Murtha: Swift-Boating Another Viet Nam Vet
 

Rovian attacks on Viet Nam veterans continue and Murtha is the new target. It was strategic for Bush 41 to declare Clinton a draft dodger, but Bush 43 (also a draft dodger) simply chooses the path of character assassination. I am greatly angered that those that served during wartime are being vilified for political purposes.

Truthout Link

I suppose this political hate speech is protected in some way, and I am not naive enough to believe this is a new invention for smearing opponents. I firmly believe that these sorts of machinations by either party do not serve our common good.

Does politics have to be a "nasty business?" There are very sharp minds here that I hope may have an alternative to our current "business as usual."

I have a question for the conservitives on this board, do you think it is fair to smear someones war record? Did Mc'Cain deserve it? Did Kerry deserve it? Does Murtha deserve it? Is it ok to lie about someone in order to win an election?

They are separate questions. If the medals were unfaily awarded, then yes it's ok to "smear" a war record, since the record is false.

At to if it's ok to lie about someone to win an election, I'm not so sure but it seems to be common practice from both parties in America, so I guess they find it ok.

So were Mc'Cain's Kerry's and Murtha's medals unfairly awarded? If the medals were unfairly awarded does it change the fact that they put their lives on the line for their country?

i love it.

some guy from Cybercast News Service questions a congressman's war record and the Washington Post runs an op/ed about the implications for all Republicans and/or Conservatives?

you can find people making all kinds of allegations about every public figure. making a big deal out of a specific instance just implies a particular political ax to grind.

i grow weary of these sort of articles... people only become indignant when the proponents of their own ideology are attacked, it has nothing to do civility or standards of decorum.

and i think it's time we put away the foolish notion that prior service guarantees authority on all defense/foreign policy issues.

I think anyone who didn't serve in a war zone has no right to criticize the courage of anyone who did, regardless of which party they are in (unless we're talking about someone being Pol Pot or something). I think this is a mistake on the part of the neo-cons - eventually, they can't fail but to alienate veterans who have served, if they keep attacking prominent veterans.

Beware the man who has no dirt, no past mistakes, no past transgressions for he will be the man most power hungry and evil.

Rovian? Swift Boat?

Let's just see what the vets have to say. This is a video i which Moran/Murtha was holding a moveone style "townhall" meeting. This vet pretty much tells Murtha and Moran to eat a cock. The look on Murthas face at the end tells it all

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004240.htm

hmmm an off-topic quibble about current troop moral, I'm sorry I wasted time downloading that. He doesn't tell them to "eat a cock" not even "pretty much." And I don't see how you were able to divine anything from Murtha's face which basically expressionless and distorted due to low video quality.

I think the big picture goal of what we're talking about here, the baseless and scurrilous accusations against veterans in politics, suits larger-picture goals of the Neo-Cons. Their goal seems to be to obfuscate the political process behind a shroud of emotional issues and to cause people to become frustrated with politics. They (the neo-cons) want a nasty mudslinging contest in elections. They want you to become apathetic and not pay attention to what they're doing. So fed up with political nastiness that you don't even feel like voting? That's a victory for the neo-cons who have a solid base of voters so scared of such pressing issues as boys kissing boys, the availability of automatic weaponry, and the omnipresence of the Ten Commandments in government buildings. The don't need a free thinker like you, why you might even change your mind!

Of course questioning the patriotism of someone like Max Cleland, who left both legs and an arm in Vietnam, is nothing for Rove in comparison to a faulty bit of evidence of GWBush's dereliction of duty making the evening news report. GWBush couldn't be bothered to show up for stateside duty with the "Champagne" division while John Kerry was running swift boat missions up the Mekong.

Imagine the utter shitfit there would have been if Clinton had questioned the patriotism of GHWBush or Bob Dole. It almost seems like a lost era today, substantive issues actually decided the outcome of elections rather than who can shout the loudest or make the most outrageous claims about their opponent.

i wonder somtimes how the folk who are attracted to the discourse of morality and righteousness that emenates like a foul brown haze from the right manage to square that discourse with the bottom-feeding sleaze machine that you see now attacking murtha--presumably for having the audacity to criticize the bushsquad and--more dangerous still--to imply by doing so that folk who have passed through the military are not necessarily of one mind.

perhaps the right thinks it better to distract with idiocy like this than to look at what might have prompted someone like murtha to come out against the bushwar--you know, stuff like this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1688730,00.html


on the other hand, with this you see the right continuing its campaign of rewriting the history of vietnam, wedging it into the old far right favorite trope, that of the "heroic and unified military" engaged in a "noble fight" that found itself "stabbed in the back" by evil dissent. this narrative is foundational to the contemporary right--and while conservative sleaze defenses of this ridiculous "interpretation" of vietnam are not surprising, given the status of the narrative they float, what is surprising is that anyone, anywhere, takes this seriously.

but apparently some do: ncb's post above ("let's see what the vets say" as opposed to what murtha says, therefore murtha is not a vet--blah blah blah) repeats this kind of "logic"---it must have some aesthetic appeal then to at least some elements of the lumpenconservative set...but what that appeal is---like i said---remains a mystery---and i am not sure that i would expect any distance or explanation from the right for this. but maybe i'm wrong about this last one--surprise me.

Kerry is a traitor, if I had my way I would have hung him surrounding any of his "dissent".

Murtha is just to me a moron, his actions were not only misguided and stupid, but like much of the left and their "dissent" dangerously mirrors providing aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war, with troops on the ground.

You people really don't get it, Osama and his ilk love you, just as the VC loved Hanoi Jane. Your actions are killing people, they are not helping the situation. For right or wrong vietnam happened, for right or wrong so Iraq happened; but your cut your nose to spite your face mentality, your cowardly words and actions do not help the situation. As if it is not bad enough that people want a full scale withdrawal, if it were to be achieved it would make thinks in the world, in Iraq, in America worse ten fold. All you do is embolden the enemy and give them a glimpse of a cowardly America with no spine, determination, or grit. You means are not justified by themselves, nor would they be by the end you seek.

You are the paper tiger.

At least Kerry had the balls to go and fight, unlike dubya, who hid out in the NG Kerry has the right to voice his dissent as does Murtha, they've seen war and what the results are to the people involved. They are very qualified to voice their views and disagreement on this situation, unlike dubya who isn't in my opinion qualified to lead a war when he didn't have the parts to go and fight one.

So let me get this straight, you're saying that anyone on the left who doesn't support the war, and voices their dissent is providing aid to the enemy? Seems to be the typical neo-con way of 'if you're not with us, you're against us', maybe someday the neo-cons will see that things aren't that easy.

