Love or hate Matt Drudge, he is the most powerful man in America.
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. …
Article comments
— go to most recent comments76 - MCH
Yeah, it was very little, Lumpy; but more than anything you've ever done.
77 - Clavos
REMF,
You do realize that Lumpy is handicapped?
78 - MCH
Clavnalle;
Yeah, uh-huh. So?
BTW, any particular reason you're ignoring #71?
79 - 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.
80 - 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
81 - 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.
82 - REMF
^ MCH
83 - 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?
84 - Clavos
"And Hack is a fuckin' sledge hammer."
With whom, as I said before, I disagree.
85 - 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?
86 - 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
87 - 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
88 - 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.
89 - 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
90 - REMF
Dave;
Would you prefer Clavpopuli?
91 - REMF
And Dave,
Stop using the name MCH. My new chops are REMF.
92 - STM
Emmy, why REMF for heaven's sake?
93 - 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 - ?
94 - 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.
95 - 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
96 - 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
97 - 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?
98 - 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?
99 - 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)
100 - 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"
101 - 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
102 - troll
oops - sorry about the 'P'
psst...trust no one - pass it on
103 - 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.
104 - 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."
105 - 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.
106 - REMF
Actually my hero is John McCain, the guy whose patriotism YOUR hero, GaWol Bush, slimed during the 2000 GOP primary.
107 - 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.
108 - REMF
And of course, the late Col. David Hackworth.
- MCH
109 - 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.
110 - 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.
111 - Clavos
True.
Well, at least you have some sense...
112 - Clavos
What is it about "claim the Bush as" that you think may be ungrammatical?
113 - Matthew T. Sussman
"You've never heard me claim" ≠ "I don't think that"
114 - 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."
115 - 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.
116 - 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.
117 - 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).
118 - 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
119 - 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.
120 - 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
121 - 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.
122 - 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.
123 - 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
124 - 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
125 - bliffle
I had to trim my toenails this morning and it's all John Kerrys fault!