Today on Blogcritics
Home » Matt Drudge: The Most Powerful Man in America

Matt Drudge: The Most Powerful Man in America

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

It’s a typical day for any office worker: come into work; get a cup of coffee; then check the Drudge Report before actually getting to work. One can be guaranteed to read a negative story about Democrats, an article against illegal immigrants, an article about Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, or the current celebrity punching bag of the day. Not every single story is true, but it doesn’t matter; it’s on the Drudge Report! Love or hate Matt Drudge and/or his website, he is the most powerful man in America. He has the ability to make any thought or agenda on his mind talked about by everybody. Popular newspapers, such as the Washington Post, often get ideas for their stories based on what’s on the Drudge Report.

Drudge’s job isn’t as easy and glamorous as one would think. In an interview with the Sunday Times in London, Drudge talked about how he works late, tracking down stories, searching dozens of news agencies, web-sites, newspapers, radio broadcasts, television channels and tip-offs in the hope that he will be the first to bag tomorrow’s headlines. “I was first to break the news about the death of Lady Diana,” he told the Sunday Times “The CNN team couldn’t get into make-up fast enough.” Mr. Druge works a very grueling schedule. “Yesterday I spent 13 hours in my hotel room looking for news. I’ve done seven hours already today and will do another seven tonight.” Matt Drudge, who often exposes the private lives of others, is very guarded about his private life. “I’m not very social. I live on an island in Miami, Florida, and I do my own shopping and pay my taxes,” he says. “And I’m not mean.”

One reason to love Matt Drudge is the fact that he symbolizes the American dream. After graduating #341 (out of 355) in his high school class, Drudge took such jobs as a cashier at 7-11, telemarketer for Time/Life Books, and manager at a McDonalds. Eventually, Drudge moved to Hollywood in 1989, where he would obtain a job in the gift shop at CBS studios. He soon worked his way up to manager and would be able to obtain inside information that founded his Drudge Report, which started as an email newsletter that was posted to the alt.showbiz.gossip Usenet forums. He eventually started to gain a following, even though it was only the early days of the Internet.

In 1996, the Drudge Report website debuted and he was on his way to earning millions. Even though he broke some minor political stories, Matt Drudge would eventually hit his big break on the morning of January 18, 1998, when he broke the Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal. Newsweek was originally going to break the story, but after editors declined, Drudge took over and would soon develop a system of journalism in which editors would become completely irrelevant.

Many would say that in Drudge’s world, fact checking has become irrelevant as well.  In 1997, Drudge smeared Clinton aide Sydney Blumenthal by citing false reports of domestic violence. He also spread stories about John Kerry’s affair with an intern, CNN’s Michael Ware heckling two Republican senators, and too many other false stories to mention.  So is this a good reason to dislike him?

Perhaps, before accusing Matt Drudge of unethical journalism practices, we should look at fallen news anchor Dan Rather and his poorly researched mess. Then, we can read the Los Angeles Times and their pathetic revelation of Arnold  Schwarzenegger’s past right before the California Recall Election in 2003. We can always go to the East Coast, look at the New York Times, and come up with two words: 1)Jayson 2)Blair.  It all becomes rather apparent that traditional journalism, itself, has turned into joke. Whether shilling for the left (Time, Newsweek, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Los Angeles Times, New York Times) or the right (Fox News), journalism is not the same it used to be. I miss the times one could read a newspaper or magazine that reports an event without a political bias. Matt Drudge is not to blame for the fall of modern day journalism. He is the one who picked up the pieces and ran with them.

Matt Drudge has destroyed traditional journalism and has given power to the blogger. Thanks to the man who was denounced as an idiot with a modem, we can all be critics, reporters, or comics. We don’t need an editor telling us what is right and what is wrong. We don’t need editors hand picking response letters that give an illusion that a certain article was good. Circulation for traditional print magazines and newspapers has been decreasing dramatically over the past couple years. Thank you, Matt Drudge, for a job well done!

Powered by

About Daryl D

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    Great article!

    Rarely does a day go by that I don’t visit the Drudge Report at least once, to catch up on the latest political and/or celebrity scandal.

    Let’s face it: Even leftists who hate Drudge’s politics visit his site frequently. The man is simply indispensable.

  • daryl d

    his site is harmless, as long as you realize that not everything he writes is true.

  • http://musical-guru.blogspot.com/ Michael J. West

    I’ll certainly take his website any day of the week over his godawful radio show….

  • duff

    i agree with daryl, the dems and rep are wrecking the country. It’s like the politicians are puppets of a dark puppet master. I love drudge though. At least his spin is my spin. Blogging is good for the country. It gives the average citizen a voice.

  • Alec

    Drudge is the apotheosis of the sad notion that opinions can be entirely fact-free and still be nourishing. I never check his site, but have listened to talk radio hosts who slavishly quote him.

    The amazing thing is how he prospers even though he does no original reporting. Even more amazing is how the dolts who think he is credible moan and whine about how the mainstream media is biased and somehow disconnect from the fact that Drudge’s “sources” is the same mainstream media that is supposedly so rotten.

    There is nothing unique or non-traditional about Drudge. He is simply an old style pamphleteer gussied up for the digital age.

    He is neither dangerous nor important because in the end his audience is limited to those who prefer the comfort of spin to the uncertainty of actual information.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    I’d hardly call him the most powerful man in America, but he certainly played a role in making blogs a significant factor in the news.

    But what’s with the incredibly silly hat?

    Dave

  • http://ari.typepad.com Steve Rhodes

    Matt Drudge is far from the most powerful person in the US. And he didn’t give power to bloggers. He actually refuses to be called a blogger.

    You neglect to mention that a lot of the info Drudge posted early on to usenet came from Harry Knowles.

    And a lot of people went to Drudge’s page at first because it was a useful collection of links. Then people were driven there by all the mainstream media attention.

    For far too long Drudge was often the main example given of online journalism in mainstream stories. And while the stories often had a critical tone, they rarely examined all the mistakes he makes (almost always without any corrections).

    This is just one example

    Blogs have changed that (which may be one reason he dislikes them so much and is far more likely to link to a story on a news website than a blog).

    His numbers are also vastly overinflated since his page does a frequent forced refresh.

    He is still stuck in the 90s netscape era. He hasn’t redesigned his page or embraced anything learned from web2.0.

  • daryl d

    LOL at that hat. But my cousin thinks he is the sexiest man she has ever seen and wants desperately to marry him.

  • J.J. Hunsecker

    Fox News is the only media outlet who shills for the right? You should do some research next time.

    The hat is an obvious throwback to reporters of the past and it covers his receding hairline.

  • daryl d

    I was hoping that Drudge would at least link to this article. I know he always links to positive articles about himself.

  • sandra

    “I was hoping that Drudge would at least link to this article”

    is that why you wrote the article in the first place? Just kidding (or am I)?……

  • Alec

    RE: The hat is an obvious throwback to reporters of the past and it covers his receding hairline.

    It reminds me of gossip peddler Walter Winchell, who made his bones revealing salacious celebrity secrets, and whose influence dropped precipitously after he hitched his wagon to Joe McCarthy’s media circus.

    Drudge also brings to mind the fictional newspaper columnist J.J. Hunsecker in the great film, “Sweet Smell of Success.”

  • daryl d

    Well, I was hoping he would. Having a link to the Drudge Report is an honor for any writer. But I wouldn’t waste an hour on this article soley for that purpose. Speakng of Drudge, has any blogcritics article ever been linked by Drudge? Our articles are always on the top of google’s search list for any topic we write about, so you’d think he would notice our work.

  • http://culturesalad.blogspot.com Ray Ellis

    Being linked to Drudge is an honor??? I’d liken it more to defamation of character.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Daryl D- You’ve got no legitimate basis for your repeated statements in this story that not everything Drudge says is true. That statement may be technically true, in that any news story may turn out to be different than it first looked.

    You cite the same Blumenthal false-start that everybody always cites. The reason it is always cited is because there are very few legitimate big dead ends like that on Drudge that you can cite after ten years.

    You also say essentially that he’s pursuing an ideological agenda, only telling the one side of the story. That’s just false as well. There are stories running all directions of viewpoint. The good old days that you seem to like so good were Walter Cronkite’s pinko news filter running the world. He just liked to pretend that he was neutral.

    In fact, Fox News and certainly Drudge are much more in fact fair and balanced than Cronkite or Rather. It’s just that left wing fools are so used to completely owning the country’s mental landscape assume that anyone who isn’t actively promoting their agenda is a right wing tool. As Colbert says with his little Daily Show display of unearned arrogance “Reality has a left wing bias.” Well, no it doesn’t.

    Also, Dan Rather for one example is really bad and dishonest – unlike Matt Drudge. He gets to wear that goddam National Guard story as a badge of dishonor for the rest of his miserable life, and it will be the first sentence of many obits when he dies – as well it should be. Drudge might now and again be accused of pushing a story without waiting for sufficient corroboration (and correcting it immediately and prominently when it didn’t pan out). Dan Rather willfully found patently bogus documentation that he had to have known was forged, then used it to try to sandbag W’s re-election. There’s being a little quick to jump the gun, and then there’s being a goddam liar trying to dishonestly throw an election from your anchor chair.

    And again with more bogus nonsense about how Drudge always links to positive articles on himself. He just as frequently links to negative articles about himself and his supposed evil influence.

    In short, Matt Drudge is an honest man busy doing God’s work. Thank heavens for Matt Drudge.

  • daryl d

    I thought this was a positive article, Al. But I agree with you about Dan Rather: read my piece on him from a couple weeks ago. But if you think Fox News is more fair and balanced than other outlets, you are being brainwashed.

  • daryl d

    Ray:

    Regardless if you like Drudge or not, he is the most powerful man on the Internet. Having a story linked by his website is a writer’s dream come true. Don’t tell me you would turn down the chance to have one of your Bruce Springsteen shilling pieces linked on The Drudge Report!