Mojo apparently you prefer the narrative delivered to you by people who have never been to war... that's your right as wrongheaded as it may be. It's also the right of true American patriot heroes like John Kerry, John Murtha, and Jane Fonda to question the actions of THEIR country. If true American patriot heroes like Jane Fonda and John Kerry hadn't stepped up and told America what was actually going on in Vietnam we'd in all likelihood still be sending our young there to die. Ultimately of course what changed U.S. opinion over Vietnam was the switch to a random lottery draft system (1969 I think) that didn't just pull conscripts from minority and economically destitute social strata. Who was the paper tiger in that instance?

Mojo your belief that wars just occur "for right or wrong" is pretty disturbing. Decisions were made by real people at every step to escalate these conflicts (I recommend "Fog of War" if you haven't already seen it). It also takes real people, American patriot heroes, to end these conflicts.

Back button.

It's not the "If you are not with me you are against me at all". It's just that Liberals don't merely stop at not supporting the war, and their "dissent" (if that's what you want to call it), or a lot of it, isn't helping the situation, it is making things worse and some of it goes so far it is treasonous. It's baffling to me that Americans dislike Shrub sooo much they want to see us lose this conflict. As for underestimating my assesment of the situation and it's ease, I can live with that. Can you live with the fact that people like you and your whole mentality is wrong though?

Kerry an American hero? A proven and admitted purgerer, an admitted liar, who turned on his fellow country men is a hero?

Hanoi Jane and her spit in the face of the GI's mentality, providing aid and comfort to the enemy at a national and surreal level, is a hero?

I don't care for politicians or their agenda's/means/nor motives. I do care about the troops, my fellow country men who found themselves in a terribly fucked situation in Nam, and now so in Iraq. But I am not delusional and I realize that we are past the point of no return, you people are fighting for a moot point and ideal, there cannot be retreat from this, it would be so monumentally disasterous that I actually question your reasoning, and I guess this is me being a typical neo-con, your patriotism.

How is my "for right or wrong" mentality disturbing? It is amoral, and it only signifies that fact this is out of all of our hands, and again we are past the point of no return.

And not to be rude, but I don't know if you understand the paper tiger line. But the reasoning (and reality) of the statement is that if you bloody America's nose we cut and run, liberals in this country have done nothing but drive this home as a reality for all of our enemies.

from time to time you get a glimpse of the authoritarian aspects of conservativeland--like mojo, they really don't like folk who think differently than they do and apparently enjoy indulging in murder fantasies in connection with this.
to wit:

and, like mojo, the prefer to blame critique for the problems created by incompetence and duplicity from their own ranks (the case for war in iraq, the way it has been carried out, etc etc etc)
maybe there will sometime be nice camps in rural areas where the right can send the "traitors" they seem to dream of rounding up and eliminating.
and if this happens and anyone now without particular political committments were to say anything in protest, there would be space in these nice camps for them as well.

anyway, mojo's frothing posts give an indication of why the right wants to indulge in wholesale revisionism concerning vietnam and why they allow sleazoids like the swift boat crew to operate.
if they can convince folk that vietnam was not a war predictated on lies and run with the greatest incompetence with the result of decimation of vietnam and fundamental political problems n the states that have not and will not go away, then it becomes all the easier to make the same kind of surreal claims regarding iraq.
this is also an explanation for why the right sees no problem with the near-dictatorial notions of executive authority the bush squad has run with for the past few years.
they don't like dissent.
they dont like disagreement.
they really dont like democracy.
they like the word, but that's as far as it goes.
where the rest of the planet sees debacle, they see a reason to stand firm, question nothing, go along with whichever republican is in power. so long as it is a republican.
it is kind of sad and kind of laughable at the same time.

Well whether you like the truth or not it takes bravery, of heroic proportions, to speak that truth to power as John Kerry, Jane Fonda, and now John Murtha have done. It is the cowardly position to sit back and slander the records of people who have served and spoken as true American patriot heroes.

The point about escalation is that there in no clean slate where our past actions are not relevant. You can't build a palace on a pile of shit.

No one in Iraq "bloodied our nose" prior to 2003 hence your confusion over the paper tiger claims. Murtha has not suggested that we "cut and run" as Bush likes to straw-man characterize. He's simply saying that our current position is not sustainable (see Roachboy's post above). We have a choice of full-blown colonialism or of ceding our power to the Iraqi people.

It's disgusting to me that people like Murtha, Powell, and Shinseki who actually learned the lessons of Vietnam first hand have been so thoroughly shunned by the chickenhawks in power.

mojo posts like this make you sound like a raving lunatic

I don't get it. People here seem to think that I am not ok with people dissenting, that I am some raving lunatic after a one Dubya world order. I don't care that people don't agree with the war, I don't care if you dissent. All I'm saying is a lot of what I hear isn't dissent, it is treasonous.

Sorry for calling a spade a spade i ny book.

Mojo, perhaps it would help us understand your perspective, if you specifically cite our comments here that you view as treasonous and your reasons for thinking so.

It isn't so much specific comments here or anywhere. As far as all that goes, not to many are so brash as to say anything that could be directly equated as treason. But that's not to say the mental, the rational, the sentiments do not equate as such. People everywhere hate Bush so much they want us to fail in Iraq, they would be vindicated by it. I hate the cut and run mentality, I hate people politicking with the lives of soldiers, making demands that serve no realistic goal except to be partisan. It then pisses me off when said demands would only further impede war efforts, demoralize the troops further, and most importantly play directly into the enemies hands.

For me it doesn't matter anymore that you don't like Bush, that you don't agree with the Iraqi invasion or our continued presence there. People need to realize, that there words and actions have become irrelevant to any means of achieving their goals, doesn't mean there might not be merit to them or that they shouldn't have the right to say them; it's like this things in life are the way they are in cases, sometimes it's all good sometimes it sucks, but there comes a point when you have to pony up and realize that you cannot change the way things are, and it would then become prudent to realize that maybe just maybe your words are doing more harm then good.

Does that make any sense?

Mojo, I greatly appreciate the sincerity of your response. Allow me some time to give it the consideration it deserves.

Back it up. I mean it. Gimme your sources, or it's pointless to pay attention to you. How can dissent of a war make a situation worse? Going to war in the first place is what made the situation worse. Not giving the troops the numbers or equipment they needed to do the job they should not have been doing in the first place, made the situation worse.


Circular arguments like the one you put forward are nothing more than Rovian bullshit. "We're going to war. Those who are with us are patriots. Those who disagree with us are not only traitors, but they're making the war, that we started in the first place, worse." The neocons have managed to scare the crap out of the people enough to get the people to go along with their bullshit war against someone who didn't do anything to us, but I think that you're going to find it harder and harder to justify the actions of your party with fear as time goes on and people start waking up to the fact that, hey, we're still just as vulnerable as we used to be, only now we've wasted a lot of effort by going after the wrong guy.

