Petraeus and Kerry
MoveOn.org’s ad attacking Gen. David Petraeus was roundly criticized by President Bush and other Republican leaders as “disgusting.” While that is true, let us not forget that these same sanctimonious Republicans similarly and hypocritically attempted to destroy the reputation of another military war hero: John Kerry.
Bob Birnberg, Denver
kerry 'threw' his medals away remember? he knocked those who he served with as baby killers. sound familiar jesse macbeth? kerry should open his service record for all to see if he's so proud of how he served. or maybe there are skeletons he doesn't want us to see??
Posted by ktr on October 8, 2007 05:05 AMLets not forget Kerry was running for office and opened the door on his refusal to still not open his military records to public record. Genral Patraeus is not.
Comparing these to individuals is like compareing apples to oranges. Or should I say Diamonds to rotten apple cores with maggots in them.
Patreaus is the Dianmond and Kerry is the rotting apple cores.
John Kerry politizied his service where as Gen. Patreaus is having his service record politicesed. A big differance. Something the goose stepping left fails to see.
Posted by on October 8, 2007 05:19 AMkerry also stood with the north vietanmese and hanoi jane in france and told the world how mean and nasty we were all while he was still in the Navy. if it wasnt for uncle teddy kerry would have been tried for treason.
Posted by on October 8, 2007 06:46 AMlets not forget that Pus Limbaugh attacked the miliary too. tried to lie and say it was one soldier (macbreth) but Druggie Limpballs kept saying 'they' and 'soldiers' so we know what he really meant.
you have to remember that Kerry is a democrat so it it legal to insult him. Democratic soldiers dont count, their bravery doesnt count, their deaths dont count. Only brave soldiers like Bush, Limbaugh, Cheney...you know the guys who never served, they are the true soldiers. The rest are phonies.
Posted by Keith on October 8, 2007 07:47 AMOK - how about the Bush/Rove machine slandering McCain - by announcing to the GOP that since Sen. McCain spent years as a POW in Vietnam, he was too crazy to be president? Or how about implying that his wife was unfaithful & his daughter wasn't his own? The GOP lowered the bar years ago - and now that it is being hoist by its own petard, it is whining loudly.
The fact is that by the time a general has more than 1 star he/she has become more of a politician than anything else - and folks were forecasting EXACTLY what Petraeus was going to say 6 months before the report was out. Do you honestly believe that many people are psychic?
Posted by Mary on October 8, 2007 07:47 AM7:44
You are deliberately distorting what Limbaugh said. Two days before he talked about them, ABC had a segment on "phony soldiers". And yes, that's plural.
Keith,
Who was it that tried to toss out the vote of the military personnel during the 2000 presidential election? Oh yeah, it was the Democrat Party.
Keith,
Bush was in the military. Limbaugh and Cheney were not. But none of them claimed to be something that they weren't.
BTW, Dick Durbin didn't serve in the military either. So, what do you think of his calling their actions being the equivalent to that Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot?
Keith,
Bush was in the military. Limbaugh and Cheney were not. But none of them claimed to be something that they weren't.
BTW, Dick Durbin didn't serve in the military either. So, what do you think of his calling their actions being the equivalent to that Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot?
It's simple really, it is fine to smear a soldier if he is a Democrat but not OK to do that when he is a Republican. What a bunch of morons.
Posted by GOP Tool on October 8, 2007 08:48 AMMary,
McCain apparently isn't as upset about it as your are, since he's remained loyal to the "Bush/Cheney machine". He was also running for office at the time. Patraeus wasn't.
The Democrats in Congress overwhelmingly confirmed Patreus last Spring, and it was they who demanded that he report to them in September. That his report wasn't to the liking of people such as yourself doesn't mean he deserves the hostility he's been getting.
Does anyone really believe that things are going well in Iraq?
Posted by all that matters on October 8, 2007 09:18 AMIs it just me, or does anyone else here find it odd the defenders of the moveon ad all use the same justification? Kind of a schoolyard retort like "well, you did it first."
While the comparison between the moveon ad and the swiftboaters is ludicris at best (NY Times wouldn't run a swiftboat ad for starters), either the slander is wrong or it isn't. Just because Jonny Finnigan jumps off the Empire State Building doesn't mean it's ok for you to jump.
Posted by KW on October 8, 2007 09:27 AMKW,
It boils down to the old principle: "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."