  • http://culturesalad.blogspot.com Ray Ellis

    You really should invest in a thesaurus, Daryl. There are other words that convey the same message as “shilling,” most of which would be more appropriate than your overuse of the word.

    Another thing you might want to do is chill on things about which you know absolutely nothing. To wit:
    You’ve nver seen a Springsteen article by me in these pages. Not that I would have minded it, but Glen Boyd especially (among others) writes about him eloquently enough that I have nothing worthwhile to add. In fact, the last time I reviewed Springsteen was when “Nebraska:” was released. And yeah, I praised it, much to the dismay of my hipper than thou punk/new wave readership.
    In your tiny little universe, I’ve no doubt that a link to Drudge is an event of orgasmic proportions. But a writer’s dream come true? That’s like being a guest on Jerry Springer in my book.

  • http://snurl. cornelius

    Someone said “the only ‘free press’ is the one you own” expresses my opinion on the North American media. The majority of voters like to be brain-washed by self-interest groups. People are too lazy to think for themselves and accept opinions of people that tell the scariest stories stories.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    LOL at that hat. But my cousin thinks he is the sexiest man she has ever seen and wants desperately to marry him.

    I think she may be disappointed – isn’t he gay?

    Dave

  • daryl d

    a GAY Republican – no way!!!

  • http://www.chucko33.blogspot.com charlie doherty

    “It all becomes rather apparent that traditional journalism, itself, has turned into joke. Whether shilling for the left (Time, Newsweek, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, Los Angeles Times, New York Times) or the right (Fox News), journalism is not the same it used to be.”

    Darryl, I liked your article until the above quote.

    First of all, I have to ask you if you read MediaMatters.org every day, or as often as you read the Drudge Report.

    If you did, you would not label ABC, the NYT and Newsweek as simply “left[y]” media organizations.

    Every now and then, Newsweek is guilty of Republican bias, whether it’s their reporters gushing for Mitt Romney, playing down or leaving incomplete Fred Thompson’s questionable actions as a Senator (shutting down an investigation before it could get close to charging fellow GOP Senators Sam Brownback and Don Rickles on campaign fundraising irregularities), etc.

    You forget, Newsweek still employs George Will.

    And the New York Times just did a hit piece on John Edwards that failed basic tenants of journalism (like proving your thesis: John Edwards used non-profit primarily to build bridge to ’08).

    And who could forget Judith Miller? She did more damage with her inaccurate reporting on Iraq than Jayson Blair ever could.

    And ABC? This is the organization that wouldn’t let Nightline air the names and faces of the Iraq war dead not so long ago, AND who effectively fired Bill Maher (talk about someone who ranks on both Dems and Republicans).

    And ABC’s Jake Tapper has been known to wonder “why in hell” Americans would elect Barack Obama (with a last name being “Hussein.”)

    So if you really consider yourself a media analyst, read Media Matters and other media watchdog sites and you will see the MSM media tilt is much more to the right and toward the Bush administration than it ever will be to the left.

    How else to explain why 41% of Americans STILL think Saddam’s Iraq had someone to do with 9/11, according to the latest Newsweek poll out this week?!

  • daryl d

    Thanks for your response, Charlie. It’s so refreshing to get a critical response to one of my articles that doesn’t have a personal attack in it.

    I cannot claim to be an expert media analyst and haven’t checked out the Media Matters site you mentioned, but perhaps I should.

    Traditionally, all the organizations I mentioned that shill for the left (shill has become a favorite word of mine for some reason or another) have been really liberal. In the past five years, though, I do believe they have become more balanced (save for the Los Angeles Times..a Communist rag). Well, at least they don’t use the slogan “fair and balanced” which Fox does and trust me, Fox is anything but fair and balanced. Nothing is fair and balanced.

  • http://www.chucko33.blogspot.com charlie doherty

    Darryl, thanks for complimenting my criticism (if that’s possible). I believe in constructive criticism, like the type you will see on Media Matters (obviously a favorite site of mine) not personally attacking people, ‘cuz that’s not how I was brought up.

    Remember the “Golden Rule,” so-to-speak, that you should treat people as YOU would want to be treated?

    It’s a forgotten principle, and I just wish more people, journalists, bloggers or whatever they call themselves realize that insults and personal attacks never advance a debate, they just make people (name-callers) feel like tough guys or know-it-alls, while at the same hindering and knocking off track the subject at hand.

    And debates in Congress these days aren’t much better either. Empty rhetoric and hypocrisy rule the day on Capitol Hill, more so by those on the right than on the left (perhaps because the Republican message machine/echo chamber is louder and is more organized than the Democrats’).

    And it contributes to fights on everything from spending bills to Iraq and the immigration bill, which the right and Lou Dobbs call “amnesty,” even though it would take the average immigrant at least eight years to get citizenship, among other things.

    We’re never going to solve anything when substantive arguments on controversial issues seem like an endangered species.

    So my message to you and everyone else is, before you label someone or something, do your homework first ‘cuz there’s no lack or research sources out there, and the more substantive (and dare I say it, “fair and balanced”) arguments you make, the harder it is for you to get flooded with angry, and yes, personal attacks.

  • STM

    “It all becomes rather apparent that traditional journalism, itself, has turned into joke”.

    Yeah, nice one Daryl. Try sitting in a cafe on a Saturday or Sunday morning with a laptop reading snippets of the day’s news, trying to juggle a big glass of OJ, a plate of bacon and eggs and a dirty big coffee.

    There’s still a place for the newspaper, and it’s a place the computer and internet will likely never conquer: the breakfast table.

    And considering about 98 per centof the world’s newspapers are still morning papers, I’d hazard a guess that blogs and net access to news are not going to be the core business of most print news organisations for at the least the next 30 years.

    So if you wants your print journalism serious, folks, you pays your dollar and gets it from people a) who actually get paid to do it, and b) know what they’re doing and have the resources to back it up (Mr Drudge and the very talented Tim Blair from Australia notwithstanding).

  • STM

    And for those in the UK, I’ll add Norm Geras’s Normblog to that little list of talented bloggers.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Every now and then, Newsweek is guilty of Republican bias”

    No, no, no, no, NO.

    We have a subscription to Newsweek where I work. So I read it weekly. And every week, every single week, there is an anti-Republican, anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-conservative spin to the cover stories, the “periscope,” and to most of the rest of the magazine (including nearly every columnist, except for George Will whose column only appears every other week).

    The recent Mitt Romney cover story was their attempt to pretend to be “neutral” and “unbiased,” but the piece itself was still was largely unflattering to the candidate.

    And any magazine that gives borderline-communist Jonathan Alter a weekly political column, as well as editorial duties, is NOT unbiased…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “And ABC? This is the organization that […] effectively fired Bill Maher (talk about someone who ranks on both Dems and Republicans).”

    Bill Maher “ranks on Dems” in the same way that Michael Savage “ranks on Republicans.”

    Savage doesn’t like the GOP because it isn’t conservative enough for his liking. Maher doesn’t like the Democrats because they aren’t leftist enough for his liking.

    In other words, Maher is a radical leftist (even though he tries to cover that up by calling himself a “libertarian” despite being a Nader voter).

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “So if you really consider yourself a media analyst, read Media Matters and other media watchdog sites and you will see the MSM media tilt is much more to the right and toward the Bush administration than it ever will be to the left.”

    Media Matters is a leftist website run by conservative-hater David Brock. They have no credibility.

  • http://www.chucko33.blogspot.com charlie doherty

    RJ, you or anyone who says Media Matters is not credible is laughably in denial. I IS run by an EX-conservative (David Brock), but they focus on the facts. period. If you can’t handle it, that’s your problem. Don’t believe me, ask NBC/MSNBC/CBS/DON Imus, for example.

    I read Newsbuster.org as well, to see the opposite side of MSM analysis, and I have to say sometimes they’re right on in their criticism (ex.NYT, network morning shows) but sometimes they’re full of guesswork and assumptions (ex. “[USA Today] Reporter or McCain Flack?”).

    But Media Matters is probably the most important website in this country when it comes to pointing out conservative AND mainstream media misinformation.

    They point out bias in the media all the time and criticize CNN reporters/broadcasters (see Howard Kurtz, Wolf Blitzer, Suzanne Malvaeux, Lou Dobbs, among others) almost as much as anyone at FNC, except for Bill O’Reilly (who can’t acknowledge a mistake, won’t let on anyone from MM on his show to debate the facts they bring up in their items, and just hates being held accountable by his own words and having them thrown back at him).

    And I haven’t even mentioned MSNBC yet (which has democratic bias in maybe a couple of anchors).
    From Amy Robach to Tucker, Pat Buchanan, Joe Scarborough and Chris Matthews (who also pisses off the right) you’ll see a lot of anti-democratic bias. Matthews has a big problem with Hillary, as many in the mainstream media do, but he takes it to another level. And on and on. Read the archives, you’ll get it soon enough.

    And Newsweek is leftist? This isn’t The Nation we’re talking about. (And even The Nation has their version of George Will in Andrew Cockburn).
    Newsweek has some of the best and most balanced reporting as you’re going to find in a mainstream magazine these days.

    I suppose you want the magazine to just not report on certain stories because they would appear to benefit Democrats, like the US attorneys firings then?

    You have to realize that investigative journalism at its best has no obvious bias, and Newsweek’s coverage of the Bush administration, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq have been very good for a long time now (and much better than the NYT). The facts, my friends, will lead you to a point-of-view for or against those in power, but they aren’t fixed a certain way ahead of time and if they are, the media watchdog sites will let them know about it.

    To say Newsweek is plainly antiwar is just wrong (maybe you skipped Fareed Zakaria’s articles? Especially the ones where he offers solutions to the Iraq war and reminds us that he supported the war to begin with). And as far as columnists are concerned, yes there is Jonathan Alter and Will, and Howard Fineman, etc. They get paid to be columnists and have an opinion, but that’s not the same as showing left-wing bias in its new stories.

