If you read just one blog post this year….

If you read just one blog post this year….

: Go read this post by Ken (We’re Glad He’s Back) Layne, who in a drunken stupor of brilliant imagination, tells Blair (who sounds like an imaginary friend, a gigantic invisible kangaroo, perhaps — but isn’t) how the Bushies are getting Kerry elected thanks to Vietnam:

“Look at you people with this Vietnam boat nonsense. Every day, you’re pounding home the fact that Kerry fought in Vietnam. You idiots started this stuff so early — with the “Oh he protested the war” and the Jane Fonda photoshops — that the Kerry people turned the whole Democratic convention into celebration of the Vietnam War. Nobody even remembers being against Vietnam anymore. The next Vietnam movie will be a buddy comedy starring Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, and all they’re going to do is kill Charlie and win medals and dance with beautiful girls. It’ll make $300 million on the opening weekend. They’re going to tear down that bummer memorial in Washington and put up a 1,000-foot statue of a smiling American soldier proudly standing on a stack of golden skulls. You morons have made Vietnam the Democrats’ favorite memory and greatest victory. Then you scream hooray when a gang of addled old Nixon bagmen show up in a teevee commercial to bitch about Kerry fighting in Vietnam, and once again the normal people with lives only remember, again, that Kerry fought in Vietnam and the Bush campaign is upset about it.”

“But,” Tim sputtered, “He clearly claimed he was in Cambodia several days before he was in Cambodia. It was seared–”

“Stop that,” I said, poking his neck with the corkscrew worm. “Listen to yourself. What are you doing, again? That’s right, you’re reminding people that the other guy fought in Vietnam. Have you become so brain dead that you think this helps your girly boy Bush? Do you honestly believe the coward boy can beat the War Monster?”

And that’s just the beginning; the rest is brilliant. Go read the rest now. That’s a friggin’ order, soldier! Now!

  • Greg D

    He’s wrong.
    There’s such a thing as saturation. Kerry has saturated the American public with the knowledge that he was in Vietnam. He’s hasn’t saturated the public with the knowledge that he made up missions, lied about what he did, and got others to lie about what he’s done.
    The impression that comes from reading about the truth of Kerry’s action in Vietnam, and his current claims about what he did, is that he’s a blowhard, and a bore. Do you think the American people really want to spend the next four years constantly listening to a guy who can talk about anything but (made up, or at least horribly exagerated) stories about what happened to him 30 years ago?
    I don’t.
    Which leaves aside the fact that, by ignoring everything Kerry has done since he came back from Vietnam, Kerry is telling people that he hasn’t accomplished anything worthwhile in the last 30 years. Focusing on Vietnam just drives that point home.
    Or do you really think the average voter is too dumb to figure that out from him / her self?

  • brett

    unfortunately, Layne has been bitten by the ABB bug; every one of his recent posts/comments that I’ve seen in various places is of the Bu$Hitler variety. it’s a shame.

  • http://www.learnedhand.com/scrutineer.htm MDP

    The swiftvets ad apparently hurts Kerry’s prospects with independent voters.
    So much for the must-read blog post of the year …

  • Mike

    Wrong again on this story. Kerry hardly answers a foreign policy question without bringing up his service in Vietnam. Kerry has made this the central theme of his campaign, and now that it seems some of these seared memories of missions are bogus (more like calculating, manipulative lies) it somehow doesn’t matter. Why is that? If Kerry doesn’t address this issue soon I feel it is going to blow up in his face. The media is going to be forced to cover these deceptions, and that is going to say more about the candidate than his service in Vietnam will.

  • HT

    So I read it. Feh. If you think that sloppy excuse for a diatribe, with the usual boatload of anti-Bush and anti-Republican canards is “brilliant”, then I can only quote Inigo Montoya: “…you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
    One particularly gratuitous insult (and for a change, not directed at a Republican!) does make me curious, however. Does Ken Layne really think Ann Richards was a “leering old drunken incumbent”? Or does he just not know what the heck he’s talking about?

  • http://www.elflife.com/ carsonfire

    Ugh, no thanks. I’m not even sure I care what his arguments and conclusions are, the structure bites. Cartoonists tend to do this a lot when they want to get serious and prove something in comics that they can’t prove with real debate: they create a wildly insightful alpha character (themselves) who mop up the floor with some hapless opponent who is reduced to pathetic blubbering at every turn by the hero’s seamless and unassailable logic.
    The “opponent” is always there to go through the motions as feebly as possible, without really making a forceful argument for the opposition. The hero merely spouts off the cartoonist’s wild theories as if they are unchallenged fact. The hero always makes mincemeat of the hapless opponent, and always gets a witty line at the end.
    It’s not only bad debate, it’s bad dramatization; in both debate and drama, the hero should have to work a lot harder to win.

  • Mike

    This cartoon sums up the current state of the ever-changing Kerry story.
    via Instapundit.

  • TXBueller

    Jeff,
    You get all excited about that DemocraticUnderground quality ranting?
    Jeez, I just lost a little respect for you sir.
    Earn it back soon please.

  • TXBueller

    Okay,
    Maybe it’s just Atrios quality ranting. I mean, DemocraticUndergound *is* pretty darn low. At least the writing is decent in Layne’s post.

  • http://www.tonypierce.com tony

    once again Jeff your commentors have missed the swiftboat, er, the point.
    keep chasing your own tails bushies!
    keep knocking a guy for thinking he was getting shot at in cambodia when he was clearly getting shot at 50 miles away from cambodia and still in ‘Nam.
    keep fooling yourself into thinking that this “lie” will convince people to vote for a president who “lied” about wmd, iraq=taliban, and that this ecomony is actually good.
    layne is far from a bush-hating liberal.
    he hates everyone equally.

  • Goldenwebb

    Thanks for nothing, Jarvis. That’s four head-scratching minutes I wish I had back.