It's baffling to me that you think that. Sure some probably feel that way. Protesting the war and wanting us to withdraw does not mean we want to see our soldiers defeated on the battlefield. It's baffling to me that you think wanting the soldiers to stay alive shows a lack of support for the soldiers. It's baffling to me that you think this war is winnable. It's baffling to me that you don't realize we lost this war before we fired the first shot.


By the way, has anyone noticed that all those terror alerts (condition ORANGE! DUCT TAPE YOUR HOUSES!) that seemed to be issued every 3 minutes BEFORE the election, haven't been issued SINCE the election? Gosh, either that means the terrorists decided that November was their cutoff date for threatening us, or, far more obviously, that the terror alert level crap was just another example of how Bush and his warhawks use fear to bring the people in line.

Frankly, I don't think we need an administration who thinks Orwell's 1984 is an instruction manual.

I rarely post in politics due to the fact that I have neither the time nor the inclination to get involved in some volley of political posturing that ends up going nowhere in the long run. However, every now and then something compels me to respond.

comments like this:

baffle me. What does Osama have to do with the war in Iraq?

We then read this:
When asked for specific comments that could be construed as treason, we get:
I don't even know how to respond to such nonsense. We're to believe that we're being treasonous, but you can't point to any comments that would qualify as treasonous? Huh? What, to you, is the difference between dissent and treason in this case?

Osama pertains a lot to Iraq seeing as to there is a significant Al Qaeda base coupled with the insurgency, thus in the context of this conversation, Osama has everything to do with Iraq.

If you read the above section of the quote you selectively quoted, you would read how I wrote that I know people on the defeatist/Anti Bush crowd I am talking about don't straight up say anything overtly treasonous, because they are politicking and want to come off like they completely support the troops when in fact they don't. It's the mentality and your ideal "ends" that are the primary problem.

Let's get something straight here. The insurgency is there BECAUSE we invaded Iraq. So once again you give us a circular argument. You try to justify the war by stating a condition that arose because of the war. Sorry, try again.



and if you read above the selection of the quote you are trying to justify you'll see this little gem:

Now, this indicates that either you are trying to worm your way out of a hole you dug for yourself, or you failed grammar.

You either DID accuse us of being treasonous, for some reason thinking we wouldn't call you on it, and then when we DID call you on it, you tried to wiggle out of the trap you'd set for yourself.

Either that OR you are unaware that a paragraph is supposed to contain a single subject theme. If you talk about "people here" in your paragraph, and then fail to specify "people in places other than here" in later sentences in that same paragraph, then you are, whether you are good enough with grammar to realize it or not, talking about "people here" throughout the entire paragraph.

Now, I've read your posts before and you don't seem to have any glaring issues with grammar. So how do you explain what you said? I'll give you a hint - the people here are a bit better informed than the average American, so using the old republican trick of pretending you never said it now that you're caught will not work.

the President isn't qualified to run a war because he joined the guard and never saw combat? and yet, many of those who make this point (and i have heard a number of permutations of this same argument) want people to take their own opinions on the war seriously... though they wouldn't dream of putting themselves into military service.

disingenuous at best.

I can only assume that by this statement you include past republican campaigns in which candidates such as Clinton were bashed for not having military service in their background. See, this is where the republicans don't get it. They want to set the ground rules (not having had military service is bad) but then they want to change them whenever it suits them (Bush skipped out on duty!)

Trouble is, if you have as a major point in entire campaigns that not having military experience means a poor leader, then you have to expect it to bite you in the butt when you back a guy without military experience.

And that Al Qaeda base existed before the war or as a result of it?

As far as selectively quoting, I did so out of a desire to not flood my post with a recitation of every post I pulled these comments from. Regardless, I did not alter your words, which, I quote again:

And this as well (I'll even highlight it):

so, yes, you did call it straight up treason. Twice you used the phrase "...it is treasonous." How is it treasonous? And I'm still curious to know what you believe to be the difference between dissent and treason in this case. Also, how is a mentality treasonous?

I ask these questions because it seems to be a favorite tactic of the war supporters to quell dissent by calling it treason. I'm guessing the hope is that those of us who question the motives, rationale, and execution of this debacle will somehow so fear the connotation of treason that we will shut up and go away. This will not happen. In fact, we will become even more bold and demand that those who call our words treason either back their claims up with strong evidence or cease using such empty vitriol. We will then demand an accounting of why we entered this war in the first place. THAT, I'm guessing, is the real reason why so many have resorted to the treason argument: to obfuscate the real debate.

To this end, I'm challenging you to back that claim up or retract it because frankly, many of us are growing a bit weary of such an empty claim.

"they do it too!" is a very ordinary defense.

Agreed. It's one perfected by the republicans in fact. My defense wasn't "they did it too." In fact, I didn't even mount a defense. I pointed out something - and that something was "They set the stage by saying military service should be a prerequisite. I expect them to live up to their words."

In other words I expect you guys to be honest. Either conform with what you say your opponents have to conform to, or admit you were wrong and quit bringing it up whenever it suits you.

i agree that there should be a single standard. i do not think you do discussion a service by projecting your notions of a political party on individuals... when you say "you", you're either doing just that or making an erroneous assumption about my position.

If you're not a republican then I apologize. But it's pretty natural to assume you are, since every post I can think of that I've seen by you in this forum has been pretty much exactly what a republican would say.

How DO you identify yourself?

of course i'm a republican. but that's not even the point... i'm a conservative. being a republican is incidental. i could'nt care less about the party apart from how it serves as a vehicle for advancing my ideas/principles. i'm increasingly disappointed with the GOPs lack of fiscal restraint, i think i'll switch to the Libertarian party soon.

and you must recognize that the republican party has MILLIONS of members. there are at least representatives of every race, social background, sexual orientation, income strata etc. etc. if you paid attention to how the GOP base turned on the President when he nominated Harriet Miers for the vacant Supreme Court seat, it's quite obvious that republican thought is far from monolithic. to say that someone always sounds like a "republican" is meaningless.

as TFP's own garrulous and grandilloquent roachboy might say, such a worldview lacks nuance. you must not employ such presumptive hubris in your closed up Gore-world. what function this category of memes serve in the liberal mind, i do not know. painting people in broad brush strokes is xenophobic, bordering on the most vile racist roots of the rising neo-fascism.

just joking.

very plainly, i don't care about whether a person is a democrat or republican... especially as it relates to the role of military service in their politics.

This above statement in red is hereby awarded first prize in my "ignorance of war and the military" contest.

I recommend you buy, or check out from the library, "In Love and War" by James and Sybil Stockdale. Or pretty much ANY book written by someone who was a POW in Vietnam.

Then, try sending a message to any Vietnam POW and ask him his opinion of Kerry. I've met over thirty of them, and gotten quite an earful.

Oh, that's right. Last time I said something like this, you announced I was "bullshitting," and I don't REALLY know the people I say I do. Keep that up, and I might get motivated enough to prove it.

Especially if you're a betting man.

