Burnt Orange Report

The White House obviously couldn't find any pictures of the young George Dubya attending National Guard meetings in Alabama during the summer of 1972.
In their eyes, this is the next best thing.

At least Kerry never campaigned at racist Bob Jones University.

I'm waiting for the White House to release a photo of Kerry throwing his fake medals over the fence in a hypocritical act of defiance.

It's perfectly legitimate for the opposition to expose the dual nature of the John "By the way, I served in Vietnam" Kerry image. The Dems want a war hero to try to gain credibility on national security and a hippie protester to assuage the Baby Boomers.

Problem is, Kerry served "thirty years ago" and our own war leader has served since 9/11.

our own war leader has served since 9/11.

You misspelled "distracted."

Perhaps you should read his testimony before Congress to understand why he threw his medals.

Oh wait, I forgot to whom I was speaking--Mark "It was a Jeep accident" Harden.

Perhaps you should read his testimony before Congress to understand why he threw his medals.

"His" medals?

our own war leader has served since 9/11.

If he had been serving during the first eight months of his administration, 9/11 might not have happened.

BTW: Where's Osama?

I think Osama is waiting for his grand debut in October(surprise!) of 2004. This is a ridiculous smear job on Kerry. Bush is desperate, and will use any little thing to discredit Kerry in order to deflect attention from his own miserable failures and the issues at hand. That is how the Republican machine works. If they concentrated on issues, they would lose every time.

I'm waiting for the White House to release a photo of Kerry throwing his fake medals over the fence in a hypocritical act of defiance.

That would be a much more effective attack, IMO, because it goes to the heart of Kerry's major weakness: he doesn't have the courage of his convictions! If he really felt he'd served in an unjust cause, why didn't he throw his own damn medals?

This lame attempt at guilt by association, on the other hand, will convince no one besides hardcore Bush worshippers like yourself.

It's perfectly legitimate for the opposition to expose the dual nature of the John "By the way, I served in Vietnam" Kerry image.

Yes, it's legitimate. The problem with this photo is that it doesn't prove a thing about that "dual nature."

"Look, he stood in the general vicinity of Fonda, and we all know how she felt about Vietnam!" Yeah, that really clinches it.

The Dems want a war hero to try to gain credibility on national security and a hippie protester to assuage the Baby Boomers.

Yes, I guess that explains why the NATO commander who turned against the Iraq war did so well.

Problem is, Kerry served "thirty years ago" and our own war leader has served since 9/11.

Shrub has "served," if by "served" you mean "exploited."

Tx Bubba,

Perhaps you should read his testimony before Congress to understand why he threw his medals.

You mean his testimony where he slandered American soldiers as rapists, murderers, and all around barbarians? You mean the testimony where he depended upon the 'Winter Soldier' investigation as evidence, which consisted of a bunch of hippies coming up, claiming to be former soldiers, and then lying through their teeth about American atrocities?

That testimony?

I want to see how well the John Kerry campaign handles this. If this is in fact from the White House he can accuse the them of gutter politics.

When you run for president you know what you have done in your past and you can expect for it to all come out. The Kerry camp has to go in to war mode sooner or later.

BlogCritics has the best take on this. I laughed my ass of when I scrolled down.

I've been waiting for the "Rummy gettin' chummy with Saddam" photo for some time to come onto the campaign trail.

It would be great to have cartoon bubbles coming out of Saddam & Rummy's mouth Maybe another contest for Moveon.org (a la Bush in 30 seconds)?

Jeff, Thanks for the kind words about my entry at Blogcritics.

Oh, and I'm especially thrilled because my Museum of Stupidity is based in FORT WORTH. Yeehaw.

First off, the medals were not fake: Kerry threw his ribbons, not his medals. So, it's no wonder the medals hung in his office. Jeep::Grenade Medals::Ribbons

Owen, try reading beyond the first few sentences or something traded about on Freeper boards.

"We are angry because we feel we have been used in the worst fashion by the administration of this country."

"'That is fine, I am going to serve my country,' and he goes to Vietnam and he shoots and he kills and he does his job or maybe he doesn't kill, maybe he just goes and he comes back, and when he gets back to this country he finds that he isn't really wanted because the largest unemployment figure in this country - it varies depending on who you get it from, the V.A. 15 per cent, various other sources 22 per cent - but the largest corps of unemployed in this country are veterans of this war, and of those veterans 33 per cent of the unemployed are black. That means one out of every ten of the nation's unemployed is a veteran of Vietnam.

The hospitals across the country won't or can't meet their demands. "

"Finally, this administration has done us the ultimate dishonor. They have attempted to disown us and the sacrifices we made for this country. In their blindness and fear they have tried to deny that we are veterans or that we served in Nam. We do not need their testimony. Our own scars and stumps of limbs are witness enough for others and for ourselves."

