Watching Ray McGovern grill Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after an Atlanta speech this week was a bracing experience. If you haven’t seen the video, check it out here.
No, the tough questions weren’t from a journalist — most are still playing patty-cake.
But McGovern, a 27-year CIA analyst, was unusually well qualified to challenge the secretary’s half-truths and outright evasions about misuse of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq invasion.
In one exchange, Rummy denied saying he had “bulletproof” evidence for the location of Iraqi WMDs. But then McGovern confronted him with his own words from 2003: “We know where the WMD are. They’re near Tikrit and Baghdad, and north, south, east and west of there” — and the secretary wilted, stunned, almost speechless.
Rummy tried a few feeble parries and denials, but McGovern had an overwhelming advantage — the truth.
What a great American. McGovern showed courage in exposing the deception and arrogance of Rumsfeld and speaking truth to power.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- JimJohnson on Late-night laughs
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- thomaswitt on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- Phantom on Let immigrants run
109 Comments
Smart and intelligent people can be irrational when it comes to something they blindly believe in and somebody challenges it.
I’m still on the side of Rumsfeld. The other guy just another opportunist leftist getting publicity so he can get a book deal.
They have seminars teaching people how to go into speechs and press conference and get publicity. Either it be throwing cream pies or say outragous political statements.
Ray McGovern may have an impressive resume, but too much of it is the evanglical church that he runs. As I suspect, Evangelicals are really leftist people.
McGovern heart and intentions are probably right, but Rumsfeld is still DOD Secretary and knowns a hell of a lot more then McGovern does. If I was seeking the truth, I would believe Rumsfeld. He’s one of the good guys. America should be proud of him.
http://bornatthecrestoftheempire.blogspot.com/2006/05/look-at-wapo-site-tonight-tomorrow.html
Long read, but worth it
I think Rumsfeld is less deserving of blame than President George W “No Buck Ever Stops Here” Bush, but I wonder if he’s getting fed up with holding the president’s c*ck while he pisses. I think Rumsfeld, like every other member of the administration ca2003, was so willing to take one for the team that he came up with an infamously refutable factoid, the precise location of WMD in Iraq. I’m sure that this revelation by Rumsfeld in 2003 bolstered both the president and his supporters – but mainly the president :) – just as I’m now sure Rumsfeld wishes he’d been less obsequious and more obtuse.
Ray McGovern had the chutzpah to call him on it – in public. Which yielded what Randy accurately characterizes as wilting behavior displayed by Sec. Rumsfeld.
I especially lurved the unctious ass-kisser who followed McGovern with some classic fluffing of the Sec DoD.
Mr. McGovern has very likely earned his place in history here.
Brave man.
Wanna hear McGovern’s own words about Rummy’s “kindness” in not having him thrown out immediately?
Part of an interview with Paula Zahn on CNN:
Zahn: There was a point where it appeared as though you were going to get kicked out … Donald Rumsfeld encouraged whoever I think had their hands on you at the time to let you stay there. Does he get any credit for that today?
MCGOVERN: At first, I thought, well, that was rather gracious. But, then I got to thinking, I was not abusing the privilege. I was simply asking pointed questions. And for the national TV audience to see me carted away for asking Rumsfeld to explain what any objective observer would call a lie, that wouldn’t have been good P.R. So, yes, I’m glad he let me stay. But I think it was for self- interested reasons.
Read the full transcript here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0605/04/pzn.01.html
Joe…if you believe CIA personnel are “opportunistic leftists” you’re wrong. I have known several, and they’re generally conservatives…old time conservatives who don’t believe in getting involved overseas unless you’re going all the way in. Rumsfeld has taken hits for not committing sufficient troops. Colin Powell and the opposition generals have made that clear. Some of us are old time conservatives; America first, if you’re going in, don’t let the politicians hold back; and don’t run a massive deficit doing it. This administration has taken several pages from the Lyndon Johnson playbook. The economy is going well now due to those deficits, but watch out for 2009.
Why is it that when someone speaks the truth about anyone in this administration, those on the right always look for some sort of hidden agenda to invalidate what that person has to say. I guess the truth hurts, but how anyone can still support George and Donald and this mess they drug the country into is absolutely beyond me. Time to take off the blinders, Joe, you’re embarrassing yourself with your denial.
The fact that 5 hours after 9/11 Rumsfeld came up with the idea, “maybe we can use this to invade Iraq”, makes Ray’s questions even more poignant.
The fact that all the players on the Bush team had been in on plans to use the military to put down any insurrections in any country containing oil makes Ray’s questions even more poignant.
The fact the same people, whose plan was called the “Wolfowitz” plan, said it would take a long time to accomplish UNLESS there was a “Pearl Harbor” event one year prior to 9/11 makes Ray’s question even more poignant.
Joe, you are dead wrong on this one. The Bush team planned to invade Iraq come hell or high water. They used 9/11 and innumerable lies to convince the American people the invasion was necessary. Collin Powell’s speech at the United Nations was convincing . . . if you didn’t know the facts. And the facts were, there were NO WMD. Saddam Hussain is a psycopath, but not stupid enough to risk his control over his country by defying the world. And Al-Quida despised Hussain, and his brand of government. To them, he was a socialist leader, and wanted nothing to do with him. There was no Al-Quida/Iraq relationship.
Rumsfeld lied . . . period.
Ray McGovern hasn’t been in government since the 1980’s.
He runs this church.
http://www.slschool.org/
Make your own judgement. Oh! He is one of the good guys.
Joe W.–
You are great, man, perfectly consistent . . . consistently WRONG and WRONG in magnificiently ignorant ways.
You say, Martin Luther King was “no liberal,” even though his less public writings show him to be practically socialist.
You say, black people are “more and more supporting conservatives,” when in actuality all federally ELECTED blacks are Democratic.
You say you’re a “libertarian,” when the real libertarians were against the invasion of Iraq to the last man. Even Pat Buchanan was against it. Libertarians want gov’t out of people’s lives. What’s more intrusive than . . . oh, I don’t know . . . starting an effing WAR!
Now you say this retired CIA evangelical is “liberal.” LIBERAL?! MY GOD MAN, how could you find anybody more conservative?
Yeah, those damn liberal Christians running the CIA–the ones who overthrow elections, fund right-wing death squads, set up illegal torture prisons. You know . . . the LIBERALS!
Do you even listen to yourself?
Joe I have been clean and sober for over ten years. But even I wish I could get some of those drugs you have been taking! So mellow, so calm, so in your own version of reality. Peace man! wow…
“Ray McGovern may have an impressive resume, but too much of it is the evanglical church that he runs. As I suspect, Evangelicals are really leftist people”.
BTW Joe, just in case you were not aware of this. The Evangelicals are those that make up the Religious Right. You might as well be accusing the Nazis of being the founders of Israel.
Who does this bastard, this piece of shit, think he is?
Joe,I really don’t care if the questioner was the pope, boy george or rin-tin-tin. Shooting the messenger does nothing. The questions were still asked, and the answers obfuscated.
Writerdog. The Evangelicals have hijacked the Republican Party because they know it to be the winning team.
Once Democrats (if ever) come back to power, you will see a huge shift of Evangelicals singing the tune of the Democrats. They could care less about party platforms. They care about power. What ever suits them best they will join in.
Lefthook, let me apply an uppercut of reality to you. Just wait until the election of 2006 comes around. We will most likely see two Black Republicans as governors. Michael Steele will be the Republican Senator of Maryland.
Many Blacks feel that the Democrats have taken advantage of them as a voting group for too long. Every election the Democrats lose more percentage of the black vote to Republicans.
Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Rod Paige, and Clarence Thomas are all universally known black Republicans. You tell me, Lefthook, on a man-on-the-street interview that people can name ONE black Democrat Congressperson.
