Monday, August 09, 2004

Repugnant Blonde Fascist?!

Ok, so I had to return from my beautiful sand and sun filled week to this...sigh... I wanted to come back (reveling in my argument-free zone) and write a nice little post on how much this Yankee loves the South --I guess that will have to wait for another day. I see that (conveniently) in my absence I have been attributed words that were not mine and bashed on my own site. I will not be able to sleep tonight if I do not address this now (BigandMean-I am now passing on the limerick....hope he'll understand).
First of all, I had promised myself that I would be internet free while I was away...I cheated and peeked at the site shortly after my arrival (already a bit grumpy from an eight hour car ride). I read what Rab wrote (2nd post) and quickly shut down the computer...I vowed that I would not let this *cough* "writer" ruin my time.... Being perfectly honest, I did stew for a bit --resisting the urge to shoot back right away. Then something happened. A friend of mine (M), that lives where we were visiting, stopped by with a 'belated' Birthday cake. It was homemade (she doesn't normally cook) and itwas even two layers. It had a little picture of President Bush and a GOP elephant done painstakingly in red, white and blue sugar. M is a liberal. How cool is that! All of my ire melted away and I realized that I had nothing to be upset about. Most of us can have very different political views and be civil --some of us can even have very different political views and be great friends --few of us can have very different political views and spend hours on something that is the opposite of our views just because it will make a friend smile... I have that in my life --I would dare to guess that the "writer" Rab does not.
What 'Rab' does have is the ability to prove my point that 'peace activists' are often pretty nasty people. Sticks and stones Rab... I was going to respond by simply deleting all of his comments (nice little links to his silliness at the end of them all) --I do welcome discussion, but if I wanted blind hate and lies -I would see Moore's film or read's webpage. BUT I will not be a party to censorship the way that the ACLU and the left seek to censor all conservative thought. Then I thought about challenging him to put up his life against mine --his charities, his volunteer time, his sacrifices for his fellow man -to see how the talk of the left holds up to the action of the right...but then I realized I would have no way of knowing what was true. I came to this conclusion: There has been plenty of healthy discourse on this page and he is the only one that has ever gotten nasty--so he can feel free to "monitor my repugnant site" and he can link me as 'the danger to society' and he can even label me a "fascist" --and I won't censor what he writes (I guess blowing the whole 'fascist theory'), I would still hold the door for him if he were behind me, and will refrain from bomb-throwing and name calling (though I have some good ones)....I guess that's just the difference between him and me.

I know this will be long but I must answer specific charges made (not only by Rab the 'writer', but also TWD and Lefty-I retract the previous 'chivalrous' comment boys):
1) I would think that this would be obvious, but I guess not --I did not comment on the last post--I specifically wrote that I wasn't it would be hard for me to be "posting slanderous comments" IF I DIDN'T COMMENT.

2) The "rich republican donor" donated 100,000 to Swiftboat Vets for Truth a 527. How much has George Soros donated to a 527? 11 - 15 MILLION... I don't hear ya complaining about that...

3) I didn't derive from "one article" that Kerry committed war crimes ...I derived from Kerry saying that he committed war crimes that Kerry committed war crimes. Hmmmm, I thought that was an easy one too....

4) I linked the website because it is relevant -because Kerry has made his 4 mths. in Vietnam the center piece of his campaign. I didn't comment because I am waiting the read the book-- UNFIT FOR COMMAND when it is released (8/13)

5) The 'facts' that I put in one of my comments are not my facts --they were directly from an except of this book -UNFIT FOR COMMAND -in a store near you on August 13, 2004. These were not from me (or Sean Hannity Mr. LeftyJones) -they were from Kerry's fellow officers. As for John McCain (first TWD -I don't know why this would mean anything to me either way as he has been quite the RINO lately) BUT McCain thought that this ad was put out by Ted Sampley (who runs Vietnam Vets Against John Kerry). Sampley had smeared him in 2000. McCain was wrong -Sampley had nothing to do with this ad.

