Kerry and Bush supporters. A question for y'all.

[peachgirl]

So to make it real easy for everyone:

This is even easier....

<center><IMG width="150" SRC="http://logo.cafepress.com/5/2952.281325.jpg "></center>

 

[TXTink]

To all interested in the topic of Kerry's Vietnam war hearing statements, you can watch a complete re-airing of them tonight on C-Span at 8:05 EST.

 

[peachgirl]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Because leaving out the first part of the sentence is immaterial to the political context and the intent of his words at the time he gave that speech.

Of course it's material, that is, if you want to be accurate. The bushies have managed to convince a lot of people that every issue and every question can be reduced to a go get 'em cowboy one liner. It can't. Just look at his testimony and there is simply no question that he was indeed relaying what he had learned in his meeting with other veterans.

"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

]THEY TOLD STORIESat times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."

Since when are the first three words of a sentence unimportant? If people won't take the time to read the paragraphs leading up to where he reported what he had been told, at least pay attention to the first three words in the sentence.

It's pretty commonly accepted that sentences, entire statements, can be taken out of context, but this one goes to the point of being ridiculous.

The absolute proof that those 3 three words are important and make all the difference in the world is that the swift liars left them out. The truth is, they couldn't have made that ad with those words included.

<center><IMG width="150" SRC="http://logo.cafepress.com/5/2952.281325.jpg "></center>

 

[Lebjwb]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Because leaving out the first part of the sentence is immaterial to the political context and the intent of his words at the time he gave that speech.

The only way this isn't spin is if the Kerry campaign is trying to imply that Kerry wasn't really a leader in the anti-war movement but in reality, he was just some court reporter reading back a transcript from the Winter Soldier investigation.

So I guess lying is material and the truth is immaterial. That type of rational would make you the perfect Bush dupe and is the foundation of the Bush administration and campaign. They've been doing it since day one with the Fla election grab, WMD's, Rice, Viet Nam, National Guard Service, Iraq, 9/11, etc, etc, etc.

Thankfully we will only have a few more weeks until we finally put a leader in the White House. You see we are better organized and way more ticked off then the opposition ( just watch NYC next week during the convention for a preview of things to come)

History will bear this out: Bush has been a complete and utter failure, a disgrace to my beloved country and has betrayed the very troops he was sworn to protect by putting them in harms way for his own personal agenda.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by bsnyder
...this isn't spin...Kerry wasn't really a leader in the anti-war movement

Nah...There's nothing wrong with creative editing, is there ?

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Nah...There's nothing wrong with creative editing, is there ?

Creative editing. Exactly what the Kerry Campaign has been doing with John Kerry's biography since the start of his Presidential bid.

I'm still waiting for more poll numbers, but what I've seen so far suggests that this issue is a big liability for Kerry.

This blogger hits it out of the park:

Farewell John Kerry!
I had a whole agenda of things I wanted to look up on John Kerry today, and I couldnt get the words to come out. One week after starting my blog, and here I was with a ripping case of "blog-block".

Why? Because I didn't start the blog so I could dig up the obvious on John Kerry. Frankly, its just too easy.

Let's take a look at the score so far. Kerry , who decided for some reason beyond the comprehension of a simpleton like me, has decided that the most important thing to run his campaign on is 4 month service in Vietnam 35 years ago.

35 years ago! For gods sake man! Did it occur to you that 35 years was a hell of a long time ago? Do you remember anyone in 1960 running on his war record against the Kaiser in WWI? Did you really think that no one would look into your record? Did you think or did anyone that works for you not think that you ,like almost everyone else in the world, did in fact embellish your resume and tell tales that weren't based on fact, but on the emotions of the time?

Didn't it occur to you even a little bit, that standing up and saluting like a total fob and saying " Reporting for duty" after you sat in front of the Senate in 1971 with a fatigue shirt and long hair and told tales of "Americas war criminals" that somehow the "Band of Brothers" made for TV presentation schtick, might ring a bit hollow?