Martin Luther King advocated for Freedom, individuality, and self-respect. Hardly qualities of leftist liberalism, communism, and fascisim.
It was the Democratic South and the Democrats in Congress, including JFK that refused to work with MLK, conducted warrentless wiretaps on him, and called him a communist. Only after “I have a dream” speech, did JFK wanted to have pictures of himself taken with MLK. Just for political purposes.
Yes! I am a Libertarian, but I’m also my own person and make up my own mind about the issues at hand. I don’t blindly follow exactly what party leadership does or everything in the platform. Reasonable people can disagree. I for one, although I question seriously the reasoning for the Iraq War, still support it.
I support the Iraq War because I’m an American, I support the troops, and I support the mission to rid the world of terrorism.
It might not have been a good decision to go in Iraq, or to use sketchy intelligence for the case of war, but as long as we are there, lets finish the job and do some serious good. Let’s make Lemonade out of lemons.
You can have your own opinion about Rumsfeld and the Iraq war, but most of you who are against it, are only against it because you blindly follow leftist liberalism and people in the leftist liberal hierarchy tell you to be against the war, because it hurts Bush and the Republicans politically.
I’m for the war not for political reasons. If you are against the war for political reasons, then I believe that’s sad. Be against the war because of your own personal convictions.
Most of you are against it politically. Like blind sheep, somebody just have to hand you a picket sign and you’re in.
J M Walker. The messenger is Rumsfeld. McGovern was a political protestor.
I’m sure he has contacts that he can probably get a one-on-one interview with Donald Rumsfeld if he wanted. Then he could have ask him personally.
I don’t care if he did it in public. Rumsfeld let him stay and allowed him to make his point on national television.
But when it comes to matters about the Iraq War, I’m just making the point the Rumsfeld knowns a hell of a lot more than McGovern does. That is my point.
But people will raise McGovern on a pedestal because he supposely fronted Rumsfeld. Just another pie thrower to me. McGovern could have done it a much different way with better information and answers.
“But when it comes to matters about the Iraq War, I’m just making the point the Rumsfeld knowns a hell of a lot more than McGovern does. That is my point.”
And that is my point, Joe. Rumsfeld knew there were no WMD and still called for the invasion of Iraq. He knew there was no tie between Al-Quida and Saddam.
I voted pretty much the Republican line until the Bushes took office. Since then, I have come to the conclusion that the Republican is not a peace loving party, nor do they have the average persons rights in mind. They wage war at the drop of a bad intelligence report, raise taxes on the average American and give tax breaks to the rich, bypass the laws of this land that were passed to protect the environment, and this administration particularly has made a joke out of the constitution of the United States.
“The messenger is Rumsfeld.” No he isn’t, Joe. He is the instigator.
Oh COME ON Joe!
Mc Govern confronted Rumsfeld with Rumsfelds OWN WORDS.
Hey go ahead, cling to Rumsfeld and bush. They are the best advocates for throwing Republicans out of government and back into obscurity for 20 years.
Too bad so much money had to be spent, Iraq boken beyond repair, and more than 3,000 Americans dead to get it done.
Well said Walker.
You’re a good guy Joe. My prediction is in time you are gonna be like J M Walker. I knew where the GOP was going 20 years ago. That’s why I got out.
You might be right JR, but I cannot for the life of me ever see myself going to the dark side of leftism.
Moderate Democrats are great. I have nothing against the Party. Clinton, Sebelius, Liberman, and Richardson are people I like.
I might change my mind about people and issues, but I will not be persuaded to be a leftist, even if you tourtured me by performing a root canal on me in a Mexican prison, in the phycriatic ward in the middle of summer with no air conditioning, no anesthesia and using rusty 19th century dental tools.
I’m a full blooded capitalist. Nothing going to change that.
Joe, Can we at least throw you in the lake with Brer Rabbit:-)
I think you are wrong headed Joe.
Consider your tower idea. (I have my doubts about it) Where are your full blooded capitalists on that? How many of them are even willing to listen to you?
Seeing the light is not joining the “dark side” Joe.
You have your doubts about what exactly?
Who are you talking about that will not listen to me?
What is it about leftism that makes it so attractive to you guys? Seriously! What has it really accomplished or what do you expect it to do?
Wow! It seems like you were able to edit your post.
Capitalist? I suspect that a good majority of the funds will probably come from businesses and individual philanthropist who has made their fortune in business. Although I would like it to be completely funded by average individuals. It would be an amazing accomplishment. But I will not turn down a donor.
I seriously doubt the People’s Worker Party will send a penny though.
Joe,I don’t consider myself a “leftist” as you put it. Just because I think this current administration goes against everything the constitution stands for does not mean I am a communist, socialist, nazi, or any other ist out there. I don’t really like republicans, libertarians (which, Joe, I have my doubts about you being), or anyone else labeling me as a communist, socialist, nazi, etc, etc. I am way more of a libertarian than what you seem to call yourself. I want my borders protected, which the government is not doing too well; I want my mail delivered on time; I want this countries bounties to be here for my childrens childrens children; I want this country to stop invading other countries at the drop of a bad day; I want a government of the people, by the people and for the people, Joe. With the current administration, we have very little, if any, of all that.
Ok. So you’re not a leftist. But many on this blog are. I will appoligize.
Everything you said, I agree with also. But just because I support Rumsfeld and the war, removes me as a Libertarian.
I don’t think that the current administration is throwing away the Constitution. I don’t think its the Administration that is throwing away the nations treasury. Border control has been a mess for decades.
Congress has no political spine, they are the ones spending the future away, they are the ones trying to pander to people and the illegals.
Bush sucks! He is a weak president and we should be ashamed he holds the office. I never voted for him, but that doesn’t prove much.
About invading other countries. Yeah! We done that too many times. Vietnam was a lesson we should have learn, but we won’t.
removes me as a Libertarian?
Meant to put a question mark at the end of that sentence.
I’m thinking you are one bright but confused person Joe.
Congress is currently controlled by the GOP Joe.
The fact is McGovern caught rummy in his own lies CNN Jon stewart even fox news showed the old footage of rumsfeld saying he knew where the Wmd’s were. Then they showed old footage of Wolfowitz saying that Iraq could pay for their rebuiling with oil what the hell happened to that plan.
But Congress isn’t the Administration.
People in Congress don’t change. If you think 8 years of Bush and Rumsfeld is bad. What about 30+ years of Ed Kennedy, Robert Byrd, Ted Stevens, and the other corrupt members who will get re-elected over and over again until they die. Strom Thurmond was 100 years old. That is ridiculous.
The people have the power to change, but will never exercise it.
Dingus. The pipelines keep on getting blown up.
But I seriously doubt that one drop of oil will ever be used or one Denar will be paid back to the USA. Even if Iraq was gushing with oil and the delivery of it.
Isn’t the administration and the congreass controlled by the same party?
Yes. But they seem to be at odds with each other. Congress seems to be on their own with their own agenda. The Bush Administration has lost a lot of political capital.
Members of the Republican Party in Congress is running away from the Administration and what they are advocating for.
Although controlled by the same party, not exactly in sync with each other.
Bush’s Social Security fix, guest worker program, and many others are dead in the water.
Joe, buddy, the “marching orders” meme is old, tired and and in ill health. You really oughta put the poor thing to sleep. Besides, Col. CF ain’t a bad CO, once ya get to know him! He makes some killer lampshades!
What went wrong in this conversation? Rumsfeld is okay, Bush sucks? Guy gets up and challenges the man, it makes headline news. He had to be political ranter or just a pissed off CIA person? Did he get the job because of his politics or talents as a spook?
Today is messed up because of the past. Consider Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand in the 80’s began his wrong way on the political roads till today. The mess is still broken in Iraq from that moment.