In summation, I wish Vietnam wasn't an issue. The fact is, that regardless of what I think of his actions when he returned from Vietnam (which were 'repugnant'), he was awarded medals of honor. Another fact is that Bush was given an "Honorable Discharge" from the Air National Guard. That should be the end of it. This should be a referendum on the President's performance over the last four years put up against Kerry's record in the Senate over the past 20 years...end of story. But you people can't have it both ways...if you are going to ignore the 'fact' and accuse Bush of being a deserter, and if Kerry is going to walk into his convention with a Band of Brothers and 'report for duty' -choosing to run on his four months in Vietnam instead of his 20 years as a senator --then this is what it opens up. Why should the 13 on the stage with him have a voice and escape vetting -while the 250 against him get accused of...well you name it and they have been accused of it. Why can we not question Kerry because of his service and medals -yet these men (who served longer and many of which have more medals) can be readily dismissed....I just don't get it. Ask yourself this...if you found someone that said that they could prove that George Bush really didn't show up to the NG duty for a year...would you finance the commercial -or the book? I think we all know the answer already................
(Thanks Kat --your comment kept me sane *smile*)

P.S. Notice that Rab 'the writer' never said anything about Mumia --I threw it in there to see if he would bite (these people are so predictable)...and of course -jackpot!


this we'll defend said...

Glad you are back.

You did say you didn't want to comment, but then continued on that the Swiftvets story could "stand on it's own." That sounds like an endorsement to me. So yes I took you to task for endorsing, or appearing to endorse, such slanderous and foul material.

This group doesn't have to be able to prove its lies, it only seeks to plant doubt about the truth of Kerry's record. It is demagogic tactics at their worst. And you put the link on your website, so by getting into the mud with them you should expect to get muddy.

I wish people made up their minds by looking to Bush's record as President and comparing it to Kerry's in the Senate. My candidate would sweep every state that way.

Instead of addressing Kerry's policies or defending Bush's policies the right-wing demonizes Kerry. That has become the standard tactic for the right-wing - instead of debating the issues they attack the opponent's character, history, etc.

C'mon, Cheney was CEO of Halliburton during the time that huge fraud was taking place - and perhaps he had nothing to do with it and perhaps he did, but Clinton was investigated over Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, and after hundreds of millions of dollars they caught him getting a hummer and lying in response to a question that should never have been asked. How about some hard questions for the President, perhaps the VP? One of them should be why they haven't condemned the Swiftvets blatant manipulation of the truth, as Sen. McCain called on them to do.

Tammi said...

Viet Nam is an issue only because Kerry keeps bringing it up. He has people that are supporting his story, those that disagree have a right to put their side out there. **Be sure and read Kat's post from Sunday - BRILLIANT**

I too would love for everything to be based on the more recent past and plans for the future. I believe if that happens that GWB would win hands down, but that's my opinion.

justrose said...

Billy Lee for governor!

Bigandmean said...

TWD, you amaze me. You call the book slanderous and foul material yet you haven't read it.

After months of pounding President Bush about his military service and basing his entire campaign on his own service, Senator Kerry and his supporters now want the discussion to end. A classic, classic example of trying to have it both ways. Bring the subject up, attack your opponent's integrity, tout your own virtues and then declare that it's time to move on. What if the Swiftvets are right? Wouldn't you want to know the truth?

In regard to Clinton, rather than defend his pathetic lack of anything resembling morality, I would love to just one time hear a Democrat other than Joe Lieberman condemn it. Don't you remember him looking straight at you, making direct eye contact with you, and then lying to you just as he did on his deposition? Does that not bother you? Who are you to decide that a question should never have been asked? Can't you accept that a federal judge ruled that the question asked went right to the heart of a pattern of deception and that it was relevant and material to the issue before the court? Clinton had plenty of time to consider whether to tell the truth. He decided to lie and then planned and practiced, making sure to wag his finger for emphasis as he'd been coached to do.

Personally, I've long since gotten over Clinton's follies. He finally admitted the truth, although by continuing to blame others, he's not taken responsibility for his own actions. It's the attitude of his supporters, defending till the end the indefensible that allows politicians of all political stripes to get away with such things. I can honestly say that if someone I supported politically had done what Clinton did, I would have denounced him and withdrawn my support immediately.

this we'll defend said...


