted by Homer Jones on August 25, 2004 07:28 AM | Link to this comment MATTHEWS: This is not a show for this kind of talk. Are you accusing him of shooting himself on purpose to avoid combat or to get credit? [...] Again... Bill, are you a Communist pedophile? Apparently you still aren't reading. "I‘m saying that‘s what some of these..." That's what some of these people are what? Saying that Kerry shot himself? And isn't it obvious that those "some people" aren't Michelle Malkin? Someone commented within the past week that you've lost any sense of reason. I'd say their observation is right on the mark.
Posted by Bashir Gemayel on August 25, 2004 07:31 AM | Link to this comment YGB, why do you keep trying to peddle that crap? Malkin corrected herself. That's why she re-iterated that it was a self-inflicted wound. You keep trying to pin this smear on her based on one aspect of the entire transcript. Are you so desperate to smear her that you're oblivious to the rest of the transcript? Does that one mistake make the rest of her points invalid? Posted by Trevor on August 25, 2004 07:32 AM | Link to this comment Given the speed at which Matthews fires off his questions and the speeed at which normal people answer questions, I have unscientifically determined that Malkin was answering a question that was machine-gunned out of his big fat mouth 10 seconds earlier. Therefore the transcript YGB is referring is irrelevant. The transcriber obviously did not take into account of this speed differential. Posted by brian on August 25, 2004 07:32 AM | Link to this comment There is an interesting and revealing domain error at work here. The term "self-inflicted" applies to the physical domain. The term "intentional" applies to the intentional domain (duh). That Matthews and most boomers like Mathews tend to conflate the two is the seat of most boomer induced problems. The pomo formulation is that intent creates reality. This destroys any possibility of reasoning. Posted by Dean Douthat on August 25, 2004 07:35 AM | Link to this comment > MALKIN: Some of the veterans say... > MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that. > MALKIN: Self-inflicted wounds—in February, 1969. > MALKIN: I‘m saying that‘s what some of these... Those are the quotes that YGB claims support his "Malkin said it" theory. I'll bite - where does "Malkin [state] that the wound was intentionally self-inflicted." At most, she says that other people are saying that, which is what YGB and Mathews are saying. Apparently it's important to YGB that Malkin be one of those folks, but that doesn't seem to actually be true. Posted by Andy Freeman on August 25, 2004 08:11 AM | Link to this comment YGB is cleverly taking you all for a ride. The story here isn't what Michelle Malkin said. The story is not that Chris Matthews is a whore and political hack (we all knew that anyway). The story here is that another of the swift vote "smears" has not only been demontrated as having a basis in fact but that the Kerry campaign acknowledges as much. After all the mudslinging, the swift boats vets are leading 2 to 0, John Kerry continues to refuse to sign the form allowing his military records to be released and he has failed to address what is clearly one bald face lie (Cambodia) and one (at best) mis-representation (self inflicted wound). Let's stay focused. Jim English Posted by Jim English on August 25, 2004 08:32 AM | Link to this comment YGB, I'm disappointed in you. Malkin did not say the wounds were intentionally self-inflicted. She tried to say they were self-inflicted and Matthews kept hammering at her about it being intentional. He appeared to deliberately misinterpret her comment. Posted by Veeshir on August 25, 2004 08:44 AM | Link to this comment The Lefties are desperate! YGB is a wonderful barometer. Thanks YGB! Posted by DocC on August 25, 2004 08:55 AM | Link to this comment CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry will dispatch two fellow Vietnam veterans to President Bush's secluded Texas ranch on Wednesday to press him to condemn television advertisements accusing Kerry of lying about his wartime service. The move comes one day after it was disclosed that a top lawyer for Bush's re-election campaign has been providing legal advice to the group behind the ads, the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Kerry is sending to Crawford former Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia, a frequent companion of Kerry's on the campaign trail and a fellow Vietnam War veteran who lost three limbs during the war. Posted by Trace on August 25, 2004 09:24 AM | Link to this comment So now the transcript is irrelevant. Of course it is. The video segment that I linked before is probably irrelevant, too. I think we need to have a re-enactment with sock puppets which also includes the use of Shakespearean asides so that Malkin can reveal her true thoughts left unspoken. He asked a question, and apparently you all feel that it is unfair to expect her to be able to answer it. Next time she does a show she should ask for naptime and cookies. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 25, 2004 09:28 AM | Link to this comment > He asked a question, and apparently you all feel that it is unfair to expect her to be able to answer it. What's my bank balance? Why is "did he do it on purpose" a question that one would reasonably ask Malkin? Is she a recognized expert on the subject? Does she have some special knowledge? Does she claim special knowledge? Posted by Andy Freeman on August 25, 2004 09:36 AM | Link to this comment Q: What's your bank balance? The question wasn't "Did he do it on purpose?". It was... Q: What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you‘re saying? (The next day) A: No! And he's a neanderthal meanie! Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 25, 2004 09:53 AM | Link to this comment YGB, You wrote: You fabricated this. This is not what is written in the transcript either in exact word or meaning. I don't understand who you think your fooling other than yourself. Jim English Posted by Jim English on August 25, 2004 10:00 AM | Link to this comment Jim, I cut that directly from Bill's post above. Are you calling Bill a liar? so Bill that makes two questions. Are you a Communist pedophile? Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 25, 2004 10:35 AM | Link to this comment YGB, I stand corrected and apologize. This however is a complete fabrication. After you trace through the seemingly endless badgering from Matthews you come to this. MATTHEWS: No. No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose. MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that. This is the next time Malkin says "yes" to anything. So she says yes to the fact that "Some of them say that" when Matthews says "No. No one has ever accussed..." You are really pulling things out of context to attempt to prove your point. In spite of my mistake, it is clear that your earlier post was a distortion of the exchange. Jim English Posted by Jim English on August 25, 2004 11:08 AM | Link to this comment The intentionality aspect of Kerry's wound is irrelevant. Intentionally wounding yourself is always a military offence and you will be severely punished no matter what the circumstances. A self-inflicted wound can only be eligible for a Purple Heart if it is unintentional. However, there is one further criterion, by far the most important one. Under the strict terms for eligibility for the award, a wound qualifying for a Purple Heart must be received under combat conditions. This is the crux of the matter. If Kerry was wounded by a fragment from his own grenade while in the middle of a firefight, then he is eligible for a Purple Heart. If he was hit while not under combat conditions, then he is not (and he ran the risk of getting in trouble for negligence). That is why, strictly speaking, Max Cleland is not entitled to a Purple Heart despite losing three limbs (and he has said as much). The core of the SBVTs argument is not whether Kerry sustained a wound at his own hand, but under what conditions. They say they were not under fire at the time. If this is true, that invalidates Kerry's eligibility for a Purple Heart. Being as objective as I can, I think Michelle Malkin dropped the ball a bit. I have no idea how I would cope under Matthews's style of questioning, but what she should have said is, "self-inflicted does not imply intentional and no-one except you is implying it does'. But she was ambushed by Matthews and it's pretty hard to think on your feet in this sort of situation. A stumble on Malkin's part does not make Matthews any less of a scumsucker. Posted by David Gillies on August 25, 2004 11:24 AM | Link to this comment I have provided video feed, the transcript, and Malkin's own blog whinings. What more "context" can I possibly provide? She went on the show and she lied. Matthews called her out on it, and she is crying about it now. You say that since she only lied once (after refusing to tell the truth five times in a row in an attempt to duck his question) that it's AOK. "Ambushed"?? Are you kidding me? She knew the topics of the show before she went on. She introduced the whole "self-inflicted" crap to the show. He asked her a simple question, and she lied. You don't know how you would "cope"? Maybe by telling the truth. Maybe next time Malkin will give that a shot. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 25, 2004 11:31 AM | Link to this comment What more "context" can I possibly provide? How about something that clearly indicates that she did actually lie, as opposed to you simply insisting over and over again that she did? Posted by Orson Buggy on August 25, 2004 12:27 PM | Link to this comment YGB, You pulled Malkin's "yes" out of context and have repeatedly written that it was in response to one of Matthews' questions when clearly it was in regard to another. That was all the context we needed to prove that you were lying. Please don't pretend not to understand what it means to pull a statement out of context. With that, I am out of this thread. There is really nothing to add other than to remind everyone that Michelle Malkin is not running for president. John Kerry, the only person who has been proven a liar by virtue of his Senate floor Cambodia delusion, is. Jim English Posted by Jim English on August 25, 2004 12:44 PM | Link to this comment YGB spews: Why should she? You seem to think you're capable of doing it for her. Actually, you seem to think you can do that for pretty much anyone who disagrees with you. "Self-inflicted" does not equal "shot himself" no matter how many times you and Chris Matthews want to stomp your feet and insist it is.