  • Oat

    Tony,
    The argument Kerry presented in the Senate hinged on his being IN Cambodia, not NEAR Cambodia. So it is not a small point.
    Oh yeah, and if you really want to persist with the whole “Bush lied, people died” thingy and continue to ignore (as Moore does) any difference between being wrong and lying, then you need to revise the slogan a bit. maybe something along these lines: “Bush/Kerry/Edwards/ Clinton/Britain/France/Russia/etc. lied, people died.”

  • Bob

    gentlemen, I think you’re missing the point here, the democrats are taking a page from the republican strategy of the power of suggestion – ie, GWB mentioning osama, 9/11 and saddam in the same sentence over and over again, not directly stating that their is a relationship, just letting the power of repetition create this message in the populace head:
    “Or do you really think the average voter is too dumb to figure that out from him / her self?”
    The fact, is many of your voters DO believe Saddam influenced 9/11 when their was in fact, no relationship. Thus, with the republicans argueing over the semantics of where EXACTLY Kerry was during Vietnam, they are merely re-inforcing the fact that Kerry was a war hero, creating a positive message for the democrats.

  • Bob

    dude, members of the administration DID lie, check out seymour hersh’s article in the newyorker – the administration purposely ‘stovepiped’ information that suggested a relationship between Iraq and 9-11 in spite of the fact that the intelligence community would not vet this information:
    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
    the administration created an environment whereby known mis-truths, or dis-credited theories were pushed to the higher levels because ‘that was what they wanted to hear…’
    as for being let down, that’s exactly how I felt when I last visited Instapundit, an otherwise valuable intellectual voice, seemingly gone stark raving mad, ranting and raving about whether Kerry was in Vietnam, Cambodia or near Cambodia… the fact is, he was there while the other guy was in Texas!

  • gk

    Wow, the Ken Layne thing had all the subltly and nuance of a “Boon Docks” comic strip. But be that as it may, I find the fact Kerry telling whopping lies about his war years as pretty standard stuff. Embarassing, and unbecoming but ultimately forgettable. Like Fog Horn leghorn boasting about whipping Gen.Grant at Little Big Horn you just kind of take it with a huge grain of salt. I’m just amazed Kerry wanted to make his vietnam years the cornerstone of his campaign.

  • http://www.hfienberg.com/kesher/ Yehudit

    One of the reasons we went into Iraq – as Bush has said over and over – is that Saddam was trying to reconstitute his weapons programs while at the same time harboring and supporting various Islamist terrorists. He did meet , including Al Queda.
    All this is good enough reason to forcibly depose him. Whether or not Saddam was specifically involved in 9-11 is immaterial. Our policy in the Middle East is much more pro-active than picking off whoever was directly responsible for 9-11 (which we have been doing also – another canard of the antiwar movement is that we “forgot about Afganistan and Al Queda to go after Saddam.” No, we didn’t. We’ve got about 40 countries in our coalition helping reconstruct Afganistan, which will take a while, but there is good news coming out of Afganistan as well as Iraq. We have been capturing and killing Al Queda terrorists all along also.)
    Bush has articulated all this repeatedly, and I think most voters can understand it. Meanwhile Kerry says that “if attacked, we will respond.” He is all about responding, but not aggressively solving the problem. He want’s to send uranium to Iran under the illusion that they will give up their nuclear weapon program if he gives them the stuff. This is Carterism at its worst.
    I think voters can tell the difference.

  • Angus Jung

    So… there’s no such thing as bad publicity? Could be!
    BUSHIES!!!

  • Jim Durbin

    It’s August, and we’ve nothing better to do.
    Come September October, Bush and Co will be focusing onthe future, and Kerry’s Senate Record, (or lack thereof). The campaign has barely started, and what the Swiftboat vets have done is plant the thought that Kerry may not be the super war hero supported by Vets he made himself out to be.
    Which means when he answers a National Security Question in the Debates with his service in Vietnam, he won’t have the contrast that he is a war hero.
    More important is the evidence mounting that Jim Rassman can’t keep his story straight (which boat was he on?), as he adds little details like the chocolate chip cookie incident in the LATimes today, the question of whether David Alston actually served under Kerry, and the testimony of Steven Gardner.
    If it is shown that one of Kerry’s Band of Brothers is lying, then they are all complicit in faking history to get some media attention.
    And with Kerry’s Cambodia story proven false, and the terrible response from his campaign, then he will be forced to divulge his secret plans for the economy and the war.
    My question is simple. What is the truth? Does that matter to anyone, anymore?

  • http://tvh.rjwest.com HH

    Sad to see that suddenly during an election year Layne transforms back into the guy he was on Election Night 2000.
    “idiots started this stuff so early”
    Suddenly the anti-Kerry bloggers and pundits “started” talking about Vietnam. Gee, that’s a new take.
    And of course now it appears he was also lying about being “shot at by the Khmer Rouge.”

  • Brett

    If anyone thinks that Kerry’s Vietnam exposure paves his way toward the White House – no matter how often repeated by whomever, then they need to stop working for the senator’s campaign. Whatever plus it had is losing its luster.
    (Kerry = Vietnam War Monster?? puh-leez – the French are not “born killers”)
    For what it’s worth, my father-in-law is dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, as is his wife. She hates Bush. Surprise – they sent me their first anti-Kerry email last night (a forwarded joke about his time in Vietnam). Does it mean that they will vote for Bush? No idea, but I guarantee that if they vote Democrat, it won’t have a thing to do with Kerry’s Vietnam.
    (Uh, Jeff, I followed my orders and read the article, but where jibjab is brilliant and funny, this is just dumb. What were you thinking?)

  • Catherine

    Jeff – You’re wrong. It’s the Kerry campaign that keeps the focus on Vietnam. Some reporter asks Edwards about the “sensitive” war comment and Edwards turns around and says (it is so nauseating after the upmillionth time), “John Kerry took shrapnel! He’s tough!” OK whatever. No substantial rebuttal here…move along folks…they have nothing to say.
    This is Kerry’s platform – I served in Vietnam, how dare you question anything I have ever done or not done in my life!
    I don’t think that sells.

  • Reid

    Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

  • fat kid

    I think you should stick to the Howard Stern bit.
    Seriously.