I didn't say anything about the book, but about Swiftvets - the commercials and the website. I haven't read the book, discussed the book, and don't know what the book contains. If it is by one of the same people behind the Swiftvet false allegations I won't waste my time with it for the author will have no credibility.

I don't want the discussion of Kerry's military record to end - it helps my candidate that he is a war hero at at time when national security is at issue.

If the Swiftvets are right in their charges that Kerry is cowardly, that he didn't deserve purple hearts, that his evaluations were below average, that he was "unfit to command" and that his commanders thought so back then, well yes I would want to know that. I would want the American people to know that. Of course none of that is true. Repeating baseless charges doesn't help in the search for the truth. The allegations have been proven false by numerous commentators and innumerable sources (including, surprisingly, Fox News).

The reasons that I find the Swiftvets despicable is that they are knowingly lying - they aren't doing so by mistake. For instance, they claim Kerry should release his military records - but the records are available on his website and have been for some time. By claiming Kerry lied about the circumstances behind his purple hearts - when in fact Kerry has always been forthright that the first two were "scratches" and the third was "minor" and that he was back on full duty the next day. These facts are all in the public domain. BTW - if the wounds were "minor" they still came from the Viet Cong - you couldn't get a purple heart without engaging with the enemy. Should all soldiers in Iraq that don't get a purple heart be considered non-veterans? Did Kerry earn a Vietnam campaign ribbon or not? He did. Period.

Clinton lied about cheating on his wife. I do condemn that behavior. I don't think it relates to his accomplishments as President, you do, and I can respect that. I don't think it rose to the level of an impeachable offense, and the effort to overturn the will of the people based on bringing into the open the private and personal sex life of a President was, to me, a much more dangerous threat to democracy then Clinton getting a BJ and then lying so that his wife didn't find out.

But I respect you and believe you when you say that if a politician you supported had done what Clinton did that you would have turned against him.

Back to the point (my fault for digressing to Clinton): Kerry served in combat. He was decorated. Like all veterans, in both peacetime and in war, he deserves respect for serving his nation. Swiftvets seeks to destroy his military record for political purposes by making baseless, unsupported, and demonstrably false allegations. That is wrong and whether you are a Kerry or a Bush supporter it should disgust you. Were the Democrats to put out a film that claimed W was a member of the KKK, or that he raped a nun, or whatever, it would also be disgusting and wrong. Lying about and demonizing a candidate is not the best way to elect the best candidate regardless of which one you support.

~Jen~ said...

For at least the millionth time.

Clinton was impeached because he LIED UNDER OATH and tampered with witnesses.

The left likes to perpetuate the myth that it was all about sex. Though I find his serial adultery repulsive, as do many other moral people on the left and the right, that is NOT why he was IMPEACHED.

ALa said...

TWD: I don't understand why Kerry demands your respect as a war hero for 4 months and decorated -when the author doesn't when he was 12 months and decorated. I saw an interview with a vet who said that those on boats in the same unit would have a better view as they would be looking at the whole picture (after reading CB's posts about the recent firefights lately this rang very true to me -ask him what other men in his stryker were doing and he probably won't have a clue because he was (rightly) busy with his own engagement. Yet a stryker behind then that may not be engaged at the time would see the whole picture). I guess regardless of all this I am wondering why this guy is less credible to you than Kerry (a lifelong partisan also). I also wonder (as I said in the post) why the 13 on stage get a pass and the 254 officers etc. get nailed. Why bring up the 'rich' Republican donor when he donated $100, 000 and Soros has donated millions...the Kerry campaign is complaining about this 527 -but how many do they have? Are they asking to stop running ads? If you had proof that Dubya was in KKK I think that would be something I would want to know -just like I said that if these things are true I would think (being a vet) that you would want to know. I don't know what you are basing your hatred of the author on. I honestly believe that if Kerry hadn't made Vietnam his centerpiece this wouldn't be happening. Apparently, even his band of brothers are saying that the swiftvets accusation of Kerry lying about Cambodia is true...I am getting the book and I will let you know...
19 out of 20 stations chose to run the ad even after the Kerry campaign threatened to sue them -so I guess the support package that came with the ad was pretty convincing (and FNC isn't one of them).

this we'll defend said...