    And it bothers me that people call journalists or politicians who cover the Iraq war or want to get out “antiwar.” What do you mean, “antiwar”? Does that mean anti-all war or just the one in Iraq?

    Pundits and bloggers alike need to spell it out, because most of the people and media in this country that I know of who want us out of Iraq also want us to put more resources and effort into our war with al Qaeda/Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan. That includes Jonathan Alter of Newsweek.

    Are you going to label people who favor that strategy (myself included) “pro-war” then?

  • bliffle

    RJ: thanks for refuting your own argument in the following paragraph.

    IMO the Big Time media are biased toward the ruling establishment, when it’s dems they swing left, when it’s reps they swing right. Partly, they do that because the electorate tends to give the Rulers some leeway and the media mistakes that for a shift left or right among the subscribers, which it is not. it is merely being a little permissive.

    Thus, the NYT and WaPo, invariably described by our doughty BC rightists as leftwing rags, joined the chorus of voices in favor of the Iraq Invasion, figuring, I suppose, that this would be a quickee with a lot of popular support that it would be foolhardy to have opposed in the heady days following a quick cheap victory. Wrong! That the NYT/WP now rip the Iraq invasion and the Bushies is not because of some great leftwing sentiment, but merely to hold on to their subscribers, who have lead the way so quickly that even congress can’t follow.

  • bliffle

    Matt Drudge? I wasn’t even aware he was still peddling his recycled ‘news’ on the net. All he does is cop things from other sources. As far as I know he does no original reportorial investigation. thus, not worth reading.

  • Arch Conservative

    “RJ, you or anyone who says Media Matters is not credible is laughably in denial. I IS run by an EX-conservative (David Brock), but they focus on the facts. period.”

    Charlie…put down the bong.

    Media matters is a leftist propaganda tool.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “Newsweek has some of the best and most balanced reporting as you’re going to find in a mainstream magazine these days.”

    That’s exactly my point. Newsweek is considered “mainstream” despite being fervently anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Republican, and anti-conservative.

    The entire “mainstream” news media has a leftist/PC tilt. And if a news magazine/newspaper/TV channel dares to break away from that subtle left-wing bias (like Fox News, or the Washington Times), they are no longer considered “mainstream.” (This, despite the fact that more Americans consider themselves conservative than liberal/progressive.)

    Let’s just take a look at MSNBC, a “mainstream” news media organization, as an example:

    Brian Williams (also anchor of the NBC Nightly News) – worked for Jimmy Carter (Democrat)
    Chris Matthews – worked for Tip O’Neill (Democrat)
    Keith Olbermann – clearly a hateful leftist
    Don Imus (fired) – voted for Kerry in 2004 and urged people to vote for Democrats for Congress in 2006
    Joe Scarborough – former GOP Congressman who now spends most of his time bashing fellow Republicans
    Tucker Carlson – an actual conservative, but such a uncharismatic dweeb that he mostly damages his own cause

    Then there’s CBS, with Dan Rather and Katie Couric. And the New York Times, with…virtually everybody who writes for the New York Times. And…

    I hope you see my point.

  • sr

    I SEE YOUR POINT RJ. JUST NUKE THE FUCKERS AND DRINK YOUR RUM AND OVALTINE. MORE OVALTINE PLEASE.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “The facts, my friends, will lead you to a point-of-view for or against those in power, but they aren’t fixed a certain way ahead of time”

    The media rarely makes up bogus “facts.” (Although they sometimes do; see: Dan Rather.) But they do harp upon some things, while almost completely ignoring others. And that is a large part of their bias.

    Three white Duke lacrosse players who didn’t rape a black stripper were in the news almost every day for a year. Meanwhile, four black men who car-jacked, abducted, tortured, raped, killed, and dismembered and defiled the bodies of a white couple in Tennessee is barely mentioned.

    We have had to endlessly see and hear reports about alleged abuses at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, but videos of terrorists torturing and beheading Americans (and our allies) are mostly censored.

    The “plight” of illegal immigrants living in America is often reported upon. But rarely do we hear about the thousands of Americans killed since 9/11 by illegal immigrant gang members and drug-runners.

    Etc. You get the picture.

    “Pundits and bloggers alike need to spell it out, because most of the people and media in this country that I know of who want us out of Iraq also want us to put more resources and effort into our war with al Qaeda/Taliban in Afghanistan/Pakistan. That includes Jonathan Alter of Newsweek.”

    That’s interesting news about Mr. Alter, since on the night of September 11th, 2001, he was on MSNBC urging Americans to resist the temptation to go on a “war-footing,” as he called it.

    So, I’m guessing Alter’s sudden interest in “winning the war” in Afghanistan is utter and complete dishonest bullshit. As per usual, coming from him.

  • MCH

    “That’s exactly my point. Newsweek is considered “mainstream” despite being fervently anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-Republican, and anti-conservative.”
    – RJ

    And being “anti-war” is a bad thing? So if you really are “pro-war,” why haven’t you attempted to serve?

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “And being “anti-war” is a bad thing?”

    Maybe, maybe not. But it’s definitely not an objective thing. Which was my point…

    Of course, your “point” was to mention (for about the five hundredth time) that I am not a member of the armed services. Which I believe Mr. Rose warned you about, you anonymous little troll..

  • Dan

    Newsweek is only against the war for partisan political reasons. That’s the problem.

    They probably would think military action in Darfur appealing, for example.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    First of all, I have to ask you if you read MediaMatters.org every day, or as often as you read the Drudge Report.

    I actually used to read both, but I eventually realized that Drudge is a terrible reporter and Media Matters is a partisan smear site.

    Every now and then, Newsweek is guilty of Republican bias, whether it’s their reporters gushing for Mitt Romney, playing down or leaving incomplete Fred Thompson’s questionable actions as a Senator (shutting down an investigation before it could get close to charging fellow GOP Senators Sam Brownback and Don Rickles on campaign fundraising irregularities), etc.

    And the rest of the time (about 90%) they are biased against Republicans. If you think otherwise you really haven’t been reading the superficial rag that is Newsweek these days. As for that Thompson piece, most people have responded to it as a heavyhanded attempt to smear him. your take on it seems to be unique.

    You forget, Newsweek still employs George Will.

    A venerable moderate who they put in there for balance while pretending he’s a conservative.

    And the New York Times just did a hit piece on John Edwards that failed basic tenants of journalism (like proving your thesis: John Edwards used non-profit primarily to build bridge to ’08).

    That doesn’t make them conservative, it makes them anti-edwards – because, of course, they are pro Clinton.

    And ABC? This is the organization that wouldn’t let Nightline air the names and faces of the Iraq war dead not so long ago, AND who effectively fired Bill Maher (talk about someone who ranks on both Dems and Republicans).

    You clearly haven’t watched Maher in quite a while. He gave up on anything but feeble comments about Democrats at least two years ago and now spends all his time bashing Bush and a variety of other Republican targets. At least he’s lightened up on calling himself a libertarian now that it’s pretty clear he’s some sort of fascist.

    So if you really consider yourself a media analyst, read Media Matters and other media watchdog sites and you will see the MSM media tilt is much more to the right and toward the Bush administration than it ever will be to the left.

    Media watchdog sites? Like Accuracy in Media? Or Newsbusters.org or Mediaresearch.org. Those might be good places to start.

    How else to explain why 41% of Americans STILL think Saddam’s Iraq had someone to do with 9/11, according to the latest Newsweek poll out this week?!

    The latest Newsweek poll makes the question as broad as possible to get that result, offering every possible form of involvement from financing to direct support. If you make the question that broad you’re going to get muddy results, and note that 41% is still a minority. The respondents also did surprisingly well on most of the other questions, including some which I would have thought they’d have more trouble with.

    dave

  • MCH

    “Of course, your “point” was to mention (for about the five hundredth time) that I am not a member of the armed services.”

    Well, yeah, and your phony, rhetorical “support” of the war, too. But at least you’ve finally quit calling those opposed to the invasion “commies” or “pinkos.”

  • http://www.chucko33.blogspot.com charlie doherty

    Whoops! Apparently nobody caught my mistake in an earlier post when talking about Senator Nickles, who I accidentally called Don Rickles (LOL).

    “You clearly haven’t watched Maher in quite a while. He gave up on anything but feeble comments about Democrats at least two years ago and now spends all his time bashing Bush and a variety of other Republican targets. At least he’s lightened up on calling himself a libertarian now that it’s pretty clear he’s some sort of fascist.”

    DAVE, go read some transcripts of his recent shows, and you’ll see the Dem-bashing he incorporates in his comedy routine, Hillary included. And, you shouldn’t be labeling people something if you can’t back it up: Explain how Bill Maher is a fascist?

    As far as his HBO show is concerned, it’s obviously not going to have as much left-wing bashing as Bush administration bashing, and for good reason: up until November, the latter and their party had all the power in the US, and besides, the media can’t ignore that Bush officials and their allies have gotten themselves in the news so much more than Democrats: Scooter, Gonzales, his aides resigning, Cheney, Rove, Delay and his aides, Abramoff and his associates, Rumsfeld, Walter Reed, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, the NH phone-jamming scandal, warrantless wiretapping, detainee abuse, etc.

    Your side (obviously Republican) could theoretically argue that coverage of the Iraq War is biased based on a lack of positive stories, but while it might’ve earlier in the war, that criticism doesn’t stand up anymore when you realize and read that there is so much more hardship in daily Iraq than positive stories, and speaking of the latter, Brian Williams and Lou Dobbs do a tribute to war veterans every week. I don’t watch Jim Lehrer much, but he’s a former Marine so I would count him in as a credible mainstream journalist on the war as well (as are the journalists at McClatchy newspapers). Moving on. (phew!)