Posted by Patrick Chester on August 25, 2004 12:52 PM | Link to this comment We have seen, read and digested the links, Y, and we don't agree w/your interpretation. That's all. Posted by Sandy P on August 25, 2004 01:12 PM | Link to this comment I spew a mighty... umm... spewage of truth. Or something like that. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 25, 2004 01:23 PM | Link to this comment Maybe I can add something else. YGB would spew a spew of truth, not a spewage of truth. At least according to the American Heritage Dictionary spew Jim English Posted by Jim English on August 25, 2004 01:32 PM | Link to this comment FWIW, Matthews disagrees with YGB. I quote: > MATTHEWS: I have never heard anyone say he shot himself on purpose. Note that the word "Yes" from Malkin doesn't appear in the quotes that YGB used to "prove" his point. link Posted by Andy Freeman on August 25, 2004 01:42 PM | Link to this comment Given your definition I would spew a spewer, it seems. Ahh, words. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 25, 2004 01:52 PM | Link to this comment > The question wasn't "Did he do it on purpose?". It was... It wasn't? Let's look at YGB's supporting evidence > Q: What do you mean by self-inflicted? Are you saying he shot himself on purpose? Is that what you‘re saying? Let's look a bit later in the interview to see if Matthews momentarily mis-spoke. > MATTHEWS: I‘m asking a simple question. Are you saying that he shot himself on purpose. Maybe YGB can tell us what he thinks the question was, because Matthews seems pretty insistent that it's did Kerry wound himself intentionally. Both Malkin and YGB think that some people have said that, the only issue being whether Malkin is one of them. The transcript shows that YGB is wrong; it shows that Malkin stated only what YGB has stated. Hmm - since both YGB and Malkin say that other people have said that Kerry wounded himself intentionally and YGB insists that means that Malkin said it, that means that YGB also said it. I'm still not sure why that matters. I don't see why anyone cares what either one think about that issue. Posted by Andy Freeman on August 25, 2004 01:52 PM | Link to this comment I know how important "context" has become to all of you when it comes to such things, so I thought you'd all want the chance to condemn Bush And Cheney for their neanderthal bullying lies and lack of context. The 2004 presidential campaign sometimes resembles the children's game of "telephone." Here are some quotations as they came out of Democratic nominee John F. Kerry's mouth -- and how President Bush and Vice President Cheney later recounted them. "Every performer tonight in their own way, either verbally or through their music, through their lyrics, have conveyed to you the heart and soul of our country." -- Kerry, July 8 "The other day, my opponent said he thought you could find the heart and soul of America in Hollywood." -- Bush, Aug. 18 "My goal, my diplomacy, my statesmanship is to get our troops reduced in number and I believe if you do the statesmanship properly, I believe if you do the kind of alliance building that is available to us, that it's appropriate to have a goal of reducing the troops over that period of time [the first six months of a Kerry administration]. Obviously, we'd have to see how events unfold. . . . It is an appropriate goal to have and I'm going to try to achieve it." -- Kerry, Aug. 9 "I took exception when my opponent said if he's elected, we'll substantially reduce the troops in six months. He shouldn't have said that. See, it sends a mixed signal to the enemy for starters. So the enemy hangs around for six months and one day. . . . It says, maybe America isn't going to keep its word." -- Bush, Aug. 18 "I will fight this war on terror with the lessons I learned in war. I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as president of the United States. I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history. I lay out a strategy to strengthen our military, to build and lead strong alliances and reform our intelligence system. I set out a path to win the peace in Iraq and to get the terrorists wherever they may be before they get us." -- Kerry, Aug. 5 "Senator Kerry has also said that if he were in charge he would fight a 'more sensitive' war on terror. America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive. . . . Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively. They need to be destroyed." -- Cheney, Aug. 12 "Lee Hamilton, the co-chairman of the 9/11 commission, has said this administration is not moving with the urgency necessary to respond to our needs. I believe this administration and its policies is actually encouraging the recruitment of terrorists. We haven't done the work necessary to reach out to other countries. We haven't done the work necessary with the Muslim world. We haven't done the work necessary to protect our own ports, our chemical facilities, our nuclear facilities. There is a long, long list in the 9/11 recommendations that are undone." -- Kerry, Aug. 2 "My opponent says . . . that going to war with the terrorists is actually improving their recruiting efforts. I think the logic -- I know the logic is upside down. It shows a misunderstanding of the nature of these people. See, during the 1990s, these killers and terrorists were recruiting and training for war with us, long before we went to war with them. They don't need an excuse for their hatred. It's wrong to blame America for anger and the evil of these killers. We don't create terrorists by fighting back. You defeat the terrorists by fighting back." -- Bush, Aug. 18 "Yes, I would have voted for the authority [to use force in Iraq]. I believe it is the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority, as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has. My question to President Bush is: Why did he rush to war without a plan to win the peace? Why did he rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?" -- Kerry, Aug. 9 "He now agrees it was the right decision to go into Iraq. After months of questioning my motives, and even my credibility, the Massachusetts senator now agrees with me that even though we have not found the stockpiles of weapons we all believed were there, knowing everything we know today, he would have voted to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power." -- Bush, Aug. 18 Glad to see that we're having an honest debate about the future of our country. Liars with pants afire. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 25, 2004 02:03 PM | Link to this comment Again, Y misses it, WE ARE having the debate, they're not. They're running for election. Posted by Sandy P on August 25, 2004 02:06 PM | Link to this comment Ahhh, so since they're running then then can skip that whole honesty and context thing. Got it. Because the jobs of "President" and "Vice President" don't require honesty and context, as these two gentlemen have illustrated nicely over the past three-plus years. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 25, 2004 02:16 PM | Link to this comment Were we talking about people taking things out of context in general or how YGB in particular had hijacked this thread by taking Michelle Malkins "yes" out of context? I thought the topic of this thread was the Kerry Campaign's acknowledgement that John Kerry's Purple Heart #1 wound may have been self inflicted. As YGB get's more desperate to change the subject from John Kerry's Veitnam service these threads get harder and harder to follow. Jim English Posted by Jim English on August 25, 2004 03:13 PM | Link to this comment Jim, The Democrats don't usually campaign "stupid", but they screwed up by turning the spotlight on the veteran's charges. Today comes word that the veteran's book is flying off the shelves. The Democrats won't be able to take the heat much longer. They'll have to change the subject. My guess is we'll see a Kerry trip to Europe soon, perhaps even to China, coupled with an attack on Bush administration foreign policy. The goal will be to let Kerry appear statesmanlike and presidential.
