Anatomy of a Left-wing Smear

By
September 27, 2007

The Left has been working hard to gin up controversies attacking conservatives, this latest one is a hoot, having watched it unfold until none other than John "If I wasn’t in Cambodia I’ll eat my hat" Kerry weighs in.

As always, it begins with Media Matters here:

During the September 26 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show, Rush Limbaugh called service members who advocate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "phony soldiers." He made the comment while discussing with a caller a conversation he had with a previous caller, "Mike from Chicago," who said he "used to be military," and "believe[s] that we should pull out of Iraq."

Enter the usual band of useless idiots in the form of the foaming at the mouth left-wing blogs with a special guest appearance by the Kerry-coached Jon "someone get me a soapbox" Soltz at the Huffington Post and the stage is set.

As Media Matters reported today, Rush Limbaugh, on his show said that those troops who come home and want to get America out of the middle of the religious civil war in Iraq are "phony soldiers." I’d love for you, Rush, to have me on your show and tell that to me to my face.

That Kerry, of all people, would choose to swiftly weigh in is the real laugher. It’s over John not JFK Kerry. If you’re lucky Hillary wins in 08 and makes you a secretary and gives you a decent desk.

Late Update: Here’s John Kerry’s statement:

"This disgusting attack from Rush Limbaugh, cheerleader for the Chicken Hawk wing of the far right, is an insult to American troops.

yawn….



AdSense 300×250
NewsMax Trending Now
Comments:
  1. Steve J. says:

    TOMMY FRANKS: KERRY WAS CORRECT ABOUT VIETNAM
    HANNITY: I want to play a tape of John Kerry, and I want to get your reaction to this tape.
    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
    SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: I personally didn’t see personal atrocities in the sense that I saw somebody cut a head off or something like that. However, I did take part in free fire zones. I did take part in harassment interdiction fire. I did take part in search and destroy missions in which the houses of noncombatants were burned to the ground.And all of these, I find out later on — these acts are contrary to The Hague and Geneva conventions and to the laws of warfare. So, in that sense, anybody who took part in those, if you carry out the application of the Nuremberg principles, is in fact guilty.
    (END VIDEO CLIP)
    HANNITY: What does that mean to you?
    FRANKS: I think we had a lot of problems in Vietnam. One was the lack of leadership of young people like in — in John Kerry’s position. He was a young officer over there, and I’m not sure that — that activities like that didn’t take place. In fact, quite the contrary. I’m sure that they did take…
    HANNITY: But there’s a difference. You were faced with a situation where you were around men that perhaps could have engaged in something like this.
    FRANKS: Right.
    HANNITY: And you were the one that stood up, and you described the scene in your book where you said no.
    FRANKS: Right. Right, I decided to not be involved in activity like that.
    HANNITY: Let me ask you this. I want to play you another tape of his where he talks about what other soldiers did when he was there.
    FRANKS: Right.
    HANNITY: And then, I’ll get your reaction to this. Roll this tape.
    (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
    KERRY: I relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do. They told the stories of times that they had personally raped, cut off the ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in the fashion of Genghis Khan.
    (END VIDEO CLIP)
    HANNITY: I mean, raped, murdered, all these things. But he never told names. Does that anger you? I mean, this is the guy now that is the leading candidate for the Democrats.
    FRANKS: I don’t know. I — I think Vietnam was — I think Vietnam was a bad time. I think that what I’ve learned in my life, Sean, is that it’s a heck of a lot easier to protest than it is to step up and take responsibility for the actions of a unit or for — or for your own actions. And so, I don’t — I don’t like what I saw. But at the same time, I — I wouldn’t say that – the things that Senator Kerry said are undeniable about activities in Vietnam. I think that things didn’t go right in — in Vietnam. And so…
    SOURCE:
    Copyright 2004 Fox News Network, LLC Fox News Network
    SHOW: FOX HANNITY & COLMES (21:00)
    August 3, 2004 Tuesday
    Transcript # 080301cb.253
    SECTION: News; Domestic
    LENGTH: 3792 words
    EADLINE: Interview With Tommy Franks
    GUESTS: Tommy Franks
    BYLINE: Sean Hannity, Pat Halpin

  2. bloodrage bob says:

    ….and yet despite being “right” about vietnam, and being “smeared” by the swift boat guys, kerry – in an action of supreme gutlessness – kerry *didn’t* sue the swiftboaters.
    despite the fact they dared him to. urged him to. **begged** him to.
    the issue wasn’t about whether kerry was right about the war. the way the war was prosecuted was a recipe for disaster, especially after the politicians got involved. kerry’s ISSUE was about how he lied his ass off about himself, and his “heroism”, and his precious little only-pretended-to-be-thrown-away self-recommended medals.

  3. Peach@pit.com says:

    I guess the left really does support Jesse McBeth.

  4. Harry Bosch says:

    Rush was right when he said this (and he’s always been right.) Soldiers who do not support the President are phonies–that’s what he said, and what he believes.

  5. bryan fleming says:

    Let’s see, we’re AGAINST war veterans hagel, murtha, and all the current soldiers serving in iraq that think the war is an ongoing disaster, and we’re FOR the drug-addled fattie who never served a single day in the military, Rush Limbaugh. Got it.

  6. Starscream says:

    Uh…what’s the smear? He was accurately quoted, and and he just denied the validity of the service of any service member who disagrees with the war.
    You never actually say what’s wrong with it, you just smear John Kerry.

  7. George Rodham $oro$ Goon Squads Attack Limbaugh

    Stinging over the condemnation of their MoveOn.org ad smearing General Petraeus, the leftwing hit squads have decided to quickly change the subject and concoct some phony nonscandals this week.

  8. George Rodham $oro$ Goon Squads Attack Limbaugh

    Stinging over the condemnation of their MoveOn.org ad smearing General Petraeus, the leftwing hit squads have decided to quickly change the subject and concoct some phony nonscandals this week.

  9. IanY77 says:

    Support the troops (unless they step off the conservative reservation, then screw ‘em)! Right, Dan?

  10. Aye Chihuahua says:

    Would this be the same John F’in Kerry who said that if you’re not smart you end up stuck in Iraq?

  11. IanY77 says:

    Oh and bloodrage (wow, such overcompensation), the reason Kerry didn’t sue is because libel laws in this country are so weak. You can only sue if you can prove intent. I can say “Bloodrage Bob eats babies”, and you can’t sue unless you can find some proof that I knew that you didn’t. Since the Swift Boat liars were smart enough to maintain distance from the white house, they were obviously smart enough to not leave a paper trail indicating that they knew they were lying. Stop being a facetious jackass. Bush won the election, so you can stop pretending that this was about principle.
    Likewise, you guys slammed Murtha and Cleland for their service. Not their political positions, but their service (but I can’t question your patriotism, can I now).

  12. IanY77 says:

    Chihuahua: If you’re so stupid that you think that John Kerry would haul off and insult the entire US military days before the most important election for the Dems in decades, you need to have your keyboard taken away.

