Leftwing to launch big new defamation campaign

[Rick]

Time will tell, and you may be right. It all depends on which candidate the voters see as the lesser of the evils. Is Obama a statist? Beyond question, yes. So was his predecessor, and he was reelected.

Only because the choice given the people was between RINO and a leftwinger. They chose the RINO. Reverse in 2008.

Did he create titanic debt? I think we can lay that one mostly to Congress, as they hold the purse strings, but sure, he supported that irresponsibility.

He played them like Yo Yo Ma plays the cello, and he signs the bills.

Will the "liberal media" help him out?

Quotes around liberal media?? Priceless.

Perhaps, but then there will be Fox, rant radio, and the internet on the other side.

Like comparing a dinosaur to an ant.

 

[PLC1]

Only because the choice given the people was between RINO and a leftwinger. They chose the RINO. Reverse in 2008.

And next time, it will be between a leftwinger and a .... what?

 

[Rick]

And next time, it will be between a leftwinger and a .... what?

I hope it will be the first conservative nominee since 1984. Hopefully republicans' memories extend back to 2008, when we saw what happened with a RINO ticket leader. Besides the lib media's bald-faced cheerleading for the leftwinger in that election, they also very successfully influenced the republican nominee: before the conventions, they endlessly shilled for John McCain, knowing that if he won the nomination, the worst they would do from their perspective is have another RINO president. Of course AFTER the nominations, they turned on McCain viciously. I would hope that republicans have learned and remember this, and also all the problems created by the 2000-2008 mega-RINO era, but experience has taught me to not expect much from the electorate.

 

[Gipper]

Actually, yes he had. The only reason the deficit was smaller then was that the recession had not yet hit. Once it did, his overspending (consented to by Congress) was just as big as Obama's.

Still, it took a swiftboating campaign for him to win a second term.



Regardless of who wins, there will be many who will have been duped.

See...now there is an example of that delusional thinking I have been talking about.

The Swift Boat Veterans spoke the truth about John Kerry. Their comments on Kerry were never proven wrong. Yet, some 'dupes' still continue to believe the lies presented by the lib MSM.

Again, how can we find common ground when one party believes lies?

And you are also wrong about the budget. Bush's 2009 budget was $3.1Trillion and BO's budget for 2012 is $3.88 Trillion. Bo's budget for 2011 was $3.55 Trillion. Can you do the math?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_United_States_federal_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

 

[TruthSeeker]

See...now there is an example of that delusional thinking I have been talking about.

The Swift Boat Veterans spoke the truth about John Kerry. Their comments on Kerry were never proven wrong. Yet, some 'dupes' still continue to believe the lies presented by the lib MSM.

Again, how can we find common ground when one party believes lies?

To answer your question, Gipper, we can't.

As for "swiftboating", the fact that several dozen Vietnam vets who served with Kerry came out and spoke the truth about Kerry's "exploits" in Vietnam, and dispelled the myths that Kerry had created about his "heroic" exploits, and the lies and contrived atrocities he told about his comrades-in-arms during his unspectacular time in Vietnam, is the definition of "swiftboating".

That definition would explain why the left has used "swiftboating" as a tool against any non-leftist candidate. The left can't handle the truth, can't deal with facts, and doesn't want the voters to know what's behind the curtain.

Kerry has always been a disgrace, both when he served in Vietnam and during his political career. But, considering the other disgraceful politicians that Massachusetts has produced, he fits the Massholes like a glove.

 

[PLC1]

Again, how can we find common ground when one party believes lies?

That is the common ground. Both parties believe lies.

 

[Rick]

To answer your question, Gipper, we can't.

As for "swiftboating", the fact that several dozen Vietnam vets who served with Kerry came out and spoke the truth about Kerry's "exploits" in Vietnam, and dispelled the myths that Kerry had created about his "heroic" exploits, and the lies and contrived atrocities he told about his comrades-in-arms during his unspectacular time in Vietnam, is the definition of "swiftboating".

That definition would explain why the left has used "swiftboating" as a tool against any non-leftist candidate. The left can't handle the truth, can't deal with facts, and doesn't want the voters to know what's behind the curtain.

Remember the issue about the "winter soldier hearings" held by kerry (before he became a member of congress? He got the unofficial "testimony" of lots of "soldiers" who said the US committed war crimes in vietnam. Then, the extremely rare newsperson who would investigate such claims instead of just publishing them, found out the testifiers were people who had not been in combat, or were in the army but never in vietnam, or were never even in the army.