Posted by Lastango on August 25, 2004 03:54 PM | Link to this comment YGB spews even more: What's the matter? Getting a bit nervous at how people are noticing your own dishonesty so now you have to try a "but they did it toooooooooo" whinge? I can see why Bill Quick hasn't bothered to ban you. Posted by Patrick Chester on August 25, 2004 03:59 PM | Link to this comment Yeah, Y, why break the track record of my tail-end boomer life? And what's with the jab at context? Context, nuance..... Posted by Sandy P on August 25, 2004 04:19 PM | Link to this comment Clinton was a liar, yet he did a pretty good job as president,so what does the fact that Kerry and Bush are liars have to do with their qualification to be president? Posted by paul on August 25, 2004 06:47 PM | Link to this comment Clinton was a liar, yet he did a pretty good job as presidentThat, my friend, is a blatant lie, and you are a liar. BJ Clinton, perjurer, liar, treacher, betrayer, and all-around hick thug, was a horrible President. Posted by Bill Quick on August 25, 2004 08:24 PM | Link to this comment You Fight Fire With Fire, Not With Bans USATODAY.com - Liberal group unveils slew of anti-Bush ads Fourteen new video ads from the liberal group MoveOn PAC are about to add to the debate about whether independent groups' commercials are poisoning politics.Cool! Here's a link where you can Contribute to the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. Use it. Paging Nurse Ratchet...Code Strong in the comments section...And bring a stun gun, will ya? Posted by Chef Mojo on August 25, 2004 03:36 AM | Link to this comment Joseph certainly convinced me with that comprehensive, strong, well-reasoned argument. Not. Posted by Mikey on August 25, 2004 05:07 AM | Link to this comment Burn, Baby, Burn USATODAY.com - Some protesters say they won't be kept from park NEW YORK %u2014 Ann Shirazi will be in Central Park on Sunday, with or without the permission of the city parks department.The mainstream liberal media is gleefully looking forward to full-out rioting in NYC, partly because riots sell papers and commercials (if it bleeds, it leads), and partly because they think blood in the streets of NYC will hurt George Bush. Don't worry, folks, if NYC explodes, it will get enormous coverage. And the hope that it will hurt GWB will, I think, turn out to be an even bigger miscalculation than the idea that the liberal media could protect John Kerry from the Swiftboat Veterans. I was 8 and I still remember the riots on TV - my mom worked at 31st and Western at that time. And don't forget, the police are there to preserve disorder. Posted by Sandy P on August 24, 2004 08:31 PM | Link to this comment The courage displayed in going to a park is simply...breathtaking! Risking the Ashkkkroftian Gulag to bravely protest the re-Coronation of Dubya and thus rip the wool off the eyes of the sheeple, saving our dear democracy! Whatever, Ann. Have a nice time in the park, just stay away from the guys in ski masks. They say teargas is tough to get out of your clothes. Posted by Mikey on August 25, 2004 05:12 AM | Link to this comment "I'm packing a picnic lunch, and I'll find a nice grassy place in the middle of New York City, in a park that I pay city taxes to maintain," This asshat and her asshat friends are going to destroy a nice grassy place in the middle of NYC. The Great Lawn was overrun by Disney for some big concert thing, but then they paid to refurbish the whole thing. It's beautiful now. I'm really pissed that trustafarians, anarchists and hippies are going to ruin a park that I pay city taxes to maintain. Posted by growler on August 25, 2004 08:45 AM | Link to this comment Exactly Growler! If they want to use the park I want them to make a nice big fat deposit into the Parks dept clean up account b/c I, for one, do not want to foot the bill. Freedom of speech is free. Central Park is not! Posted by brian on August 25, 2004 10:42 AM | Link to this comment And Krugman is Synonymous With Nutcake It's the end of summer and the 2004 presidential election is still a few months away. Nevertheless, the hysteria and the paranoia about the validity of its outcome is generating punditry gone absurd. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has expressed anxiety - no, more than that: horror - at the thought that the credibility of our democracy is now in danger. Gee, I wonder who's responsible for casting doubt on our electoral process.Democrats have been synonymous with vote fraud since the days of Tammany Hall. Ask me a tough one.