  13. rwilymz says:

    Am I reading this right?
    We’re more interested in what a commentator says about what’s going in the world than what’s going on in the world?
    What this commentator says is more important than reality?
    What’s next? are you going to get all indignant because Ann Coulter is a knock-out blonde version of Lisa Lampinelli? [Don't bother responding; I already know that Coulter is a big thorn in certain peoples' sides for little more reason than the **way** she says what she says].
    Tell me, folks: when you cracked open your history books [on the off-chance you actually did] and you read about the Conference at Yalta, were you interested in the decisions that came out of it and what it would mean for post-war Europe? or were you looking at the pictures to see the natty clothes Churchill and Stalin were wearing?
    Do you have any concept of how to guage relevance?

  14. dumbblonde says:

    Kerry doesn’t have enough relevence to warrant all this attention. The only thing the man is good for is giving partisans on both sides a reason to squabble about him

  15. Peach@pit.com says:

    The lefty Jesse McBeth supporters unite!

  16. IslamoLlama says:

    Hey, listen now. Rush decided to lay in this smear not a week after we see this overwhelming mandate to condemn MoveOn.Org for violating the sanctity of troopiness in all its glory.
    Basically, Rush Limbaugh has declared who is and who is not a US soldier. And wingnuts are totally cool with this. Serve in Vietnam, win the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, Purple Heart, Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman Badge, join the US Senate in ’96 and serve for 13 years as a respected moderate voice and a man strong on principles, and take a stand on Iraq in the fourth year of the war. What does it get you? “Senator Betrayus”. Yank his medals, burn his uniform, and brand the Senior Senator from Nebraska a traitor because he dared vote against the war.
    That’s the Rush Limbaugh Salute.
    If you want to throw your weight behind the fat old draft-dodger and his fat old draft-dodger neo-con friends, go nuts. But don’t pretend to be surprised when the rest of mainstream America doesn’t line up behind you in support.

  17. Aye Chihuahua says:

    Ian,
    Kerry has been insulting the military for over 30 years.
    His comments about the intellect of service men and women fit right into a long, well established pattern of behavior.
    Don’t you remember his Senate testimony?
    No?
    How about his commentary saying that our soldiers were terrorizing women and children?
    A long, shameful pattern.
    If you are not smart enough to recognize things that are so plain then perhaps you, sir, are the one who should be minus a keyboard.

  18. Fred Beloit says:

    Islamo-moe. Below is a link that will supply you, but most especially nowinkie, with a motive for sapuku, only if you were looking for one of course. Remeber those two innocent young kids with the pvc pipe and toy boat? Read this off-topic but interesting development:
    http://vwt.d2g.com:8081/2007/09/uh_ohdocuments_point_to_sc_ter.html

  19. Other Ed says:

    Where is the condemnation of Rush’s slur on the troops by GOP candidates? They were all up in arms about MoveOn’s ad but this exact same type of comment by one of their buddies get’s ignored?
    Hypocrites!

  20. Other Ed says:

    “…get all indignant because Ann Coulter is a knock-out blonde version of Lisa Lampinelli?”
    If you like 45 year old drag queens.

  21. Peach@pit.com says:

    Where is the condemnation of Rush’s slur on the troops by GOP candidates? They were all up in arms about MoveOn’s ad but this exact same type of comment by one of their buddies get’s ignored?
    Calling Jesse McBeth a phony soldier is not a slur.

  22. Fred Beloit says:

    Another view of John Kerry’s actions: http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200401270825.asp

  23. Fred Beloit says:

    “On October 9, 2002, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry stood on the Senate floor and spoke in favor of the invasion of Iraq. The next day he voted to authorize President Bush to go to war.”
    From: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/20/1535232

  24. http://instapundit.com/archives2/009914.php

    DAN RIEHL SPOTS SOME media battlespace preparation underway….

  25. rwilymz says:

    “If you like 45 year old drag queens.”
    For looks? She’s my age, and for that age, she’s a babe and I’d do ‘er in a second.
    For what it’s worth, Jane Fonda’s still a hottie and I’d do her as soon as I recharged.
    There. One from each. Good enough for ya?
    And why not: Garaffalo is a tootsie as well, but somewhat young … and therefore naive. But that should go without saying. What Jane’s excuse is, I don’t know, unless she’s just too vested now to back out. But whatever, line ‘em up. I don’t care.
    But if you’d rather go straight to the insightful commentary on superficiality, then I’d stack Coulter’s adam’s apple up against Barbra Streisand’s unbridled horse-face any day. Babs is the pop diva equivalent to Frau Blucher: utter her name and horses for miles around whinny.
    Now. Aren’t we all the richer for having had this pleasant exchange?

  26. bloodrage bob says:

    no, ian, (sissy litle name there, btw), the asswipes murtha and cleland are not scorned and attacked “because of their service”.
    they’re attacked because of their – and their little leftists buddies – **lies**, AND their position that “since we were in the service, and also democrats, you may not attack us or dare to even question anything we say. our military service makes us above reproach”. and then they’d run out and say the most pathetic, obvious lies. like murtha and his “them haditha marines are serial killers!” crack. (for which he has refused to apologize, i note.) it’s just another example of the left’s attempts to silence dissent by conferring ‘absolute moral authority’ on those saying what *they* like. it’s why cindy sheehan was exalted by the left – until she started attacking hillary, anyway – and NO soldier’s mom who supports the war is allowed to be heard from. (has anyone read a cindy sheehan article lately? no? there are none? wonder why.)
    also: as the sage coulter has noted, let us remind ourselves that cleland isn’t a war hero. he caused his own injuries, and the *accident* that crippled him occurred while he was “having a beer with his buddies”.
    have a nice day.

  27. chris says:

    Rednecks like ‘Bloodrage’ Bob (is there anything more inane than that) feel threatened by ‘sissy’ names like Ian and people who finished high school. We should be thankful that the Mexicans are making his likes go the way of the dinosaurs.

  28. PITA says:

    Sorry, Mr. Riehl, but your side of the political fence has a long history of slamming the service of veterans with whom it has political disagreements. Rush Limbaugh’s idiotic aside about “phony soldiers” is part of this history. Oh, and forget the Jessie MacBeth defense: Limbaugh was speaking in the plural, not the singular….
    You can go back to the Bonus Marchers of the Depression, whom the VA confirmed to be the WWI veterans they claimed to be, but whom the Republican administration denigrated as phonies, frauds, and communists…. before turning MacArthur and Patton loose on them with the tear gas and bayonets.
    Fast forward to 1970-71 and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, whose politics were again inconvenient to the GOP, and who were again mislabeled as phonies, frauds, and communists. Hell, for good measure, Vice President Agnew gave a speech implying that the Vietnam Veterans Against the War were homosexuals! Jesus, what a clown!
    Move to the present day, and you’ve got Ann Coulter mocking the way in which Max Cleland–communications officer of an infantry battalion, and holder of the Silver Star from Operation Pegasus–lost three limbs in Vietnam, and pretending that he was a rear-echelon commando….
    You’ve got James Webb–a graduate of Annapolis, Marine lieutenant in Vietnam, and holder of the Navy Cross, Silver Star, and two Purple Hearts–being smeared as a sexual degenerate because of the sexual content in several of his acclaimed and highly-realistic novels….
    You’ve got Murtha–intelligence officer in a Marine infantry battalion in Vietnam, and holder of the Bronze Star and two Purple Hearts–being heckled as a non-Marine, and the validity of his decorations being questioned….
    Don’t even get me started on the patchwork of lies and distortions used to invalidate John Kerry’s Silver Star….
    And now you’ve got Rush Limbaugh going on about “phony soldiers.” Sorry, but a sizeable minority of active-duty servicemen and veterans oppose the GOP policy in Iraq…. and their service is every bit as real and valuable as those of their comrades who are rah-rah for President Bush.