  • John

    Jeff, there’s a difference between the medals and the combat injury claims and counter-claims and the Kerry-in-Cambodia kerfuffle.
    In the former, I happen to agree in the long term pushing the case probably won’t help the Republicans. Even if the ratio of Swift Boat Vets to Band of Brothers disputing the cause of the wound, the enemy threat or the bullet holes in boat comes out 5 to or 10 to 1 against Kerry, the public is still going to see it as a Rashaman-like situation (or I suppose, a Rossman-like situation) where there’s no iron-clad truth on one side or the other.
    But the Cambodian claim is different, because here it’s not the Swift Boat Vets vs. John Kerry, it’s John Kerry vs. John Kerry — his statements in 1979, 1986, 1992, 2003 and as recently as earlier this year make one claim, while his diaries as recounted by Douglas Brinkley say something else. That’s why the Kerry camp has been twisting themselves up like pretzels to try and square the circle on how being halfway between the Cambodian border and the South China Sea (Vietnam being only slightly wider than New Jersey) can be the same as actually being in Cambodia.
    If the vets and their supporters make the medals controversy the core of their argument that Kerrty falsefied his records, chances are the case will go nowhere and might even help the senator if the critics get too shrill. But if they stick with the Cambodian story, which includes the CIA and Navy Seal angles, then Kerry will have to explain away his contrdictory stories or his lack of mentioning his first-hand knowledge about illegal CIA activies in Camboida when he had a chance to affect the course of the war and Nixon’s re-election, during his testomny before the U.S. Senate in April of 1971.

  • http://ekcupchai.typepad.com MD

    Actually, I was a bit undecided up until the DNC. I had really soured on Bush at that point. Then I saw the salute and “I’m John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty,” and my first thought was, oh lord. What a fool. (Ok, I don’t think John Kerry is a fool. I think he is an intelligent man, but that particular moment made him look quite foolish. And side note: don’t tell terrorists that an attack will be met with a swift response. Try to emphasize the ‘we’ll get you before the attack’ a bit more.)
    Anyhoo, who cares what these guys did back then? I want to know what they will do for the future of this country.

  • Parabellum

    BZZT. Wrong.

  • http://twistedspinster.com/ Andrea Harris

    I might have given John Kerry a smidgen of respect if he hadn’t decided to go the “I was a War Hero unlike that cowardly Bush” route. Because frankly, the more that is revealed about Kerry’s service — such as it was; four months? Everyone I know who served in Vietnam was there for at least a year, and many of them still had bits of metal in their bodies, and none of them mentioned their medals or their “heroism” or any of that jive — the more he looks just like the sort of monied, gets-off-easy layabout that his supporters accuse Bush of being. At least Bush doesn’t go around talking about what a great pilot he was or whatever when he was in the National Guard. (I’m sure some of you have sneers ready about how “well, sure, why would he, it’s not like he really served” so you can consider this said and save your typing.)
    And in any case, Kerry doesn’t look very natural when he puts on the War Hero act. His appeal was always “I’m the smooth, civilized guy that the Europeans will like” — he just looks like he’s forcing the soldier thing to get votes. It’s crass. His fans claim to have fallen for it, but I don’t think they have; I think they know that he’s only doing it to get votes, and they are letting it slide, because that’s what fans do to support their idol.

  • William

    Because frankly, the more that is revealed about Kerry’s service — such as it was; four months? Everyone I know who served in Vietnam was there for at least a year,
    Umm, he was there for more than a year. The swift boats were on his second tour of duty.

  • Franky

    hahahahaha
    I guess that’s what happens when you restrict your news diet to Republican attack ads and right-wing blogs.

  • Claudia

    Jeff, I knew you would have to circle back to this story eventually. For several days you have done your best to ignore discussion of Kerry’s questionable Vietnam/Cambodia claims. This, however, is a weak attempt to get back into the game. Sadly, your fellow bloggers are way ahead of you.

  • http://itznewstome.blogspot.com Jim B

    Here’s where you’re wrong on this issue:
    Even if the Kerry campaign manages to survive the blows to his Vietnam record that have already landed solidly (e.g., he lied about being in Cambodia and fumbled his response badly), this story has the power to completely negate his ‘Vietnam advantage.’
    Now for every time he claims that his experience in Vietnam qualifies him for CinC, there will be someone who answers with equal force that his experience *dis*qualifies him. So the whole issue turns into a net nothing for him…
    Some will believe him and vote for him, some will believe the Swift Vets and vote against him…Either way he has to talk about something else because whatever traction the Vietnam bio had has now been erased…and talking about something else is something that John Kerry has never been any good at doing…
    It’s not too late to jump off the Kerry bandwagon before it really starts to pick up speed on the downhill…

  • Sortelli

    What? Kerry served in Vietnam? SERIOUSLY?
    I mean, I knew that, of course. In fact, I’d heard it twenty million times already. But hearing it again, this one more time, that makes me suddenly think he’d be a great president! Thanks, Ken, but you were funnier when you called Tim a commie. No, wait, that was Matt.

  • Timothy Lang

    Oh, Ken’s just peeved because Tim lifted a hundred bucks out of his wallet while he was passed out (he thought it was that Monopoly Money they use in Australia). I suspect Blair slipped a little Vegemite into Layne’s cocktail to get that kind of reaction out of him, though.
    Vegemite…spread it thin…a little goes a long ways.

  • Reid

    “Umm, he was there for more than a year. The swift boats were on his second tour of duty.”
    Umm… the previous tour was not in a theater of combat.
    And, Andrea, Bush’s service was a lot more hazardous than the MSM wants us to believe.

  • http://www.dailypundit.com Bill Quick

    Ken’s a hell of a stylist. Style doesn’t make him right, though. If that were the case, Maureen Dowd would be the greatest political writer of this generation.