Here you are, with a 15% polling tailwind from the press reduced to Michael Moore street theatre with Max Cleland doing your dirty work in front of the cameras.

Do you know how non-presidential this looks? Can you do anything else to look more petty, small and dare I say "lawyer-ish".

If you can't take a punch from a guy like Bush, how are you going to deal with Chirac? or the Iranians? or for that matter, all the other Republicans in Congress, who want nothing more in life than to be the one who spills your guts out on the floor.

This is real hardball politics and your response is to go on "The Daily Show"? Really Mr. Kerry, THE DAILY SHOW? Do you hold myself and the rest of the American public in such contempt that your first show after the convention is on a cable comedy satire show? It annoys me sir, but you've got to think that it just sizzles the rear ends of the political journalists, and you know what happens when they get mad at you? They will go looking for things to make you look bad. Mark my words sir, the easy stuff about you has come out, when the really ugly stuff comes out, you're going to need a better game than this to stay upright and watertight. How does it help you to alienate the press? You make the statement all the time about how we are supposed to work with our allies, and here you are, in a political campaign annoying you allies for no clear purpose.

Mark my works - The press made you, and the press will break you. Now that you've embarrased them, they will make it their life's work.

There is no President in modern memory who is so universally hated than George W. Bush, and yet, you've never polled outside of the margin of error. Now, the polls are going against you, and by my measurement, its going to get worse, not better from here. Bush is a marathon runner and you are a country club golf cart riding, two caddy golfer. As long as you continue to bring your B game to an A game park, you and your party are going to look fools. At some point, you will begin to see you allies in your party and the press make you the pinata at this party. They will not take the heat for your loss, they will tie a can around your neck and toss you out into the exercise yard for the guards to shoot at. Everyone loves a winner, but no one can stand a loser.

You sir, are a loser. You will go down in history as the man who made Dukakis look good.

I don't really feel sorry for you, frankly you've proven to be everything I've learned to expect from the son of a foreign service officer who was raised in a swiss boarding school, whos personal fortune comes from marrying women from a higher income bracket than himself.

I do feel sorry for Howard Dean and his supporters. I hope you guys understand what you sold your votes out for. Deaniacs, you might not like George W. Bush, but take a look at John Kerry. Bush might be your enemy, but hes not the one who sunk your battleship. The USS Kerry did that all by himself.

Prediction: Mcgovern, Mondale, Dukakis and now Kerry will each get an entry in the hall of fame of losers. 40 states will go for Bush. It will not be a close election.


I hereby swear off blogging about John Kerry.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Creative editing. Exactly what the Kerry Campaign has been doing with John Kerry's biography since the start of his Presidential bid.

I'm still waiting for more poll numbers, but what I've seen so far suggests that this issue is a big liability for Kerry.

This blogger hits it out of the park:

The point, since you seem to have missed it, is that all these ads are taking Kerry's comments out of context and twisting them to mean something different than what he actually said. That's dishonest, I don't care how you try to spin it. Just like the "voted for it before voting against it" comment, it was PART of a sentence, not the entire statement. The fact that you continue to blithely ignore this dishonesty on the part of the Bush campaign just makes you look blinded by partisanship.

As to this blogger.... I can find a million or so that accuse Bush of everything from sabotaging the titanic to being secretly an alien come to destroy us all. It means precisely squat unless you can back it up with something more than idiotic insults that read like they were written by a high school girl.

 

[Saffron]

And entire sentence, paragraph (let's not forget the opening of the speech where he says he is speaking for the members of the V V A W, not ALL veterans), is irrelevent to a speech, a sentence or a conversation? Immaterial to political context and intent?

Let's drop the beginning of these sentences and see what happens ...

Someone told me people outside of the United States hates George W Bush.

I don't remember saying George Bush is a liar.

Some people say Bush, others say Kerry has already won the election.