The man does things Presidents tell him to do. Right or wrong. He has to defend the President’s authority while employed.
Smart people can make poor decesions. Politics makes some real stupid because its tied to controlling power in this country. What’s good for the political party long term.
I don’t trust both political parties or those who vote complete ticket on election day.
I don’t like the titles Conservatives or Capitalists, neither group at its core, has compassion for social causes.
I like people who can be themselves, no political badges carrying around. Despise politics because its a game and understand both parties have some messed up leaders from the past and today. Both parties have some individuals that are okay. Those who vote against bad bills and stand their ground all alone if need be.
We can only be in a “rage” to compensate. Hope the future is better somehow. Our vote won’t make the difference. Protests don’t work with Bush, because the public ranting is kept so far away. Have to be patient and wait until the next Presidential election.
I don’t think this country could have done much without NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer finding fraud in the corporate world. Forced Bush to make the SEC more authortive.
I liked his battles and read those reports.
I’m ashamed of the war dead and so many soldiers injured, I don’t read what’s good in Iraq reports or believe troops are coming home this year. I don’t hear what Rumsfeld is saying, to me he stopped talking in the 80’s. I haven’t understood his decesions since then.
Reagan was shot and Mr. Hollywood, I still didn’t trust his second term not voting for him in 84. Not too many voted against Reagan and its cost this country a lot. That President failed in his Middle Eastern policies caused problems today decades later. Same cast of characters and political beliefs past down.
Good post, Mrage. You nailed it.
Beeee-zar. I don’t get Joe Williams’ psychological linkage to Rumsfeld. The guy is caught in a lie and all Joe Williams can do is try to discredit Ray McGovern. Ditto for the retired generals; if they oppose Rumsfeld, they’re wrong, by defintion. Irrational as hell.
Rage,
Col. CF?!? Wacky. I always saw myself as a junior officer, MAYBE a major.
It’s no wonder the media is treating this McGovern as some kind of hero.
This from J. Hinderacker at Powerline.
“Tom cites chapter and verse in the post linked to above. McGovern is Cindy Sheehan with a beard, with the same distressing tendency to start babbling about Israel at the wrong moment. He’s worse, actually: unlike Sheehan, McGovern has endorsed the idea that the Bush administration knew in advance about the September 11 attacks but “deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen.”
This is the man CNN says was “speaking truth to power” when he heckled Rumsfeld, and whom Andrew Sullivan–whose standards are getting lower all the time–described as “not some crazed lefty.” It’s scary to consider what it would take for a lefty to be cnsidered “crazed” by either Andrew or CNN.”
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/013993.php
This is exactly the kind of “verteran CIA analyst” that needs to be flushed from our intel agencies. This guy is exactly the kind of leftwing partisan that Bush has been trying to purge. This is the kind of left wing freak thats been leaking classified info to undermine our president and the war we are fighting.
SPEAK TRUTH TO POWER MAN!!!
Here’s more on the nutjob that heckled Rummy.
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2006/05/nutjob-ray-mcgovern-heckles-rummy.html
This is the kind of nutjob the likes of CNN likes to lionize. And you want to tell me again how the media is not biased?
LOL Heckler.
In what universe is McGovern’s pointing out, to Rumsfeld’s face, that Rumsfeld had said he knew exactly where WMD were in Iraq – in what universe is this relevant to McGovern’s past?
I don’t care if McGovern is an insect from outer space currently inhabiting the skin of a human male, his question still stands. Make that his UNANSWERED question.
As if McGovern’s past in any way impeaches his words. Chortle.
But by all means, carry on with the latest Swift Boating!
Heck, you need a little less kookaide.
Do you really not see that your little rant above is exactly the definition of “swift boating”?
Keep posting dude. You attack McGovern while the DOD emperor clearly has no clothes? I love it when you give us a PERFECT example of the evils of attacking the character of ANYONE who dares to question bush or his henchmen.
heheh. Only the hard core 32% will still buy that spin heck. And quoting assrocket is not gonna gain any respect for your position.
If McGovern is a no-tendon, limp-wristed, anti-American, Jew-hating, former CIA analyst who deserves being run out of the CIA and the scorn of every red-blooded American Patriot – if he’s all that, then why did McGovern’s question make Rumsfeld stutter like a girl?
It’s not like Swift Boating McGovern is going to dub Rumsfeld’s stuttering outta that tape, Heckler.
LOL
If you are gonna run to hindraker, I’m gonna quote Glenn again:
“”Neither Instapudnit, Gateway Pundit, nor Allah address the substantive point — that Donald Rumsfeld told the country that he “knows” where WMDs are, and when confronted by McGovern with that false statement, denied that he made it.
That fact is, of course, nowhere near as important as engaging in a vicious and frenzied character smear of yet another American who spent his entire career in service to his country and yet has his patriotism and mental health called into question by virtue of standing up to the administration.”
Yep, make an example out of ANYONE who dares to question oz. Maybe that is why heck is so dedicated to buchco. He is afraid of what they might do to him if he disagreed? heheh.
Maybe we all need a refresher course on the definition of swiftboating? From wikipedia:
Swiftboating is American political jargon for an ad hominem attack against a public figure, coordinated by an independent or pseudo-independent group, usually resulting in a benefit to an established political force.
Specifically, this form of attack is controversial, easily repeatable, and difficult to verify or disprove because it is generally based on personal feelings or recollections.
The name comes from the portrayal of Presidential candidate John Kerry’s military service in Vietnam and subsequent antiwar activities by the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth organization.
Although many of the charges were unverifiable, they were disseminated widely, which led to swiftboating’s reputation for being a controversial but highly effective form of “smear campaign”.
Swiftboating frequently refers to a campaign that uses viral marketing techniques to sell the allegations.
By using credible-sounding sources to make sensational and difficult-to-disprove accusations against an opponent, the campaign leverages media tendencies to focus on a controversial story.
Mostly used as a pejorative, the term has gained currency among some writers and commentators.
Swiftboating is American political jargon for an ad hominem attack against a public figure, coordinated by an independent or pseudo-independent group, usually resulting in a benefit to an established political force. Specifically, this form of attack is controversial, easily repeatable, and difficult to verify or disprove because it is generally based on personal feelings or recollections.
The name comes from the portrayal of Presidential candidate John Kerry’s military service in Vietnam and subsequent antiwar activities by the Swift Vets and POWs for Truth organization. Although many of the charges were unverifiable, they were disseminated widely, which led to swiftboating’s reputation for being a controversial but highly effective form of “smear campaign”.
Swiftboating frequently refers to a campaign that uses viral marketing techniques to sell the allegations.
By using credible-sounding sources to make sensational and difficult-to-disprove accusations against an opponent, the campaign leverages media tendencies to focus on a controversial story.
Mostly used as a pejorative, the term has gained currency among some writers and commentators. Its appropriateness as a description of political debate has been questioned by some conservative commentators.
Oops, sorry for the double copy.
LOL
It’s just the wrong strategy here, Heckler.
You guys gotta get that tape, see. Then you gotta get one of those Forget Everything Mont Blanc MIB pens, round everybody up who saw the tape, and zap ‘em.
Get the tape, scrub all memories of it, only then are you guys in business. Swift Boating video evidence is completely unlike Swift Boating a vet who misplaced his cojones.
LOL
Hee hee hee
Really got you two smokin up the old keyboards this morning didnt I.
The Swifties told the truth and no one his disproved them. That really eats at your craw doesnt it.
Flike,
Awesome. Just awesome. Textbook takedown, and some nice digs at Heckler as he surrenders to the id of his Wingnut reptile brain.
Heckler,
I’d say that Powerline and all of you droids are the ones who are stuck on stupid, with your reliance on character assassination and disdain for facts. Quite a pack of bristling little fascists you’ve become, for whom leftist = traitor.