  • Franky

    So his service was so dangerous: 1) why didn’t he volunteer for normal service? 2) why hasn’t he mentioned this – oh wait…..he’s too…what’s the word republicans are throwing around? oh yeah…classy?
    What a crock.
    That you would perform a lobotomy on yourself in order to support your guy is simply staggering. This would be like a huge Kerry fan simply denying Kerry ever said he was in Cambodia.
    Everyone knows what joining the Texas airforce was about. I mean seriously if you’re going to deny reality why not just say Bush is the Son of God and put that slogan on your bumper?
    Neither candidate is perfect, they’ve both made screw-ups in the past like all of us. But it’s the drooling, rabid followers on each side that won’t accept any criticism of their candidates that make reasonable debate an impossibility.
    Tell me Reid, how do you expect a die-hard Kerry fan to react to proof he wasn’t in Cambodia when he said he was when you won’t accept that Bush screwed around during the Vietnam war? Why would the burden be on a democrat to accept provable arguments when you yourself won’t accept reality?
    Ahhhh screw it. Go ahead deny reality in order to get your candidate elected. It seems a mighty big sacrifice on your part for one election outcome.

  • Timothy Lang

    It’s a Vast Vegemite Conspiracy, Franky.

  • http://twistedspinster.com/ Andrea Harris

    Thank you, Reid.
    Franky: what a good little bait-taker you are.

  • Jacksback

    “Normal service” Franky? Wow. It is pretty clear that you do not know the first thing about Guard service. The TANG while Bush was getting his training HAD pilots in Nam and as a soldier he had NO choice as to where he would go.
    Some people are too dumb to vote. And yes Franky i am referring to you.

  • http://www.dailywhopper.com Whopper

    Man, true or false that blog post was pretty funny. I think the bloodthirsty war-mongers are unable to concede anything. Because that’s for weak people…like the French. Right?
    The Daily Whopper – Exposing the lies of those richer and more powerful than you and I
    .

  • http://www.lesjones.com/ Les Jones

    Being “the Vietnam guy” is lousy branding. We lost that war.

  • Franky

    Andrea’s slogan: “I’m independent; both sides correct my ignorance”
    OK, so some statistics on percentage of TANG who served in Vietnam? And percentage of TANG who died. I’ve searched but can’t find any such stats, but would appreciate being shown how knee-shakingly dangerous his assignments were (well those he turned up to at least).

  • Michael

    Franky:
    Great point — call them on there lies. But, you may be wasting your time. These people would say that Bush is the Messiah…ah, strike that, he’s already said it himself. They’d say he’s a VN war hero if they could get away with it.
    Fact is, these ignorant hillbillies, fanatical neocons and fundamentalist Christian wackos would literally vote for Satan himself, and swear he’s a good guy, to keep power.

  • Puce

    Callthere LYS astrilan mate, as cracolide danday for Bush MESIA

  • Franky

    Michael,
    What’s amazing about these Bush-supporters is their slash and burn tactics and their willingness to abandon any so-called principle they claim to hold. Their entire policy seems to be destroy the sidewalk so you’re in the gutter with them. Take for instance, their much-vaunted support of the military. Then Bush didn’t serve, so now they hound veternas who did and will believe the most obvious lies about self-inflicted wounds (repeat that to yourself as to where they’ve taken this election: we’re now discussing self-inflicted wounds) only because it helps their man.
    I can’t help but think that we’ve passed the point of no return as regards electioneering in this country.
    But then, let’s hope for a postive result in November and then I won’t have to think about the Bush-supporters again. Hopefully, the relgiious right will be kicked out (how many times will people fall for “compassionate conservatism”?) and the Republicans will reformulate their policies along traditional republican philosophy.

  • William

    Umm… the previous tour was not in a theater of combat.
    And, Andrea, Bush’s service was a lot more hazardous than the MSM wants us to believe.
    Show me in her original post where she mentioned a theater of combat. Here, I’ll give you her exact words:
    Everyone I know who served in Vietnam was there for at least a year, and many of them still had bits of metal in their bodies, and none of them mentioned their medals or their “heroism” or any of that jive
    I looked at that two or three times and can’t find “theater of combat” in there anywhere. But hey, thanks for denigrating the service of everyone who went to Vietnam and didn’t see combat.

  • HT

    Franky, for someone who decries “slash and burn” tactics, you certainly seem to favor them quite a bit. Between you and your little friend Michael, you’ve certainly leveled just about every gross insult, distortion, and imputation of foul behavior imaginable at Republicans.
    The problem is, your case is mostly made up of examples of either Freudian projection or outright distortion. However, given your apparent conviction that after the election Republicans will no longer be a problem (are you planning on having them rounded up and put into camps, or just taking away their citizenship?), I guess you don’t think those chickens will ever come home to roost, eh?

  • growler

    Franky:
    “During the Vietnam War the federal government did not call up many army or air national guard units. No Texas Air Guard units were mobilized, although the air guard mobilized 9,343 nationwide. Only one small Texas Army Guard unit with 124 members received the federal call. This unit was a portion of the 12,234 army guardsmen who were mobilized in May 1968.”
    source: http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/view/TT/qnt2.html

  • Michael

    HT:
    >”…are you planning on having them rounded up and put into camps, or just taking away their citizenship?”
    That hadn’t actually occurred to me, is it on the table? Maybe they could be detained indefinitely in solitary confinement as enemies of the state, on secret evidence, without trials, with no access to lawyers or courts and tortured (forced to listen to GWB ad lib). Now that would be

  • Michael

    HT:
    >”…or just taking away their citizenship?”
    After the things they’ve said, upon John Kerry

  • Franky

    Growler,
    Thanks for the info.
    HT,
    “every gross insult, distortion, and imputation of foul behavior imaginable” Now this is a failure of imagination I recognise.
    If Bush loses I think the republicans may have to re-examine their entire philosophy, possibly along the line of the demcorats at the end of the 1980’s or early 1990’s (this usually happens after terrible defeats, and considering Republicnas have not done badly at all in Senate and House, maybe this is a little premature).
    I just want a return to a federalist system. If you want to live with the religious right, fine move to Alabama and have the state run along those lines. If however the thought of having the religious right dictate what you can watch etc. then move to NY.
    Limit the president’s powers to revolve around foreign policy, and with this limited mandate we can then agree on what to do to destroy Al-Queda.
    While we have two such polar world views battling for control of the powerful central government, there will always sizeable minorities deeply dissatisfied with the way the country is heading.