I don't hate the authors, and I do want to know the truth. What is frustrating is your entire argument is based on there being some legitimate dispute over whether Swiftvets are telling the truth. Source after source has shown their claims to be false. It took me less than 1 minute to find Kerry's military records on line, for instance, yet they "demand" that Kerry make his records public. Within five minutes I found an account Kerry gave over a decade ago in which he said his purple hearts were for minor wounds, the first two for "scratches" and the last resulting in no hospitalization and a full return to duty the next day, . My own research and every legitimate information source has shown Swiftvets to be full of crap. That is why they are less credible to me - because they simply aren't credible at all.

Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury." Kerry claims it was a "scratch" and, in addition, Letson's name appears nowhere in Kerry's medial records (or any other records for that matter).

Al French: "He is lying about his record." Fine. What is the lie? Nothing here but an unsubstantiated charge.

And on and on - charges that Kerry lies, that he has faked his record, that he isn't a hero, that he didn't deserve his medals, that he was unfit for command. With no proof, riddled with inconsistencies, with absolutely no basis in proof.

They call Kerry a "key creator" of the image of Vietnam Vets as "misfits, addicts, and baby killers." I watched all of Kerry's senate testimony and I saw a man who had enormous respect, and love, for his fellow warriors. He also criticized the politicians and said things like "free-fire zones" were war crimes. And he said that the combat coupled with lies about what was taking place and why we were there was scarring the brave youth who were serving in Vietnam - and so it was.

They claim that his tour in Vietnam was 4 months and 12 days long, ignoring the year he spent offshore beforehand (he had absolutely no obligation to serve in combat but was truly a volunteer - he already had a campaign ribbon when he reported for Swiftboat duty).

They claim that "no fitness reports are provided at all" by the Kerry campaign. This is an outright lie - I read them over a year ago on line at his website. All of them. On their own site the Swift Vets say at one point that no fitreps have been provided at all, but then take Kerry to task for "selectively" releasing only some fitreps. I also know how to read a fitrep, and his show a fine officer in the making. I suggest rather than relying on a partisan and unsubstantiated attack you read his fitness reports (all of them) found at

19 out of 20 television stations chose to run the disgusting ad not because of the "factual support package" but because political speech is the most highly protected form of speech and they knew they could show it with impunity. As of course they can. But that doesn't mean that Swiftvets are right to lie, only that they have that right.

And your "4 months" comment shows you are buying into their lies. Guys on D-day plus one in Normandy had only been in combat one day. Care to disparage them because they only spent one day in combat?

I could go on and on with how false and baseless these charges are, but you are determined to believe I hate the authors, that I only disagree with them because I am a Kerry supporter, etc. Even though you have only known me in Blogland a short time I would think my integrity and desire to speak and seek the truth would be evident. Perhaps not.

I hope that this will result in people studying the record to learn the truth, but I know it will not. Even seemingly reasonable people such as yourself will not research or learn the readily-available facts but will assume there is some truth to the story. In fact there is not, so the Swiftvets have already served their purpose in damaging Kerry. That means they are effective, but it doesn't at all make them right. They, as I said before, don't deserve a warrior's spittle.

ALa said...

I have/will continue to research the facts. I don't need this to think poorly of Kerry...what he did when he came back was quite enough for me. I have read that Kerry has not released his complete military record in more than one paper...I think that the weird thing is that he requested the purple hearts -which most vets tell me is very unusual and that soldiers usually try to downplay things -not hype them up...
I am buying the book tomorrow. I do think you have integrity -that's why this whole situation bothers me because I do feel like you are showing blind allegiance. Vets are close to your heart -abortion is close to mine...if I found out that Bush had funded abortion doctors or paid for girlfriends to get abortions you can bet your ass there would be no blind allegiance.

Bigandmean said...