  29. IslamoLlama says:

    Hey, but not to worry. I’m sure the drastic fall-off in military endorsement of the GOP, in both dollars and votes, isn’t forthcoming. I mean, look at the fundraising dollars. Who’s bringing in the most money from the military on the left? Barak “The Magic Negro” Obama? And he’s not anti-war, right?
    Who’s bringing in the most military dollars on the right? Ron Paul? … … … … … Whoops.
    Seriously, we’ll let the voters speak for themselves. Maybe the wingnuts are right. Maybe the troops are just better at reading between the lines Rush’s wit and wisdom than stoopid liberals. We’ll find out next November.

  30. Fred Beloit says:

    “…but a sizeable [sic] minority of active-duty servicemen and veterans oppose the GOP policy in Iraq.” There is a tiny minority of “active-duty” service personnel who oppose the war. So what?
    “…highly-realistic novels…” an oxymoron because novels are fiction, unless you are a technically minded English critic or Prof.
    “You’ve got James Webb..” who is letting his friend twist in the wind for carrying Webb’s heater into the Congress. Gun control anyone?
    “You’ve got Murtha…” No, you’ve got him. I don’t want him because he is on videotape turning down a cash bribe by saying, “Not at this time.”
    Very impressive, but none of these good folks are active-duty.

  31. Fred Beloit says:

    “Hey, but not to worry. I’m sure the drastic fall-off in military endorsement of the GOP, in both dollars and votes, isn’t forthcoming.” Glad to hear it. In any case where did you get this information. I’d be interested.

  32. rwilymz says:

    “your side of the political fence has a long history of slamming the service of veterans with whom it has political disagreements.”
    And? The “other side” doesn’t?
    “You can go back to the Bonus Marchers of the Depression”
    And if you do, you’ll find that the pre-Depression Republicans were ideologically equivalent to modern Democrats: populist and thoughtless.
    “Fast forward to 1970-71 and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War”
    Goody. The politicians firmly ensconced in “the beltway” — of both parties — were foursquare warhawks; it was only the outsiders who weren’t. And not outsiders that were typically called Republican or Democrat, either. Outsiders who were called SDS and outright anarchists.
    “their service is every bit as real and valuable as those of their comrades who are rah-rah for President Bush”
    Not the point, as far as I’m concerned. It’s the same thing when I get my car worked on. The mechanic is a very capable guy with a wrench and a spark plug gapper, but when I find something I don’t like about the design of my car, he’s the last person I’d go to. You talk to the engineers, the thinkers, the folks with the education in mathematics and metalurgy and whatnot to create components or rework the space so that the car is more usable.
    As for Murtha, as a career jarhead officer with tactical and doctrinal training in war-fighting, he knows better than to say the things he’s been saying. He’s said them for one reason and one reason only: the folks in his district want to hear him say those things. He wants to be elected; in order to be elected he has to appeal to the majority in his district; his advisors advised that the majority wants to hear him say ‘X’ … guess what he’s gonna say?
    Now, Herr Pain, if you want to advertise yourself as more of a useless bufoon go right ahead and reply.

  33. Aye Chihuahua says:

    “You’ve got Murtha…”
    Not the last time I checked. He’s riding on your carnival train.
    Can you say “unindicted co-conspirator”?
    This is the same man who called our soldiers…what were his exact words… Oh! I remember…. he called them cold blooded murderers.
    Of course, now that those soldiers have begun to go through the military courts they are being found not guilty (or having the charges dropped) one by one by one.
    At least one of those brave men who Murtha maligned is about to sue the “unindicted co-conspirator”.
    Of course John F’in Kerry had the opportunity to sue Swiftboat Veterans for Truth but he declined since he knew that he would never win that battle.
    The videos and the transcripts of what Rush said, and what his caller said, are all over the internet this afternoon.
    Why don’t you do a little reading up on what really happened, and what was really said, instead of letting Media Matters feed you another bucket of slop?

  34. seekeronos says:

    “— slamo-moe. Below is a link that will supply you, but most especially nowinkie, with a motive for sapuku —”
    Respectfully, the term is 切腹 rendered as “seppuku” according to either Romanization standard, and refers literally to a ritual suicide by “belly-cutting”, to that method a (samurai) warrior would atone for a grievous error, or to follow his master into death, in order to preserve his honor and that of his clan.
    The ritual involved stabbing yourself in the belly on the left side and below the navel, and slicing horizontally across to the right, turning the blade upwards, and then slicing up as far as you could manage — without making faces or screaming out in pain… as most folks could not get that far without loosing their composure, a _kaishaku_ or “second man” who is expected to be a reasonably good swordsman, hacks the doomed samurai’s head off with one clean stroke.
    Somehow, I doubt nowinkie and Islamobamarama have the intestinal fortitude to endure a proper seppuku, much less any sense of honour which would require such an unpleasant act.
    – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
    “— You’ve got James Webb–a graduate of Annapolis, Marine lieutenant in Vietnam, and holder of the Navy Cross, Silver Star, and two Purple Hearts–being smeared as a sexual degenerate because of the sexual content in several of his acclaimed and highly-realistic novels…. —”
    Yah, critically acclaimed by who, members of NAMBLA? Sorry, but Webb’s a pervy little gorilla, who writes stories about Asian men who fellate toddlers.
    Wicked, vile, and thoroughly rife with pederastic homosexual perversion. In short, his work is an abomination.

  35. Al in St. Lou says:

    Someone at Right-wing Nut House has joined in the smear against Rush. What a maroon!

  36. PITA says:

    Okay, this has already turned into a pissing contest with the usual insults, i.e., “useless buffoon,” blah, blah, blah.
    But, let me ask: are you guys really comfortable with Ann Coulter’s characterization of Max Cleland’s service in Vietnam; you know, her description of him as a beer-drinking rear-echelon commando (never mind his service with the very-bloodied 2d of the 12th Cav during Tet and the Relief of Khe Sanh) whose life-altering injuries deserve no special recognition because, shoot, he could have been injured in the same way at a National Guard weekend?
    You all cool with that?
    You all cool with Limbaugh’s previous description of a Marine-officer-turned-Democratic-candidate as a “staff puke,” and his current slam on anti-Bush troopers as “phony soldiers”?
    I’m no fan of Murtha (corrupt guy, and spoke out of turn about the Haditha “incident,” in my opinion), but, again, you guys have no problem with GOP folks running down his Bronze Star and Purple Hearts from Vietnam?
    And, finally, let’s turn to James Webb: Annapolis grad, platoon leader with the 5th Marines in the infamous Arizona Territory in ’69, revered by his grunts for his heroism and bush sense, holder of the Navy Cross and Silver Star, forced to medically retire because of shrapnel in his knee from a North Vietnamese grenade.
    This guy’s nothing but a “pervy little gorilla” whose acclaimed novels are “thoroughly rife with pederastic homosexual pervision.”
    Really?
    Have any of you support-the-troop heroes ever actually read FIELDS OF FIRE?