Actually this would be a good example for the “fair and balanced” thread. How the alphabet network lends so much credibility to folks hanging by two fingers from the left end of the political spectrum.
Heck, nothing sticks in my craw about the swift boat liars. I just TIRE of keeping up with and responding to all the lies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiftboating
Scroll down to the “TRUTHFULNESS” section. It will refute most of the lies.
It also explains the republican ties to the swiftboaters, how some of the affidavit signers have since admitted they had no knowledge of Kerry’s activities, etc.
Heck, these lies have been discredited so many times that it is just BORING posting all the refutations. I didnt have the energy yesterday for one of these neocon sinkholes.
But today, serve ‘em up, and I’ll shoot ‘em down. It is raining and I have nothing better to do.
Bring it on. But first, read about the “truthiness” of these guys lies. THEN come back.
I’m glad I could get everyones blood flowing good this morning. Have a great day in KAKEland.
Whoops, wrong link. Here is the one that you can scroll down and check out ALL the details. There is even a link to the rebuttle from the liars. How is THAT for fair and balanced?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth
SO heck… now that the refutations are in black and white, you leave the field?
Heheh. Take your time. Come back to this thread any day and lets talk about swifboat lies. I got ‘er bookmarked.
Maybe I’ll just start posting the refutations without you.
ksfarmgrrl
To use Wikipedia as an authoritative source for ANYTHING is infantile. You do realize that ANYone can go in there and say anything they want to dont you?
Writerdog. The Evangelicals have hijacked the Republican Party because they know it to be the winning team.
Once Democrats (if ever) come back to power, you will see a huge shift of Evangelicals singing the tune of the Democrats. They could care less about party platforms. They care about power. What ever suits them best they will join in.
Joe I agree that the Religious Right, the Neo-cons and the PNAC all played a part in the highjacking of the Republican party. Us Moderates stood by fat and dumb while it happened. But I really doubt that once the Republican lose control the R.R. will jump ship and go there. It is against their version of reality that they want. More control of person not less which the Democrats stand for.
The R.R. and the Neo-cons got in bed with each other thinking they could control the other. Neither had the political power by themselves. The PNAC seeing that religion can be use as a controlling factor of the masses where over joyed. So they allined themselves with the other two.
The three groups are what is called R.I.N.O.s a term oddly enough I have stolen from the Neo-cons. “Republican in name only”. None of them have the party’s best interests at heart and are using the Republican party to get what they want.
Heck, scroll down and read it. There are FACTS and quotes and citations from news sources other than fox. Which is of course why you refuse to believe it.
Ok, you asked for it, and I am tired of this deceitful little game.
I was watching CSPAN this morning on Washington Journal. They had an excellent reporter from USA Today who covers the intelligence and military issues.
He made a great point that I believe is a very accurate protrayal of this entire debate.
1. The CIA have been wrong on intelligence many times through out its history. The reason is, that they assess information and try to think forward and predict what will happen if certain conditions are happing. Basically they can only make educated guesses.
2. The CIA have done massive intelligence gathering in Iraq. They concluded that Saddam had a “high probability” of possessing biological, chemcial, and looking for nuclear weapons.
3. The Administration used that intelligence. But what they did is scratch out the words “high probability” and assumed and took the chance that Saddam did posses them.
4. The Administration did do some cherry picking, because they have been contemplating the removal of Saddam before 9/11, and the intelligence reports fit their agenda. Basically meaning that the Administration did not look at the intelligence reports about Iraq and said to themselves “we must do something about it.” as a reactionary stance. Rather they went to the intelligence community and asked “We don’t trust Saddam, send all the information you can about him.” They were proactive about it.
I just found it interesting. Come up with your own conclusions.
KFG
In case you did not know that Wikipedia is editable, I apologize for the “infantile” remark. Many people don’t know this. While it is a usefull reference source it is hardly something I would consider definitive or authoritative.
I know it is Heck, I am getting ready to post their sites. Just hang on. In the meantime”
Heck you said:
“Not one of the SwiftBoat vets assertions was PROVEN wrong, John Kerry had to change several details about things that were “SEARED” into his memory.”
Then you admitted:
There were some assertions made by Swiftvets that contradicted what Kerry said that cannot be proven either way. They are matters of memory.
Then you made these statements:
1. He couldnt prove the SV’s liars by releasing his full records because most of what they said was true.2. If he did release his full records it would be publicly known that he had a less than honorable discharge.
And then you admitted this in reference to those statements:
ksfarmgrrlThe less than honorable discharge is speculation, but based on a couple of simple facts. It cannot be proven for a FACT unless he releases his records.
But the quote I love most is “Not one of you on the left have listed an allegation the SV’s made that was proven false.”
Stay tuned right here!
A major part of the SBVT controversy centers on what some believe is inconsistent and misleading testimony.
Among the first to question the veracity of the first ad, was moderate Republican Senator John McCain, a Bush supporter and a Vietnam veteran and POW, who stated, “I condemn the [SBVT] ad, it is dishonest and dishonorable, I think it is very, very wrong”. [35]
As a naval aviator in Vietnam, McCain had no firsthand knowledge of Kerry’s service. The SBVT statements were accompanied by sworn affidavits, although one affiant, Al French, later admitted he had no firsthand knowledge of what he had sworn to [36].
The first SBVT ad was contradicted by the statements of several other veterans who observed the incidents, by the Navy’s official records, and, in some instances, by the contemporaneous statements of SBVT members themselves.
Several major newspapers were also skeptical of the SBVT allegations. For example, a New York Times news article stated, “on close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth prove to be riddled with inconsistencies.” [37]
ABC News’s The Note opined, “the Swift Boat ad and their primary charges about Kerry’s medals are personal, negative, extremely suspect, or false.” [38]
Regarding the medal dispute, a Los Angeles Times editorial (August 24, 2004, p. B10) stated, “Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges against John Kerry are false.”
The editorial argued this position on the basis that “Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the events in question, as well as by documentation.”
On August 22, 2004 The Washington Post reported: “An investigation by The Washington Post into what happened that day suggests that both sides have withheld information from the public record and provided an incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, picture of what took place.
But although Kerry’s accusers have succeeded in raising doubts about his war record, they have failed to come up with sufficient evidence to prove him a liar.” [39]
See, there are even little links you can click on to VERIFY what is in wikipedia.
Let’s see, we disputed the medal lie, on another thread Brian proved you wrong on the KR thing, the dispute about his “christmas in cambodia” statement is about whether he was IN or NEAR cambodia, hmmm.. other lies?
Had enough? Too bad. Here is more on the swiftboaters:
Of the 3,500 Swift boat sailors who served in Vietnam, the names of some 250 appeared on the group’s initial statement against Kerry; most did not serve at the same time or in the same place as Kerry.
Founding members of SBVT include Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann (retired), a former commander of Swift boat forces; Houston attorney John O’Neill, an officer who became commander of Swift Boat PCF 94 several months after Kerry’s departure in 1969 and who appeared opposite Kerry in a televised 1971 debate between them on The Dick Cavett Show; and 13 other named veterans.
Several of those who joined SBVT during the 2004 campaign were officers who had previously praised Kerry’s conduct during the Vietnam War. These included Division Commander Grant Hibbard, who wrote positive evaluations of Kerry, and Commander George Elliott, who submitted Kerry for a Silver Star. SBVT counts, in total, 16 of 23 officers who served with Kerry in Coastal Division 11 as members.[3]
Despite SBVT’s claims that Kerry’s “entire chain of command” belonged to the group,[4] neither Joseph Streuli, former commander of Coastal Division 13, nor Art Price, former commander CTF 116 who is described in “Unfit for Command” as part of Kerry’s chain of command, are affiliated with the group.