Does anyone really believe Bush maligns every Vietnam Veteran that runs against him.

Immaterial to political context?

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by wvrevy
The point, since you seem to have missed it, is that all these ads are taking Kerry's comments out of context and twisting them to mean something different than what he actually said. That's dishonest, I don't care how you try to spin it. Just like the "voted for it before voting against it" comment, it was PART of a sentence, not the entire statement. The fact that you continue to blithely ignore this dishonesty on the part of the Bush campaign just makes you look blinded by partisanship.

As to this blogger.... I can find a million or so that accuse Bush of everything from sabotaging the titanic to being secretly an alien come to destroy us all. It means precisely squat unless you can back it up with something more than idiotic insults that read like they were written by a high school girl.

I haven't missed your point at all, I just happen to disagree with you. And I think a significant number of voters will also disagree with you. That's JMO, of course, on the political implications of this.

Face it, the vast majority of the people participating in this thread are blinded by partisanship, including you and me. So what?

The implications of the Swiftvets ads on this election do not hinge on the reactions of you and me.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by bsnyder
I haven't missed your point at all, I just happen to disagree with you. And I think a significant number of voters will also disagree with you. That's JMO, of course, on the political implications of this.

Face it, the vast majority of the people participating in this thread are blinded by partisanship, including you and me. So what?

The implications of the Swiftvets ads on this election do not hinge on the reactions of you and me.

You disagree with what ? That parsing someone's words to make it seem like they said one thing when they actually said something else is deplorable and dishonest ? If it doesn't make a difference whether you tell the whole story or not, why is it that the Republicans won't show the entire comments ? Do you think it's just for brevity's sake ?

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by wvrevy
You disagree with what ? That parsing someone's words to make it seem like they said one thing when they actually said something else is deplorable and dishonest ? If it doesn't make a difference whether you tell the whole story or not, why is it that the Republicans won't show the entire comments ? Do you think it's just for brevity's sake ?

Again, it's my opinon that leaving out the beginning of the quote did not materially change the political context and the intent of his words at the time he gave that speech.

He wasn't testifying at the Senate hearing as a court reporter for the Winter Soldiers Investigation. He never qualified those statements by saying he didn't agree with them, or doubted their veracity.

You're splitting hairs, and sound about as whiney and cry-babyish as John Kerry and Max Clelland.

That parsing someone's words to make it seem like they said one thing when they actually said something else is deplorable and dishonest ?

Spare me your self-righteous indignity. Both parties do this routinely.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Again, it's my opinon that leaving out the beginning of the quote did not materially change the political context and the intent of his words at the time he gave that speech.

He wasn't testifying at the Senate hearing as a court reporter for the Winter Soldiers Investigation. He never qualified those statements by saying he didn't agree with them, or doubted their veracity.

You're splitting hairs, and sound about as whiney and cry-babyish as John Kerry and Max Clelland.



Spare me your self-righteous indignity. Both parties do this routinely.

Wow, getting a little touchy today aren't we ? What's the matter, having a hard time defending these actions, but afraid to admit it ?

"These men told me that they had done x,y, and z."

He is repeating what he was told by the guys at the Winter Soldier thing.

"...they had done x,y, and z."

Makes it sound like HE is PERSONALLY accusing them of doing something.

Yeah...that's the same thing

"Splitting hairs" ? No. It's called telling the truth...but I can see how a Bush supporter might have been confused at that

 

[wvrevy]

Oh, and as for the comparison to Max Cleeland and John Kerry....

Thanks

(Better Max than that pitiful excuse for a human being that showed a commercial morphing Cleeland's face into bin Ladins during their smear campaign against him. KKKarl Rove is a waste of air.)

 

[bsnyder]

Originally posted by wvrevy
Wow, getting a little touchy today aren't we ? What's the matter, having a hard time defending these actions, but afraid to admit it ?