    If I told you that a certain popular newspaper has lately been sympathetic to Scooter Libby and allowing its opinion pages to be dominated by pro-Libby views, who would you guess that paper to be, the New York Post or Washington Post? Answer: WaPost. They even let a former Reagan administration member Victoria Toensing write anti-prosecution/pro-Libby pieces right before the Libby trial started, which potentially could have influenced the jury in the case!

    And about Fred Thompson. Yeah, only those sympathetic towards Fred can come away from this article and think it’s just a “smear” article. You seem to be adopting the Bill O’Reilly tactic of calling Media Matters a “smear” site (even though they accurately quote him in their criticisms of him, 100% of the time). Either that means nothing to you, or you really don’t (or did) read the site all that much. I do, and would say about 95% of their articles are worth reading and informative (and accurate, with full context, 99% of the time).

    You really need to look up the definitions of “smear” and “bias” apparently, because doing accurate, fully researched investigative journalism on a candidate’s (or anyone else) past (like Thompson) is neither. Bias means “to influence or affect unfairly” (Funk & Wagnalls).

    The only thing the Newsweek piece on Thompson is guilty of is not ENOUGH research on him. Statements like “Thompson’s willing[ness] to buck his own party” don’t stand up after further Nexis or maybe even Google searches on his Senate days.

    And speaking of unfairness/bias, Jonathan Darmon in this week’s Newsweek’s piece is titled “Rudy: Swiftboatable on 9/11?” Just like MSNBC’S Amy Roback when she compared 527s supporting Obama to the Swiftboat Vets, Darmon makes it seem like the firefighters or biographers who have criticized and analyzed Rudy’s actions on and around 9/11 are or could possibly be equivalent to the Swiftboat Vets, the latter being a discredited, contradictory group who unfairly slammed Kerry in 2004. You want to talk about bias, there it is.

    A couple more things: Apparently you missed the part where I said I read Newsbusters.org; I never implied that the NYT’s treatment of Edwards made them a “conservative”-leaning newspaper. Rather, you should realize there is a lot more misinformation about Democrats in the NYT than you think. It really is no longer “the paper of record.” And, might I add, there’s more pro-Republican writing in Newsweek than you realize.

    And finally, you clearly missed the point of the 41% poll number – the amount of Americans who think Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 didn’t go down, it went UP in the last few years, by five points(!), even with all the government-issued reports, books about the Iraq war, and media coverage debunking claims that Saddam had anything to do with al Qaeda (“no collaborative relationship”) and the WTC attacks.

    It should worry you (and everyone else) that 41% of the electorate think Saddam had something to do with 9/11.
    It certainly worries me. That number should be down to 0% but I’d settle for 4% or 1%, but not 41%!

  • MCH

    Re #38;
    “Which I believe Mr. Rose warned you about, you anonymous little troll..”
    – RJ

    Oh, OK, you little computer geek.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    WDAVE, go read some transcripts of his recent shows, and you’ll see the Dem-bashing he incorporates in his comedy routine, Hillary included. And, you shouldn’t be labeling people something if you can’t back it up: Explain how Bill Maher is a fascist?

    I watch his show every week. I don’t need to read the transcripts when I’ve seen it first hand. I’ll admit to not having watched the last two shows, but I do have them recorded for later reference. As to calling him a fascist, I use that term because of his desire to silence dissent and denigrate those withwhom he doesn’t agree. He’s a great villainizer and loves to reduce things to black and white, good and evil, and does so relatively arbitrarily. His libertarianism has become lip service at best, because he doesn’t believe that the liberties he advocates apply universally. That makes him a small ‘f’ fascist IMO.

    Your side (obviously Republican)

    Why do you assume I’m Republican? Couldn’t I just be an independent who is for truth? Or I could be a libertarian – as I was for 30 years – who’s offended by Maher’s perversion of that philosophy.

    could theoretically argue that coverage of the Iraq War is biased based on a lack of positive stories, but while it might’ve earlier in the war, that criticism doesn’t stand up anymore when you realize and read that there is so much more hardship in daily Iraq than positive stories,

    The news doesn’t report positive stories in general, and IMO that’s not really their job. Positive, happy-talk stories are generally filler. It’s the bad things which happen which concern people and ought to. I don’t expect serious news outlets to cover positive stories much in Iraq or here at home.

    and speaking of the latter, Brian Williams and Lou Dobbs do a tribute to war veterans every week. I don’t watch Jim Lehrer much, but he’s a former Marine so I would count him in as a credible mainstream journalist on the war as well (as are the journalists at McClatchy newspapers). Moving on. (phew!)

    Being a former Marine doesn’t make you sane, reasonable or necessarily rational on any given subject. Timothy McVeigh served in the military. Did that make him right to blow up the Murrow building?

    If I told you that a certain popular newspaper has lately been sympathetic to Scooter Libby and allowing its opinion pages to be dominated by pro-Libby views, who would you guess that paper to be, the New York Post or Washington Post? Answer: WaPost.

    That would have been my answer. When you want balanced news the Post is the paper to go to. I haven’t read their coverage of Libby, but I’ll go look it up online. I think there’s a good argument for entirely non-partisan reasons to feel a bit of pity for Libby since he really was shafted by everyone.

    They even let a former Reagan administration member Victoria Toensing write anti-prosecution/pro-Libby pieces right before the Libby trial started, which potentially could have influenced the jury in the case!

    Does it matter that they turned out to be right and that Libby was a dupe who should not have been prosecuted in the first place?

    And about Fred Thompson. Yeah, only those sympathetic towards Fred can come away from this article and think it’s just a “smear” article.

    I haven’t read the article. I can read up on Thompson and decide for myself. I was pointing out the reaction from Thompson supporters and how THEY characterized the article. I made that quite clear.

    You seem to be adopting the Bill O’Reilly tactic of calling Media Matters a “smear” site (even though they accurately quote him in their criticisms of him, 100% of the time).

    O’Reilly is a tool – and I mean that in the most derogatory sense. I’m not particularly interested in his opinion of anything.

    Either that means nothing to you, or you really don’t (or did) read the site all that much. I do, and would say about 95% of their articles are worth reading and informative (and accurate, with full context, 99% of the time).

    I hit media matters fairly regularly, but they display a consistent bias and a willingness to engage in partisan spin which I find counterproductive.

    You really need to look up the definitions of “smear” and “bias” apparently, because doing accurate, fully researched investigative journalism on a candidate’s (or anyone else) past (like Thompson) is neither. Bias means “to influence or affect unfairly” (Funk & Wagnalls).

    Again, read my comment. I was reporting the opinion of others. I haven’t read the Newsweek article at all. I find Newsweek’s level of news quality to be abyssmally low, especially now that they’ve teamed up with the morons at MSNBC.

    And speaking of unfairness/bias, Jonathan Darmon in this week’s Newsweek’s piece is titled “Rudy: Swiftboatable on 9/11?” Just like MSNBC’S Amy Roback when she compared 527s supporting Obama to the Swiftboat Vets, Darmon makes it seem like the firefighters or biographers who have criticized and analyzed Rudy’s actions on and around 9/11 are or could possibly be equivalent to the Swiftboat Vets, the latter being a discredited, contradictory group who unfairly slammed Kerry in 2004. You want to talk about bias, there it is.

    There are plenty of people – many of them military vets – who still believe what the Swiftboat Vets claimed. The idea that they’re ‘discredited’ is itself an example of your bias.

    I haven’t read the article you reference, but I can certainly see how the same thing could be done with the firefighters which was done with the Swifboat Vets, which was basically to take some cranks with a personal axe to grind and blow them up into a media circus creating an impact far beyond what they would have as individuals. That is basically what ‘swiftboating’ is, now that it has become a word.

    A couple more things: Apparently you missed the part where I said I read Newsbusters.org; I never implied that the NYT’s treatment of Edwards made them a “conservative”-leaning newspaper. Rather, you should realize there is a lot more misinformation about Democrats in the NYT than you think. It really is no longer “the paper of record.” And, might I add, there’s more pro-Republican writing in Newsweek than you realize.

    There’s a lot of garbage in both sources, and both of them try to present more than one point of view. I certainly wouldn’t go to either of them as my first source for accurate info on any story.

    And finally, you clearly missed the point of the 41% poll number – the amount of Americans who think Saddam had anything to do with 9/11 didn’t go down, it went UP in the last few years, by five points(!), even with all the government-issued reports, books about the Iraq war, and media coverage debunking claims that Saddam had anything to do with al Qaeda (“no collaborative relationship”) and the WTC attacks.

    You should have followed the link I gave you. It shows the history of that poll humber, and you would have seen that it is in fact lower than it was in 2003, 2004 and 2005. It was a little lower in last year’s poll and highest at 49% in 2004. So the overall trend is down.

    Not that this means much, since the fact that it’s as high as it is remains one of the great mysteries of science, as you point out. I don’t remember a time before or after the invasion of Iraq where I was every given any reason to believe Saddam was involved in 9/11, so how the hell peopel got that idea is beyond me.

    Dave

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    the media can’t ignore that Bush officials and their allies have gotten themselves in the news so much more than Democrats: Scooter, Gonzales, his aides resigning, Cheney, Rove, Delay and his aides, Abramoff and his associates, Rumsfeld, Walter Reed, Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, the NH phone-jamming scandal, warrantless wiretapping, detainee abuse, etc.” [emphasis mine]

    ROTFL!

    No, you’re right. The media cannot ignore other media reporting negative things about Republicans, the Bush administration, and the War On Terror. Talk about a “noise machine” and an “echo chamber” …

    Oddly enough though, the media hasn’t reported much on the recent “ethical questions” surrounding Rep. John Murtha, Sen. Harry Reid, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, or Rep. William Jefferson, despite The Dems now being in control of both houses of Congress.