  • Ptolemy

    Michael knows who the real enemy is and it isn’t the terrorists. Its all those tedious Americans who dare to think differently from him. As for wackos voting for Satan himself, what would you call all those peacenick Vietnam war haters, flag burners declaring Kerry as America’s salvation? Two things can be said for the far-right. 1. They actually work for a living. 2. They will defend their country and thus protect us all. Can’t quite say the same for the left now can we? I don’t need a 20 year old with green hair throwing up on the sidewalk and smashing car windows while my nation fights for its right to exist. It amazes me how the pro-war demonstrations involve families and proud people with no real disturbance. Meanwhile the peace demonstrations involve an army of police, damage to private property and an enormous bill for the city to pay for afterwards. Why is that Michael?

  • shark

    If you read just one blog post this year….
    you wasted it on this one.
    Do you really think saying Kerry served in Vietnam helps him? It’s at the parody point already, he mentions Vietnam every 5 seconds and we’re all tired of it.
    Now it seems the SwiftVets ad and the book is starting to make inroads into indy voters. Good. If MoveOn and Soros has it’s panties in a twist over it, it must be effective.
    When Kerry tries to use Vietnam to answer every question at the debates, he’s gonna get hosed. We’re all tired of it. You cretins from the 60’s fukked your generation up, now you’re coming to screw us over.
    Die already.

  • http://jimlowney.com Jim

    Absolutely no bloody sense of humor here. (expect for Tony & Lang) Damned shame too.

  • Steve

    Did someone here really imply that Marueen Dowd is a decent prose stylist?

  • Michael

    Ptolemy:
    >

  • Michael

    shark:
    The

  • shark

    The

  • shark

    and one has already recanted, another

  • PJF

    I’d like to thank Jeff for his generosity in these partisan times. Although Jeff wants Kerry to become the next President, he’s kind enough to link to advice on serious campaign errors by Bush supporters that if continued will result in clear victory for his man. Now we can see that Jeff’s previous refusal to even consider this matter was actually an attempt to keep the Bush campaign alive until at least September.
    No such magnanimity from the mainstream media, of course, in their ignoring the fact that Kerry lied to Congress about Cambodia. It’s obvious that NBC, ABC, the NYT, etc, etc, don’t want to bring attention to Kerry’s Vietnam service because they are all right-wing dominated and want Bush to win.
    .

  • Franky

    http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2004/08/18/top_story/10053833.txt
    Republican Rep. Doug Bereuter now opposes Iraq war.
    “Knowing now what I know about the reliance on the tenuous or insufficiently corroborated intelligence used to conclude that Saddam maintained a substantial WMD (weapons of mass destruction) arsenal, I believe that launching the pre-emptive military action was not justified.”
    As a result of the war, he said, “our country’s reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened.”
    “Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action,” he said.
    Well it’s not like he knows what he’s talking about…oh wait…..
    “Bereuter is a senior member of the House International Relations Committee and vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.”

  • Michael

    shark:
    Despite your rationalizations, they’re DISCREDITED. Besides, nobody cares about these Swift homos anyway. Get over it already.
    Like I said, you’re justifiably upset that Kerry volunteered, served and was decorated (Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat “V”, and 3 PHs) and GWB, and his spineless neocons (Cheney, Rove, Wolfowitz, Libby, Fieth, et al), ducked service to their country in a time of war. They look like cowards and deserters, who forced other real men who were less fortunate serve in their place, which is despicable. Meanwhile, Kerry is a real is a war hero. Deal with it.
    Of course, that drives you nuts. I drives me nuts that a bunch of elitist cowards (i.e., chickenhawks) in the White House talk tough now, but when it was their turn to step up to the plate and protect the country, they were hiding behind the couch. F-ing faggots

  • Michael

    Franky:
    What is most telling is how Republican Rep. Doug Bereuter delicately said:
    “Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action.”
    In other words,

  • Michael

    Franky:
    Reagan

  • Mike

    Michael, and what exactly were we supposed to do with that outpouring of support? Join hands and sing Cumbaya, all the while hoping that the terrorists don’t strike again? That was not an outpouring of support, it was one of sympathy. When the time came to take the battle to the terrorists, those who joined the coalition were the ones supporting us!
    I wish I could wake up tomorrow in the world you and Franky live in, apparently there no one is held accountable for their actions.

  • Michael

    Mike:
    >”I wish I could wake up tomorrow in the world you and Franky live in”
    Good news, you can — just open your eyes.
    The whole world supported our invasion of Afghanistan. But, when it came to Iraq, what changed? Everyone knew that had nothing to do with terrorism (and everything to do with opportunistic advancement of neocon imperialism), that

  • Angus Jung

    “Despite your rationalizations, they’re DISCREDITED.”
    It’s true because it’s in ALL CAPS.
    “F-ing faggots”
    Interesting choice of terms.

  • Ptolemy

    Michael
    Are you then willing to call hillbillies, neocons, and religious people patriotic intelligent human beings as well? You carry too much disrespect for your fellow citizens and yet claim the most intellectual and moral goals in life. How do you talk about people the way you do and yet be sooooo enlightened? As far as anger goes, if you really piss me off am I entitled to destroy your property and cause mayhem in your city? This is a democracy and the majority of Americans (at the time at least) supported going into Iraq including most every Congressman. You didn’t like? Tough shit buddy. Get your message out and try to convince people otherwise. If you can’t, then have enough humanity to accept majority vote for the war. You are not entitled to hate your fellow Americans because we don’t do as you command. You got slammed in November 02. Has your side learned anything yet?