  37. wardmd says:

    PITA (et al),
    Rush WAS referring to Jesse McBeth (AND those like him, who CLAIM to be that which they are not – thus the PLURAL).
    Strange, the Associated Press account (see FoxNews link: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,274097,00.html) is dated MAY 20, 2007 – that’s WAY BEFORE Rush’s comments – FOUR MONTHS before Rush used that term to refer to the SAME PERSON…
    But RUSH is the “bad guy” – not the piece of Left-Wing Scum who LIED THROUGH HIS TEETH: Lied about his rank; Lied about his length of service; Lied about his alleged injuries; Lied about what is alleged to have observed – Again, Rush is the “bad guy”.
    You Neo-Progs really need a reality check…
    Stop regurgitating the talking points, and do a little READING on your own.
    Jesse MacBeth IS A FRAUD (as is this Phony outrage). ALL of you left-wing phonies who keep chanting “Stop the war NOW!” or “Bring our troops home NOW!” simply CAN’T deal with the FACTS (that NONE of your Democrat Presidential Candidates are willing to commit to having the troops out of Iraq by the END of their first term – FIVE AND A HALF YEARS FROM NOW). NONE of them! But RUSH is the “bad guy”, because HE points out the hypocrisy of YOUR SIDE.

  38. PITA says:

    Hey there, wardmd. Limbaugh referred to “phony soldiers” in such a context as to sound (at least to me) like he was casting aspersions on that handful of Iraqi veterans who have come out vocally against the war or at least Bush’s handling of the war; it sounded to my ears like Limbaugh was saying that real soldiers knew what they were signing up for and believe victory is imminent in Iraq.
    Only later in the phony-soldiers broadcast did Limbaugh launch into a long diatribe about the singular and very pathetic Jesse McBeth, a true phony soldier, though no more phony as Limbaugh’s ridiculous description of McBeth as some kind of hero to everyone who votes Democratic.
    McBeth obviously needs mental help, and as soon as he was unmasked as a fraud, he was dropped like a hot potato by the Iraqi Veterans Against the War.
    We can argue about Limbaugh’s actual intent all day long, but it is my contention that the GOP has no problem smearing real-life veterans who hold inconvenient political views, either accusing them of being phonies (Bonus Marchers, VVAW), or besmirching the medals they earned under fire (Kerry, Murtha, Cleland), or, in the case of James Webb, making the bizarre case that this highly-decorated, highly-respected former Marine platoon leader, author, journalist, veterans advocate, and U.S. senator is some kind of closet pedophile. Are you guys for real?!?!
    So, again, I ask the ditto-heads here: you all cool with Ann Coulter’s denigrating of Cleland’s combat service and injuries . . . and Limbaugh’s reference to “staff pukes” and “phony soldiers” . . . and the sneering at Murtha’s combat decorations. . . . and the sexual smears directed at Webb?
    That’s all fine with you guys?
    I won’t ask about John Kerry because I’m already sure that you guys consider UNFIT FOR COMMAND to be an even-handed and meticulously-researched bit of history. . . . and never mind that nobody actually on the scene when Kerry earned his Silver Star has ever questioned the heroism the future senator displayed that day in the Mekong Delta.
    Oh, anybody here actually read FIELDS OF FIRE by that supposed pervert Webb?

  39. LOL says:

    yes they are okay with that. Because everything is allowed if you’re a republican. Look at how long they’ve put up with this corrupt and bullshit war?
    Welcome to wingnut world buddy, where there are no principles beyond power and bloodthirst

  40. bloodrage bob says:

    actually, peeta, what we’re “cool with” is the fact that the gutless wonder kerry DIDN’T take legal action against the people who said – repeatedly and in print – that he faked his medals and his ‘heroism’ was just so much lies.
    if they were lying, that’s libel. even someone who was forced to go to a 3rd rate law school as kerry was would know *that*. if they were lying, kerry had ample proof of it, and suing them would have been child’s play. yet kerry didn’t sue, did he. despite being dared to and begged to, he didn’t sue. (he also never authorized the release of ALL of his service records – as he “promised” he would – either.) in other words, the swiftboaters made kerry their bitch; they publicly announced he was their bitch; they cost him the election; and he just laid down and took it. wonder why?
    as far as cleland goes, coulter has never once “denigrated his service”, dumbass. if you can quote where she “denigrated” him, i’ll buy you dinner. she DID point out that his injuries were – in his own words – were not the result of combat, but an accident. here’s poor clumsy max, in his own words: “i didn’t see any heroism in all that. it wasn’t an act of heroism.” the fact he was crippled **in a self-admitted accident** is why he wasn’t awarded a purple heart: those are reserved for >combat< wounds. the ‘baltimore sun’ reported that “… he was no hero. he blew himself up. the silver star & bronze star medals he received only embarrassed him.”
    coulter’s problems with cleland are strictly with his *political* speech and actions. are are you just pissy because coulter ignored your liberal rules about “no fair criticizing or, worse, disagreeing with people we confer moral authority upon”?
    so, yeah: criticism of murtha and cleland *for their political speech & actions*, and kerry for *everything he’s ever said or done, all of which has proven to be a lie” IS “fine with me”. why would you object? are you suggesting that criticism of ex-mil democrats is off-limits? it sure SOUNDS like that’s what you’re saying ….

  41. rwilymz says:

    “You all cool with that?”
    Depends. On manymanymany interrelated details making up the specific circumstances. But then, I’m rational.
    “You all cool with Limbaugh’s previous description…”
    I don’t listen to Limbaugh. Have no use for him. Or Coulter, for that matter [except for the aforementioned fantasy shag]. Or any one of a half-thousand other phrase-turners. …other than their occasional ability to put two words together in a particularly potent way and slice some gasbag’s ego with them. Which makes me smile.
    But you are laboring under the presumption that “military service” == “free from criticism” … when it pertains to criticism for views that you share.
    That is not the case.
    Nor should it be.
    Nor is it a view shared by those you would purport to support by your denunciation of those who would criticize mmilitasters for inane views that defy all military training and sense.
    When the bulk of the military minds in the country respond to military circumstances with the military-trained response, certain people say “oh, what a cute little lapdog!” The real answer is: “When the only tool you have is a hammer…”
    The military is trained to think in one direction. Thinking in several directions may be good for a theorist or a researcher, but on battlefields it tends to get soldiers killed while looking for the “right combination”. Experiments using soldiers as lab rats isn’t nice. Enough die anyway.
    So when the military in general echoes the doctrine of the administration … who is really echoing whom? Since I work for the folks who plan/execute/supply our wars — and have for nearly three decades — I know the answer. Let’s see if you can come up with it.
    And that is not to say that there is one answer and one answer only to any given set of diplo-military circumstances. There is a range of valid responses to choose from. Just as there is more than one way to drive from Cleveland to Toledo. But if you’re going to make that drive, you need to pick a route. You can’t sample a little of each and make up your mind halfway there. Wastes time, gas, and the mechanic’s bills are enormous subdividing the car to take multiple routes.
    So, fine, pick a military response. Once you pick that response, you’re committed to it, which makes the debate **leading to** that response critical. I can understand folks having qualms about any military action the nation takes, or has taken. But if you have a problem with the military response chosen, the problem lies not in those who advocated *for* the chosen response, but in those who could not — or would not — effectively advocate against it during the critical thinking phase.
    Every plan has benefits and drawbacks. Where were these democratic military geniuses when Iraq was planned? What were they doing when they should have been doing their job? One of the following occured:
    1] they knew the drawbacks and didn’t say enough about them, which means they didn’t do the job you hired them to do
    2] they knew the drawbacks but didn’t think they’d outweigh the potential benefits … which means that the bullshit they’re feeding you at the moment is temporary political fluff — and you’re falling for it, which makes you a useless buffoon
    3] they *didn’t* know the drawbacks, which makes them unequal to the task of participating in military policy debate in the first place — which makes their comments *now* irrelevant
    Now. Tell me why these guys do not deserve criticism. They are either 1] incompetent; 2] political hacks playing you for fools; or, 3] ignoramuses. Pick one. Or more, I don’t care.
    To choose a route from Cleveland to Toledo by consensus — and there **was** consensus — and then halfway there have someone get out of the car and complain about the potholes and you knew about the potholes and I told you about the potholes and you just have to hit every goddammed pothole … that’s a shrew. That’s a backbiting bitch. That’s someone who doesn’t know how to get along with others. That’s a trailer-trash lunkhead destined for Jerry Springer.
    “anybody here actually read FIELDS OF FIRE by … Webb?”
    No. Which of the options above does this book fall under? I’m going to guess #1 or #2.