The lib media did a "Palin" on the swiftboaters - going full-tilt in an investigatory mode, turning up inconsequential inconsistencies in their connections with Kerry, investigating their funding sources, etc.

 

[Gipper]

Remember the issue about the "winter soldier hearings" held by kerry (before he became a member of congress? He got the unofficial "testimony" of lots of "soldiers" who said the US committed war crimes in vietnam. Then, the extremely rare newsperson who would investigate such claims instead of just publishing them, found out the testifiers were people who had not been in combat, or were in the army but never in vietnam, or were never even in the army.

The lib media did a "Palin" on the swiftboaters - going full-tilt in an investigatory mode, turning up inconsequential inconsistencies in their connections with Kerry, investigating their funding sources, etc.

Yes. This kind of thing has gone on for a very long time by the lib media.

They consistently perform thorough investigative reporting on conservatives and Rs, but will not do the same on Ds and Libs. Then they release reports which are fraudulent and incomplete for the benefit of the Ds and libs...and the dupes dutifully believe their BS.

You would think NO one would fall for their lies and distortions after decades of this BS...but no.

 

[dougreese]

To answer your question, Gipper, we can't.

As for "swiftboating", the fact that several dozen Vietnam vets who served with Kerry came out and spoke the truth about Kerry's "exploits" in Vietnam, and dispelled the myths that Kerry had created about his "heroic" exploits, and the lies and contrived atrocities he told about his comrades-in-arms during his unspectacular time in Vietnam, is the definition of "swiftboating".

That definition would explain why the left has used "swiftboating" as a tool against any non-leftist candidate. The left can't handle the truth, can't deal with facts, and doesn't want the voters to know what's behind the curtain.

Kerry has always been a disgrace, both when he served in Vietnam and during his political career. But, considering the other disgraceful politicians that Massachusetts has produced, he fits the Massholes like a glove.

There was precisely one guy who served on Kerry's boat(s) who spoke out about him. Just one.

Of those who were actually in combat with Kerry -- on other boats, but to be sure, right there with Kerry in combat -- the number is less than a dozen . . . certainly not "several dozen".

And as for the other poster than claimed the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" have never been proven wrong -- of course they have -- many times over.

Doug Reese

 

[Gipper]

There was precisely one guy who served on Kerry's boat(s) who spoke out about him. Just one.

Of those who were actually in combat with Kerry -- on other boats, but to be sure, right there with Kerry in combat -- the number is less than a dozen . . . certainly not "several dozen".

And as for the other poster than claimed the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" have never been proven wrong -- of course they have -- many times over.

Doug Reese

Please cite your proof.

And, it does not matter that many of them did not serve on the same boat. This is a ridiculous left wing talking point.

 

[dougreese]

Please cite your proof.

And, it does not matter that many of them did not serve on the same boat. This is a ridiculous left wing talking point.

I never said it mattered. I was making the comment.

Being on the same boat isn't the be-all-and-end-all of a person being able to comment on Kerry's service. But it does say something that only one out of 11-12 guys who served on Kerry's boat spoke out against him. That guy's name is Steven Gardner.

There were several other guys on Kerry's boat in the course of the Silver Star and Bronze Star incidents who also didn't speak out against him -- but for him, actually. These were guys who didn't serve under Kerry, but with him -- like LtJg Peter Upton and LtJg Charles Gibson.

For the Silver Star incident -- 25 guys present, and none has spoken out against Kerry. None.

The Bronze Star (and 3rd PH) incident -- about 34 guys present, and about 4-5 had something negative to say about what happened.

The 1st PH -- 2 or 3 guys present (depending on who you believe), and one guy (who says he was there, but the others disagree that he was there) had something negative to say.

The 2nd PH -- 30+ guys present, and one guy had something negative to say.

Bottom Line -- Very few of the guys actually present for the incidents for which Kerry was in combat, and received an award, have anything negative to say about it.

So, while it includes none of the guys actually on Kerry's boat (Gardner was not present for any of those incidents), it includes many guys who were on other boats.

It seems to me that is Kerry was such a liar about what he did in combat, there would be dozens of guys coming forward -- especially after the Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" hired a private investigator to look up as many of these guys as possible, in an effort to smear Kerry.. . . . . . that effort failed miserably, by the way.