The group’s initial letter against Kerry stated “It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us). Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war.”[5]
However, Kerry had posted over 100 pages of his military records at his website nearly two weeks before the issuance of the SBVT letter, and had also made his military medical records available for inspection by reporters (and provided a summary from his doctor).[6][7][8]
Not all SBVT members claimed to be signing the letter for the same reason. For example, from an interview published the day before the letter was made public: ” ‘[Kerry] earned his medals, he did what he was supposed to do in Vietnam,’ said retired Coast Guard Captain Adrian Lonsdale, who was in the chain of command above Kerry and oversaw various operations dealing with Navy swift boats of the type Kerry commanded. ‘But I was very disappointed in his statements after he got out of the Navy.’ “[9]
Of those who served in Kerry’s boat crew, only Stephen Gardner joined SBVT. Gardner appeared in the group’s third television advertisement.
All other living members of Kerry’s crew supported his presidential bid, and some frequently campaigned with him.
Kerry crewmembers have disputed some of SBVT’s various allegations: “pure fabrication” (Jim Rassmann), “totally false” (Drew Whitlow), “garbage” (Gene Thorson), and “a pack of lies” (Del Sandusky).[10][11][12][13]
No members of SBVT were aboard Kerry’s boat during any of the incidents for which he was decorated.
The only member of SBVT who was present at the Silver Star incident, Rood’s crewmember Larry Clayton Lee, praised Kerry’s tactics and stated that Kerry deserved the medal; he stated that after discussions with other SBVT members, he came to question whether Kerry deserved other medals for incidents at which he was not present. [14][15]
So this disputes MANY lies by the swiftboaters.
Now heck, I did what you asked. Provided FACTUAL proof, (click on the links, remember?)of the swiftboat lies about John Kerry.
How about you SUPPORTING THOSE LIES with some proof of your own? From citable sources?
Maybe some info about the swiftboaters being a republican organization?
SBVT characterized itself as a non-partisan group both in the legal sense and in spirit, yet several prominent individuals who assisted the SBVT also have had close ties to the Republican Party.
According to information released by the IRS on February 22, 2005, more than half of the group’s reported contributions came from just three sources, all prominent Texas Republican donors: Houston builder Bob J. Perry, a long time Bush supporter, donated $4.45 million, Harold Simmons’ Contrans donated $3 million, and T. Boone Pickens donated $2 million. Other major contributors included Bush fundraiser Carl Lindner ($300,000), Robert Lindner ($260,000), GOP contributor Aubrey McClendon ($250,000), George Matthews Jr. ($250,000), and Crow Holdings ($100,000). [49] [50] [51]
The initial communications consultant for SBVT was Merrie Spaeth, a Reagan administration press officer and a volunteer consultant to Ken Starr in the Clinton impeachment; she was also a spokesperson for “Republicans for Clean Air,” an anti-McCain 527 group formed during the 2000 primaries and funded by Bush supporters who also helped fund SBVT [52][53].
Spaeth’s late husband, Tex Lezar, who graduated from Yale two years behind George W. Bush, was a speechwriter for the Nixon administration and an attorney in the Reagan Justice Department [54]. He ran for Texas lieutenant governor on George W. Bush’s ticket in 1994.
John E. O’Neill — the primary author of Unfit for Command and a key player in the formation of SBVT — donated over $14,000 to Republican candidates, was a partner in Lezar’s law firm. He co-operated with the Nixon White House in opposing Kerry in 1971, and seconded Nixon’s nomination at the 1972 Republican national convention. [55][56]
Retired Admiral William Schachte, the principal source for the SBVT allegations about Kerry’s first Purple Heart, has donated to both of Bush’s presidential campaigns. Schachte was also a lobbyist for FastShip, a firm that recently announced it was receiving $40 million in federal funding for one of its projects.
In addition, Schachte’s lobbying firm associate, David Norcross, was chairman of the 2004 Republican convention. [57] Chris LaCivita, Political Director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2002 [58], works as a private contractor providing media advice for SBVT. [59]
The SBVT postal address was registered to Susan Arceneaux, treasurer of the Majority Leader’s Fund, a PAC closely tied to the archconservative former Congressional leader Dick Armey. [60]
These ties, along with others (see below), led to accusations that SBVT was a front group for Republicans and caused SBVT to take considerable heat from some observers in the popular press. Slate’s editor, Jacob Weisberg, wrote that SBVT was part of the “right-wing slime machine.” [61]
Note in the above post more info that LH alluded to about o’neil.
…and a little more about the “Unfit for Command” book…
SBVT founder and spokesman John O’Neill wrote Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry with co-author Jerome Corsi.
The book was published by the conservative Regnery Publishing. A best-seller upon release in August 2004, it criticized Kerry’s judgment in battle, his truthfulness, his entitlement to certain medals, and his later anti-War activities. The book was based in part on interviews with veterans who served in or with Kerry’s division.
Several members of Kerry’s crew stated that O’Neill failed to interview them; some veterans who were interviewed asserted that O’Neill edited their statements to strip out material favorable to Kerry.[28]
Neither of the co-authors claimed any firsthand knowledge of Kerry’s service. O’Neill served on the Swift boats only after Kerry left; Corsi never served in Vietnam.
After controversial statements made by Corsi at a conservative website became public, O’Neill stated that Corsi was not actually the coauthor of the book, but simply helped in its editing[29].
However, Corsi describes himself as “honored to be participating in bringing the case against John Kerry as co-author of UNFIT FOR COMMAND,”[30] and portions of the book are nearly identical to articles Corsi posted at an anti-Kerry website.[31][32][33][34]
…and a few more swiftboat lies and the FACTS that show them to be lies…
The ABC television show Nightline traveled to Vietnam and interviewed Vietnamese who were involved in the battle for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. These witnesses disputed O’Neill’s charge that there “was little or no fire” that day; they said that the fighting was fierce. [40]
SBVT supporters question whether these witnesses are reliable because they spoke “in the presence of a Communist official” [41], but their account is substantially the same as that previously given by another former VC to an AP reporter [42], and by the American witnesses (with respect to enemy fire), including the only SBVT member who was actually present that day Lee[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/chi-0408220342aug22,1,3455991.story?coll=chi-newsspecials-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true43"Tour of Duty," pp. 290-292]["John F. Kerry, The Complete Biography" (Boston Globe), pp. 100-103].
Jerome Corsi has claimed that a picture of Kerry’s 1993 visit to Vietnam hangs in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City as a gesture of “honor” by the communists “for his contribution to their victory over [the] United States” [44], and John O’Neill has stated that Kerry “is in the North Vietnamese war museum as a hero. . . . one of the heroes who caused them to win the war in Vietnam” [45]. The claim is also repeated in “Unfit for Command” (pp 167-174).
However, Josh Gerstein of the New York Sun stated in this regard:
“While the museum clearly honors opponents of the war from America and other countries, it is not clear that the photo of Mr. Kerry is part of that tribute. The picture of the senator hangs among a set of photos devoted to the restoration of diplomatic relations between America and Vietnam in the 1990s.
It was apparently taken as Mr. Kerry took part in a delegation President Clinton sent to Hanoi in 1993.
Other photos nearby show visits during that period by former American officials who played key roles in the Vietnam War, including a Navy admiral who has since died, Elmo Zumwalt, and a defense secretary, Robert McNamara. A secretary of state during Mr. Clinton’s term, Warren Christopher, is also shown meeting Vietnamese officials.” [46]
In this connection, the webpage Mr. Corsi and another anti-Kerry veteran originally published on the Kerry museum photo contained the picture of Robert McNamara’s 1995 meeting with General Giap, who was misidentified as Mao Tse Tung[47](Photo #10).