  42. brian says:

    So someone who lies about his service, having been kicked out of Basic 44 days in is not a “phony soldier”?
    Someone who writes of atrocities he committed in a place he wasn’t is not a “phony soldier”.
    A Representative who refers to a group of Marines as “cold-blooded murderers” is not a “phony soldier”.
    Got it. If you people on the left actually got a clue and developed some reading comprehension skills and perhaps some critical reasoning skills, we’d have far fewer problems in this world.
    Instead, we get Jesse MacBeth, Scott Beauchamp, and Max Cleland.

  43. Charles Giacometti says:

    Rush avoided service in Vietnam because of a boil on his ass. Anyone who takes his side is just as big of a fucking pussy he is.
    Really.

  44. wardmd says:

    PITA,
    So, is it YOUR assertion that Jesse MacBeth is a SINGLE, ISSOLATED individual – that there are NO OTHER “Phony Soldiers” (people who CLAIM to have served [who did not], or inflate their rank [so as to appear more credible])?
    Did John Kerry throw HIS or SOMEONE ELSE’S metals (or were they ribbons) over the White House fence in 1971? Has he EVER admitted what REALLY happened? No, that’s not “Phony”, is it?
    As reported in The Congressional Record, on March 27, 1986, Sen. John Kerry spoke on the Senate floor against U.S. support for the anti-communist contras in Nicaragua:
    “I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared – seared – in me . . .”
    Kerry repeated the Cambodia Christmas story in Senate committee hearings in June 1992 and September 1997.
    But that’s not a PHONY account, is it? Even though in December 1968, the president of the United States was Lyndon Johnson, not Richard Nixon. President Nixon’s statement, that there were “no American combat troops in Cambodia”, was made in November 1971.
    John Murtha NEVER leveled PHONY allegations against the Marines in Haditha, did he?
    Liberals (especially those in elected office) OFTEN refer to Republicans as “Mean Spirited”. They are, therefore, casting aspersions on ALL Republicans (not a small group of Republicans, nor on “Mean Spirited Republicans” [like the “Phony Soldiers” reference)! They repeatedly LIE about “Tax Cuts” (which are not, of course, tax CUTS, but a REDUCTION in the tax RATE) – which have resulted in an INCREASE in tax REVENUES to the Government (every time it has been tried [by President Kennedy, President Reagan, and President Bush]).
    But that’s okay, PITA, you go on believing PHONY SOLDIERS (and the rest of the phonies in the Democrat party).

  45. Fred Beloit says:

    “So, fine, pick a military response. Once you pick that response, you’re committed to it, which makes the debate **leading to** that response critical. I can understand folks having qualms about any military action the nation takes, or has taken. But if you have a problem with the military response chosen, the problem lies not in those who advocated *for* the chosen response, but in those who could not — or would not — effectively advocate against it during the critical thinking phase.”
    Just so. I would only dare add this.
    Taking this down to the tactical level, the small mirror vs the big mirror, military planning attempts to anticipate all factors before engaging the enemy in, for example, an attack.
    Planning often includes actual rehearsal, as in presenting a play. However, in the overwhelming number of attacks studied by military historians, something quite unanticipated happens. Examples: the weather is worse or better than anticipated, it turns out that a field observed through lenses is actually a wetland, the enemy has moved a substantial force from its former position at just the wrong moment, a key supply of ammunition has failed to arrive on time to be distributed.
    These changed circumstances must be dealt with on the spur of the moment because for many reasons an attack usually must go forward now regardless.
    Back to the big mirror, the strategy. The same kinds of things happen but on a much larger scale and in slow motion. For citizens to demand that these things not happen or to instantly condemn those who allow such things to happen are unrealistic about warfare.
    The things citizens should demand is that these unanticipated problems be identified and fixed as soon as possible, not that we surrender immediately when they are discovered.
    The advocates for immediate surrender are either grossly ignorant of warfare or have agendas unrelated to winning.

  46. wardmd says:

    Oh, and what of the references to “Global Warming Deniers”? Now who’s casting aspersions to ANYONE who does not fall lock-step into the AlGore Global Warming catastrophy scenarios? Concensus (no matter how many make up that concensus) is NOT SCIENTIFIC PROOF.
    And DESPITE the FACT (according to Nature.com) that 60% of the stratospheric ozone loss in recent decades can no longer be explained, AlGore (and other PHONY Climate “experts”) go on insisting that their THEORIES of Global Warming are CORRECT.