Cold Fury linked with Stealing the election(s)
Excerpt: If it ain’t close, they can’t cheat: Curious, Isn't It? Bookstores say customers protest as demand outpaces supply of anti-Kerry book Several of Kerry's fellow servicemen have attacked "Unfit for Command" as inaccurate and politically motivated, and a Kerry campaign spokesman, Chad Clanton, said Tuesday the book had "blatantly false accusations that have been disproved by Navy records."Really? "Several?" How many is "several? And who are they? Name some names, please. The one thing I've noticed is a distinct lack of willingness on the part of Kerry's "Band of Paid Brothers" to face off in public against the Swifties. This is a liberal meme for which Kerry backers are desperately trying to gain some currency, but it's a lie, like most things connected with John Kerry's service record. (Sign the 180, John!) The Swifties comments are disproved by "official documents." What is in question here is the accuracy of those "documents." It is the contention of the Swifties that many of the documents are fiction, composed by John Kerry for the purpose of gaining medals. So far it is clear that Kerry lied about being in Cambodia over Christmas and lied about his first purple heart; the "official documents" are wrong. The Swifties have documented their charges well. And the beat goes on...... Posted by Howard Veit on August 25, 2004 04:49 AM | Link to this comment Among the vets who have defended Kerry against absurd claims about his conduct in Vietnam are George Elliott, Adrian Longsdale, and E.R. Zumwalt Jr. Oh wait, that was in 1996. So much has changed since then. Probably repressed memories, right? Maybe they'll have the courage to debate themselves on The O'Reilly Factor... Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 25, 2004 05:52 AM | Link to this comment I would love to see Kerry (or these newfound Kerry sycophants) go up against O'Neil in another televised debate. Won't happen though, the donks have too much to lose. Posted by Harlan Pepper on August 25, 2004 06:39 AM | Link to this comment From the link to the interview w/Kerry, et.al.: "...Mr. Medeiros, who was chasing after Sen. Kerry and the fleeing soldier, said he did not see Sen. Kerry kill him but had no doubt that the senator did so. Which means, of course, that Elliott, Longsdale, Zumwalt, et.al., were not there, and did not see what actually happened. Even the forward gunner, Belodeau, who was there, has stated that Kerry disappeared behind a hooch (hut), chasing the VC. Elliott and the others were defending a judgement they formed based upon the After-Action Reports, and (in the case of Belodeau and the other gunner) on what they were told, not what they saw. Who wrote the After-Action Reports? Sign the Form 180, Johnny Ketchup - let's see all the evidence, not just the parts you choose to show us. Posted by JB on August 25, 2004 06:58 AM | Link to this comment It'll Sell A Million and a Half, and Destroy the Veteran Vote for Kerry Bookstores say customers protest as demand outpaces supply of anti-Kerry book "The misunderstanding among customers seems to be that we are somehow taking an ideological stand," Borders spokeswoman Jenie Dahlmann said Tuesday. "We would gladly sell the book, but ... can't get an adequate supply."Since I know a bit about how the chains peddle books, I'm not quite sure what to make of this. If Regnery has put 550,000 into print in about three weeks, well, that is just an enormous number. The big chains do run a central buying operation, where their buyers place initial orders for books which they then parcel out to their many individual outlets. But re-orders are the province of the store managers in most cases, based on running sales garnered directly from cash register inventory systems. Let's say a store is sent fifty books (quite a large order for a hardcover). The automatic re-order might only be thirty five, depending on how quickly the first batch sells. The store manager might be begging and pleading for more copies, but that doesn't mean he'll get them, not until the buyers at the home office realize they have a huge - and unforeseen - phenomenon on their hands. Costco sells more bestsellers than any outlet on earth. I was at my local store, and the book display featured stacks of unsold Clinton books*- but nary a Swiftie to be seen. I imagine the reason is that the Costco buyers simply followed the lead of the New York Times (as did the buyers for Dalton and Borders) and assumed the book would be crushed by bad publicity coming out of the mainstream liberal media. Now that they understand that isn't going to happen, the phone lines will be burning from Manhattan to Regnery, and within ten days you won't be able to get into a Borders without crossing a wall of Swiftboat Vet books. The only ideological decision involved in all this was on the part of the liberal media who tried to kill the book. The big buyers just assumed the multitude of reviewers would destroy the book in its cradle, and therefore didn't feel like risking several million bucks on books that would rot in unopened cartons in bookstore back rooms before being shipped back to the publisher weeks later. They know better now. After today, the deluge. * I heard an interesting conversation among three women in front of that Clinton stack. Remember, this is in San Francisco, as liberal a place as there is in America. Woman one: "Look, there's the Clinton." She pats the cover. Woman two: "Yes. Have you bought it?" Woman one: "No..." Woman three: "Do you know anybody who has?" Women one and two: (Shaking heads). "No...." All three ambled away. The last thing I heard was one of them saying, "Maybe Dottie will buy it. She always buys things like that. We can wait for her...." I think Clinton's actual sales have been hugely iinflated, but when the real numbers finally are tallied, it will be so far down the road nobody will give a damn. And I presume BJ was smart enough to get most of his advance money up front. Well, R did move up the release date a couple of weeks, glad they're making money and it's got a tremendous buzz. Posted by Sandy P on August 24, 2004 08:33 PM | Link to this comment Bill, I know what you mean. I was able to snag the last 2 copies of Unfit at my local Sam's Club last Friday (one for me and one for my dad, a Swift vet himself...) and they haven't been able to replace them. The lady at the checkout said they'd been flying out of the store. Not only that, but the book was making the rounds with the employees. Lot's of Clinton bios (both), Al Franken, Michael Moore, etc. just sitting there... Dad was quite pleased to get the book Friday. He said he couldn't find it anywhere up in Northern Virginia. Everyone was sold out. A couple of booksellers got a little surly towards him when he asked about it. Said they'd get them when they got them. Posted by Chef Mojo on August 25, 2004 03:28 AM | Link to this comment Huh. "Protest"? Let's just say that we've received extra training over not only this book and its hard-to-obtain status, but a review of emergency procedures. With cause. Some people just don't realize that we'd LOVE to sell hundreds of copies of books if we had them, regardless of content. Of course, some general managers also haven't bothered to train their employees properly, and snide behavior that would merit an immediate termination at our store sometimes gets a free pass at others. (It doesn't hurt that my store employs a whole range of ideological opinion, either.) Posted by B. Durbin on August 25, 2004 08:37 PM | Link to this comment Triple the Trouble Kerry's Silver Star is starting to look even more tarnished: Here’s where it gets puzzling. Lieutenant John Kerry’s award for the Silver Star has—not one citation, but three—an unheard of number for a single award.At least the Kerry worshipers can't accuse Front Page of being a Bush-controlled 527. It is a media operation, as exempt from any campaign regulations as...as...the New York Times. Talking Back Federal Election Commission Chairman Defends Swift Boat Ads. Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Election Commission Chairman Bradley Smith defended the right of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an independent political group, to run commercials against Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry, who complained to the commission about the ads.Yes, exactly. While other claim to be exercised by 527s in general - on either the left or the right, depending whether they are on the right or the left, I say let them all speak, spend, and wax splenetic. It all is political speech, and the Supreme Court betrayed its history and the constituition is supposedly interprets in upholding the noxious McCain-Feingold shredding of the First Amendment. I personally think those who voted in favor of that clearly unconstitutional bill should be subject to the proper remedy - impeachment would not be beyond the pale. If it were up to me, there would be no limits on campaign contributions, no limits on advocacy organizations to express their views peaceably, and certainly no limits on any form of political speech at all.