KFG
On the KR thing, it was my intent to say that the KR did not exist as a fighting force in 1968. I should have been more clear. There seems to be some disagreement about when they actually fielded soldiers.
Kerry clearly stated that he was IN Cambodia under orders of Nixon (who wasnt president yet)delivering arms to the KM. He later had to back off both parts of his statement.
I’ve read through the Wikipedia page and found several problems, especially regarding Kerries release of military records.
I really do have some work I have to get done but if you wish to address specific points I’ll try to find time to reply.
But keep this in mind. Many of the key allegations could be proven if Kerry released his FULL set of military records. He wont do it.
So HANK and HECK, lets talk about Kerry and the release of his military records:
During the campaign, SBVT criticized Kerry for not signing a Standard Form 180 authorizing general public access to his Navy personnel records. [73]
Kerry responded that the documents were posted on his website. [74]
The conservative organization Judicial Watch filed a request with the Navy under the Freedom of Information Act.
The Navy provided Judicial Watch with Kerry’s service records, including those concerning the medals he received, while withholding his personal records that were exempt from disclosure under the law (but noting that Kerry’s website included documents subject to the exemption). [75]
On May 20, 2005, Kerry did sign the SF-180 form [76]; the Navy released the documents, which largely duplicated what Kerry had released during the campaign. [77] [78]
SBVT members themselves refused to release documents. A journal by another of the Swift boat commanders and the relevant Navy records of some of the SBVT members involved in specific allegations have not been released.
The White House refused to release records detailing any Bush administration contacts with prominent individuals associated with SBVT.
The denied Freedom of Information Act request was filed on August 24 by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. [81]
Good enough for you guy? The only thing Kerry did not release were his personal journals, and the swiftboaters wouldnt release theirs either.
add (or disproven)
AND just in case you think I did some selective editing, here is the original link for you to read. I guess the links didnt transfer here as hot, so you have to click here to get to the footnote links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth
SO HECK, I guess I can expect your defense of all these lies later?
I’ll keep coming here to check your response.
Swiftboating…it makes ya proud to be an american. NOT!!!!
KFG
It’ll take me a minute but here’s where the Wick is not giving you all the details about the military records.
I am expecting refutation on ALL the lies Heck. Just like you demanded from me. Go ahead. We have time.
kfg
I asked for one, any one. What you’ve given me is a cut and past from the Wick which is full of peoples opinions.
I can’t find the reference so I’ll have to do this from memory. John Kerry has released his NAVY records. His complete MILITARY record is seperate and contains some key information that could prove or disprove many of the SV’s allegations. HE WONT RELEASE THEM.
Your precious Wickipedia does not mention this now does it.
“To use Wikipedia as an authoritative source for ANYTHING is infantile. You do realize that ANYone can go in there and say anything they want to dont you?”
Not exactly, Heck. Slanted, undocumented rants on controversial topics don’t last long, precisely BECAUSE anyone can write for them. Likewise, on technical subjects, experts usually weigh in, and get it right, as a matter of personal pride.
It’s usually on fairly obscure topics where you have to be really careful: sometimes political topics, but the swift boat fiasco was ANYTHING but obscure!
That said, I would say (1) Take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, but (2) look at the documentation. A well-sourced article speaks for itself.
CF, since Joe has most of us pegged as unreconstucted Bolsheviks, and you actually dared to utter the ‘C’ without spitting, I thus assigned you a relatively high ranking in our Secret Paramilitary Conspiracy to Overthrow Capitalism (Ow! I just gave it away, didn’t it?).
And while we are waiting for heck to click on all the little SOURCE links in the wikipedia stuff…
You might want to thank Ray McGovern.
http://thankyouraymcgovern.org/wordpress/
I’m just looking at wikipedia as rounding up all the credible sources out there into one place.
Dont believe wikipedia. Click on the source links of the ones you dont believe. Then if all the news sources and all the kings men are suspect?
Fox is your ONLY choice. No conspiracy theory THERE!
Heck you keep insisting that documentation exists of kerry’s supposed dishonerable discharge. You keep insisting we would know the truth if kerry would just produce the evidence.
heheh. Heck, he cant produce something that doesnt exist!
And do you really think that if it DID exist, someone, maybe the lying liars outed above, wouldnt have leaked it by now?
Hell, I’m surprised they havent forged one yet! I mean, who are you gonna believe? The swiftboaters, or those lyin’ eyes of yours!
Heck, I asked you to disprove the facts about swiftboaters and you said:
I can’t find the reference so I’ll have to do this from memory. John Kerry has released his NAVY records. His complete MILITARY record is seperate and contains some key information that could prove or disprove many of the SV’s allegations. HE WONT RELEASE THEM.
Your precious Wickipedia does not mention this now does it.”
Maybe wickipedia doesnt mention it because it is unverifiable hogwash.
Seriously heck, I understand about the time to look all this up. It is why I didnt even want to START with this yesterday, but you kept insisting.
Seriously again, can you explain to me the difference between his Navy records and his military records?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Swift_Vets_and_POWs_for_Truth
There is the link to the “disputed” parts of the wikipedia swiftboat article. Read the edits and disputes for yourself.
We cant get much more fair than that now can we?
Rage! Now you did it. I have my eye on you.
;)
My God, I’ve been transported back to 2003. I feel so young and enthusiastic . . . or not. Why are you people still debating the Kerry/Bush service record shtick? This has turned into a p***ing contest, and all I’m seeing is yellow snow. And I ain’t thirsty:-)
Walker, you are absolutely right.
I am sorry I took the bait but I was TIRED of heckler’s heckling. He wasnt gonna give up his little victory dance after we ignored him. It was time for a response. I know, it was like drinking out of a fire hose.
I was hoping the uninterest would just scroll on by…
Rage, indeed. I am the most RECONSTRUCTED communist sympathizer you’re likely to find in Kansas. Read Hardt and Negri’s “Empire” and you’ll see where I’m coming from.
Okay, let’s review.
Rumsfeld said soon after we invaded Iraq that he personally KNEW where the WMD’s were.
Here’s the transcript:
George Snuggleupagus: “And is it curious to you that given how much control U.S. and coalition forces now have in the country, they haven’t found any weapons of mass destruction?”
SEC. RUMSFELD: “Not at all. If you think — let me take that, both pieces — the area in the south and the west and the north that coalition forces control is substantial. It happens not to be the area where weapons of mass destruction were dispersed. We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat.”
*****
What is perfectly obvious, and this is why Ray McGovern asked his question, is why did Rummy say that since they clearly DIDN’T KNOW WHERE THEY WERE?
When the conservatives try to nail Clinton on Monica-gate, they talked a lot about “a pattern of lying.”
Rumsfilled says “we know where the WMD’s are.” Cheney says “there is no doubt that Saddam has WMD’s,” and Bush says they found “mobile weapons labs” even after the intelligence said they were NOT weapons labs.
It’s not just lying . . . it’s a PATTERN OF CONSISTENT LYING.
Rage, indeed. I am the most RECONSTRUCTED capitalist sympathizer you’re likely to find in Kansas. Read Daniel Yergin (Ph.D. – Cambridge University) Pulitzer Prize winning author of the book “The Commanding Heights” and you’ll see where I’m coming from.
If you don’t have time to read. That’s ok. You can watch a 6-hour documentary done by PBS on the subject matter of his book. Don’t worry! Bill Clinton is in the documentary talking about the SUCCESS of capitalism and global trade and how he believes in it. So there is no “right wing” agenda. It’s PBS man!
You will understand why leftist socialism and communism in the 20 century have lead to countless millions to die under horrific conditions and how even now, leftism leaves billions of people in extreme poverty and hopelessness.
If you have broadband, you can watch it all online. Or if you like to watch it on DVD, I can let you borrow them.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/story/index.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/hi/index.html
For informative indeed!