  47. PITA says:

    Wow, lot of verbiage, but not a lot of answers from you guys. I think we’re talking past each other anyway. I’m not arguing in favor of any political comments made by Kerry, Murtha, Webb, Cleland, the VVAW, the IVAW, etc. I’m not a Democrat. I’m simply saying that its rather slimy and disgusting for folks like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, John O’Neill of the Swift Boaters, etc., to denigrate the military service of their political opponents…. or, as in this most recent incident, to dismiss those soldiers who aren’t rah-rah about the Iraq War as “phony soldiers.”
    Incidentally, James Webb came out against the Iraq War on military grounds–the invasion would turn into a protracted guerrilla war for which we would eventually lose heart–well before Bush actually gave the green light.
    In other words, rwilymz, Webb wasn’t one of those who agreed on the route from Cleveland to Toledo, then went all wobbly when the going got tough.
    Hey, regarding Webb, by your silence, I assume that you all agree with the GOP smear that this holder of the Navy Cross and two Purple Hearts is actually a closet pedophile?
    Again: you all cool with that?
    Anyway, let me talk with Bloodrage Bob a moment, the same Bloodrage Bob who referred to triple-amputee Max Cleland as “poor clumsy max,” as if wounds received in a friendly-fire incident reflect badly on the poor guy who got in the way of that Made-in-the-USA ordnance. Are you for real, Bloodrage Bob?
    Here’s the full quote from Bloodrage Bob: “… as far as cleland goes, coulter has never once ‘denigrated his service’, dumbass. if you can quote where she ‘denigrated’ him, i’ll buy you dinner. she DID point out that his injuries were – in his own words – were not the result of combat, but an accident. here’s poor clumsy max, in his own words: ‘i didn’t see any heroism in all that. it wasn’t an act of heroism.’ the fact he was crippled **in a self-admitted accident** is why he wasn’t awarded a purple heart: those are reserved for >combat< wounds. the ‘baltimore sun’ reported that ‘… he was no hero. he blew himself up. the silver star & bronze star medals he received only embarrassed him.'”
    Okay, let’s get our bearings here. CPT Max Cleland was the communications officer for the 2/12th Cav of the 1st Air Cavalry Division, a unit which saw heavy combat in the Que Son Valley, west of Hue during the Tet Offensive, and during the relief of Khe Sanh.
    It was during the relief of Khe Sanh that CPT Cleland earned a Silver Star; the citation reads in part: “… When the battalion command post came under a heavy enemy rocket and mortar attack, Capt. Cleland, disregarding his own safety, exposed himself to the rocket barrage as he left his covered position to administer first aid to his wounded comrades. He then assisted in moving the injured personnel to covered positions. Continuing to expose himself, Capt. Cleland organized his men into a work party to repair the battalion communications equipment, which had been damaged by enemy fire….”
    It was in this same area, and only days later, that CPT Cleland lost three limbs to a grenade dropped by a new guy while boarding a helicopter.
    Okay, now here’s Ann Coulter’s take on the subject: “… Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends. He saw a grenade on the ground and picked it up. He could have done that at Fort Dix. In fact, Cleland could have dropped a grenade on his foot as a National Guardsman — or what Cleland sneeringly calls ‘weekend warriors.’ Luckily for Cleland’s political career and current pomposity about Bush, he happened to do it while in Vietnam….”
    Routine noncombat mission? That’s a pretty strange way to describe the actions of the 2/12th Cav during the Relief of Khe Sanh.
    Ann Coulter goes on to write that “Cleland wore the uniform, he was in Vietnam, and he has shown courage by going on to lead a productive life. But he didn’t ‘give his limbs for his country,’ or leave them ‘on the battlefield.’ There was no bravery involved in dropping a grenade on himself with no enemy troops in sight….”
    You don’t think that’s a bit denigrating, Bloodrage Bob? Why don’t you go talk to some veterans of the 26th Marines or the 1st Air Cavalry Division and ask them if they consider Khe Sanh to have been a battlefield? Routine noncombat mission indeed.
    In response to Coulter’s column on Max Cleland, the former executive officer of the 2/12th Cav had this to say: “The 2nd of the 12th Cavalry was engaged in a combat operation at the time of this incident [i.e., Cleland losing three limbs]. Max Cleland was with the Battalion Forward Command Post in heavy combat involving the attack of the 1st Cavalry Division up the valley to relieve the Marines who were besieged and surrounded at the Khe Shan Firebase. The whole surrounding area was an active combat zone . . . Max, the Battalion Signal Officer, was engaged in a combat mission I personally ordered to increase the effectiveness of communications between the battalion combat forward and rear support elements: e.g. Erect a radio relay antenna on a mountain top. By the way, at one point the battalion rear elements came under enemy artillery fire so everyone was in harms way. As they were getting off the helicopter, Max saw the grenade on the ground and he instinctively went for it. Soldiers in combat don’t leave grenades lying around on the ground. Later, in the hospital, he said he thought it was his own but I doubt the concept of ‘ownership’ went through his mind in the split seconds involved in reaching for the grenade. Nearly two decades later another soldier came forward and admitted it was actually his grenade. Does ownership of the grenade really matter? It does not.”
    So, hell, let me ask you guys again: you’re all cool with Cleland being described as a rear-echelon commando who blew himself up by being clumsy…. Webb being described as a pedophile…. Murtha being described as a phony Marine who didn’t really earn his decorations in Vietnam…. and those service personnel who don’t tow the GOP line on Iraq as phony soldiers?

  48. Fred Beloit says:

    Let us be rid of the pestiferous persiflage the pustules of which besmirch all of your rambling comments, PITAwinker, sock puppet extraordinaire. Rush Limbaugh was not talking about those august gentlemen you refer to, nor was he talking about George Bush, whose service as a fighter pilot is regularly made sport of by your pal Mr. christamfordmum and other babblers. You and those who pay you to propagandize here simply need to understand that Limbaugh was talking about those phonies who come forward, presenting themselves as soldiers, and lie about their war adventures and war crimes that never happened. Your straw dogs should now be put back in the kennel. You can loose them at the next trumped-up faux scandal that accompanies any good news from Iraq, just a coincidence of coarse.

  49. PITA says:

    Sock puppet extraordinaire? Not even sure what that means, Mr. Beloit. Paid to propagandize? Hah, I wish!
    Anyway…. you guys seem to have a large supply of hot air and talking points, but not much in the way of detailed responses.
    The fact remains that Limbaugh couldn’t wait to jump on the Swift Boat bandwagon in 2004, and smear John Kerry’s combat service. Hell, I heard him myself rambling on about the insignificance of the wounds Kerry picked up in the Mekong Delta. Coming from a guy who sat out the war with a cyst, that was pretty rich.
    The fact also remains that because Kerry had been a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War back in 1970-71, Limbaugh, the Swift Boaters, and various other GOP mouthpieces felt the need to slime the VVAW as an organization of frauds, liars, and phonies. That slur is demonstrably false, but was repeated most recently by Michelle Malkin.
    In addition, Limbaugh referred to a Marine officer who served in Iraq as a “staff puke” because–horrors–the man was running for office as a Democrat.
    Finally, I’ve listened to all the Limbaugh footage regarding this “phony soldiers” flap and his meaning was clear: the minority of soldiers who make vocal their opposition to Bush’s policy in Iraq are not real soldiers, in that they are now complaining about the job for which they signed up. That’s a black-and-white view of the situation that fits neatly into Limbaugh’s black-and-white view of the world.
    Yes, Limbaugh belatedly threw the pathetic Jesse McBeth into the mix, but only after making his “phony soldiers” comment in a discussion of which McBeth was not a part. I almost wonder if Limbaugh realized that he had put his foot in his mouth, and was covering himself by bringing up McBeth.
    In any event, I try to engage you guys honestly. I wish you’d actually answer some of my questions in return.

  50. Fred Beloit says:

    “You can’t handle the truth.” Pi, that was a line from a film by the Hollywood heroes designed to belittle the Marine Corps. Unfortunately, it is such an exact statement of the real situation regarding the left in the USA that it survives as a description of lefties.
    Though you can’t handle the truth, I’ll give you a little of it anyway. Since Bush assumed the Presidency, you Democratics have savaged him with petty “scandals” and have been against everything he has stood for, even if you stand for many of the same things. You lefties favor our enemies who are against most of the things you say you stand for. This is called Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS).
    BDS causes you to be against spying on our enemies overseas to improve our security lest Bush learn something useful against them.
    BDS makes you want to protect our Muslim enemies abroad even though they hang homosexuals, stone female adulterers to death, and use cruel and unusual punishment, such as cutting off the hands of thieves, without even advising them of their mirandas (violating their civil rights?). Where is your concern for the safety of homosexuals, where is your concern for womens’ rights, where is your concern over cruel and unusual punishment?
    BDS makes you recoil from any good news from Iraq and the Afghan and seize on any little wisp that can be hyped as a scandal.
    I could go on and on but won’t because there is no communicating rationally with you and yours. Save yourself some trouble and don’t answer me because I have already seen too much evidence of a very severe and acute case of BDS in your writing. Oh yes, and get bent.