Oh, here's something that was circulating on the POW network in December. It's a cut-and-paste from the POW I know best:

A very astute observation. The entire Chinese political system used to run like this. Criticize one thing, as a cover for criticizing something else.

Wow. The irony meter just exploded. You paint all of us with a broad brush in order to protest being painted with a broad brush?

Yes, and he was right, wasn't he? The job of a journalist is to report the truth, even if it upsets the warmongers. Vietnam was lost, and blaming it on cronkite is about as disingenuous as it gets. Vietnam was lost because our fighting strategy was appallingly stupid. Take a hill, then go away, wait for the VC to take it back, then go take it again. Who the hell came up with that? Sure as hell it was lost before we even got into it.

And that one is awarded first prize in the "I don't like freedom of speech" contest. This idea that the public has to shut up when we're in a war, even if it's an unjust, immoral, illegal war that was justified with lies on top of lies, and even if thousands of American soldiers are dying and many thousands more are coming away maimed for life is ridiculous. By your logic, once someone lies, cheats, and steals us into a war, they've won 100%, and no one can ever say anything against it again. Sorry, we're not buying it.

Wouldn't that be refreshing.

And your quote - the guy's running around calling people "gooks," his quote is laced with profanity, and shows his shining ignorance to what was actually going on. Cronkite was reporting the facts. Others took those facts and actively tried to bring people like your friend home, because they realized that we shouldn't be over there, and it wasn't right to ask the young men in the military to sacrifice their lives, their limbs, and their health (look up agent orange if you want an idea of health problems vietnam vets are STILL going through today, and that's only a small part of the problem) for a war that we was none of our business, not our problem, and that we shouldn't have been in.

I say those who support bringing the troops home are far more supportive of the troops themselves than are the people who support sending them out to be killed and maimed for nothing.

Dissenting from a war one believes is unjust is the most patriotic thing a person can do. The people who fought to bring our troups home from VN and now from Iraq are heros, more so than some of our troups.

In the words of Albus Dumbledoor "It takes a great deal of curage to stand up to one's enemies but it takes a great deal more to stand up to one's friends".

It is in the constitution that if we question our government's actions we are to stand up to them and let them know it. And if they don't listen to what the people are saying then it is our duty to make them change.

Calling people who stand up for what they believe right cowards and treasonist is the weakest argument that I ever had and is nothing more than hate speach and rhetoric. It has no merit and i'd appreciate it if you'd stop making me out to be a terrorist who hates america.

bah. shakran, either you're not reading me carefully or i'm not expressing myself well enough... definitely not communicating well.

that is, most certainly, not true.

the trouble with war protestors is that no matter what their real motivations are... the stated/broadcasted/shouted motivation is always an unjust war. so you have the cowards, the bored, the simple, the uninformed, the impressionable and the true believers all shouting the same tired slogans.

dissent in this country rarely requires any personal investment. it takes no real risk of bodily harm, a small investment of time, no real financial hardship. the fact is that cowards and charlatans can easily blend in with the protest crowd precisely because (thankfully) the free-speech requires so little of the participants.

I think you could say the exact same things about most of the people who favor any given war.

it could certainly be said of some of them. but the "put-up-or-shut-up" scales will always tip in their favor in a free society.

waging war necessarily involves spending lots of money and putting people in danger. i feel blessed to say that protesting does neither.

Uh, the previous having been said, back on topic.

CNS's sources for the story are all people Murtha has defeated in elections. Wow. That's about as sleazy as it gets.

You know, I think the GOP actually has it right. Military service is a BAD thing. it hurt Kerry, it was used to smear Gore, it's being used to smear Murtha, it was used to smear McCain - one of their own.

On the other hand, Dan Quayle, Bill Clinton, and GWB all were elected to office.

The real message here? Don't serve. It won't do you any good, and if you do it out of love for your country, it will be turned into something to be used against you.

I would say most. Most of the people that supported and continue to support our current extracurricular activities support them only so much so as to not be willing to actually fight them. America is a nation of chicken hawks, one need look no further than the tfp to see this. How many of the pro-war members have actually made a single significant sacrifice for the war effort (yellow ribbons don't count)? I don't have the stats, but i would guess less than 20%.

It is exceedingly easy to sit on one's ass and scream for an invasion when one doesn't really have anything at stake beyond some vague notion of national pride or a false sense of security. It is also exceedingly irresponsible and cowardly to call for others to die for a cause when one is unwilling to do so oneself.

Protesting is another means to another end. It worked in the civil rights movement, where a war would certainly have failed miserably.

I find it pathetic that ANYONE would use a man's COMBAT history against him. It's bullshit and the GOP knows it is.

This man put his life on the line for us in a war that many didn't like and dodged the draft..... Limbaugh, W, O'Reilly, Cheney, and so on.

Yet, Gore, Murtha, McCain, Kerry and so on went and served and did what they believed was best. Gore could have easily not gone at all, being a Senator's grandson and son had to have perks. But he went didn't he?

I wonder how many on this board, who are so gung ho about Iraq are willing to enlist, or would have gone to VietNam.

Pathetic pieces of greedy, power hungry shit are the only ones that will question or bring up any man's service in combat to use against him. Noone knows what it is like until they are there and even then every man reacts differently, sees things differently and is affected differently.

I am deeply saddened the party that supposedly is soooooo military minded....... (which is a joke, in and of itself, because our retired GI's can't get prescription glasses, can't get dental and have a hard time getting prescriptions filled, even though our government promised those services to them when they were in)....... yet will attack decorated combat veterans for their own political and power gains.

Fucking pathetic pieces of shit that don't deserve the office of dog catcher.

Very easy, just look how many of these pro-war supporters fight over tax cuts.

Tax cuts in time of war.... Jesus Fucking Christ.... how marvellously sacrificial..... hypocrites. You cry about how people protest the war, but you aren't willing to sacrifice your fucking tax cuts?????? ASSWIPES.

:thumbsup:

We have the right to protest, and protesting is a way to keep government in check.

I would rather protest and pay my taxes knowing the soldiers are getting money they need for armor and the best protection possible..... than sit on my fucking greedy ass and worry how big my tax cut will be (like some here do).

You make the sacrifice of putting your life on the line for the US whether it is a righteous war or not..... you deserve the best our government can give you. But those who want tax cuts, obviously don't feel they need to sacrifice or pay for your sacrifices. What hypocrites.

A lot can be said about a country in how they treat their military and veterans. And this country's leadership in doing so FUCKING SUCKS.

Hmmm. Is it okay if I send this quote, along with your e-mail address, to this site?

Grunt.com

Here are a few samples. To be fair, in other threads, there were people who support Murtha, but by my count, quotes like the following were present in MUCH larger numbers.

Wow. You went to a site, GRUNT.COM, which is a a site for military people (many retired) and you found many of them suppoprt the war and disregard Murtha. There is no flash on the road to Damascus there, it's pretty expected.