"These men told me that they had done x,y, and z."

He is repeating what he was told by the guys at the Winter Soldier thing.

"...they had done x,y, and z."

Makes it sound like HE is PERSONALLY accusing them of doing something.

Yeah...that's the same thing

"Splitting hairs" ? No. It's called telling the truth...but I can see how a Bush supporter might have been confused at that

Then why don't we have John Kerry clear up this little misunderstand by telling us that he thinks the Winter Soldiers investigation claims were fraudulent?

Cleland has become the ultimate Democrat--a professional victim, defined entirely by his triple-amputee status, who will do anything for the party hacks. Cleland served a term in the U.S. Senate; he apparently believed that his victim status entitled him to a Senate seat in perpetuity and without opposition, regardless of his votes, which consistently betrayed the views and interests of his constituents. As I say, the ultimate Democrat.

 

[Alice28]

bsnyder- that blog you quoted was right on in my opinion. Thank you for posting it. I am trying to step back from the political threads here on the DIS because I just figure there's not much I can do here; people have so clearly made up their minds that write on these threads. I am talking to my neighbors, my friends, my family about why I think Bush is the better candidate and I have led some people to truly start thinking. I think that some of my neighbors who normally are not that interested in politics are listening to me, as I think they have been a little jolted into reality seeing my husband leave to go to Iraq with the Nat'l Guard.

 

[wvrevy]

Originally posted by bsnyder
Then why don't we have John Kerry clear up this little misunderstand by telling us that he thinks the Winter Soldiers investigation claims were fraudulent?

If I'm not mistaken, he has said that those claims were exagerrated back then. But again, they weren't HIS claims to prove or disprove, he merely repeated them when asken in front of congress.

Originally posted by bsnyder
Cleland has become the ultimate Democrat--a professional victim, defined entirely by his triple-amputee status, who will do anything for the party hacks. Cleland served a term in the U.S. Senate; he apparently believed that his victim status entitled him to a Senate seat in perpetuity and without opposition, regardless of his votes, which consistently betrayed the views and interests of his constituents. As I say, the ultimate Democrat.

Wow...I don't even know what to say to this...Reminds me of that nauseating crap Anne Coulter spews on a regular basis. Let me tell you something lady...Max Cleeland gave more to this country than you or I ever thought about, and you simply aren't worthy of criticizing him.

Frankly, your post disgusts me, and this conversation is now over.

 

[disney4us2002]

Good job Alice! It's not about who can score points here; it's about getting out the message in the real world!

Bet, where did you find that blog? I don't typically visit political sites but I really could relate to that writer.


<center>

</center> [/B][/QUOTE]

 

[bsnyder]

Alice and disney4us2002.

Glad you liked it. I thought it was a winner, and although it won't appeal to a certain constituency (wvrevy, et al) I think it probably sums up what a fair number of voters are thinking this morning.

I'll have to find you the weblog and it may take me a bit. I have quite a few weblogs, on both the left and the right, that I read religiously, but this guy isn't one I've ever heard or seen before....I just followed a link on one of my regulars and I'll have to go back and find it.

Alice, one on one political pursuasion is very effective. I'm glad to hear you support President Bush.

 

[Saffron]

.

 

[bsnyder]

Got it, disney4us2002, it's http://varifrank.typepad.com/varifrank/

Enjoy!

And I'm sorry that wvrevy has decided to bow out of the discussion. I wanted to show him what one of my favorite Lefty bloggers, Josh Marshall, had to say last night.

OUCH:

Taegan D. Goddard at politicalwire.com says he got an advance look at the new LA Times poll and that it shows Bush 49% - Kerry 46% among registered voters.

Not a huge difference from recent polls -- and of course still in the margin of error. But it does provide some more evidence for at least a small move in the president's direction.

I do think this Swift Boat garbage has hurt.

We'll see how much or for how long.

The bold emphasis is mine.


www.talkingpointsmemo.com