Cold Fury linked with Not stupid
Excerpt: John Cole says it for me once again: And the salutary effect would be, IMO, that more of the political dollars would go to the candidates and the parties, instead of these side groups. Thus, more of the ads would be tempered by consideration of blowback. Some would still be negative, sure, but not as relentlessly and objectionably negative as some of the recent bromides have been. Under current law, the swiftees don't, *really*, have to worry about increasing Bush's negatives; but BC04 and RNC do. Ditto MoveOn/MediaFund/ACT: they don't *really* have to worry about increasing Kerry's negatives, but KE04 and DNC would. But the swiftees (and MoveOn/MediaFund/ACT) would not be *silenced*. They'd just have a smaller soapbox. *I* think that's a good thing, as a natural non-legislatively-induced outcome. Or maybe I'm already getting TIRED of all the screaming; I don't have enough energy for another 71 (+36? Oh God Please No) days of this. Posted by Chuck on August 24, 2004 09:35 PM | Link to this comment George Will once said, last year I think, that Americans spend more on Halloween candy than they do on political contributions. I have no link, and don't know if its true, but it sounds right - and puts all this hoohaa in perspective Posted by The Sage of Forest Park on August 25, 2004 12:25 AM | Link to this comment Mmm. Candy. Thanks, Sage. That IS a better perspective! Posted by B. Durbin on August 25, 2004 08:38 PM | Link to this comment
August 23, 2004
The History According to Daily Pundit If John Kerry intends to use his Vietnam background to attack Bush, I think it will backfire. Americans don't remember Vietnam as a victory for the US. And I doubt that constantly reminding voters of that loss is an effective way to run a winning campaign when we're in the middle of another war.The devil makes work for idle curiosities, which is why I did a quick search to locate my first mention of the Kerry prexy campaign. This dates from June 1, 2002. By August 9th of that year, my opinion was hardening somewhat: John Kerry has about as much chance of beating George Bush in 2004 as Justin Raimondo does. It's interesting to see that a great deal of Donk political speculation has shifted to 2004, though. Do you think it's because they don't see much worth talking about in 2002?By November of 2002 I was identifying major Kerry weaknesses: Two things: First, it sounds as if the black wing of the Donks is going to dump Big Honest Al and go with Kerry. Second, I think it's not too difficult to put Kerry into the liberal corner. He has a 95% "Liberal Qotient Rating" from the Americans for Democratic Action."Early in December, I posted this interesting quote: Regarding Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., Crowley quoted an anonymous Republican operative who told her: "God is not good enough to give us another Massachusetts liberal to run against."Just before Christmas I detected a glimmer of hope for Kerry: UPDATE:In mid-April of 2003, I predicted something that has now become Kerry's worst nightmare: Kerry, a superannuated political warhorse, is just playing the game the way it's always been played: kiss your base's ass for the primaries, and then try to pretend you're a middle of the road moderate if you manage to grab the nomination.On the same day I said about Mr. Vietnam: Exactly. And you don't even need to remind us with every second breath that you fought in a war and later repudiated your efforts by flinging somebody else's medals over a fence, you sniveling weasel.Near the end of July of 2003, I tried my hand at a bit of prognostication, with mixed results: I think this is as wrong as predictons of a big Gore victory in 2000, or a Donk sweep of both houses in 2002.In January of 2004, I commented: Heck, David, I'd like to see Kerry stand up in front of his mates from Vietnam, after pitching (somebody else's) medals away, and tell them what a military-supporting patriot he is.You know, I'll bet by now the Donks wish that my one failed projection - Joe Lieberman for President - had been my one right prediction. "Hmm. In fact, if I were Karl Rove, I think I'd have a couple of those Vietnam buddies already lined up for the campaign commercial this fall." Hey... when you're right, you're right. And good morning to you. Posted by Young Goodman Brown on August 24, 2004 05:36 AM | Link to this comment Interesting times. Kerry is learning first hand what happens when old tactics collide with new technology. Its obvious that his campaign strategy was formed on the assumption that the MSM would be able to protect his flanks but Kerry is such a target-rich environment that they can't do it. Dems in future campaigns will take the internet into account but for now its fish-in-a-barrel time. Posted by jefferson park on August 24, 2004 08:04 AM | Link to this comment It just dawned on me, reading others postings. Kerry did not report that he personally saw these atrocities, didn't do anything about it. Then he belongs to a group which discusses assassinating senators and he also didn't do anything about it. Posted by Sandy P on August 24, 2004 09:50 AM | Link to this comment Bill: Excellent forcasting. Even your one goof, Lieberman/Kerry was quite excusable. Who back then could have imagined the donks would be sufficiently stupid as to put Kerry at the top of the ticket. And then compound it by adding Empty Suit Edwards. Posted by Dean Douthat on August 24, 2004 