Rather than playing the tired game of offering up sites with a decided ideology, why don't you tell us how YOU feel about the swift boating of Murtha's war record? Is it worth it because you disagree with him?

Where did I say that you or anyone cannot attack a man for his PRESENT VIEWS??????????

I talked about his military service and being attacked for such.

People can and should speak out against a public official when they disagree with his stances. That is our right and a duty to keep government in check. (Which is not in use much right now as people are so hateful they will back their party's views no matter how ignorant or fake, or corrupt.)

But I still maintain to attack his service when, he put his life on the line and defended us honorably enough to be decorated.

(BTW where were Limbaugh, and Cheney and W and O'Reilly and Rove and other prominent leaders of the Draft Dodging party that attacks decorated war heroes' military records, maybe you can refresh my memory? OOOOO yeah they were DODGING THE DRAFT, REFUSING TO FIGHT IN WAR FOR OUR NATION!!!!!!!!!!) How dare those pieces of shit rip a decorated war veterans military record...... FUCKING HYPOCRITES.

And please by all means post this in Grunt.com..... I dare ya.

http://www.uiowa.edu/~policult/asset.../KentState.jpg

Bull. Shit.

BTW, I like the way you "conviently" snipped the begiining of that post to get what you wanted out of it to try to use against me.

I thought you were better than some of the more radical rights on here. I thought you would at least show ALL the post. But instead you, sunk to a level where you only wanted to attack and not answer any of the charges.

Here's the rest of the post you conviently snipped:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

more people have died from eating tainted airline peanuts than from protesting. that you consider this a relevant rebuttal speaks volumes about your perspective in life.

Irate,

I like and respect you, but he had a good point. YOU said

and he was simply showing that yes, there are deaths and danger. To treat it the way you did with the above quote and laughing emotes is sad and disrespectful to the people who did lose their lives at Kent.

And you are full of shit about the deaths and danger originating from protesting..... read your history, see what union busters (some government sponsered) even into the 50's used to do to some of the guys as they protested for their right to form.

I'm not saying there is in anyway shape or form the same danger or death in protesting as in war. I am simply saying that, yes there is danger and death. And Shakran was pointing that out also.

Actually I'd kinda like to see you back that one up, especially if you put it on a global perspective. Because i think you're full of crap about it.

I've noticed your arguments are getting weaker and weaker. I realize that you're on the losing end of this one, and that there really IS no defense for what the president that you support has done, but really, these techniques you're resorting to - laughing and deriding valid points made by others - makes you look pretty foolish.

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sdc/ps58d.jpg
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/13/mex...as/coffins.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/tcartz/monkonfire.jpg
http://www.msu.edu/course/iss/325/stein/obit-loan_1.jpg
http://qc.indymedia.org/uploads/2004...145.jpgmid.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ianasquare.jpg

In an American context, post Kent-State? On idea on how many have died? I mean I know Bush has been having mass executions of dissenters while suffocating babies with copies of the Bill Of Rights which he personally defecated on, but I can't recall protesting in freedom and libertly loving America being as dangerous as say communist anywhere or somewhere not here.

But good point poppin jay and Pan, however I think if you stick to a strictly American perspective, things are not that bad.

Poppinjay what does the execution of a communist commando who just killed children, have to do with protesting being dangerous? Perhaps you don't know the history of all those photos.

Also I think you are not stupid enough to assume that irrate meant anything past the United States where protesting is more a fashion statement than anything else.

A fashion statement....

Alrighty. :rolleyes:

Back on topic, so I can assume by the lack of reply on the swift boating of Murtha that it's fine and dandy to smear vets for political gain, as long as it's "the other guy".

The electoral college must be on break, nobody has class.

And you can relate because you find being prowar just as fashionable?

In an american context, post september 2001, any idea how many american civilians have been killed by terrorists on u.s. soil?

I think if you stick to a strictly american perspective things aren't that bad.

So standing up for what you believe in, even when it is not popular, and you run the risk of being called a traitor, treasonist, and unpatriotic is a fashion statement? I guess we have different tastes in fashion. Reversing your argumentrunning around with a yellow ribben and shouting out praise to Bush and troups could also be considered a fashion statement... except in this case it is a more popular fashion.....

I take it that you just did a google image search for those photos then since you ignored the first part and don't know the history behind them.

"protest is a fashion statement" is as deep an explanation for dissent as saying that people join the military because they like boys in uniform.

who knows, maybe both are true in some cases.

but hey, why worry about actually thinking about what you write since we can always bypass such expenditures of effort and revert to the low-effort, low-thought plane of stereotyping (it's great to have the lumpenconservatives around, lest you forget the centrality of stereotypes to that benighted belief system)....

so let's see what these new shallow waters look like:
irate, dousing what amounts to a nonsequitor with self-righteousness like a cheap perfume, apparently would have us believe that

(1) everyone in the military puts their lives on the line every day.
(but much of the military is support/logistics/coordination...)

2 therefore being in the military represents some kind of "authentic" committment while political opposition does not.

anyone can play irate's facile game: to the notion that any nitwit can show up for a demo, one could juxtapose the equally facile argument that any fucktard can sign away their personal autonomy by joining the military. it just requires a signature on a contract....
neither says anything.
both are worthless.

(3) irate apparently sees some kind of opposition between political engagements and the image of matyrdom that he attributes to military service. a marytrdom that is pure image in that it encompasses everyone in the military, from front-line troops to folk who procure food, from helicopter mechanics to secretaries for generals, from line cooks to waiters in officers' clubs--all martyrs in the world outlined by irate above--so it follows that everything thought or done by any of this vast legion of martyrs is better--more considered, more "real"--than anything done by people who are not of the corps.
this claim operates as such a deep level of idiocy that there is really nothing more to be said about it.
it doesnt even describe the military, much less political opposition.
it says nothing--but it does get people riled up

i think the word for this kind of thing in messageboard land is a troll.

is it just me or are the arguments from the conservative side on this forum become more and more like ramblings from madmen and sounding like rhetoric? In every forum they seem to be getting more and more desperate and because of it they are throwing out hate rhetoric twoard other peoples views...

Not all posts, and there are still some good debaters.

But yes in the majority of threads, they get to a point where they no longer can defend because the evidence shows differently, their lies and "facts" have been called, and they get to the point where Limbaugh, O'Reilly and Coulter have no longer given them any way to response, so they become kids and attack personally, ignore the topic or try to change it to a tired old argument, and result into "we flag wavers.... you commy pinko treasonist terrorist sympathizers...."

This thread is a good example, when I stated my opinion on the treatment and nastiness regarding Murtha and the topic...... someone tried to snip my total post into what they wanted it to say, and had to rely on quotes from others instead of giving their own opinion.

The rebuttal proved more substantial then they or others ccould handle so they went for the "welll.....protest is cheap and easy and not dangerous" .... nice subject change.