  51. PITA says:

    Get bent? Okay, Mr. Beloit. In return, I’ll say this: why don’t you stick to the topic at hand?
    Oh, one other thing: I am NOT a Democrat, just a turned-off, soon-to-be-ex-Republican who thinks Bush has been a disaster, but who nevertheless has the highest respect for combat veterans (including left-leaning ones like Kerry and Limbaugh’s Phony Soldiers), and (whatever the wisdom of our invasion of Iraq) has nothing but contempt for the medieval views and terrorist tactics of our Islamic enemy.
    Go pigeonhole someone else….
    Meanwhile, any of your support-the-troop guys want to actually discuss the particulars of what Limbaugh and other GOP blowhards have said about Webb, Cleland, McCain, Kerry, Murtha, the VVAW, Phony Soldiers, etc.

  52. rwilymz says:

    “any of you… guys want to actually discuss the particulars of what Limbaugh and other GOP blowhards have said about …”
    1] Limbaugh is a **GOP** blowhard? Or is he a blowhard-who-is-not-you, therefore “GOP”?
    2] why does it matter?
    Again, these “commentators” are not real people who make a difference to anything. They don’t direct policy; they don’t create legislation. They are cheerleaders.
    Do the Eagles lose anything because their cheerleaders drop their pompoms?
    Describe the relevance. In terms other than “I can make indignant hay out of it.”

  53. rwilymz says:

    “I’m simply saying that its rather slimy and disgusting for folks like Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, John O’Neill of the Swift Boaters, etc., to denigrate the military service of their political opponents…. ”
    Because those opponents never, ever, ever do that themselves. Gotcha.
    But let’s look at it intellectually rather than reflexively.
    If you are trained as an auto mechanic and know that when the gas tank is empty and the engine sputters and dies it means the car is out of gas, does it matter who your customer is when you give your diagnosis? If you have a wealthy female in a fur coat do you tell her she needs to have the air in her tires rotated and her timing belt reset to Daylight Savings?
    No? because that would be devious and unscrupulous? It would make you a liar and a fraud?
    Would it be fair, when you were found out, to have your credentials as a mechanic questioned? even denigrated? Of course it would.
    So when Murtha is caught claiming things that are designed to appeal to his partisan constituents and which violates military law and military doctrine and tactical training, would it not be appropriate to question, even denigrate, his military credentials?
    Of course it would.
    Please stop playing stupid; you’re wasting my time.
    “Incidentally, James Webb came out against the Iraq War on military grounds–the invasion would turn into a protracted guerrilla war for which we would eventually lose heart–well before Bush actually gave the green light.”
    So what? He could find some drawbacks in a full-scale invasion. Big deal. That only means he’s taken an Intro Military Theory course. The existence of drawbacks does not imply the non-existence of benefits. A critic who can, or will, only see one side of an argument is not a good person to have in a planning committee, because he refuses to see other points of view and will not leave his own. If you’ve ever engaged in office politics you know exactly the kind of person I’m talking about. The One-Note Charlie. No matter what’s on the table, he keeps bringing it back to his lone point on the one issue.
    And, if you’ve ever seen office politics, you know this as well: just because there’s discussion and policy decisions are reached does not mean everyone is on the same page. Often times the One-Note Charlie is sidestepped completely by the rest of the committee and left to pout in the corner. Holding up policy because of a lone contrarian ensures one thing and one thing only: nothing gets done. And depsite what your personal feelings may have been about Iraq, the realities were: we were tied to the place long pre-dating 9-11 and Bush’s election; because of 9-11 something had to be done.
    Was that something *necessarily* full-scale invasion? No. But there were people pushing for lesser policies that outweighed your latter-day Saint James, and they couldn’t articulate it better, either. …obviously. But the difference between him and most of those other “don’t invade” guys is that they went with their military training after policy was established: once you’re in you’re all in and backbiting is for cowards.
    Sorry.
    Again, kiddo, if he is or was incapable of articulating compelling reasons for not invading, then he’s not a persuasive fellow. That’s his problem. And “protracted occupation” was a given in the first place. Further, if he was unable to look past his view of the drawbacks he noticed to see the benefits that could be accrued, then he would have been a dishonest strategist and not relevant to any policy decisions.
    You are attempting to persuade me that there is/was only one answer to a complex set of circumstances, and that only one guy knew what that was. That’s messiania, frankly, and I’m kinda anti-religious. That won’t go anywhere with me.
    “In other words, rwilymz, Webb wasn’t one of those who agreed on the route from Cleveland to Toledo, then went all wobbly when the going got tough.”
    You aren’t serious, are you? “Consensus” does not equal, nor require, unanimity.
    Again: you are advised to stop playing stupid on my time.
    The invasion of Iraq was a consensus policy decision. The existence of contrary points of view articulated after the fact to inexpert masses [such as you] does not imbue those points of view with magical omniscience. The owners of those contrary points of view doing the public whining and carping after the fact are not seers and mages with other-wordly wisdom.
    In fact, the act of talking out of class is probably one of the more undeniably dishonest and corrupt actions a military man can take. Dissention, particularly public, creates dead soldiers, for it inspires the masses of non-military dweebs in the country — such as yourself — to start playing Armchair Ike and Barstool Patton. You are now effectively putting battlefield command decisions up for a public referendum. That’s a quicker way to kill soldiers than invading Russia in October.
    I’ve got almost 30 years in the vicinity of this field, some of which was actually *in the field*, others here have certain amounts in the business themselves; it has been stated in public by the vastvastvast majority of military people that this type of discussion is contrary to the health and safety of the soldiers we have deployed, and that vastvastvast majority is somehow unpersuasive; yet the existence of a handful of politicians with a handful of ribbons and having a handful of axes to grind and talking out of class is all the proof you apparently need.
    Politicians telling you what you want to hear is soooooooothing. Like talcum on a wet behinie. Idnit?
    “regarding Webb, by your silence, I assume that you all agree with the GOP smear that this holder of the Navy Cross and two Purple Hearts is actually a closet pedophile?”
    Don’t know; don’t care. Don’t see the relevance to anything, frankly.
    You’re whining about others ad hominizing in your proxy direction in a screed that ad hominems. To say that your wet panties are beneath my level of interest is to overstate my interest in your panties greatly.
    You are playing stupid.

  54. Fred Beloit says:

    Pita writes:
    “Meanwhile, any of your support-the-troop guys want to actually discuss the particulars of what Limbaugh and other GOP blowhards have said about Webb, Cleland, McCain, Kerry, Murtha, the VVAW, Phony Soldiers, etc.”
    No, Pi, this issue has already been discussed often and at length here, but you refuse to acknowledge it. However, would you like to discuss how Truman fired General MacArthur resulting in the fact that we still have soldiers in Korea after over 50 years and are still at war with North Korea and under a truce or cease fire at this time?
    Would you like to discuss how Left-winger Walter Cronkite, disguised as a neutral commentator, savaged the reputation of General Westmoreland and other American officers and gave comfort to our enemies there in Vietnam?
    But these issues have also been discussed before. It is all politics after all isn’t it? And you on your high horse of deliberate avoidance of contextual meaning is quite a humorous sight. Hi-yoo Silver. Away.