03:44 PM | Link to this comment YGB: IMHO, it would be better for the country if Rove were behind the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. Then we would be seeing simply a continuation of the nasty mudslinging we've come to know and love as the norm in Presidential campaigns. But, it seems, this is a genuinely independent group which is lightly funded but heavily fueled by anger. It is overall bad for the country that Kerry has insisted on picking open the scab of Viet Nam again. Reliving that trauma benefits nobody now and it is still too soon for historical perspective. Also, it diverts attention from the real issues of the day; serious and basic changes are afoot in the country and in the world. I'm livid at the Democrats for avoiding discussion of reality in favor of absurd and childish longing for a mostly mis-remembered golden age of the 1990's. Posted by Dean Douthat on August 24, 2004 03:55 PM | Link to this comment It is overall bad for the country that Kerry has insisted on picking open the scab of Viet Nam again Are you sure? Maybe the intellectual tradition that largely got its start in the sixties and seventies as protests by the worst generation (yes, mine) against the efforts of the best generation (our parents) will be greatly weakened and discredited by this round of facing the truth about Vietnam. Better now than fifty years from now when the empty philosophy of the Vietnam protesters (now so influential in the established halls of power) will have had so much time to do so much more damage. As well, perhaps nothing could be more important in the question of who best to lead against resurgent Islam, than a close examination of the people who didn't have the faith to believe in their own country when it was fighting communism. These people need to be discredited. They are not fit to lead let alone command the respect they currently have. Who better to discredit those who undercut their country at war than the people who were making the biggest sacrifices at the time. If the vets have the faith in themselves, they can blow the post modern relativists out of the water for good. Maybe we will finally see the vets as the unalloyed heros they really are, and justice will finally be done. Posted by Tom Cohoe on August 24, 2004 04:39 PM | Link to this comment Michell Malkin has a letter from a vet up: Here's a letter I received today from Terry Sater, a Vietnam Vet who served with the Mobile Riverine Force in the Mekong Delta during 1968 and 1969. He writes that "I'm not part of a 527. I voted for McGovern, Perot and Bush. I didn't volunteer for Nam. I didn't want to go. I am not a hero. I served with heroes. Kerry has dishonored all of us." There's a lot more at her site. Posted by Sandy P on August 24, 2004 06:01 PM | Link to this comment Tom Cohoe: Yes, I feel confident in saying that debate now about the Viet Nam war is not a good thing. I base this on quite a bit of experience in trying to communicate with boomers in general and my own boomer children in particular. It is an extremely frustrating experience for people of my age. My conclusion is that there is no intellectual cure for the boomer mentality and the creeping nihilism it has imposed on our society. Smashing nose-first into reality is probably the only cure. The next generation, today's 18-30 year olds, is already recoiling from their parents nihilism, IMHO. I think this is a natural cyclic societal renewal at work. In short, I'm saying lets focus on today's problems -- and tommorow's. The peak of boomer influence and utopianism is now passing and we are about to head back down the wave toward realism again. Events, not debates, are the drivers. Rude intrusions of reality like the bursting of the dot.com bubble (or was it tulip bulbs?) and 9/11 have produced both a left-to-right movement in the body politic and a strong focusing of youngsters on issues beyond getting laid/high/etc Posted by Dean Douthat on August 25, 2004 07:04 AM | Link to this comment I really wish I could believe that you're right. For me, the problem with smashing nose-first into reality is that sometimes, when it's over, you are, you know, ... dead. What could have been a greater smashing into reality than 9-11. Yet less than three years later the Dems feted the man (Michael Moore) who is so full of hate for his country that he did his best to paint the man leading the defense as a traitor. It's not the Islamists I fear. It's the pomo leaders and their (knowing or unknowing) followers. They are everywhere, into everything. Music, film, liberal arts faculties, the bench, the media. Posted by Tom Cohoe on August 25, 2004 08:10 AM | Link to this comment Lord Knows They Couldn't Do It Telegraph | News | General 'spared Paris by disobeying Fuhrer' Parisians celebrating the 60th anniversary of their liberation from the Nazis have been urged to remember the role of a German general who, convinced that Hitler had become mad as well as evil, disobeyed orders to destroy the French capital.Figures. A damned Nazi saved the Frog's capital. By the way, the French Resistance was the most over-rated fighting force in history. With the possible exception of the over-thirty Mike Tyson. And he would have eaten them alive. There may have been a quite a few such unsoldierly orders from Hitler and his staff, and disobeying these was apparently not a thing lightly done. On Oct. 18th 1942, Hitler issued this: “From now on, all enemies on so-called commando