Again they are proven otherwise.

OOOO well Post Kent State, Only in the US and on Sunny Days when it is under supervision.

It is becoming more obvious the Right just has no defense or true personal belief for the issues anymore. All they do is rely on others quotes, attacks and finally, just total non topic good for any criticism of Bush responses.

Yes one of the pictures isn't of a protest, it is of a Viet Cong agent being executed on the streets of Saigon by General Nguyen Ngoc Loan, South Vietnams police chief, the picture was taken by Eddie Adams. The victim is Nguyen Van Lam AKA Bay Lap. Is that enough of the story Ustwo or would you like more?

Also I hope you aren't referring to the self immolation as not being a form of protest, because clearly it was a protest by Buddhist Monks against Diems government and their religious persecution of Buddhists.

Damn good research :thumbsup:

Ustwo,

The first and last were of Tiananmen Square - I'm well aware of what happened there, I was working at an NPR affiliate when the killing started and switched to the network for coverage. It was very.... unpleasant.

The second was a protest regarding an earlier protest in which a massacre occured. the fifth was the same thing, different country.

The self immolation of the Buddhist Monk is about as notoriuos a protest that the world has ever seen.

The Bay Lap photo is also one of the most famous in the world, and it took place during a war in which the native population clearly wanted to be free of French, then American interference.

What else would you like to know? How does this pertain to the right wing's repeated attempts to smear vets instead of debating issues?

It doesn't, but it was a great attempt to control the threads direction and try to start a new debate and argument so that people don't pay attention to the main topic.

I'm still anxious to see someone defend attacking a decorated war veterans military record, while their party is led by draft dodgers.

Thanks Pan, it finally paid off to have Stanley Karnow's Vietnam: A History close by, what a great book that was, covers the entire history of the country.

Yes, but according to Pan, "Pathetic pieces of greedy, power hungry shit are the only ones that will question or bring up any man's service in combat to use against him." I even quoted it.


I'm going to need a definition of "swift boating." Is it not allowing a person you thought was a piece of shit while serving alongside him to exaggerate his record beyond recognition? (By the way, I looked up Kerry's bronze star award--it's signed by John Lehman, who wasn't SECNAV until over ten years after Kerry was out. The only way that could have happened is if Kerry managed to have it "edited" after he made some congressional connections.

Is it bringing up a 35-year-old DUI a week before the election, like Gore did to Cheney?


My opinion is that it's sad for a legitimate war hero to sell out. Randy Cunningham did it for bribes, and Murtha did it for political gain.

Both are reprehensible, but I think Murtha's actions are likely to get more of our troops killed.

Marv, your military experience is what, exactly?

You know precisely what "swift-boating" means, why pretend otherwise? Show us your research on Kerry's bronze and anything else you choose to defend your remarks. Make it mainstream evidence, or you will continue to embarrass yourself.

Your have joined those that choose to demean Murtha. Prove to me that he achieved "political gain" from his opinion regarding Iraq. Hillary continues to support the Iraq war for political gain. Show me how you reconcile one's war stance based upon their political affiliation and ambitions.

I have done my best to try to understand your point of view, but it appears to consist of nothing more than talking point jingoism. You have been a distraction to this topic long enough.

Shall we all move on and leave Marvelous Marv to the back button sewer where he belongs?

Coming from someone who claims to be a "journalist," or at least to be affiliated with it, your statement is downright appalling.

Wikipedia on the Tet Offensive

"Wait", you say. "Wikipedia is full of shit when it disagrees with me."

Another view

Spread out reply because the forum keeps crashing me
 

This sentence posted to make the reply upload.

I feel like Host
 

I wonder how Host used to pull this off.

Nice attempt to wrap yourself up in the constitution while plugging your ears to avoid logic. I'm sure glad you weren't a "journalist" after Pearl Harbor--we'd all be speaking Japanese now, after you reported that we didn't have a prayer of winning the war.


I notice you aren't interested in betting.

First of all, I'm sorry that the guy didn't refer to the people who tortured him as "underpriveleged Asian freedom fighters." And as you can see from the quotes above, your version does not equate with the reality. While I wholeheartedly agree that we shouldn't have been there, once we WERE there, you had to be an absolute idiot to ignore the facts and claim "all is lost." Not to mention the harm it did to POWs, not that Cronkite gave a shit.

Funny how on overwhelming majority of the service members I meet disagree with you. Yes, that's my personal experience, and I haven't seen any "polls." I doubt our media is anxious to take any, considering the result they're likely to get.

You forgot to add your e-mail address for all of the personal greetings you'll get.

It's just you.

Back Button

somehow I don't think it is... especially since others have said the same thing now.

First off, wanna try not posting 200 posts in a row? Learn how the quote= function works.

Had I been a journalist back then, I'd have reported on the facts. The japanese were obviously defeatable, since we defeated them. We got hit hard, but not hard enough to knock us out. FWIW, even though we knew it was coming and let it happen so we could get into the war, the Japanese DID attack us - so there WAS justification to go after them. You keep conveniently forgetting that Iraq (and Vietnam for that matter) did not attack us, and did not even pose a threat to us if they decided to attack us.

Comparing WWII and vietnam/iraq is apples and artichokes.





Don't be dense. How are we supposed to bet? You don't know my name. I don't know yours. How are you going to send me the money when I win?



I didn't refer to them as that either. Let's not forget, however, that WE were invading THEIR homeland. While I'd never condone torture, it's pretty understandable that these guys would be pissed off about it, don't you think? And since not every culture holds the same values that we do, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised when they do things like that to people who have royally pissed them off.


Bullshit. All was lost. That's why we lost. When you get right down to it, whether you and I support a war doesn't have anything to do with military operations. Me protesting a war is not going to cause our bombs to kill fewer people. We're talking about the US military, the best-trained fighting force on the planet, and possessor of the best killing technology on the planet, against a bunch of guys that, comparitively, are fighting with sticks. If we'd been serious about winning Vietnam, we'd have won vietnam.

In the first place, Cronkite did give a shit. In the second place, it's difficult to predict how people will react to a story. In the third place, sometimes you have to run with the truth EVEN IF bad things will happen as a result. We are not here to make everything happy and fluffy and nice. We are here to deliver the news, not disneyland.




Funny how an overwhelming majority of the service members I've met wish vietnam had never happened, wish they'd never been there, and are still pissed off at the government for forcing them to go there. Of course, a lot of those vets are in VA hospitals still suffering from debilitations they picked up in that fun little war, so maybe they're not as hoo-rah gung ho as the guys hoisting glasses at the VFW.


Well let's look at that quote. . .

So even if it is "full of shit" as you so nicely claim I will say, then it's full of shit on my side. It's widely seen, THOUGH PERHAPS INCORRECTLY.