Stated in terms of physics, it is a truism that applies to almost every phase of human affairs.
When the Republican/"conservative" claque use the old: "But, Clinton . . . ", approach, that, too is evidence of the principle in reality.
Perhaps stopping the use of one, might lead to ceasing the use of the other? Nuh?
Posted by Old Grouch on October 8, 2007 09:36 AMOld Grouch,
Equal doesn't seem to fit with this comparison. Many of the Swiftboat group actually saw or were involved in the incidents that Kerry lied about, and they gave Kerry the opportunity to speak before they called him a liar.
Moveon.org called Petraus a liar before he even said a word. Even our Democratic Senators had he decided they were not going to believe what he said.
You are quite outspoken about people presuming what another person means or feels, without getting the facts. Wonder if you feel the same way about a Democrate sponsored, Moveon.org, newspaper ad calling a man a liar before he even said a word.
Posted by jgd777 on October 8, 2007 10:09 AMjgd777,
Straw man again, huh? Based upon the assumption that the Kerry incident was "O.K.", while the Petreaus matter is - for purposes of the straw-man setup - "wrong".?
The question asked by KW concerned the matter of either side, or both, keeping up the, "Well, you did it first", approach. The content of the material accompanying that approach is peripheral.
Indeed, the content is in question itself elsewhere; and your assumption that the Kerry material was "O.K." has had many rebuttals over time. Just as your assumption that the Petreaus material is "wrong" has had rebuttals also.
My answer to KW concerns the reason for the use of a form of defensive argument in the first place. And that is sufficient.
I don't hapen to think either contents to be above, or below, the other as political rhetoric goes - and has gone for some decades now.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 8, 2007 10:21 AMJohn Kerry shot himself in the ass. He then put himself up for medals. Were those medals for this war hero's marksmanship?
What was John Kerry's original discharge when he exited the military? Not the discharge that he was awarded (in exchange for more military service time) AFTER Jimmie Carter awarded amnesty to all the Vietnam turncoats, but the discharge Kerry received BEFORE Carter's amnesty?
HHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM??
Posted by Hank on October 8, 2007 10:41 AMwell what can you expect from Massachutttes where their senators are a traitor and a murderer.
Posted by on October 8, 2007 11:01 AMK-Dum just because you think a comparison is ridiculous doesn't make it so. The outrage was over the slander of someone who would risk their life as a soldier. Apparently that is OK with Republicans when that someone is a Democrat. This is one of the reasons that I don't respect Republicans.
Posted by heywood g blome on October 8, 2007 11:10 AMOld Grouch,
Perhaps we should hold all politicians to the same level of honesty, instead of this selective outrage. The level of hypocrisy in this country has reach a boiling point.
I just heard that Sandy Berger has joined Hillary Clinton's campaign staff. Thats right, the same Sandy Berger who stole classified documents. I will be waiting to see how the Democrats react to this and if they would have the same response if I told them Karl Rove has recently joined Mitt Romney's campaign staff.
Posted by jgd777 on October 8, 2007 11:28 AMheywood g blome,
Where you referring to the slander of General Petraus by the Democrats? The Republicans never slandered Petraus
Posted by jgd777 on October 8, 2007 11:32 AMAn American, and Hank
You morons claim that Democrats want terrorsist to win claiming that the number 1 propaganda machine used by the neo-cons (faux-news) told you so..I doubt that either one of you eunichs have children(I at least hope not!) Although it would be a slam dunk for the abotion rights crowd! WARS ARE FOUGHT AGAINST COUNTRIES, NOT IDEOLOGYS!!! Why dont you join everybody else playing checkers in your retirement community and leave the thinking to adults that dont need to take their happy pills to get through the day!!!!
jgd777,
Fine idea. In theory anyway. In practice, in the REAL world of politics, it hasn't been possible throughout recorded history. And, I don't happen to be all that removed from reality that I think it ever could be possible.
At best, it has, from time to time, been toned down some, Ancient Athens in the Periclean Age, perhaps; and early Rome - very early - when politics was still a matter of participation by citizens as a whole. Our own early days of the Union, as well, may also serve as example for at least a modicum of "standards". But, again, those were days of citizen participation in a much greater percentage than presently.
Caesar crossed the Rubican, in defiance of the principle of Roman prohibition of, and independence from, active military in the City.