missions in Europe or Africa… (even if) in uniform, whether armed or unarmed, in battle or in flight, are to be slaughtered to the last man… even if (they) should apparently be prepared to give themselves up… all (German) commanders and officers who either have neglected their duty of instructing the troops about this order or acted against this order are to be executed.” General Siegfried Westphal, being questioned about this order at Nuremberg in 1946: Q: Who was your chief? Q: Do you know the order issued by Hitler on October 18th 1942? Q: Did you receive this order? Q: How did Marshal Rommel behave on receipt of this order? Rommel Biographer Desmond Young notes, however, that “In fact, Rommel was very far from being the only German general who ignored this and similar orders.” Posted by Lastango on August 23, 2004 10:44 PM | Link to this comment Almost all of the "resistance" in France was Communist. It was said by all that WWII was just a "warm up" for the real one, the real one being the revolution after the war. I remember a great uncle who was in the 82nd Airborne saying in reply to someone referencing the poor "starving Frenchmen." "What starving Frenchmen?" He went on to explain that every French citizen he ever saw was fat as could be. Posted by Howard Veit on August 24, 2004 12:05 AM | Link to this comment A couple of thousand French Communists rose in rebellion on August 19. The French Second Armored entered the fray and the German commander surrendered August 25. DeGaulle made a speech that same day under intermittant sniper fire. The 28th US Infantry Division entered the city on August 29. I would not be exagerating greatly to suggest that more French resistance fighters were killed in fighting eachother than were ever killed in firefights with the Germans. Just as Greece endured a communist inspired civil war after liberation, France came close. The Greeks were far closer to Soviet forces, making their peril greater. Posted by Chuck Simmins on August 24, 2004 08:16 AM | Link to this comment "Fringes of Power" by John Coleman is on my current re-reading list. He was Churchill's private secretary through and after the war and the book is the diary he kept. I've had my copy for years so I think it is probably out of print, but well worth looking for in second hand shops or on Ebay. I'm in the fall of 1940 and the French 'attitude problem' we complain of today was apparent then. For example, they bickered with Churchill's people over "allowing" their remaining fleet to fall into British hands versus feely handing it over to the Germans for the appeasement value. Posted by Retread on August 24, 2004 09:57 AM | Link to this comment I read somewhere that the number of active Maquisards prior to D-Day was around 1,500. There were probably more British S.O.E. agents (many of them young women, many of them betrayed to torture and death by their 'allies') in France than resistance fighters. Of course after the liberation of Paris, there were millions. The French have never forgiven the US and UK for liberating them. Looking back, it's a shame we had to bother. Probably the most satisfying part of the whole of France's involvement in WW2 was when we blew their fleet sky-high at Oran. Posted by David Gillies on August 24, 2004 11:43 AM | Link to this comment Some possible insight into the French attitude (and certainly into French politics) was the last minute goings-on within the Reynaud government. French PM Paul Reynaud was approached by Churchill for an unprecedented union of France and the British Empire. In this manner, France would not surrender, and she could continue fighting, even into Great Britain (or, as appeared likely, the colonies). It was Reynaud's mistress who effectively put the kibosh on that idea, not only demanding that Reynaud not consider this option, but apparently buying time for the pro-surrender elements to corral Reynaud away from the likes of those who were going to fight to the end. Imagine that---a mistress deciding that France should surrender, rather than fight to the bitter end. No wonder they oppose simplisme. (Reference: "To Lose a Battle" by Alistair Horne Posted by Dean on August 24, 2004 11:55 AM | Link to this comment I'd have to say the French Resistance was given a run in the "over rated" stakes by the FRENCH ARMY - no? Posted by Sean on August 24, 2004 06:02 PM | Link to this comment Actually, Sean, you raise an interesting point with that question. First, the French army collapsed about as quickly as the Iraqi military this time around. Perhaps for the same reasons? But, more to the point, while we've heard "lying" thrown around for the intel failure regarding WMD, one wonders why there weren't also accusations of "lying" about the failure of the Iraqi conventional military to fight a "Stalingrad" in the streets of Baghdad. Could it be that, like the failures in prediction regarding the French Army, such is, in fact, commonplace when it comes to military intel? Could it be that the opponents of the war didn't throw that particular argument around b/c , if they did, it'd show how "lying" is a specious charge? Posted by Dean on August 24, 2004 06:38 PM | Link to this comment |
|||||||||||||||||
The daughter of a Hamas operative was videotaping obvious terror targets and thinks this is about being muslim?
If we can't profile people related to Hamas, then we can't profile anyone.
Posted by JohnG on August 25, 2004 09:19 PM | Link to this comment