Actually while Tet was a military victory for the US, it also showed that the other side had a damn near inexhaustible supply of men and women ready to replace the ones we killed.

And by the way, I won't say it's "full of shit" but I will say that responsible journalists / debaters don't use wiki as a primary source since it IS written by a bunch of random people who may or may not be qualified to report on what they're writing about. So you can use it if you want, but you take the risk of using inaccurate statements in your arguments.

And regarding your "It's just you" reply to Rekna, wrong again Ace. Pan's already posted agreement, and now I'm posting mine as well.

It's quite obvious that the only reason you want to know is to try to discredit me. However, I'll give you something of an answer anyway, although I choose not to be too specific. Posting too many personal details would be unwise, considering the number of flat-out nutcases I've observed lately.

I am a former miltary officer. Not a very high-ranking one, since I didn't make it a career.

However, my life and profession have put me in close contact with a great many past and present high-ranking officers. I am on a first-name basis with two retired SurfPacs (Commander-in-chief of Surface Forces in the Pacific). I play golf with their former chief-of-staff. I also have lunch a couple of times a month with a former head of the Sixth Fleet, who was also head of all NATO forces in the middle east. He has known every president since Truman. We have had many discussions regarding that area of the world, and terrorism. (He was on Saddam's death list, and occasionally still has Marines living in his house for security.)

I lived with a Navy SEAL who actually served in Vietnam, unlike so many people I meet who claim to have served there. He's now deceased.

I number among my friends at least ten pilots who served in Vietnam. One was a POW for six years there.

I have had many discussions with an admiral who is presently tasked with building two new teams, whose mission is to combat networks, not nations. Another invited my son to DC and got him a tour of Secret Service headquarters. He knows Bush, but Bush wasn't at the White House at the time, so my son didn't get to meet him. I have never met President Bush.

So admittedly, my own military credentials are unremarkable, but I feel comfortable saying I have heard a great deal more firsthand, authentic information than most people.

Now that that's over with (although I'm sure you're not satisfied), what are YOUR military credentials, and on what do you base your knowledge of things military?


Because it's a bullshit term.

Kerry's Bronze Star
Scroll down to the bottom. I recommend downloading the .pdf rather than trying to open it via the browser.

I would have linked to the bronze star on Kerry's site, but "for some reason" it's no longer on it. Oh, and my friend asked John Lehman if he remembered signing it, and he said "no." Said it could have been an autopen.

But if you'd like a more detailed discussion of it, here's a link:

Discussion of Kerry's Bronze Star

Now, do you intend to retract the remark about "embarrassing myself," or will you just continue to make uninformed, asshat attacks?

It's obvious to even a novice political observer that he was selected by the Democrats to make the statement because he had a good military record. If you don't think his party rewarded him, you are indeed naive. He also had the added benefit of getting his name in every newspaper in the country.


I have a great rejoinder in mind regarding your occupation, but I'll let your immature remark stand all by itself.

Make sure you post the WHOLE post and not just what you want.

My e-mail addy is very open all you have to do is go ot my profile.

So if you served and you know all these people, then you should be outraged at the attacks for political gain on these war heroes' decorations and service.

You point to others military experience as though they have no right to talk because they know not of what they say..... That is what you convey.

And yet it is ok for DRAFT DODGERS to attack men who did serve?????

That gives me reason to doubt any of your credentials as being true.

I DID serve in the Navy, my dad's brother was a lifer in the AF and served in Vietnam plus was one of the chosen as backup for the Iran Embassy rescue.

One of my dad's sister's husband was one of the best AF fighter pilots in Vietnam, until he snapped and shot an innocent village. He retired and let us just state that he lived in the Middle east for sometime as a government representative. Later he lived in Oceana and taught as a civilian.

His 2 sons are both well trained fighter pilots and are among the best.

My best friend's father was Marine Recon during Nam.

2 of my father's closest friends were Marines who served in Nam and I have heard many of their stories as far back as I remember. NOONE was a saint in Vietnam.

My mother's father was a highly decorated Army WW2 veteran who served under Patton.

I have many contacts in the military from family, friends, my service time in and my profession.

THOSE are my credentials to speak out.

Like I said, you want to take on Murtha for his beliefs now, that's cool...... but to attack his military record is fucking bullshit and disrespectful to any man who served.

Why serve and get decorated if 20-30-40 years down the road, someone for political gain attacks your service and sacrifices you made for your country?????????

Especially by draft dodging fucks who now are so gung ho for war. You as a veteran should be offended by that.

Especially if you were so offended by what Murtha said and of the belief it hurt morale.

What I believe hurts morale far more is watching Fucking Draft DODGERS, who are fucking pieces of hypocrical shit, send people to war and attack war heroes while they did all they could to avoid going to war.

That is the true crime and topic here. Not someone who is posting here's credentials.

Do I agree with what Murtha said about Iraq? I don't know, to be honest I didn't pay attention, because I have my views and I don't need a politician to tell me how to believe.


Marv, you used to bring good debate but all isee in this thread is you attacking and being bitter..... yet not defending or refuting the attacks on Murtha's decorated military career.

It's bullshit, it's being done by power hungry pieces of shit and you know it.

If they truly believed in what they were doing now in Iraq, and they truly believed they were right..... then they would debate the issue and not have to attack a war heroe's record....... But they are, so what does that tell you????????

Yes touching that you lup that photo into your argument. Ununiformed commando murderers are now a symbol of a population yearing for freedom :rolleyes:

I do enjoy this as somehow an attempt to avoid debate, when the lefts solution isn't debate its defeat. I hope you boys keep it up, we have an election in a year.

And the debate of this thread is what? The swift boating of Murtha? Yes. yes it is, which you avoid like the plague.

what marv no medals? i'm sorry if you don't have medals you have no military credentials. and i'm not talking any of those medals you earned by lying and such. i'm talking real medals.. it is clear that you don't have enough military background to participate in this discussion.

Classic manuever by the neo cons, change the topic then accuse you of not staying focussed.

How else can they not have to debate the true issues?

So far we've had one threaten to cut up a post of mine and post it in another forum WITH MY E MAIL ADDY (and the mods said nothing about the threat), he then accuses those with no military background to not know anything about this issue. Yet, he offers no opinion whatsoever on the topic. Another rightie who offered no opinion on the topic but talked about how protesting was easy and without any danger to it. And now we're being told we're not focussed. Yet, again the one making accusations offers no opinion on the subject......

hmmmmmmmmm there seems to be a pattern there.

The number of neo-military supporters here is very impressive. It would be more convincing if support were expressed for someone besides Kerry or Murtha.

This whining from the left has been earsplitting ever since November of 2000. I think I've figured out a way to silence it, at least for a few blessed minutes.

I will be happy to post a picture of one of the admirals I know. I think with a little effort, I could get a screen capture of one of them being interviewed on Fox News.