And, so forth.
My own question, asked from time to time, and almost never answered seriously, is, simply, when are you - whoever it may be - going to run for Congress - or whatever other political office is being condemned as corrupt, etc., etc.? Or, again, simply, what is your own level of participation in the political process?
Speculation about what might be the response to one, or another, action, or political maneuver, merely serves to further fuel the fires of rhetoric, rant, and useless criticism.
Posted by Old Grouch on October 8, 2007 12:34 PMKerry? A war hero?
Let's see. He had a 3 month tour in Vietnam. He asked to get out based on the rule after three purple hearts you were "entitled" to go home. And with his three purple hearts he never had more than a bandaid put on any of them.
With soldier seriously wounded in Iraq asking to go back, we have a template for real heroism. John Kerry was not a hero. Even back then he was filming staged patrols for his political future. Kerry is and was a politician, not a hero.
Posted by Jim on October 8, 2007 01:56 PM Couldn't aggree more, Hot, and the right wingnut crowd can't ignore the fact that their anti-Christ heros, W Bush and Cheney are, and have been for some time lying, combat-dodging pigs.
HEEEEEER PIGGY, PIGGY PIGGY ! Wow, look at all those Repiglicans come-a- runnin' !
Jim sucked Rush off once too often, I think.
Posted by on October 8, 2007 10:35 PMOG
I can answer your question. I am NOT going to run for office but I do, or did..going to try to do something for '08 if I can, help organize volunteers, set up phone chains, write press releases, help with campaign literature and read all of the legislation a present representative voted on or had input to. Breaking down complex legislation into American rather than Nervous Lawyer was a major contribution. I helped raise funds with simple means like posting a number to call to donate or producing and paying kids to distribute flyers to houses (It was almost 20 years ago). One major contribution was that I kept the coffee pot full and fresh and put out fresh baked cookies and pastries for the volunteers. I also was one of the founders of a PAC and served as it's PR director and fund raiser until I was injured in 1990.
I will work for any candidate who offers me a reason to believe s/he will be honest and state their views clearly enough to let the people know what they intend to do if elected. More and more often I was a speech writer for candidates who had limited funds. Most people think one person writes the speeches but it's usually four or five people writing and the best ideas or "sound bites" are picked up. Marin Luther King was one of the few, and one of the last, people who would write a speech to get a deeper message across instead of a few words to be picked up.
Media requires short segments now. Politicians are more than willing to speak fewer words because any statement can be twisted or lied about and used as a weapon. Many times I would spend six or seven hours on a ten minute speech to find only three or four sentences used. One candidate convinced me to take a job with his campaign staff instead of driving a cab so I let my taxi cab assignment go back to the company and only drove the minimum shifts to stay contracted. He took one of the positions I support and switched his position to match a poll. I quit the next day. Sorry to say I helped him win but he didn't make it after the primary. One offered money then backed out. I will support either side if a candidate is on the same side on some issues. Once helped one I hated because the guy I liked had proven to be a complete idiot who would turn just about everything he touched into a bad litter box.
I plan to volunteer to do a few things from home and give any newbies a crash proof database that could be used by a blind chimpanzee. Will have a lot of time to write but will have to test a candidate first. My oldest nephew offered to give me a web site where I could post answers from candidates to questions that don't normally get asked. Thinking about it. Know databases. Know how to write. Don't know how to manage a website/blog.
Want to tell us what you plan on doing? Might be a candidate or two we can agree on then we can really put him/her over the top. Wish I could bake some more but maybe I can teach this step-son. Maybe.
Posted by momma y on October 8, 2007 11:44 PMOld Grouch,
I am getting too old to run for political office, but I do intend on doing my civic duty and vote. Matter of fact my friends and I are going to vote as many times as we can. In addition to voting it is our goal to help as many people vote as possible, the liquor store will be ordering extra cheap wine and the limos have been reserved. We are definitely going to make sure the homeless people get their votes counted.
For the non English speaking voters we will be offering assistance (wink wink) to make sure their votes are also counted. On the other hand my friend in the post office is going to make sure those pesky mail in ballots from overseas will not mess up this election. If they wanted their votes to counted, they should have been here to vote. We also have a list of over a thousand people who have passed away, but we know how they would have voted so we will be casting their votes for them.