  • Michael

    Angus Jung:
    I hope I didn’t offend you with the “f-ing faggots” quip. I didn’t mean to insult gays. They may be gay, I don’t know, but certainly I have nothing against homosexuals and that’s not how I meant it towards them.
    In retrospect, I probably should have just stuck with “cowards” and “deserters,” or maybe used “babies” or “sissies,” or perhaps “wimps” or “jellyfish,” or how about “tergiversators” or “apostates.” I don’t know. Do you have some better terms you could suggest?

  • Ptolemy

    How about unbalanced and bitter? Or would that hit too close to home Michael?

  • Michael

    Ptolemy:
    1. Yes, I

  • Michael

    ptolemy:
    That’s the smartest thing I’ve seen you post. You’re really starting to come around, you homo-coward you — just kidding, about the coming around part that is.
    I do like “unbalanced and bitter” though. It fits. Bush and his band of well…homo-cowards (sorry to be redundant) are certainly unbalanced and they’re probably very bitter too.
    But, on second thought, you know what, it doesn’t work. They dodged VN because they were unbalanced, maaaybe; but, not because they were bitter. What’s to be bitter about — they got out of VN. They’d be bitter if they had to go — especially, if they lost a leg or their eyesight. So no, it won’t work — but, keep trying.

  • Angus Jung

    “I hope I didn’t offend you with the ‘f-ing faggots’ quip.”
    Not at all. It’s very revealing.
    “Do you have some better terms you could suggest?”
    Besides “Please seek psychiatric treatment” and “Hypertension is the silent killer”? Nope.

  • Michael

    Angus Jung:
    Thanks for the response, but that’s not what I had in mind. It was clever though, I will give you credit.
    BTW, do you really think I need psychiatric treatment? You could tell just from those few posts? (It must be acute.) And, do you think it could be caused by hypertension? Can hypertension really be fatal?
    Hmmm. And all this time I thought my problem was related to anger over the fact that George Bush and chickenhawk neocons mislead us into the unnecessary and illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. And that most of the death, maiming, destruction and utter human misery of the war has fallen on defenseless innocent civilians.
    This exchange just shows how wrong a person can be.

  • Sandy P

    The next weapons report from Iraq comes out in September.
    There will most probably be more that enough fodder for both sides.

  • Sandy P

    – I

  • Angus Jung

    “BTW, do you really think I need psychiatric treatment? You could tell just from those few posts? (It must be acute.)”
    It’s adorable.

  • Reid

    Growler: I think your resource is incomplete. From the source I linked above:

    It is a common misconception that the Air National Guard was a safe place for military duty during the Vietnam War. In actuality, pilots from the 147th Fighter Interceptor Group, as it was called at the time, were actually conducting combat missions in Vietnam when Bush enlisted. In fact, Air Force F-102 squadrons had been stationed in South Vietnam since March 1962.

    Why the disconnect? Entire guard units were not activated for political reasons. That was the reason for the “Palace Alert” program. As the link explains:

    Nevertheless, we have established that the F-102 was serving in combat in Vietnam at the time Bush enlisted to become an F-102 pilot. In fact, Air National Guard pilots from the 147th FIG were routinely rotated to Vietnam for combat duty under a volunteer program called “Palace Alert” from 1968 to 1970. Palace Alert was an Air Force program that sent qualified F-102 pilots from the ANG to bases in Europe or southeast Asia for three to six months of frontline duty. This program was instituted because the Air Force lacked sufficient pilots of its own for duty in Vietnam but was unable to activate ANG units since Presidents Johnson and Nixon had decided not to do so for political reasons. Thanks to Palace Alert, the Air Force was able to transfer much-needed National Guard pilots to Vietnam on a voluntary basis while not activating their squadrons.
    Fred Bradley, a friend of Bush’s who was also serving in the Texas ANG, reported that he and Bush inquired about participating in the Palace Alert program. However, the two were told by a superior, MAJ Maurice Udell, that they were not yet qualified since they were still in training and did not have the 500 hours of flight experience required. Furthermore, ANG veteran COL William Campenni, who was a fellow pilot in the 111th FIS at the time, told the Washington Times that Palace Alert was winding down and not accepting new applicants.

  • Michael

    Sandy P:
    >

  • Michael

    Angus Jung:
    >”It’s adorable.”
    That’s cute, but it lacks cleverness. What’s your point?

  • Franky

    Shark,
    I think you may have been looking for this article
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13267-2004Aug18.html
    looks like the Swifties for Truth (Andrea, in case your lost at this point, these are the guys who don’t like Kerry) are having more problems.
    Yeah these guys are really credible (I especially liked the “I served with John Kerry” part which in this sense meant they were in same country fighting on the same side – such classy guys). Hell, I think we ought to give them their own tv show.
    More from the article, he says in reference to whether there was shooting or not when he received his award (he says no, citation says yes).
    “This casts doubt on anybody’s awards. It is sickening and disgusting”
    Apparently having doubt cast on someone’s award is “sickening and disgusting”. I don’t have the vocabulary to describe such scum.
    One question for all you right-wingers: A lunatic sat next me the other day and rabbitted on that really Bush was serving the Devil and international freemasonry. Should we begin a huge public investigation in to that one too, because I haven’t seen any of that reported, nor even investigated by the big media?
    “Mr. President, please answer the question: have you ever served either the Devil or the interests of international freemasonry?”

  • Reid

    So, Franky, you believe that 250 decorated Vietnam veterans are no more credible than the “lunatics” with whom you generally consort?
    Those veterans, who fought and bled for your sorry ass, served in swift boat packs that stayed in tight formation no more than a couple of dozen yards apart, where they had a closeup view of every move Mr. Kerry made.
    Go ahead and flail uselessly, though. Veterans favor Bush by 58% to 35% in the latest polls. So much for Kerry’s phoney heroism.

  • Angus Jung

    “That’s cute, but it lacks cleverness.”
    I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings.

  • Ptolemy

    Michael, I don’t think even Franky could defend you now. It is good when you “humanitarians” finally show who you really are instead of who you want us to see. Howard Dean had the same unfortunate occurance. You have validated my assumption of your unbalanced and bitter dispostion however. Good luck your bitterness. May you live 100 years and set the pitiful example for all of us.