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    charlie doherty:

    Tell me: Did your “fair” and “unbiased” Media Matters ever mention “moderate” and “balanced” Bill Maher openly endorsing the terrorist assassination of Dick Cheney on his HBO television show?

    If so, care to provide the link? Because I must have missed that…

  • http://www.roblogpolitics.blogspot.com RJ

    “the Swiftboat Vets, the latter being a discredited, contradictory group who unfairly slammed Kerry in 2004. You want to talk about bias, there it is.”

    Yep. YOUR bias.

    The Swiftboat Vets pointed out some interesting facts about Mr. Kerry that the “fair” and “balanced” mainstream media never bothered to mention.

    These FACTS include:

    – Kerry lied (in Senate testimony) about being in Cambodia on Christmas (a memory he claimed was “seared” into his mind)
    – All of Kerry’s purple heart wounds were superficial
    – One of Kerry’s purple heart wounds was (unintentionally) self-inflicted
    – Kerry negotiated with Communist terrorists in Paris while still a member of the US military (an arguably treasonable offense)
    – Kerry threw away medals/ribbons that WEREN’T HIS (while pretending they were) after one of his more infamous anti-war speeches
    – Kerry actually admitted to being a “war criminal”
    – Kerry served a total of about three and a half months in Vietnam
    – Kerry left Vietnam almost immediately after receiving his third purple heart, which was allowed, but certainly not required

    None of this was mentioned much in the “objective” mainstream media during the campaign. And once the Swiftboat Vets (all three hundred or so of them) brought these FACTS up publicly, the mainstream media responded by … desperately trying to discredit these elderly war veterans on a few of their claims, while doing their best to ignore the numerous valid points they made. (In fact, Kerry’s PR people had to publicly concede a few of their points. It just wasn’t reported all that much in our “fair” and “unbiased” mainstream media…)

    The mainstream media, in the aftermath of Kerry’s defeat, have done their best to create the meme that “Swiftboat Vets = discredited lying scum.” But just ’cause you hear it on NPR doesn’t make it so…

  • Clavos

    All of the following is true, and is repeated for emphasis:

    “- Kerry lied (in Senate testimony) about being in Cambodia on Christmas (a memory he claimed was “seared” into his mind)
    – All of Kerry’s purple heart wounds were superficial
    – One of Kerry’s purple heart wounds was (unintentionally) self-inflicted
    – Kerry negotiated with Communist terrorists in Paris while still a member of the US military (an arguably treasonable offense)
    – Kerry threw away medals/ribbons that WEREN’T HIS (while pretending they were) after one of his more infamous anti-war speeches
    – Kerry actually admitted to being a “war criminal”
    – Kerry served a total of about three and a half months in Vietnam
    – Kerry left Vietnam almost immediately after receiving his third purple heart, which was allowed, but certainly not required”

    Plus this:

    In April, 1971, John Kerry vilified, smeared and slandered virtually everyone who had served in Vietnam by repeating unverified information he had garnered at the Winter Soldier Conference (NOT from his own personal observations, as he stated, under oath, in his testimony).

    Further, his testimony, by inference, tarred all who had served incountry with the designation of “war criminal,” leading to the truly vile reception most of us received from the public upon our return home.

    Less than four months incountry; most of it in and around Cam Ranh Bay, the largest and most secure US base in Vietnam.

  • STM

    Yes, treason for sure. And if you’d remained part of the Empire, theoretically he could have been hung, drawn and quartered (ouch!).

    Sounds like fair punishment, too. What a dickhead. I mean, everyone’s entitled to their opinion, but that ranks up there with Hanoi Jane’s act of pure stupidity I reckon.

  • MCH

    “but that ranks up there with Hanoi Jane’s act of pure stupidity I reckon.”

    And pretty close to William Calley’s Mi-Lai massacre, and GW Bush’s desertion…

  • Clavos

    Unlike Hanoi Jane, neither Calley nor Bush (who has never even been charged with, much less convicted of desertion) were traitors to their own country.

    And, unlike Calley, she’s never paid for her crime.

  • MCH

    “…Bush (who has never even been charged with, much less convicted of desertion)…”

    Likewise, Kerry and Fonda have never even been charged with, much less convicted of, treason.

    No double standard there, Clavnalle.

  • MCH

    “Further, his testimony, by inference, tarred all who had served incountry with the designation of “war criminal,” leading to the truly vile reception most of us received from the public upon our return home.”

    So Calley’s massacre of women and children at Mi-Lai had nothing to do with that?

  • Clavos

    “Likewise, Kerry and Fonda have never even been charged with, much less convicted of, treason.”

    Absolutely right. And I’m ashamed of this country for not having charged, convicted and executed Fonda the turncoat.

    Kerry only stabbed his fellow soldiers in the back for personal political gain, which is not treason, but he will never have my respect or that of any other Vietnam vet I’ve ever known.

    “Further, his testimony, by inference, tarred all who had served incountry”

    You left out the important part of what I wrote, REMF; what he testified under oath, was hearsay, but he delivered it as if he had witnessed what he described. Watch the video.

    Interesting how you, based on your hazardous and arduous “service” in Hawaii, feel you’re qualified to judge Bill Calley, REMF.

  • STM

    In discussing Calley’s crime (and others, because his wasn’t the only one), one of my mates here who spent two years in Vietnam, explains how people could quite easily lose their lives believing that a village only contained women and children, and even if they did, it could still be a dangerous place.

    Doesn’t excuse what Calley did, but in an environment where people are killing each other willy-nilly, and people are constantly on edge, there is always the potential for that stuff to happen.

    The big difference between the US and the Viet Cong? The US prosecuted its own soldiers if they’d been accused of committing war crimes.

    Contrast that to what’s going on today in Baghdad, with islamic militants setting off car bombs and indiscriminately killing hundreds of their own people.

    Who’s going to be their voice?

  • MCH

    “Further, his testimony, by inference, tarred all who had served incountry with the designation of “war criminal,” leading to the truly vile reception most of us received from the public upon our return home.”
    – Clavnalle

    Clavvy, I’m having a little trouble with the timeframe on your “…leading to the truly vile reception most of us received from…”

    Since you returned in ’66, and Kerry didn’t testify until ’71, how could his testimony “lead” to anything to do with your “reception” five years earlier??

  • Clavos

    The “reception” went on for years and years, emmy.

    It intensified after his grandstanding and distorted public perception of the troops to the point that most of us learned to not even talk about our service until as much as 15 or 20 years after we got back.

    If it’ll make you feel better, change “reception” to “response.”

  • MCH

    “Interesting how you, based on your hazardous and arduous “service” in Hawaii, feel you’re qualified to judge Bill Calley, REMF.”
    – Clavnalle

    Clavvy, see below…

    “During the Vietnam War, the failure to hold Lieutenant William Calley accountable for the My Lai massacre seriously injured the reputation of the Army. As I stated in About Face, “The kid was guilty as hell.”
    – Col. David Hackworth, April 8, 1998

    The late Colonel Hackworth’s qualifications:
    **Distinguished Service Cross (with Oak Leaf Cluster)
    **10 Silver Stars
    **Legion of Merit (with three Oak Leaf Clusters)
    **Distinguished Flying Cross
    **8 Bronze Stars (with “V” Devices)
    **8 Purple Hearts
    **Air Medal (with “V” Device & Numeral 34) (One for heroism and 33 for aerial achievement)
    **Army Commendation Medal (with “V” Device & 3 Oak Leaf Clusters)
    **World War II Victory Medal
    **Army of Occupation Medal (with Germany and Japan Clasps)
    **National Defense Service Medal (with one Bronze Service star)
    **Korean Service Medal (with Service Stars for eight campaigns)
    **Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
    **Vietnam Service Medal (2 Silver Service stars)
    Badges and tabs
    **Combat Infantryman Badge (with one Star, representing 2 awards)

    So Clavnalle…was Col. Hackworth “qualified” enough to judge Billy Calley?

  • Clavos

    Stan #55:

    Dead on, mate. And as I’m sure your mate has told you, sometimes it was women and children who were killing Americans.

    It was a shitty, fucked up war, and people like Fonda and Kerry made it more fucked up for personal political gain. They are scum.

  • Clavos

    Yes, he was, emmy.

    But not you.

  • STM

    It is only in the past 10 years that the Vietnam vets here, who were reviled much like they were in the US (they often came home to Australia at night, so no one would know they’d come home), have felt OK enough about the whole thing to march with the old diggers from other conflicts on Anzac Day.

    Clav’s right … it was a pretty fucked up time all round, really. Even my mate (a real-life vet) had a bookshelf full of Marxist/Leninist works and bios after he came back, because he somewhow felt for a time that he was on the wrong side.

  • MCH

    “It intensified after his grandstanding and distorted public perception of the troops to the point that most of us learned to not even talk about our service until as much as 15 or 20 years after we got back.”
    – Clavnalle

    You guys got a raw deal, no argument there. I lost a cousin and a classmate over there, and another cousin and a few other buddies who returned either wounded or suffering PTSD, or both. I’ve thanked you many times on this site for your sacrifice for our country, and I’ve also admitted honestly many times that my service was less than mediocre (although I am glad I served the wholefour years without deserting).

    BUT….
    you haven’t answered the question. In #56 you wrote; “Further, his testimony, by inference, tarred all who had served incountry with the designation of “war criminal,” leading to the truly vile reception most of us received from the public upon our return home.”

    Since you came back in ’66, and he didn’t testify until ’71; and by stating “leading to the truly vile reception most of US received from the public upon OUR return”; you are clearly blaming Kerry for something that happened FIVE YEARS before he testified.

  • Clavos

    Stan,

    Apologies for my Americocentricity in #59, when I wrote:

    “sometimes it was women and children who were killing Americans.”

    As you know, I have the utmost admiration for the Aussie troops who fought with us, and I certainly didn’t mean to leave them out of my remark.