Three of my friends have offered to monitor every speech from the candidates that we do not like, and will be choosing words or phrases out of context so we can twist it around and really make them look bad. We also have protesters standing by to shout down any candidate we don't like. They are just going to lie anyway!
And if all of our efforts don't get the right candidate elected, we have two lawyers in place to dispute the results. We can demand a recount because of voter fraud, which we will know for a fact existed.
So as you can see we are ready to do our civic duty. How do you plan on doing your civic duty?
Posted by jgd777 on October 9, 2007 10:09 AMjgd777,
I was speaking seriously, sir. Your reply is . . . hardly in keeping with the context. But, I will answer your question.
My own age is rather beyond that of running for office as well. However, I began, some nearly 70 years ago, by working in the campaigns, locally, for those I sought to have elected. This included door to door contacts, and direct visits with those listed as being on the Party rolls, to encourage them to get to the polls, and to support the process. - back then the area was not quite what it is today by way of informational media, etc., - and such transportation to the polls as I could offer.
With 3 exceptions - change of State residence after the date limit for registration; and change of local residence also, the change also involving disqualification for absentee ballot - I have voted in every election since I passed my 21st birthday.
Certain parts of my employment specifically prohibited partisan political activity, though transportation of the elderly and infirm to the polls was exempt from the prohibition. And, where possible, I did what I could. These areas included teaching in Public Schools, where my contribution was that of teaching history, civics, and government at the proper Grade levels.
I have also circulated petitions, and worked in those areas of permitted political activity - such as initiative and referendum - when partisan activity was not permitted.
I have attended, and participated in, Precinct Caucus, except in those times where my registration was not by Party.
I have served as an Election Official, at the Polls, both Primary and General Elections - the area in which most of my effort today would also be concentrated, age and health permitting.
Since your reply verges on the satirical, or may be intended to be a parody, there is nothing there to which i need reply further. Nor do I feel further need to take your comments and criticisms concerning government seriously in the future.
Posted by on October 9, 2007 11:35 AMjgd777,
I was speaking seriously, sir. Your reply is . . . hardly in keeping with the context. But, I will answer your question.
My own age is rather beyond that of running for office as well. However, I began, some nearly 70 years ago, by working in the campaigns, locally, for those I sought to have elected. This included door to door contacts, and direct visits with those listed as being on the Party rolls, to encourage them to get to the polls, and to support the process. - back then the area was not quite what it is today by way of informational media, etc., - and such transportation to the polls as I could offer.
With 3 exceptions - change of State residence after the date limit for registration; and change of local residence also, the change also involving disqualification for absentee ballot - I have voted in every election since I passed my 21st birthday.
Certain parts of my employment specifically prohibited partisan political activity, though transportation of the elderly and infirm to the polls was exempt from the prohibition. And, where possible, I did what I could. These areas included teaching in Public Schools, where my contribution was that of teaching history, civics, and government at the proper Grade levels.
I have also circulated petitions, and worked in those areas of permitted political activity - such as initiative and referendum - when partisan activity was not permitted.
I have attended, and participated in, Precinct Caucus, except in those times where my registration was not by Party.
I have served as an Election Official, at the Polls, both Primary and General Elections - the area in which most of my effort today would also be concentrated, age and health permitting.
Since your reply verges on the satirical, or may be intended to be a parody, there is nothing there to which I need reply further. Nor do I feel further need to take your comments and criticisms concerning government seriously in the future.
Posted by on October 9, 2007 11:37 AM"More and more troops and veterans of Iraq believe George Bush's military policy has been a disaster. I am one of them. Rush Limbaugh called vets like me "phony soldiers" for telling the truth about Iraq. Rush, the shrapnel I took to my head was real. My traumatic brain injury was real. And, my belief that we are on the wrong course in Iraq is real. Until you have the guts to call me a "phony solider" to my face, stop telling lies about my service," says veteran Brian McGough of Washington, D.C.
Posted by McGough on October 10, 2007 07:04 AMMcGough,
Do yourself a favor and get some intellectual honesty. Rush Limbaugh did not call vets like you “phony soldiers.” I have a feeling you actually know that but you don’t like Limbaugh’s politics so you will say anything to try to discredit the context of what he actually did say.
A good soldier has integrity and character. Those that lie are “phony soldiers.”
Posted by Mountain Cat on October 11, 2007 08:03 AM