Next to that screen capture, I will post a picture of myself with him, with the only editing being that I will obscure my face. I will be holding a sign saying "Hello Pan," or something similar if that phrase is not acceptable. I suppose we'll need to agree in advance on someone to be the judge of whether the sign was the result of editing.

Be advised that to do this, I will be calling in a favor, since, due to their past and present anti-terrorist activities, they are not anxious to have their pictures plastered all over the internet. They have families, too. They also travel a great deal, so it could conceivably take weeks to do.

If I go to all this trouble, I will expect one or more of the "patriots" who accuse me of lying to donate a substantial sum to the Republican Party. Not that I think the Republicans are that great; it's just that the Democrats are that BAD. I'm not interested in anything less than $1,000. If someone wants to go higher, I can figure out a way to raise the stakes.

Of course, several of you have made posts indicating such moral bankruptcy that I will need to be convinced you won't act, well, like I'd anticipate. Perhaps a reputable internet escrow company would be an answer, although I'm open to other suggestions.

Shakran has already chickened out. Any takers out there, or is it time you gave up on calling me a liar when you can't refute my position?

Oh, and I need someone to point out where I "swift-boated" Murtha. Hint: It's nowhere near all of the "Jane Fonda is a patriot" crap. It also has not escaped my notice that Elphaba had urgent business elsewhere once I posted Kerry's Bronze Star. I guess publicizing that, which I GOT FROM KERRY'S OWN WEBSITE before he thought better of posting it, was "swift boating," too, as well as, "embarrassing."

Bah.

Is this a politics discussion or recess in 3rd grade? If you can't discuss the topic seriously (largely due to the fact that you're wrong and the guy you're supporting is a corrupt incompetent) then why don't you recuse yourself from it and let those of us who want a DISCUSSION, and not asinine dares, discuss topics like adults.

Thanks.

Where to begin ....

1. Please back up your statement in which you claim that having no medals means you have no military credentials.

2. Please post a justification for Kerry having his Bronze Star certificate edited ten years or more after it was awarded.

3. Did you miss the medals awarded to the Swift Boaters and their supporters?

However, since the gist of what I'm seeing here (a la comments about Murtha) is that being awarded military medals means you can do no wrong, I'm sure Duke Cunningham would appreciate your help in paying his legal fees.

I believe I can field this one for Rekna

Sarcasm.

As was suggested in the campaign, he lost it or threw it away, and wanted it reissued. It takes paperwork to do that. Nothing was edited, it was redone.

Now, post justification for continuing to attack a guy who already lost, and who isn't even on the political radar screen right now.





Sarcasm


You could be sure of that if Rekna's post wasn't sarcasm. But since it was, and you missed it, this paragraph is invalid too.

Once again you're trying to distract from the original issue of this thread, and you're trying to distract from your own weak position. It's not going to work. Give it up. Debate for real, with real facts rather than petty kindergarten bullshit, or don't bother responding to posts, because we're just going to tear you up every time.

Heh...back button is my friend. :D

Anyone else notice a distinct lack of moderation on the Politics board lately? Is this on purpose? There are a couple threads going right now that would normally be shut down by now or at least had a few warnings issued.

I agree.

It's a shame to see a guy like Marv get swift-boated like this in a thread who's purpose is to complain about just that kind of thing.

I think that is the irony of it, marv is defending the position of swiftboating people. of course if we attack his military credentials he goes apeshit. maybe now he gets the point.

in addition Marv, I could care less who you know. Claiming that you are in the military therefore you have the right to critisize something more than others or defend something more than others is BS. We all have an equal right to express our opinions and the validity of someones opinion has nothing to do with who they know or who they are. No the validity of an opinion comes down to how one expresses it and defends it.

Actually, Rekna, I think the validity of an opinion comes down to the fact that as Americans, we ALL have the right to have one and even EXPRESS one whenever or however we see fit. It has nothing to do with military service. It has nothing to do with who we know or even if we express it in a moronic fashion. We have the right to, period.


In reading the posts of some of our members, I find it beyond ironic that people who claim to believe in the American way are now using rubrics of sorts to determine whether or not another American deserves to speak up.

There is no honor in saying that someone has the right to question their government while simultaneously calling them anti-American, treasonous, or whatever the Coulter-ism of the moment is.

Being an American does not entail expressing a desire to hang someone who disagrees with you. It entails defending their right to disagree with you every step of the way. Dissent is the foundation of our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Those who seek to quell dissent through intimidation, fear, or force are the true enemies of our country.

This kind of jingoistic nationalism has no place in a free country.

I'm still waiting for the justification from a "military supporter" such as Marv to explain why it is okay to tear apart a man's military record and war medals from drafting dodging power fucks?

Like I said Marv, but you keep wanting to play this "you hate the military" card on me..... you can dislike a man for his politics and argue about them and call him full of shit for his stances..... However, why are you attacking his military record, the honor he showed while serving?

So fucking what if he wasn't an angel in Nam, show me 1 man who was.

Oh wait..... Bush, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Rove, Cheney...... they all fucking dodged didn't they??????????

So you have draft dodgers wanting to crucify a war hero's record.... not attack him for his stances now but dredge up all the Bullshit you can about his being in 'Nam.

That is fucking low and you know it. I don't see you defending these actions, instead you attack and attack on everything but the topic.

Tell me do you agree with the fact the draft dodging fucks are crucifying a war hero's record, NOT his political stances now?

I'm waiting.

Ooooo really DJ..... the man made threats against me. He has yet to take a stand as to what he believes about the topic.

The topic is "Murtha being attacked for his military record and NOT his political stances today."

All Marv has to do is say he agrees that it is ok or not.... instead he cuts my posts up and threatens to post them ALONG with my e-mail address on another forum.... :lol:

Yet, I'm the bad guy????? How do you figure that one out? All he had to do was give his opinion.... instead he threatens me????? :crazy:

BTW I'm just calling him on his shit..... much like he is calling everyone else out saying "if you don't have military experience you have no worthy opinion on this subject."

But the subject has nothing to do with a person's military experience, just their opinion if the Draft Dodging GOP leaders attacks on a military hero is fair and right or it's not.

Yet, he offers no opinion on that does he????????????? He just attacks and threatens.

You mean like a threat to cut a post to how you want it and then post it elsewhere while giving out a members e mail address and inferring I would get harrassing letters and threats??????????

BTW Marv I'm waiting for you to do it. I think they just passed laws against internet harrassment and threats no matter what form are still threats and taken seriously by lawyers looking to make money in lawsuits.

So if you have no intention of backing threats up against me..... don't threaten me.

I think I either worded my last post poorly or you missread it as you are saying much of the same stuff I was. Everyone gets an opininion and has a right to state it. I don't give prefrence to an opinion based upon who the person stating it knows and i'd give very little based on who they are. Instead I'll give prefrence to an opinion based on how well a person justifies it with sound logical arguments.