  55. rwilymz says:

    I missed this last night in my most recent “lot of verbiage” which answered your peevish question for the … third time, was it?
    “I’m not arguing in favor of any political comments made by…”
    You are effectively saying that certain specific comments made by these political hacks are comprised of political fluff, but seriously insinuating that they cannot be criticized for it in return political fluff.
    In other words: “It’s okay when we do it, but not okay when it’s done to us.”
    And for chuckles to claim that the “Limbaugh faction” has this same philosophy is quite the delicious irony.
    Yummmm, mmmmm. I could have a whole meal of that.

  56. Fred Beloit says:

    Hhhhmmmmmm. PITA, PITA. Now where have I heard that name before? Are you perchance a representative of that organization…no, that’s PETA. Help me out here, if you would be so kind, PITA. Do you favor a tax credit for baboons who have legal fees?

  57. bloodrage bob says:

    back to the ol’ ‘alice in woderland’ defense, eh, pita?
    you know, no matter how many paragraphs you waste singing max cleland’s praises, it’s obvious you’re missing the point here. i rather suspect *you’re missing it on purpose*, btw. coulter never “attacked” cleland, idiot. neither did i, nor any other conservative. what we DID was respond to political statements and actions made by cleland. cleland initiated those actions, and **is allowed to be responded to**, despite the fact you liberals would prefer that not to be the case.
    when coulter or anyone else responds to cleland’s political speech, a funny thing happens: liberals squeal that doing so is “wrong”, because cleland was “a war hero”. LIBERALS introduced cleland’s condition into the case. not conservatives. so naturally, when a political party declares their boy can’t be questioned “because of his heroism”, looking at that “hero’s” case is ALSO fair game. you know: like when you asswipes subpeona’d robert bork’s video rental records. remember that? you clowns were *all for* free speech back THEN.
    pointing out the facts of cleland’s case isn’t “attacking”, pita. despite what teacher told you back in school. challenging cleland’s political speech isn’t “dishonoring a hero”, pita, despite the fact you clowns *want* that to be the case. so let’s recap:
    1) cleland was never “denigrated”, as you whined.
    2) cleland himself says his injuries were an accident
    3) cleland himself says he was “not a hero”
    4) cleland himself says he was “embarrassed by” the medals he received after his accident
    5) the army seemed to agree that cleland’s injuries were accidental, because he didn’t get a purple heart: the medal reserved for *combat* injuries
    6) although you claim you’re “not a democrat” – they all do, by the way – you DO exhibit democrat traits of ‘eagerness to silence debate by proclaiming certain individuals “off limits” for questioning; looking into their stories; etc.’. what’s up with that?
    7) why shouldn’t we look into the claims of ex-mil guys who claim headlines by suddenly deciding they’re against the war? after john kerry; and jessie mcbeath; and “evan thomas”; and the other loons the left held up as “unassailable heroes”, who then turned out to be sad pathetic little liars ….why shouldn’t we question them? the left said THOSE GUYS were “heroes”, and they were wrong. in ‘evan thomas’s’ case, they KNEW he was lying to them, and they published his shit anyway. fool us once …
    8) “because us liberals don’t want you to” isn’t an acceptable answer.
    9) why do you liberals want so desperately to have free speech silenced? why are you just a bunch of fascists in disguise? is it that you’re just mental defectives?
    10) any comment on why kerry allowed the swiftboaters to make him their bitch? based on kerry’s refusal to sue the swiftboaters; and his ongoing refusal to release ALL his mil records, a reasonable person can only conclude that “every word kerry has ever said about the war or his service is a lie”. why would you – a “non-democrat” defend an asswipe like that? hmmm?

  58. PITA says:

    Okay, two quick points:
    1.) For all your rabbit trails, red herrings, and off-the-point/dissent-is-treason ramblings, you guys simply aren’t willing to grasp the nettle that mouthpieces like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Malkin have said some very dishonest things about the combat service (not the politics, but the actual combat service) of those veterans who happen to be Democrats or RINOs.
    If you guys are cool with this quote from Coulter–“Cleland lost three limbs in an accident during a routine noncombat mission where he was about to drink beer with friends”–when, in fact, the loose-grenade incident that claimed Cleland’s limbs took place during the ferocious Battle for Khe Sanh…. well, then you inhabit a fantasy world in which political talking-points matter more than the realities as they were on the ground. “. . . routine noncombat mission . . .” Jesus, have you guys no shame?
    2.) Any discussion in which this retort is made–“Like talcum on a wet behinie”–is too freaky for me.

  59. PITA says:

    Cripes, how did I overlook this retort: “… To say that your wet panties are beneath my level of interest is to overstate my interest in your panties greatly….”
    I’m runnin’ for the hills. You guys are nuts!

  60. bloodrage bob says:

    say, pita, before ya “run away like a little bitch” or whatever it was you said, a quick question. despite many many MANY voluminous natterings from you; for all your rabbit trails, red herrings, and off-the-point/questioning a democrat is hate speech ramblings, you neglected to mention a name. a famous, topical name. a name that *should have* come up in your ringing, stirring defense of ex-uniformed “heroes”. (despite the fact that they themselves denied being such.) as an added bonus, this individual is the only one currently in uniform, which makes attacks upon him – by your own definition – terrible & awful.
    you never said a word in defense of general petraeus. how come? when your fellow liberals attacked him; called him a liar; said in print he was lying and committing perjury ….. you didn’t rise to his defense. odd. you came to EX soldiers kerry, murtha, macbeath and cleland’s defense …. but not petraeus. you even defended kerry’s “silver star”, which his cowardly refusal to sue the swiftboaters for trashing proved to the world was a bullshit medal. yet not a word for petraeus. strange.
    what’s up with THAT, mr. “i’m not a liberal, i just parrot liberal talking points”? why do you want to defend kerry & cleland so badly, yet prefer “not to mention” petraeus? might it be …. oh, i dunno …. might your alleged high-toned speeches just be the usual liberal hypocrisy & lies?
    sure LOOKS that way, don’t it?

  61. rwilymz says:

    “mouthpieces like Limbaugh, Coulter, and Malkin have said some very dishonest things about the combat service (not the politics, but the actual combat service) of those veterans who happen to be Democrats or RINOs”
    And mouthpieces like yadda and blah-blah and etcetera have said some very dishonest things about the persons [not the politics, the actual persons] of those who happen to be Republicans.
    You are spending your time wetting your panties in public over policial cheerleading, which has **always** done this, and always will. There is nothing new, here, except that you are indignant all over again.
    Well … who cares?
    Who cares what Coulter says? Who cares about your hurt-by-proxy feelings? As far as I’m concerned, anyone surprised and outraged by cheerleaders doing what cheerleaders do is naive. Limbaugh/Coulter versus MoveOn … these aren’t the real issues.
    You are making an issue of the **cheerleading**, fergodsake. There’s a game going on and you’re more interested in the sidelines.
    “You guys are nuts!”
    And you’re a simpleton.
    Mexican standoff.