    Even though they kept trying to drive their jeeps on the wrong side of the damn road…:>)

  • Clavos

    “Since you came back in ’66, and he didn’t testify until ’71; and by stating “leading to the truly vile reception most of US received from the public upon OUR return”; you are clearly blaming Kerry for something that happened FIVE YEARS before he testified.”

    OK, MCH.

    I withdraw the accusation regarding the reception.

    He didn’t fuck up my reception, but he did accuse me of committing atrocities, and lied about it under oath; an accusation for which he had NO PROOF OR DIRECT KNOWLEDGE, and he did it in a very public forum in front of national television cameras merely TO LAUNCH HIS OWN POLITICAL CAREER.

    He’s a scumbag.

  • STM

    No probs Clav … I didn’t even notice old boy … I suspect it was Americans who did get the shortest end of the stick most of the time.

    Good thing all that’s over long ago.

  • MCH

    “He’s a scumbag.”

    Is he worse than Billy Calley?

  • Clavos

    Most definitely.

  • MCH

    By comparison to Kerry’s 1971 testimony, here’s a brief account of what took place My Lai in ’68, from Wikipedia:

    “On the eve of the attack, U.S. military command advised Charlie Company that any genuine civilians at My Lai would have left their homes to go to market by 7 a.m. the following day. They were told they could assume that all who remained behind were either Viet Cong or active Viet Cong sympathizers. They were instructed to destroy the village.[citation needed] At the briefing, Captain Ernest Medina was asked whether the order included the killing of women and children; those present at the briefing later gave different accounts of Medina’s response.[citation needed]

    The soldiers found no insurgents in the village on the morning of March 16. Many suspected there were Viet Cong in the village, hiding underground in the homes of their elderly parents or their wives. The American soldiers, one platoon of which was led by 2LT William Calley, killed hundreds of civilians. Dozens were herded into a ditch and executed with automatic firearms.[4] The soldiers said they were convinced any and all villagers could be a threat. According to the report of a South Vietnamese army lieutenant to his superiors, it was an “atrocious” incident of bloodletting by an armed force seeking to vent its fury.

    Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson, Jr., a 24-year-old helicopter pilot from an aero-scout team, witnessed a large number of dead and dying civilians as they began flying over the village – all of them infants, children, women and old men, with no signs of draft-age men or weapons anywhere. He and his crew witnessed an unarmed passive woman shot at point-blank range by a US soldier. They made several attempts to radio for help for the wounded and landed their helicopter by a ditch which they noted was full of bodies and in which there was movement. Thompson asked a sergeant he encountered there if the sergeant could help get the people out of the ditch and the sergeant replied that he would ‘help them out of their misery.’ Thompson was shocked and confused but took it as some kind of a joke at the time. The helicopter took off then one of the crew said ‘My God, he’s firing into the ditch.’

    Dead bodies outside a burning dwelling. Photo by Ronald L. Haeberle, Charlie Company photographerThompson then saw a group of civilians (again consisting of children, women and old men) at a bunker being approached by ground personnel. He landed and told his crew that if the soldiers shot at the Vietnamese while he was trying to get them out of the bunker that they were to fire back. Thompson later testified that he spoke with a lieutenant (identified as Lieutenant Calley) and told him there were women and children in the bunker, and asked if the lieutenant would help get them out. According to Thompson, ‘he [the lieutenant] said the only way to get them out was with a hand grenade.’ Thompson testified he then told the lieutenant to ‘just hold your men right where they are, and I’ll get the kids out.’ Thompson found 12-16 people in the bunker, coaxed them out and led them to the helicopter, standing with them while they were flown out in two lots.

    Returning to My Lai, he and other air crew noticed several large groups of bodies. Spotting some survivors in the ditch he landed again and one of the crew entered the ditch and returned with a bloodied but apparently unharmed boy who was flown to safety. Thompson then reported what he had seen to his company commander, Major Watke, using terms such as ‘murder’ and ‘needless and unnecessary killings.’ His reports were confirmed by other pilots and air crew.[5]

    The precise number killed varies from source to source, with 347 and 504 being the most commonly cited figures. A memorial at the site of the massacre lists 504 names, with ages ranging from one to eighty-two years.”

  • lumpy

    what the fuck do john kerry or mai lai have to do with drudge? jesus christ. just ignore the troll.

  • MCH

    See comments 47 and 48.

  • MCH

    “He (Kerry) didn’t fuck up my reception, but he did accuse me of committing atrocities, and lied about it under oath; an accusation for which he had NO PROOF OR DIRECT KNOWLEDGE, and he did it in a very public forum in front of national television cameras merely TO LAUNCH HIS OWN POLITICAL CAREER.”
    – and –
    “He’s a scumbag. Most definitely (worse than Billy Calle).
    – Clavnalle

    So Kerry “accusing you (did Kerry really name all ‘Nam combat vets?) of committing atrocities, and then lying about it under oath,” is worse than herding 504 civilian infants, children, women and old men into a ditch and machine gunning them to death??

    And doing it “with no proof or direct knowledge in a very public forum in front of national television cameras,” is worse than Billy Calle stating that the only way to get dozens of innocent civilians (ages 1 year old to 84 years) out of a ditch is “with a hand grenade”…??

    Wow.

  • Anapurna

    What Kerry did had a much more personal and real impact on vietnam vets as a whole than what calley did. Calley attacked a bunch of vietnamese civilians. Kerry attacked fellow Americans. For the dead civilians it was over at that point. For the vets the suffering still goes on. If you can’t see the difference then you’re pretty clueless.

    MCH, with your hostile attitude towards those who served in vietnam I assume you’re just another anti-military blowhard from the left with no military background or experience, so why don’t you keep your opinions about those who actually have served our country to yourself.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Re #72, esp. par. 2:

    [gasps, stands back, waits for fireworks…]

  • MCH

    Anapurna;

    I enlisted and served four years in the U.S. Navy, RM3, from 1970-74.

    And yourself?

  • lumpy

    so u dodged the draft just like kerry by enlisting in a ‘soft’ service. was the coast guard all full up? hope u didn’t get a combat post by mistake like kerry.

  • MCH

    Yeah, it was very little, Lumpy; but more than anything you’ve ever done.

  • Clavos

    REMF,

    You do realize that Lumpy is handicapped?

  • MCH

    Clavnalle;
    Yeah, uh-huh. So?

    BTW, any particular reason you’re ignoring #71?

  • Clavos

    REMF:

    “Yeah, it was very little, Lumpy; but more than anything you’ve ever done.”

    And then, when informed Lumpy is physically handicapped:

    “Yeah, uh-huh. So?”

    The “so,” REMF, is that the military services don’t accept handicapped recruits, last I heard.

    As to #71; all you did was quote my own words back at me. You did quote accurately.

    How many times do you want me to tell you that, in my opinion, Kerry is an opportunistic creep who Peter Principled himself up the ranks of politics (assuming there IS an “up” in politics) on the backs (and reputations) of all of us who fought in Vietnam by alleging that we all did the things he described to the Senate Committee, and implying (by constant use of the pronoun “we”) that he spoke for all of us when he did so.

    Do I think that’s worse than what Calley did?

    Given the fact that Kerry’s actions and words were (and continue to be) coldly calculated and self-serving, while Calley’s arguably horrific acts were committed in the heat of battle; most definitely yes, Kerry IS “worse” than Calley.

    It’s easy for someone who has never been shot at by a twelve-year-old to sit comfortably in his easy chair and judge. Some of those civilians in My Lai likely were “innocent.” Equally likely is that plenty of them were not. And they all looked alike.

    You already threw Hackworth at me, so save it; I know his opinion, and obviously, I disagree with it to the extent I’ve discussed.

  • REMF

    “Some of those civilians in My Lai likely were “innocent.” Equally likely is that plenty of them were not. And they all looked alike.”

    Well, since I’ve never served in combat, enlighten me. Did the 1-year old infants and 82-year old men “look alike”?

    – MCH

  • REMF

    “You already threw Hackworth at me, so save it; I know his opinion, and obviously, I disagree with it to the extent I’ve discussed.”

    Clavnalle,
    I only brought “Hack” into the discussion AFTER you attempted to use my lack of combat experience to disqualify me from being able to discern what constitutes atrocities.

    I admire and respect your combat service, Clavvy, but when you use it to try and nail down a point, be prepared for a bigger hammer. And Hack is a fuckin’ sledge hammer.

  • REMF

    ^ MCH

  • Clavos

    “Some of those civilians in My Lai likely were “innocent.”

    You even quoted this…didn’t you read it?

    An 84 year old can’t hide a combatant? Feed him/her? Warn him of approaching troops? Pull a trigger?

  • Clavos

    “And Hack is a fuckin’ sledge hammer.”

    With whom, as I said before, I disagree.

  • Dr Dreadful

    #75: Not sure what you mean by accusing MCH of enlisting in a ‘soft service’. Are you saying the Navy is a soft option, or being a radio operator in the Navy?

  • REMF

    “With whom, as I said before, I disagree.”

    Disagree how, Clavnalle? That Billy Calle was guilty? That not holding him accountable for the My Lai massacre seriously injured the reputation of the Army? That the war was a mistake?

    – MCH

  • REMF

    “The “so,” REMF, is that the military services don’t accept handicapped recruits, last I heard.”

    I don’t give a shit what his excuse is, Clavvy.

    ————————————-

    “…I assume you’re just another anti-military blowhard from the left with no military background or experience, so why don’t you keep your opinions about those who actually have served our country to yourself.”

    Actually Anapurna, those who didn’t serve are commenters #47 and #75 (both from the right, BTW).

    ————————————-

    “so u dodged the draft just like kerry by enlisting in a ‘soft’ service.”

    True. But not nearly as soft as your non-service.

    – MCH

  • Clavos

    I disagree that Calley was not held accountable; he was tried and convicted and served 3 1/2 years of confinement to quarters before being released by Federal district court.