I haven't read the book. I'll read it and THEN make up my mind. I didn't make up my mind on Michael Moore's movie until I saw it. Now I know, without question what a piece of political claptrap it is. Why not read the book first, then decide? Here's what I'll do: compare the motives, history , background, and other factors of the parties on each side of the issue; check to see if any one involved is trying to suppress the story; examine whether those involved have anything to gain or lose; check their demeanor when they discuss it; review their actions immediately after the events in question; compare inconsistencies. After this process, I'll decide and be certain that I've been objective in arriving at my conclusion.

If there are scalawags amongst our political class, we have to expose them, whether they are democrats or republicans. Once we've purged the bad guys, we can begin to have an honest political dicussion again.

this we'll defend said...

ONCE AGAIN - I'm not talking about the book. I don't know what the book claims and don't care. I'm talking about the lack of truth in what Swiftvets has already claimed. Why talk about a book that isn't even released yet? Why do you need to read the book to evaluate the truth or falsity of what is already out there?

How about this: read the Swiftvet claims and then: "compare the motives, history , background, and other factors of the parties on each side of the issue; check to see if any one involved is trying to suppress the story; examine whether those involved have anything to gain or lose; check their demeanor when they discuss it; review their actions immediately after the events in question; compare inconsistencies." And you didn't mention (surprisingly) examine if there are impartial, reliable sources that contradict everything they claim.

After that perhaps we can expose them as scalawags (as most reputable - scratch that - ALL reputable journalists and commentators already have). We don't need to wait for a book. Waiting for some book allows those that are telling these lies to hold the stage even longer... unless that doesn't bother you because it serves your candidate.

One difference between Moore and Swiftvets is that Moore always admitted that his movie was blatantly political and one-sided. Another is that he didn't make up facts, instead he selectively used facts and innuendo to lead the viewers to unjustified conclusions, which is what you would expect when a director openly admits that his film is partisan and one-sided. Swiftvets flat-out lies about a veteran's military record. Yet you reserve all your vitriol for Moore. Seems a pretty selective use of ethics.

Bigandmean said...

It's certainly a broad statement, to say the least, to claim that all reputable journalists and commentators have concluded that Kerry is telling the truth and the swiftvets are lying. I've followed this closely, as I would really like to know the truth and I don't recall having seen any definitive proof one way or the other. The juries'still out. I suspect that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, as it often does, without residing in the corner exclusively of either side.

I plan on keeping an open mind until all the facts are in. I won't be swayed by CNN or Fox. I won't let my political leanings dictate my analysis. I can't make an informed decision until I find out more. If these guys are lying, they'll get be tarred and feathered. If Kerry is lying, his political ambitions are toast.

What Michael Morre did was unethical. I don't get your claim of selective ethics on my part for wanting to find out more about the claims of the swiftvets before I make up my mind just as I did with Moore.

this we'll defend said...

The jury is not still out. The truth is not "somewhere in the middle." You claim you are in Philly. I claim you are in LA. Does that now mean you are in Kansas? Well, if the truth is somewhere in the middle you must be.

If I owe you $100k and I claim I owe you nothing, will you be satisfied when I pay you $50K and call it even? C'mon, there are two sides here and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

That is the entire point of these lies - for people to assume that the truth is somewhere in the middle. It is not. Kerry's service was honorable, his efficiency reports were well above-average, and his medals were earned. By putting that into doubt the Swiftvets have accomplished their mission. They have also in the process shamed themselves, their fellow vets, and the President who also shamefully refuses to condemn them.

You sound reasonable, but it is not reasonable to give any credence to sources that have been shown to be blatantly wrong. Such as the inconsistent charges against Kerry on the Swiftvets own website, where they criticize him for releasing NO efficiency reports and for "selectively" releasing SOME efficiency reports - and in fact Kerry has released and posted ALL of his efficiency reports. If the truth is somewhere in the middle maybe Kerry is holding something out on us - but in fact he is not. They are all available on his own campaign site because he WANTS people to read them because they make him look good.

No, the jury is not out. The verdict is in. Swiftvets have no credibility and the charges are scurrilous. It is unreasonable to think otherwise in the face of such overwhelming evidence against them. It is beyond a reasonable doubt that they lied.