He did not slander all American soldiers as "rapists, murderers, and all around barbarians" and his testimony certainly did not depend on the "Winter Soldier" investigation. It might seem subtle to some, but it's significant nonethless: there's a difference between accusing all American soldiers and repeating testimonies of individual actions (fake or not, which was not even determined until later).

Were there some fakes like Al Hubbard? Certainly. Were they all fakes as you're implying? No. (I searched and could find no details about the NIS investigation, so I doubt anyone on this board has any real facts on the extent of the fakes.) Were atrocities such as he listed committed? Yes. The claims were supported by the facts that even NRO acknowledges:

"Between 1965 and 1973, 201 soldiers and 77 Marines were convicted of serious crimes against the Vietnamese. Of course, the fact that many crimes, either in war or peace, go unreported, combined with the particular difficulties encountered by Americans fighting in Vietnam, suggest that more such acts were committed than reported or tried."

Read America in Vietnam, and you'll see the damage to the civilians affirmed but defended.

Debate whether or not it was rampant, repeat Internet fodder about fake witnesses, and you're missing the point that Americans killed people (something difficult to deal with even when you know it's the right thing to do, as a co-worker who worked in special ops said) and they suffered death and losses of all kinds. And these loyal Americans survivors were treated like crap and ignored by their own country and government.

That was Kerry's point, which he repeated several times.

Truly, some people have bad parsers.

Here's a picture from the Harvard yearbook of George Dubya studying hard during his business school days.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/images/daily/bush60sart_072799.jpg

Tx Bubba,

Debate whether or not it was rampant, repeat Internet fodder about fake witnesses, and you're missing the point that Americans killed people (something difficult to deal with even when you know it's the right thing to do, as a co-worker who worked in special ops said) and they suffered death and losses of all kinds.

No, the point is that Kerry put forth exaggerated and false evidence of American atrocities before the United States Congress. That's the point, Bubba, and you can't just dance around it and justify the lies and fabrications. It's an insult to American soldiers to throw out accusations like that when they aren't even true.

Kerry was a self-aggrandizing egotist trying to make a name for himself following his failed Congressional campaign. He sought to do so by joining the anti-war movement. When that gained him sufficient notoriety, he quickly left, having been affliated with VVAW for all of five months. However, he did stay long enough to spread lies about US soldiers.

And these loyal Americans survivors were treated like crap and ignored by their own country and government. That was Kerry's point, which he repeated several times.

He said that our soldiers were treated badly after he characterized them as inhuman monsters, not before.

Right at the beginning of his testimony, Kerry started in the the blatantly false 'Winter Soldier' investigation. That was his point to, and it was a slander against the American military for which he should be ashamed. Nobody -- Republicans or Democrats -- should defend his disgraceful advocacy of lies.

I suppose partisanship really does know no bounds, though.

I acknowledged that some of the testimonies he referred to were false. But you can't deny that abuses did happen, as even the book you refer to acknowledges them. Oh, wait, you do . . . "they aren't even true." Kerry was there. You weren't. I'll trust firsthand knowledge, thank you very much. This is a man who himself was involved in killing civilians as part of a "free fire zone." But you, you read a book about it (or as is more likely, a summary of a book about it), so you're obviously more qualified than Kerry.

We now see that some of the testimonies were fabricated. But how many? I don't think he knowingly advocated lies. But those do not take away from the fact that such things happened and that they affected him and others. He had personal and historical facts that such atrocities happened. Are you denying that they happened, that there weren't "fire fire" zone and carpet bombing?

When it comes to dancing around the facts, you're Baryshnikov.

Your flippant dismissal of Kerry's remarks coming after the reference to the "Winter Soldier" testimonies is just plain obtuse: The anger about the treatment of the vets was the meat of his testimony. If Kerry so hated Americans and U.S. soldiers, then he would not have advocated for better treatment.

If Kerry indicted anyone, it was the political leaders for abandoning the U.S. soldiers.

Partisanship knows no bounds? This from someone who defends Bush's lies about Iraq? Save your politically convenient morality and indignance for the Freeper forums. Talk about hypocrites . . . who's defending a disgraceful advocacy of lies?

The Bush/Rove clique are obviously in a tizzy over the perception that Bush's dubious National Guard "service" will make the Flightsuit-in-Chief look even more like a hypocrite.
As Michael Moore recently pointed out* in an open letter to George Dubya at
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php
THAT is what makes this whole business of your being AWOL so despicable, and makes the grief-stricken relatives want to turn away from you in disgust. The reason your skipping-out on your enlistment didn't matter in the 2000 election was because we were not at war. Being stuck in a deadly, daily quagmire now in 2004 makes your military history-fiction and your fly-boy costume VERY relevant.