    If Hackworth didn’t feel that was sufficient punishment for the “crime,” that was his prerogative, but to say that Calley was not held accountable is simply not true.

    I don’t agree that the outcome damaged the Army’s reputation to any significant degree, either.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    MCH, stop using the name ‘clavnalle’. I appreciate the honor of being associated with Clavos, but it’s inappropriate since I’m not even vaguely involved in this discussion. I left it when you narcissistically took it wildly off topic.

    Dave

  • REMF

    Dave;
    Would you prefer Clavpopuli?

  • REMF

    And Dave,
    Stop using the name MCH. My new chops are REMF.

  • STM

    Emmy, why REMF for heaven’s sake?

  • troll

    interesting that you would use the term ‘chops’ which has as one meaning ‘musical skill’…does your name change imply that you’re going to learn some new tunes – ?

  • Clavos

    “I don’t give a shit what his excuse is, Clavvy.”

    Yet more proof (as if we needed it) of the ignorance and idiocy of your stance on military service, emmy.

  • REMF

    troll;
    “chops” is an old radiomen’s expression for “handle.” Regarding your interest in “new tunes,” any opinion on #47 and 48?

    Clavpopuli;
    Spare the victim role with your bu**-buddy until you comment on his personal attacks, OK hypocrite?

    – MCH

  • troll

    *any opinion on #47 and 48?*

    if you mean the whole Kerry/Calle thing – I opine that Kerry is a blue blood opportunistic liar and Calle is a baby killer

    poster boys for war – the both of them

  • REMF

    “I opine that Kerry is a blue blood opportunistic liar”

    Maybe. And is it OK for someone who’s never served (47) to trash his combat record?

  • Clavos

    “Maybe. And is it OK for someone who’s never served (47) to trash his combat record?”

    As long as the Constitution remains in effect it is.

    My point about Lumpy was in response to your saying that your service in the Navy was more than he’s ever done, which while true, is once again, a non sequitur, since it is not possible for him to have served.

    Where’s the hypocrisy in that, Mr. veteran?

  • troll

    REMP – actually I think that the swiftboaters did an admirable job of playing hardball politics in keeping with the best American traditions

    and it makes no difference to me who RJ trashes…only that he is free to do so

    I reject the whole idea of a standing army especially one deployed internationally and advise against military service

    (of course there might be a downside to the US demilitarizing like worldwide panic anarchy and warfare as a new pecking order emerges – but hey…gotta take the bad with the good I guess)

  • REMF

    “Interesting how you, based on your hazardous and arduous “service” in Hawaii, feel you’re qualified to judge Bill Calley, REMF.”

    So Clavnalle…was Col. Hackworth “qualified” enough to judge Billy Calley?

    “Yes, he was, emmy. But not you.”

    Maybe. And is it OK for someone who’s never served (47) to trash his combat record?

    “As long as the Constitution remains in effect it is.”

    ———————————

    ^ The above is located in the dictionary under the word “hypocrisy”

  • REMF

    troll;

    Although I disagree with your view on the Swifties and RJ on this particular subject, I have come to respect your opinions. I believe that you are open-minded and do not have a history (as near as I can tell) of basing your stances on partisanship.

    Oh, and it’s REM”F” (Rear Echelon Mother Fucker)

    – MCH

  • troll

    oops – sorry about the ‘P’

    psst…trust no one – pass it on

  • Clavos

    Apples and oranges, MF.

    You’re judging Calley’s specific and unique acts in a specific and unique situation of which you have no experience (combat), while RJ, in 47 is discussing not Kerry’s combat record (with these two exceptions:

    “- All of Kerry’s purple heart wounds were superficial
    – One of Kerry’s purple heart wounds was (unintentionally) self-inflicted,”

    but his political activism, all of which is public record, and in fact took place in the public arena.

    Most of what RJ cites had nothing whatever to do with Kerry’s so-called “combat” record.

  • REMF

    “- All of Kerry’s purple heart wounds were superficial”

    And that’s a scumbag thing to say about a combat vet from a dweeb who’s never faced enemy fire.

    In your own words: “It’s easy for someone who has never been shot at…to sit comfortably in his easy chair and judge.”

  • Clavos

    All of Kerry’s purple heart wounds were superficial.

    Happens to be true, according to a number of sources.

    Pretty interesting, too, how he got them all within three months and then skedaddled back to the World.

    Your hero has feet of clay, MF.

  • REMF

    Actually my hero is John McCain, the guy whose patriotism YOUR hero, GaWol Bush, slimed during the 2000 GOP primary.

  • Clavos

    You have never heard me claim the Bush as a hero, emmy.

    You haven’t even seen me write much good about him.

    You must be thinking of some other grunt.

  • REMF

    And of course, the late Col. David Hackworth.

    – MCH

  • REMF

    “You have never heard me claim the Bush as a hero, emmy.”
    – Clavpopuli

    Is that proper grammar, “…claim the Bush as…”? Just curious, since you’re BC’s grammar cop.

  • REMF

    “You have never heard me claim the Bush as a hero, emmy.”
    – Clavpopuli

    Just as you’ve never heard me claim Kerry as a hero.

  • Clavos

    True.

    Well, at least you have some sense…

  • Clavos

    What is it about “claim the Bush as” that you think may be ungrammatical?

  • http://www.futonreport.net/ Matthew T. Sussman

    “You’ve never heard me claim” ≠ “I don’t think that”

  • Clavos

    In one sense of “claim,” hyes.

    It also means to claim, as in claiming your coat from the cloak room, which was the sense I was using, as in:

    “You’ve never heard me declare the Bush as one of my heroes.”

  • Clavos

    Uh, Matt,

    I just saw the diagonal through your equals sign.

    Clever observation (on your part I mean, not mine).

    However, not only have I not been heard to claim Le Bush as a hero, I don’t; for which you’ll have to take my word.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    Look, everybody knows that Matt Drudge is a Jew and a Freemason who has been granted magical powers to mesmerize the masses in order to do the bidding of Dick Cheney and the neo-con paymasters at Halliburton.

  • http://www.chucko33.blogspot.com CharlieD

    Woah! Didn’t think this thread was still going, but I guess ever since I mentioned the SWIFTBOATers, this comments here have taken a life of its own (to put it mildly).

    Before I start, let me just point those of you who still believe in the SWIFTBOAT VETS to – sorry, got URL error message so COPY AND PASTE – swiftvets.eriposte.com and mediamatters.org/items/200408250002.

    RJ, it’s BIASED people like you (not me) who do no outside – hey, try seach engines, they’re free – searching for facts they do not want to hear or read who worry me come voting time. Anyone can be a journalist or blogger these days, but the old (late) Daniel Patrick Moynihan saying still holds true: “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion. He is not entitled to his own facts.”

    My post will be too long if I respond to everything, so READ the links. You will be enlightened to the truth (and I don’t even care for Kerry, who I reluctantly voted for in 2004 – best of the worst kind of thing).

    It is laughable RJ, your supposed list of “facts” of John Kerry’s Vietnam/post-Vietnam actions and the media ignoring the Swiftees. I saw them on C-SPAN, National Press Club briefing multiple times in May of 2004, and John O’Neill was on cable television (FNC, CNN, MSNBC) REPEATEDLY before (and even after) the 2004 election.

    By the way RJ, John O’Neill is on tape admitting to Nixon that he crossed into Cambodia. Talk about presenting your own, biased set of facts. C’mon!

    Try to refute this: “SBV claims that Kerry could not have been inside Cambodia on Christmas Eve of 1968 as Kerry claims. However, there is no evidence validating their assertion. Kerry was known to be very close to the Cambodian border on Christmas Eve of 1968 and he was independently reported to have been inside Cambodia in January and February of 1969. No one can prove that he was NOT across the Cambodian border on Christmas night in 1968. Two of his own crewmates confirm they were near the Cambodia border on Christmas eve 1968. Navy records and calculations suggest Kerry’s boat could have very well been inside Cambodia on that night. There is additional evidence to suggest that SBV’s claims are false. Indeed, SBV member John O’Neill showed himself to be a liar extraordinaire since he had stated to then-President Richard Nixon that he was “in Cambodia” himself, in a swift boat, even though he keeps claiming today that he was never in Cambodia!”

    Or this: “SBV’s claim that Kerry’s own diary shows he was 55 miles from the Cambodian border on Christmas Eve 1968 selectively omits the part that refers to Kerry having been at or near the Cambodian border the same day – thus, falsely impugning Kerry as a liar.”
    Both quotes are from swiftvets.eriposte.com/kerrycambodia.htm.

    I could go on and on…

    Now, before my arm falls off, let me go into RJ’s other facts he left out in his poor efforts to criticize the MSM, including MSNBC.

    First off, Chris Matthews doesn’t refer to himself as a Democrat and has even referred to Republicans as the “Daddy” party and Dems the “Mommy” party; gushes over Rudy Giuliani for among other things, getting the “pee” smell out of places in NYC (even though that’s not entirely true); Olbermann would never consider himself a pure “leftist” (like Kucinich? I think not!) and if you watch his show regularly you know he lashes out or expresses his skepticism of Democratic motives more often that you think (try reading his Special Comment blasting the Dems around May 1st of this year over Iraq war funding, for example).

    And Brian Williams isn’t as partisan as you want to believe – he’s an admitted Rush Limbaugh fan and listener. And you forgot Pat Buchanon, the leading Republican on MSNBC. Don Imus is a McCain and Lieberman fan, has identified or been identified as both a “maverick” Republican and Democrat.

    And no, Scarborough doesn’t spend “most of his time” criticizing fellow Republicans. That was true last year, especially in the Fall of ’06 leading up to election time, but not all the time and you have to know that.

    Oh, and you asked for Media Matters’ report on Bill Maher? Here it is! http://www.mediamatters.org/items/200706260001
    I provide. You decide.