  • Michael

    ptolemy:
    >>>Posted by Ptolemy at August 19, 2004 08:28 AM
    What was the point of that???? Can you be a more vague?
    I’d like to reply and defend myself, but I have no idea what you’re talking about. Your post is unintelligible. Please clarify — if you want to be taken seriously.

  • Michael

    Angus Jung:
    >>”I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings.”
    You didn’t, but thanks for the concern. The “that’s adorable” thing had a uterine coyness that made it hard to decipher. So, again, what

  • Michael

    Reid:
    >>”Veterans favor Bush by 58% to 35% in the latest polls. So much for Kerry’s phoney heroism.”
    So if vets disfavor Kerry for prsident, he’s not a war hero? Hmmm. Does that mean that since they apparently favor Bush, that Bush is a war hero?

  • Ptolemy

    Denial is a bad thing Michael. You are obviously getting quite a rush from all the attention so I’ll just finish here by asking you to let up on the distrust and hate of your fellow citizens. I’d hate to have another Tim McVeigh on the loose. We have enough socialists, communists, and anarchists despising us and cheering our deaths. You don’t need to pile on.

  • Michael

    ptolemy:
    The one thing you can count on is I’m no Tim McVeigh. I’m far to happy, have far too much going for me, and most importantly, am against that kind of violence.
    It’s strange, someone voices opposition to a war (i.e., killing and destruction), and you raise the specter that the person may engage in killing and destruction. Meanwhile, the people who favor the war (killing and destruction) are the peace loving honorable ones.
    Interesting Christian ethic.

  • Franky

    Ptolemy:
    “Michael, I don’t think even Franky could defend you now”….I got to defend Michael on this one: what are you talking about?
    Reid:
    “So, Franky, you believe that 250 decorated Vietnam veterans are no more credible than the “lunatics” with whom you generally consort?”
    Ok, you don’t really have a point here except to say I consort with lunatics.
    “Those veterans, who fought and bled for your sorry ass, served in swift boat packs that stayed in tight formation no more than a couple of dozen yards apart, where they had a closeup view of every move Mr. Kerry made.”
    Well you’ve introduced non-sequiter number one. Get this straight Reid, no one bled for my ass in Vietnam. No one. It was a stupid wasted war that did nothing to protect America and it was a criminal tragedy that so many Americans and Vietnamese had to die for nothing.
    But if we use your logic: Kerry fought and bled for your sorry ass, so stop being such a whiney ingrate and thank the man.
    “closeup view” wow and here I was thinking they were concentrating on fighting a war, but really they were all spying on Kerry, you know just in case he ever ran for office. It’s a shame isn’t it Reid that they can’t keep a story straight?
    “Go ahead and flail uselessly, though. Veterans favor Bush by 58% to 35% in the latest polls. So much for Kerry’s phoney heroism.”
    Then comes non-sequiter number 2. What does Kerry’s support among veterans have to do with the veracity or lack of the Swifties for Truth story? Yes, that’s right – nothing.
    Brushing aside your non-sequiters and inability to focus on one argument, what’s strange are your mental gymnastics that deludes Texas national guard service in to being a “lot more hazardous” than most people think, but that cruising along the rivers of Vietnam was simply a way of expressing your cowardice.

  • Michael

    ptolemy:
    It just occurred to me. The reason you

  • Michael

    To the Swifties
    “The Bush campaign has never and will never question John Kerry’s service in Vietnam. The president has referred to John Kerry’s service as noble service,” Bush spokesman Steven Schmidt said.
    CASE CLOSED!
    http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040819/D84IBKJG1.html

  • Michael

    Franky:
    You and I took ‘em on alone, and killed ‘em.

  • Ptolemy

    Keep telling yourself that Michael. It worked so well for Saddam.
    Franky, aren’t you the one who lectures everyone on their language and tone of postings? Where is your sermon to Michael?
    Franky, I look forward to you embracing your comrades in the anti-war faction when they spout off like this. Sound familiar?

  • Franky

    Michael,
    hahahaha it looks like it. To be honest, we can’t really claim any credit: we had the facts and they don’t (plus it always helps if when you’re arguing, Andrea joins in with the opposition).
    Ptolemy,
    I don’t have to justify every word Michael writes, although I agree with at least 80% of what he writes. And further, I’m glad he’s a libertarian, so in all probability despises the democrats as well, something I wholeheartedly share.
    The reason I don’t have to defend my association with him is because he’s not expressing a hatred of me for what I am. You did explain and I found it a reasonable explanation.
    And further, Ptomely, aside from your occassional snark at me, whether I’m involved in the discussion or not, I’ve found you to be an honest debater and I hope I’ve shown that respect to you in my words.

  • Ptolemy

    To make everyone else ill, I’ll admit you’re my favorite debater. Michael just plain alarms me. Too thin a line of sanity. I’ve never cared about the Vietnam war in this election either which is why I’ve loathed Kerry making his 4 months there almost his entire campaign. As a result I can shed no tears for Kerry’s troubles now. Many of you hate Bush but is Kerry really presidential material? Just to add, Michael’s language has been much uglier than Kat’s as far as insults go about “homos”. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

  • Reid

    Franky, that is just too lame and scatterbrained to even respond to.

  • Franky

    It’s now officially a buzzmachine love-in!!!!
    C’mon Reid, feel the love. FEEL THE LOVE, REID!!!!!!