And, Joe, from about 400 AD to 1600 AD, it was just “natural and inevitable” that the great mass would be ruled by and economically controlled by the landowning aristocracy.
Funny how those who benefit can always justify it.
BTW, why is Rumsfeld “a good guy?” He looks like a lying SOB to me.
The thing about John Kerry is he went to Vietnam and put himself in harm’s way. Which is a lot more than can be said for chicken hawks Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. But they KNOW how to instigate and win wars. Right. And Colonel Sanders could have too, if somebody had put him in the White House.
Yes, heartlander, I agree: Kerry put himself – and his outsized ego – in harm’s way (corporeally ending at his discharge date; electorally during the 2004 presidential electoral campaign).
No matter how his narrative ends up today no one can take his service to the USA away from him – no one.
I know that Kerry put his military service front and center in his 2004 campaign and that doing so made him fair game in the eyes of many. The fact remains, however, that retroactively judging wartime behavior is harmful to America’s civil discourse, de facto.
One cannot judge wartime behavior retroactively – especially decorated behavior – without harming US civillity, and that’s just a fact of life in the USA.
That said, Kerry’s capitalization on his status as a Vietnam veteran, subsequent to 1975, is open to debate, imo.
What is NOT open to debate, however, is Kerry’s sacrifice in the name of his country – and the slander of which occurred in the US election of 2004.
Kerry may not have been the best candidate in that election, but surely the US will pay, and dearly, for the *way* he was not elected.
Heckler’s lusted-for slander of Ray McGovern is a prime example of HOW our American democracy will pay, the terms of which will surely include cheapened discourse at a minimum. Does anyone doubt that Karl Rove’s electoral tactics – given what happened in 2004 – will be chewed over bitterly and ad nauseaum from now until November, through 2006 and beyond, no matter the outcome?
4 months in Vietnam isn’t nothing compared to John McCain a Navy Pilot and POW for almost 6 years.
That build character. A good Republican character.
And let’s not forget Kerry’s involvement in Vietnam Veterans Against the War after he got back. While it may seem self-aggrandazing in hindsight, it was hardly the most politically safe, career-track position to take for an ambitious young man (hence his subsequent low profile until Dukakis tapped him for Lt. Governor in 1982).
***I just read Joe’s last comment and chuckled. Some wonderful logic there, Joe. I remember Jesse Jackson’s comment, “Suffering build character.” I prefer a variation on Nietzsche I recently read: “Whatever doesn’t kill you makes you stronger, or it can really mess you up.”
I wonder, how long does someone have to held be prisoner before they are regarded as having good character? If Kerry spent four months in the Hanoi Hilton, would that be enough?
Let’s nominate Terry Anderson for President! A Vietnam vet who served in the Marines, as a war correspondent (1969-70), a fearless AP reporter, who gave us the scoop from war-torn Lebanon, until he was ultimately taken hostage for 6 years.
A man of good character. Good Democratic character.
Gentlemen,I don’t read political books that often, but I usually prefer books to TV. I’ll try to check out both.
And Joe: Regarding the horrors of what you insist on calling “leftist liberalism” and associating with Soviet Capitalism, er, Communism, I would commend Jerry Voorhis’ “Confessions of a Congressman” to you.
To a large degree (though, as usual, not 100% — I’ll keep reminding you of that, for what good it’ll do!), that’s where I’M coming from!
Jew capitalism/democracy/globalism and jew bolshevism are two heads of the same monster, a monster in need of slaying!
Viva La Revolucion Blanco!!!
Rage. “Commanding Heights” is about the battle for ideas on how government should structure itself for economic purposes.
You cannot convience me to be a leftist or a socialist. I’m past that point, because I used to be one. When I was in high school I believed in leftist socalisim. Comunist Part USA, books, posters, the whole bit. I was into it.
But I learned. That’s all. I just grew out of being so niave and ignorant. I begin to discover the truth.
If you want my take on leftist socialism/communism, I’ll let you know what I feel that turned me around.
First of all, to believe in leftism is a product of low self-esteem, a general mistrust of all people, a submissive mentality of dependency, lost of ones individual creatity and supplanted with group think of “yes men”, growing anger and envy of people who are better off, wealthy, and successful.
You start making excuses for everything that goes wrong with your life. You start hating people who don’t “group think” with you. You start becoming depressed. It’s really all mental and it tears your spirit up, you almost become desperate.
That is why it was so easy for leftist socalist leaders to control their populations and they still do today. Because of the mental state of people who believe in the saviour of government or somebody else to solve their problems.
What changed for me is that for once in my teenage life I wanted to stop feeling so pessimetic and hopeless.
As a teenager you don’t really talk to your parents. Being all rebelious in all. But I talked to me father about this. My father has always been a happy spirit and optimitic person, and I used to be too as a child. I asked him why I was in the state of despair as I am. My father told me, because I don’t believe in myself, and if I start to believe in myself everything will be much better in my life. He also told me that the communist crap I was involved in and believed in doesn’t help.
At first I was a bit upset that my father attacked my political beliefs like that. But within a year, I did change.
I begin to stop reading leftist books and papers and hanging out with the leftist. I begin to expand my horizons in other subject matters, from aviation, garments, business, accounting, classic literature, history, and so on.
Eventually I saw the light. I learned that being an individual and being your own person is the best course of action you can take when dealing with life. I can handle anything that comes my way. I can take care of my self regardless of what ever happens. I’m optimitic, I have self-esteem, I have hope, and nothing can bring me down. I learned that leftist socialism is one of the worst course of action a person can believe in or be under the control of.
If you believe in leftist socialism. More power to you. It might work for you and I hope it does. It’s like an ADD drug for many people. At least its something they believe can help.
But it didn’t do anything positive for me. Asking me to revert back to believing in leftism is like asking a recovering alcoholic to have a drink. I’m never going to go back to that state of despair ever again. And I hope the billions of people who are under this depression of leftism can see their way out.
Capitalism . . . the opiate of the masses.
Just listen to Joe–”once I threw away the false god of socialism and turned to the true god of capitalism, I became a happy and independent person.”
Or maybe you were depressed because you accurately saw the unfair and unjust way resources are allocated in our society, how government, instead of benefitting the poor, benefits the rich.
But then when you shut your mind off and joined the “winners,” you felt a lot better.
Nevermind, that your still getting screwed just like the rest of us . . . you “think of yourself as a winner” and that has made all the difference.
It’s like Stephen Colbert–”the people don’t want to know what’s going on, and the media makes sure they don’t. Those were good days, as far as we knew . . . “
Opportunist leftist Joe? How about just a professional agent speaaking the TRUTH? You know – TRUTH – something Rumsoaked wouldn’t rrecognize if it cashed into him – which it did when the gent confonted him.
By the way, just where ARE those pesky WMDs? And how is Ahmed Chalabi doing running Iraq for us?
You don’t get it, Ben.
Bush and Cheney and Rumsfilled are “good guys.”
How do we know? Joe Williams tells us they are.
Ignore what they say and what they do. Those are just honest mistakes, if you think they’re mistakes, which Joe doesn’t . . .
Unfortunately for the Republicans, it’s not about Kerry, not about Gore, and not about Clinton anymore. It’s about Congress and this inept administration. Period!
I’ve always pointed mistake done by the Administration. Including the War on Iraq.
You guys still don’t get it. You use me as a poster child of the Republican Party and Bush just because I disagree with leftist socialism.
By the way Lefthook. The opiate of the masses was religion, not capitalism. Plus Marx advocated that Capitalism was needed to build countries infrustrature and then you could progress to socalism with the aspiration being Communism.
You leftist on here truly believe I’m in idiot because I believe that capitalism and market forces is a good thing for society and that I disagree with you.