    And finally, this is laughable and shows how little RJ pays attention to the news:
    “Oddly enough though, the media hasn’t reported much on the recent “ethical questions” surrounding Rep. John Murtha, Sen. Harry Reid, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, or Rep. William Jefferson, despite The Dems now being in control of both houses of Congress.” CBS, NBC, MSNBC, FNC, all of them reported William Jefferson’s corruption charges when they were announced recently. Again, do your homework (you do know how to use google and type in keywords, right? I thought so, now use it.)

    And no, there is no controversy/illegal wrongdoings/conflict-of-interest accusations of any merit involving Dianne Feinstein or Harry Reid (the latter is an idiot who puts his foot in his mouth every now and then -look up his recent Petraeus comments).

    CREW however, just last year had John Murtha listed as one of many Congressmen (mostly Republican) to watch for regarding investigations/indictments. And who could argue against Rep. Jefferson’s corruption charges?

    By the way, you forget that Nancy Pelosi was instrumental in taking away Jefferson’s Ways and Means chairmanship over a year ago and did so against pressure from the party and the Black Congressional Caucus. This year, under DEM control, he was nominated but not chosen to chair the House Homeland Security Committee.

    RJ, I won’t and don’t call you or other people nasty, demeaning names like some do, but I will say that obviously you are either misinformed or uninformed when it comes to issues raised here. But you’re not the only one (not here, not in this country).

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Charlie, the thread was dead and you’re just trying to bring it back.

    I do have to say that supporting your arguments primarily with information from a totally partisan source like MediaMatters doesn’t help anyone take you seriously.

    And your SBV example is awfully weak. Who cares if Kerry was in or out of Cambodia? Lots of Swift Boats went over the border, so did other units. The accuracy of Kerry’s knowledge of the geography of the region after a couple of months there isn’t exactly a major issue.

    What is significant about the SBV attacks on Kerry is that they show how absolutely outraged vietnam vets who did and didn’t serve with Kerry are about his behavior, not so much in the war itself, but after the fact. 40 years later an awful lot of vets have been willing to come forward and accuse Kerry of some pretty serious misconduct – true or not – and that says volumes about his behavior and the hatred which he has earned among them.

    Dave

  • http://www.chucko33.blogspot.com charlied

    Excuse me? The thread was NOT dead. Check all the comments right before my last post (July 1, June 30, etc)! Besides, why are you addressing me now? I was mostly referring to someone named RJ.

    And go ahead and keep saying Media Matters is a PARTISAN site, if it makes you feel good, but it won’t help you win many arguments. Not with me.

    Just like factcheck.org, everyone should come away from MM more informed about major issues, candidates, media figures than they were before.
    Why? Because MM covers more ground than any media/political analysis site out there, which is why it’s usually (but not always) worth reading.

    The only ground they don’t cover is misinformation/bias by Dems/Dem-ish media about the Right/major issues – that’s what the other right-leaning sites are and have been around for.

    Mediaresearch.org is good but limited in what and who they analyze for liberal bias, and they, like Newsbusters.org (which I am a member of) often editorialize in their analysis/headlines (unlike Factcheck and MM) so you can’t always take them seriously.

    For example, Mediaresarch.org just got all over the “paltry, left-leaning” news media for not calling the immigration bill “amnesty” enough times when the issue clearly has been referred to since the beginning as immigration “reform.” Most people/media figures who use the term “amnesty” are against the (now dead) bill (including Lou Dobbs). So it isn’t necessarily liberal bias if the media called it a “reform” bill.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    Just like factcheck.org, everyone should come away from MM more informed about major issues, candidates, media figures than they were before.
    Why? Because MM covers more ground than any media/political analysis site out there, which is why it’s usually (but not always) worth reading.

    I liked factcheck.org when it was still operational, because it was relatively politically neutral. MM’s problem is that it goes out looking for ways to discredit the right and presents only that one side of the argument. In a situation where both right and left are wrong, they will only tell you why the right is wrong. That makes it something you can refer to, but can’t use as your main source.

    For example, Mediaresarch.org just got all over the “paltry, left-leaning” news media for not calling the immigration bill “amnesty” enough times when the issue clearly has been referred to since the beginning as immigration “reform.” Most people/media figures who use the term “amnesty” are against the (now dead) bill (including Lou Dobbs). So it isn’t necessarily liberal bias if the media called it a “reform” bill.

    Ah, but that’s an issue where normal left/right divisions break down horribly. There are people on both left and right who are for and against immigration in various ways. Dobbs is basically a socialist/unionist and certainly falls on the left on most issues and he’s against immigration. And at the same time, lots of people who are for more open immigration and even amnesty were against the bill because its implementation of amnesty was so half-assed. The bill just sucked no matter what you believe about immigration.

    Dave

  • CharlieD

    Dave Nalle, you really have poor analytical skills if you think my SBV example (on Kerry being in Cambodia) is “poor” or not a big deal. What do you need, the exact name of the “Independent” confirmation and Navy records/calculations that Kerry was in Cambodia when he said he was? Give me a break.

    Again, I was refuting someone else’s beliefs here (let them defend them), someone who said that Kerry lied to Congress (which he did not), the Senate in particular about the Cambodia incident.

    So yes, it was a big issue with the SBV and their supporters. And a tape eventually came out proving John O’Neill was a hypocrite and liar.

    This RJ person has all the smears of Kerry memorized, apparently – and most of them have been debunked. Go here for a Factcheck.org item from 2004, all of you who have commented on this sub-topic (if you still care).

    The sub-head stands out: “[SBV]Ad features vets who claim Kerry “lied” to get Vietnam medals. But other witnesses disagree — and so do Navy records.”

    So do these statments of FACT: “[A]ccording to a Navy casualty report released by the Kerry campaign, the third purple heart was received for ‘shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94,’ Kerry’s boat.”

    Doug Brinkley’s “Tour of Duty” states that “after the mine blast that disabled PCF-3 … a second explosion rocked his own boat. ‘The concussion threw me violently against the bulkhead on the door and I smashed my arm,’ Kerry says on page 314.”

    But his wounds were superficial, right? Wrong!

    Finally: “In any case, even a ‘friendly fire’ injury can qualify for a purple heart ‘as long as the ‘friendly’ projectile or agent was released with the full intent of inflicting damage or destroying enemy troops or equipment,’ according to the Web site of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. All agree that rice was being destroyed that day on the assumption that it otherwise might feed Viet Cong fighters.”

    So while the facts are on Kerry’s side in most cases (spreading hearsay as fact aside in one instance), there will always be a cult of bitter Vietnam veterans who take it personally that a fellow veteran spoke out and told the world that what his government and military did in Vietnam was so out of control at times (like “free fire zones”) and criminal that we needed to put an end to it.

    But they are outnumbered by those veterans who actually served with him, and support him, as they did in 2004: “Over 500 veterans will attend the [Democratic National] Convention as delegates – a Democratic party record. Thousands more veterans will attend pre-convention rallies, take part in a veterans motorcycle ride from California to Boston….” (From All American Patriots).

    Thank God he’s not running for President again (he really should think of retiring, as ineffective as he is as a Senator), if only to save us from rehashing these same arguments over his Vietnam days again and again.

  • charlied

    By the way Dave, Factcheck.org is STILL “operational.” (I guess you haven’t checked out the site in a while though that’s understandable since they put out articles on an irregular basis).

    It’s still an excellent source of balanced journalism/political analysis.

  • http://www.elitebloggers.com Dave Nalle

    It is? I thought they shut down after the 2004 election. I even remember reading a posting to that effect on the site. Nice to hear they’re not gone.

    Dave Nalle, you really have poor analytical skills if you think my SBV example (on Kerry being in Cambodia) is “poor” or not a big deal. What do you need, the exact name of the “Independent” confirmation and Navy records/calculations that Kerry was in Cambodia when he said he was? Give me a break.

    You seem to have entirely ignored my point. The details of the SVB accusations don’t matter. Some of them have a some substance others are clearly flawed recollections. It doesn’t matter whether Kerry was in Cambodia or not. It doesn’t matter whether his wounds were minor or not. What matters is that so many other Vietnam vets despise him and have good reason to do so.

    I know a Vietnam Vet who served on a PBR some years prior to Kerry and knows people who knew Kerry during the war. He’s as left-wing as you can get. He doesn’t believe any of the details of the SVB accusations against Kerry. But when Kerry was running he frequently expressed strong disapproval of Kerry, not because of whatever he did or didn’t do during his incredibly brief tour of combat duty, but because of the discredit he brought to all vets after he got back.

    Even you wouldn’t be partisan enough to try to deny that Kerry did and said things which Vietnam vets found incredibly offensive. That’s the real problem.

    Dave

  • REMF

    “so u dodged the draft just like kerry by enlisting in a ‘soft’ service.”
    – Lumpy

    Ask that of Gonzo and Andy Marsh.

    ——————————–

    “My point about Lumpy was in response to your saying that your service in the Navy was more than he’s ever done, which while true, is once again, a non sequitur, since it is not possible for him to have served.”
    – Clavpoplui

    And my point is, I don’t give a shit what his excuse is, as long as he slimes my service having never served himself.

    ——————————–

    “Emmy, why REMF for heaven’s sake?”
    – STM

    Rear Echelon Mother Fucker
    – MCH

  • bliffle

    I had to trim my toenails this morning and it’s all John Kerrys fault!

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    There was no draft when I joined the Navy…I joined because I wanted to suck off the government teat for twenty years…at least that seems to be the feeling of [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor.] mch!

    And yeah…it was a cakewalk! easy money…just never enough of it…the govt teat supplied a sailor with just enough to get by…but govt cheese is pretty tasty! WIC helped when my first daughter was born…

    [Personal attack deleted by Comments Editor]

  • http://theugliestamerican.blogspot.com Andy Marsh

    Come on CR…it wasn’t that gratuitious!!! I even cleaned it up a bit!