  • Michael

    Ptolemy:
    To my knowledge, Franky has never endorsed anything I’ve said. In fact, I don’t recall him ever once even referencing or commenting on my posts — if he has, it was not substantive. What I write here is my opinion alone, and does not reflect on or involve Franky in any way. If we happen to be on the same side of a debate, it

  • Sandy P

    Michael, we are splitting hairs, we had “advisors” there. And I seem to recall JFK sending in a few, too.
    And as to Afghanistan – the world was with us? Really?
    I seem to recall certain allies saying of course you can attack Afghanistan and we’ll be delighted to help, as long as we tell you when, where, and how, but you can provide the troops and money, and blood, of course. I’ve read enough Europeans over the past 3 years that seem to have your memories, tho. But I think if the archives were searched, “support” would not be a word I would choose.
    Or, they knew we were going to do something and stayed silent.
    As to America losing respect, sympathy? For the 1st 80 years or so we were kind of ignored, after the Civil War, they started paying attention. Was it the french who coined the term “Americanization” after the Civil War? What did they see that we didn’t?
    After the Civil War, we’re tolerated at best until they need our money and/or our might, then they play kissy-face for a little while, then it’s back to normal.
    Geez, just review business sections of papers over the last 20 years.
    And now w/the internet and free translation programs….

  • Ptolemy

    I don’t play the victim game. I don’t play the sensitivity game either. I despise the politically correct. I’m not personally concerned with how people use their adjectives so please don’t censure yourself for my sake. All Bush has done in my eyes is expose our false allies for what they are. If America is invaded tomorrow what can anyone in Canada or Europe do? That is not an alliance. That is a host to parasite relationship. I refuse to look at parasites as my equals. You can call me chickenhawk but if someone was really anti war shouldn’t they be just as willing to sacrifice themselves? Say, go to Iraq and negotiate with the terrorists murdering Iraqi citizens? The sooner they stop the sooner we are out of there. Just a suggestion. I trust my nation more than any other to do the right thing. Therefore criticism from anywhere else is nothing more than a spiteful joke. I’m officially off this thread as I have annoyed enough readers/posters.

  • Michael

    Sandy P:
    We had “advisors” in VN since the forties. We supported France’s airlift to Dien Bien Phu with money and arms in their effort to maintain their colonial possession in Indochina in 1954.
    Ironically, France got their ass kicked by the Nazis and Japan took their Indochina colonial “possessions.” Ho Chi Ming fought the Japs and (BTW) rescued and returned many downed U.S. pilots in WWII. The Viet Ming chased the last Japs out of VN in 1945 and declared VN an independent country — something he asked Pres. Wilson for in 1918 at the Treaty of Versailles.
    After we saved Frances sorry ass in WWII, the first thing they wanted was their colonies back. We okayed it and tried to help them get VN back. They got beat (again) and we took over what was their problem in SVN. From there, we propped up the corrupt SVN president Diem until we finally took over the war in the early sixties, officially in 1963 with the Tonkin gulf resolution.

  • Michael

    Sandy P:
    I think by any reasonable standard in geopolitics, most countries of the world lent their support, moral if nothing else, to the U.S.
    Can you name a war effort by any other country where the country had more favor and less disfavor from the world at large than the U.S. had in its war in Afghanistan?

  • Angus Jung

    “You didn’t, but thanks for the concern.”
    You’re welcome.

  • Michael

    Angus Jung:
    Our exchange is so engaging. Why don’t you come out of your shell and SAY SOMETHING.

  • Angus Jung

    Okay!

  • Michael

    Angus Jung:
    Clever — well, not really, more predictable. Our exchange is giving me an ADD moment.

  • Angus Jung

    Cool.

  • Franky

    Ptomely,
    This is where we disagree. You said you trust your government to do the right thing. I truly believe that the entire system is rigged to screw pretty much all of us, and for that reason I want the most limited government possible (I don’t want the unemployed dying on the streets, but pretty close). I certainly won’t deny that of the sorry selection available the US government is one of the best, but for too long we’ve see a huge divergence between our most revered founding principles and the reality of politics. But then demcoracy was always going to produce exactly what we have today: a class of politicians ambitious for nothing more nor less than the next election. Go back and read Plato’s Republic. He foresaw all of this.
    But further, I would be interested in what both you and Michael do?
    I’ll set the ball rolling: freelance journalist.

  • Ptolemy

    Don’t over estimate my trust in government. I see little but waste and failure at home. I”m talking the larger context of geopolitical aspects. I’m limited on my Plato so I can’t match wits with you there other than what I remember of Republic is an unattainable utopianism lead by superiors (elitists? hint hint). Plato, like our founding fathers believed more in rule by the educated (understandable) and propertied with large segments of the poplulation left out of the process and not just slaves. Plato was brilliant but I don’t feel he had so much to offer the real world. Just my impression not a dogma. I am a Clinical Business Manager for surgery of a fairly large hospital. Journalist eh? I knew I should have brought the garlic and rosary!

  • Michael

    Franky:
    Another good post, thanks. I agree with you.
    What I want in government is simple:
    1. Limited government.
    2. Individual rights.
    3. Free markets.
    4. Peace, or foreign conflict conducted pursuant to the principles of

  • Franky

    Thanks to you both for answering. Well it does seem I have the most unreputable profession out of us three (save for lobbyists and child-pornographers, there are not many professions lower than journalists I’ll concede).

  • Michael

    Franky:
    I beg to differ. Journalists are the bedrock of America. It takes a brave and independent soul to write the truth. Unfortunately, ideologues of late have given it a bad name. You, on the other hand, are a breath of fresh air in the honorable tradition of Benjamin Bache of the Philadelphia Aurora (circa 1795).

  • Sortelli

    Angus – You rock.

  • Michael

    Sortelli:
    I reviewed some of Angus’ most recent posts on this thread. What is it most in your mind that makes him “rock”?

  • Sortelli

    Sign of the fish, baby.

  • Angus Jung

    “Angus – You rock.”
    In all humility, you’re absolutely right.

  • Franky

    Michael,
    I’m blushing. But seriously, I agree that true journalism is a thing of wonder and power. Unfortunately these days we’ve got few people in the media with the style and substance to really shine the light under the rocks. I am re-reading Mencken at the moment and would suggest to it anyone. His hilarious depictions of hypcorisy and buffoonery are sorely missed in this present age.

  • Michael

    Franky:
    It funny you mention “Mencken.” I was going to use him instead of Bache in my post to you. I recently finished “The Skeptic: A Life of H.L. Mencken” by Terry Teachout.

  • Michael

    Angus Jung:
    What’s the “sign of the fish” mean?