Doug Reese

 

[Rick]

I agree with Gipper, Mr. Reese. You are making lots of unsubstantiated claims - this guy said this, and that guy said that. Cite evidence from credible, reliable, qualified sources. As I remember the swift boat controversy, all the presumably exculpating "evidence" came from major lib media outlets, who were completely in Kerry's political camp, and for whom there was no reason to lend any credibility. The swift boat vets, on the othere hand, were "there". In fact, the whole swift boat controversy was basically the lib media versus the swift boat vets.

You need to put up or shut up.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Here are some links to counter "Doug Reese's" claims. So where are your links at, "Doug Reese"?

These links seem to call into question just about all of your assertions, Doug Reese. Let me see. Who should we believe? Vietnam vets who served with Kerry, or Doug Reese and his personal political agenda-driven, stale left wing talking points.

http://www.swiftvets.com/

http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php?topic=Ads

http://www.tosettherecordstraight.com/

http://www.regnery.com/regnery/040809_unfit.html


Here is a good explanation of what the "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" was all about. This is an excerpt from their website:

Senator John Kerry has made his 4-month combat tour in Vietnam the centerpiece of his bid for the Presidency. His campaign jets a handful of veterans around the country, and trots them out at public appearances to sing his praises. John Kerry wants us to believe that these men represent all those he calls his "band of brothers."

But most combat veterans who served with John Kerry in Vietnam see him in a very different light.

Swift Vets and POWs for Truth has been formed to counter the false "war crimes" charges John Kerry repeatedly made against Vietnam veterans who served in our units and elsewhere, and to accurately portray Kerry's brief tour in Vietnam as a junior grade Lieutenant. We speak from personal experience -- our group includes men who served beside Kerry in combat as well as his commanders. Though we come from different backgrounds and hold varying political opinions, we agree on one thing: John Kerry misrepresented his record and ours in Vietnam and therefore exhibits serious flaws in character and lacks the potential to lead.

We regret the need to do this. Most Swift boat veterans would like nothing better than to support one of our own for America's highest office, regardless of whether he was running as a Democrat or a Republican. However, Kerry's phony war crimes charges, his exaggerated claims about his own service in Vietnam, and his deliberate misrepresentation of the nature and effectiveness of Swift boat operations compel us to step forward.

For more than thirty years, most Vietnam veterans kept silent as we were maligned as misfits, drug addicts, and baby killers. Now that a key creator of that poisonous image is seeking the Presidency we have resolved to end our silence.

The time has come to set the record straight.

 

[dougreese]

Here are some links to counter "Doug Reese's" claims. So where are your links at, "Doug Reese"?

These links seem to call into question just about all of your assertions, Doug Reese. Let me see. Who should we believe? Vietnam vets who served with Kerry, or Doug Reese and his personal political agenda-driven, stale left wing talking points.

If serving with Kerry lends credibility to someone, then believe me, since I served with him.

My agenda is not "politically driven", nor are my talking points "left-wing".

I have followed this whole bash/trash-Kerry's service thing from the beginning, from the May 2004 Swift Boat Veterans for "truth" initial press conference (I was there), all through the election cycle and since then.

I am acutely aware of the smoke-and-mirror tactics of John O'Neill and the SBV"t". Toss enough nonsense out there and people will believe it -- or at least some of it.

So, while I will give you some links, I will also tell you some things I know first hand. And if you can find links that go counter to what I claim, please feel free to post them.

I was present for the incident that Kerry received a Silver Star for. Like everyone there, I didn't see all of what happened -- it was spread out over about 150+yards and took place over several minutes. Like all of those present that day, I know that the SBV"t" have nothing to say of substance about what Kerry did and/or didn't do regarding that morning, so enter the smoke and mirror tactics -- that, and relying on 35 year old memories.

Your links certainly do not "call into question just about all of my assertions". If they do call into question any of my assertions, please show me specifically which assertions.

While it can be difficult to prove a negative (such as showing that no one present for Kerry's Silver Star incident has spoken out against Kerry about it) , I will make my case point-by-point.

I have made specific claims -- I will repeat them, one-by-one, with links when possible. If you wish to call me on them, please do so with specific claims/links of your own. Posting a link to a book (I'm in that book, by the way) doesn't count. Please be specific.

Doug Reese

PS. Since this is off-topic to the original thread, if it is appropriate to begin a new one, please do so. Just let me know

 

[Rick]

Besides not offering any proof, looks like reese is going to duck the whole "winter soldier" issue.