So all you can do is mock and speak of Bush and the hidden truth that I don’t see because I’m blind. And the reason why I’m blind because I’m no longer a leftist.
Steve! It is about Congress. They make the laws and hold the purse strings. If they want to end the war in Iraq they can.
I’ll defend Rumsfeld because what I know about the guy. Cheney less so and Bush I will not defend. He is a poor ‘decider’.
When we have thread subject, such as this one, many of the prior post get skipped over, so people make assumptions about other people (such as me), that can be answered if they read any prior posts.
I’ll repost this.
I was watching CSPAN this morning on Washington Journal. They had an excellent reporter from USA Today who covers the intelligence and military issues.
He made a great point that I believe is a very accurate protrayal of this entire debate.
1. The CIA have been wrong on intelligence many times through out its history. The reason is, that they assess information and try to think forward and predict what will happen if certain conditions are happing. Basically they can only make educated guesses.
2. The CIA have done massive intelligence gathering in Iraq. They concluded that Saddam had a “high probability” of possessing biological, chemcial, and looking for nuclear weapons.
3. The Administration used that intelligence. But what they did is scratch out the words “high probability” and assumed and took the chance that Saddam did posses them.
4. The Administration did do some cherry picking, because they have been contemplating the removal of Saddam before 9/11, and the intelligence reports fit their agenda. Basically meaning that the Administration did not look at the intelligence reports about Iraq and said to themselves “we must do something about it.” as a reactionary stance. Rather they went to the intelligence community and asked “We don’t trust Saddam, send all the information you can about him.” They were proactive about it.
I just found it interesting. Come up with your own conclusions. If you can find some right wing conspriacy, let me know.
Thanks for the extended lecture, Joe. That tells me what happened in YOUR life. I particularly chuckled at your hectoring about individualism, as if liberals aren’t the most cantankerous proponents of it!
Silly me, but I took a liking to the comparatively modest program of American liberalism. I’m a realist. I see top-down communism as a unworkable solution. In the Soviet Union, it quickly dissolved into a corrupt class society: You had the impoverished masses, the relatively affluent party members, and, finally, the wealthy elite.
Modern America is looking more like this every day.
Socialism is, of course, a somewhat different thing, but it seems such subtle distinctions are lost on you. I’m not at all surprised were a CP member. Let it suffice to say that I DON’T particularly favor government controlling the “means of production,” though I’ve seen plenty o’ examples of capitalism’s “inner rottenness.” I DO happen to favor single-payer healthcare (for example), and government intervention in the economy is a non-issue (you can’t be a Republican and claim, with a straight face, to oppose it).
I believe in Social Security & Medicare. I believe in FAA, FEMA and OSHA. I believe in restaurant inspections. I believe it’s yogurt, but I refuse to believe it’s not butter!
I also find it amusing that you recommended both a book and TV series to me, but flat-out refused to read a book I recommended.
P.S. “By the way Lefthook. The opiate of the masses was religion, not capitalism.”
Joe, that was exactly his point! Duh!
No, you’re not an idiot, Joe. By all means, continue with the sermon, Pastor Williams!
Joe,
I knew there was a reason I found you intriguing. I took the same political journey as you only in reverse! I was a Ronald Reagan Republican once upon a long time ago.
Maybe that is why I find deep down, a commonality with you. But our mirror journies are where that commonality ends.
I was trying to figure a way to say this before that would not sound terribly rude or condescending. I think Rage just helped me.
Joe the world is not black and white. Mostly it is shades of gray. Anything that is not 99 44/100% pure unadulerated conservative capitalism is NOT by default Communism. But your rigidity in feeling so is deeper I think an indication of an openly closed mind.
By that I mean you seem to tend to the extreme. You began your journey in one very extreme place and then switched to the polar opposite. And you seem not terribly willing to see anything not part of your current extremity as anything less than a threat. I cite here your source of a Defense Dpartment web site for your war information. This speaks of your wanting only information that agrees with you.
Joe you are too bright a guy to have so narrow a view.
I listen to Rush and Hannity. Have YOU seen Fahrenheit 911?
Yeah! I’ve seen Farhrenheit 911, and thought it was a botch attempt to be a good documentary. Michael Moore’s prior stuff was great. “Roger and Me”, “Bowling for Columbine” was some good stuff. But he went off scew with F-911.
Christopher Hitchens take on Michael Moore is much more interesting.http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/
————————-
Look! I’m not advocating for a free for all chaotic arrangments of extreme capitalism. Rules and regulations must be in place. Government is needed to keep law and order, to protect, and to help those who cannot help themselves.
The USA is a socialist country, but it is not on the left end of that spectrum. Although I wish it to be less socalist than it is, I understand that there must be some form of it to allow the country to function correctly.
Government is good. I’m not against government. I am, however, against leftism. So I do know that there are shades of grey in the economic and political systems around the world, but too many times they have been to the extreme. That is where bad things happen.
It can be as simple as black and white, but too many people favor white and too many people favor black, that is why there are so many differences of opinions.
I use resources for information besides the DOD website, but just wanted to point out that it is an informative website itself. Do you honestly believe that the DOD website is full of Republican lies? I seriously doubt it.
Rumsfeld is no dictator or a person that is going to turn the USA into a Draconian state or into a Brave New World.
Yeah! I know he was part of the New American Century, and some of you think it is a secret orginization set up to imperialize the world, but that’s far from it. He is the last person you need to worry about if you think somebody in planning a conspriacy or trying to radicalize the USA political system.
You guys make Rumsfeld out like he is a villain, somebody that cannot be trusted, a person that would steal your grandmothers SS checks if he had the chance. Far from it. He is a competent and accomplish person.
I don’t support him because he is a conservative or part of the Republican Administration. Again! I support him because what I’ve read and know about him as a person, I know he is a good guy and has the best interest in mind for America and the people. He would actually make a fine President. And I’m not kidding.
But I know you guys don’t like him because Michael Moore tells you not to, and you don’t have too. But I’ll stand by him. I give credit where credit is due and he has earned it from me.
And J R. You listen to Hannity? I hope its because you take afternoon naps. That guy is such a bore. Rush is interesting and funny, but I don’t listen to Hannity.
NPR is on at that time and I rather listen to NPR. It’s great stuff.
As the old saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Good intentions are not of prime importance in a leadership position. The things that are important, IMHO, are 1) an acuity, an almost unerring sense for how realpolitik is played, 2) the intestinal fortitude to admit when one has made a mistake, and 3) the ability to adjust one’s game plan in light of the mistake and learn not to make that mistake, or a similar one, again.
This administration does not have a clue about the international game of world chess. One only has to look back over insurgencies in the 20th century to see that a small band of determined insurgents can occupy a huge force for upwards of a generation or two. The neocons like Wolfowitz, Perle, Rumsfeld, and all of the others did not even seriously consider the possibility of even a small insurgency that would entangle us in Iraq for a decade or more…proof enough for me that they don’t know how to “play” the game. In the face of an unexpected counterattack by an opponent, a chess master must re-evaluate his initial strategy, and in all likelihood change it, or at least change tactics, in the face of the new threat.
The greatest mistake here was that Saddam posed no immediate threat, just as Iran poses no immediate threat today. Even if they DID pose an immediate threat, it’s pretty clear that the best laid plans rarely work out as expected. The neocons have completely misread the cast and players on the world stage. Maybe it’s time to read an annotated synopsis describing the plot, the central characters, and the action so far.
Brian,As requested, your synopsis:http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=18164
Rage :-}},
VERY FUNNY and kinda scary at the same time. ;-)
Good one rage – and so true!
The interesting thing is the neocons are still trying to bash Ray instead of looking at the questions nhe asked. Never mind rumsfeld lied his a** off; kill the messenger.