So the White House thinks it can counter by linking John Kerry to anti-war activities.
For starters, as a decorated Vietnam veteran, Kerry paid his dues and had every right to criticize an ill conceived and badly botched military effort on the part of the United States. Unlike Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, Lott, DeLay, Rove and the other "chickenhawks" of that generation, he had a first hand view of what was really taking place in Vietnam.
Also, most Americans now feel Vietnam to have been a mistake, though they also feel that Vietnam veterans were treated poorly upon their return to civilian life. In that context, bringing up Kerry's anti-war actions will probably boomerang on the Bushies.

The Republicans are fooling themselves if they think the Democrats are going to roll over and play dead in 2004.
Republicans play mean and dirty but suddenly turn sanctimonious when Democrats fight back.
I'm delighted that the Bush White House finds itself on the defensive on the AWOL issue. The longer it stays in the news, the more broadly it influences public opinion. It's an issue that goes beyond the mere absence of Dubya from his unit so he could work on a campaign of one of Papi's buddies in Alabama.
In today's NY Times, Bob Herbert tells of a book by journalist James Moore called, "Bush's War for Re-election".
Herbert writes
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/13/opinion/13HERB.html
This issue remains pertinent because it foreshadowed Mr. Bush's behavior as a politician and officeholder: the lack of engagement, the irresponsibility, and the casual and blatantly unfair exploitation of rank and privilege.

Mr. Bush favored the war in Vietnam, but he had the necessary clout to ensure that he wouldn't have to serve there. He entered the Texas Air National Guard at the height of the war in 1968 by leaping ahead of 500 other applicants who were on a waiting list.

Mr. Bush was eventually assigned to the 147th Fighter Group (later to become part of the 111th Fighter Interceptor Group), which Mr. Moore described in his book as a "champagne" outfit. "The ranks," he said, "were filled with the progeny of the wealthy and politically influential."

So here's the thing: After strolling to the head of the line, and putting the Guard to the considerable expense of training him as a pilot, Lieutenant Bush didn't even bother to take his duties seriously. He breezed off to Alabama to work on a political campaign. He never showed up as required to take his annual flight physical in 1972, and because of that was suspended from flying.

This cavalier treatment of his duties as a Guardsman occurred as thousands of others were being killed and wounded in Vietnam...

This is the guy who the neocons and fundies proclaim is a heroic figure who has protected America since 9/11.
It's too bad he wasn't protecting America on 9/11.

...........................................
* Thanks to my buddy Mike W. fot that link.

Tx Bubba,

But you can't deny that abuses did happen, as even the book you refer to acknowledges them. Oh, wait, you do... "they aren't even true." Kerry was there. You weren't. I'll trust firsthand knowledge, thank you very much.

What "firsthand knowledge?" Kerry doesn't claim to have witnessed anything firsthand approaching the atrocities he described in his testimony. Thus Kerry having zipped around in a swift boat not seeing atrocities doesn't give him one whit of credibility on this. He was totally dependent on the 'Winter Soldier' investigation, which was a unpatriotic act of vicious slander.

We now see that some of the testimonies were fabricated. But how many? I don't think he knowingly advocated lies.

He knowingly used a study with unverified testimony from anti-war nuts. How much more evidence do you need that he was negligent, wrong, and slandered the American military? You're some piece of work.

Your flippant dismissal of Kerry's remarks coming after the reference to the "Winter Soldier" testimonies is just plain obtuse: The anger about the treatment of the vets was the meat of his testimony. If Kerry so hated Americans and U.S. soldiers, then he would not have advocated for better treatment.

If Kerry indicted anyone, it was the political leaders for abandoning the U.S. soldiers.

He condemned both political leaders and the American military. This isn't an 'either or' proposition. He could have done -- and did -- both. You ignore the latter slander because you know it makes him a slimeball; don't think I don't understand how partisanship works.

But in case you are forgetful, here's what Kerry actually said: "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.

They told the stories at 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."

He makes American soliders look like monsters, and on what basis? The word of random hippies? People whose credentials his group wouldn't even both to check? It's disgusting.

Partisanship knows no bounds? This from someone who defends Bush's lies about Iraq?

Bush's lies? He didn't lie. Well, not unless two previous administrations did as well. Bush was citing the long-standing conclusions American intelligence, British intelligence, German intelligence, etc, etc. That this intelligence proved to be faulty doesn't prove him a liar -- he was depending on the most credible information available.

[W]ho's defending a disgraceful advocacy of lies?

You.