Democratic strategist Mary Anne Marsh, speaking moments ago on “Hannity and Colmes”: “George Bush betrayed his country by sending us to war on false pretenses, and George Bush betrayed his country by not fighting in Vietnam.”
Yes. You read that right. “George Bush betrayed his country by not fighting in Vietnam.”
“George Bush betrayed his country by not fighting in Vietnam.”
Given an opportunity to correct this rather incredible statement, Ms. Marsh declined, arguing that she had nothing to correct—that it was a fact that George Bush betrayed his country by not fighting in Vietnam.
Betrayed his country. By not fighting in Vietnam.
…And yet roughly half of all voters will go to the ballot box this November and pull the lever for billionaire fancy lad John Kerry, the chosen representative of a party whose on-air strategists say things like “George Bush betrayed his country by not fighting in Vietnam”—and do so only a few short years after defending to the death Vietnam-avoider Bill Clinton’s right to have his hooked knob polished in the oval office by a wide-eyed, wide-hipped, genuflecting subordinate.
With a straight face, no less.
God. Help. Us.
****
update: Michelle Malkin posts the H&C transcript to Red State.
The money quote from Marsh: “Well, I think whether there’s a connection or not, I think what you have to look at is what John Kerry needs to do.
“And what John Kerry needs to do is to hit Bush as hard as Bush has hit him. And the way you do that is you remind people that Bush betrayed this country about why we went to war in Iraq, just like he betrayed them when he didn’t fight in Vietnam.”
The amazing thing to me is that they think the electorate is going to swallow this whole.
Oops, bad analogy alert.
Can’t add anything, Jeff, you hit it dead on.
Please, kelly. Not while I’m drinking beer.
I guess that’s a little unfair, on reflection. At least give fair warning, ok?
I wonder, what percentage of American males who spent part of the late 60s or early 70s in Canada will be voting for Kerry, do you think? I’d bet more than half.
Wish there was a poll on that one somewhere.
I’d be willing to go as high as 57%, were I a betting man. Or Grace Slick.
I think it was Nostradamus who said that the race between good and evil would be nip and tuck right up to the tape. Or it could have been Bob Costas.
Damn, you mean I spent those years busting my ass in the army during the 90’s and I still betrayed my country?
And my daughter, four years old, also didn’t serve in Vietnam, and is following in my treasonous footsteps?
My wife didn’t serve in Vietnam. Nor my mother. Nor my cat. Nor any of the cans of soup in my cabinet.
We’re a house of shame.
Oh well. At least Michael Moore never served in Vietnam either, though I hear he did get hungry and sucked out the rice embedded in Kerry’s butt.
I was drafted in 1968, a time when things were really popping in Vietnam. Even though I was scared shitless at the prospect of possibly being killed or turned into a vegetable, I went. It was the right thing to do. The cosmic dice rolled in my favor and I was sent to Germany rather than Vietnam.
I guess that makes me a traitor too.
So I guess now we can finally say right out loud that Clinton betrayed his country without a whisper of dissent from the Donks, right? Or no?
Well, fuck my bunny. Guess I’m going to have to move to Canada since I spent 20 years in the Air Force and didn’t see any combat.
I feel so…low.
Un-f@#king-real. I can’t even be sarcastic.
When the president enlisted in the National Guard, his father was Director of the CIA. No way would he be sent into combat. Too big risk that he’d be captured and held as a hostage, so if he enlisted or been drafted he wouldn’t have served in Viet Nam anyway. By joining the National Guard, he served our country in the best way he could.
Between the media finally (begrudgingly) providing some coverage of the Swiftvets accusations and the comments from Dole yesterday, the Kerry campaign has apparently come unhinged. They’re lashing out blindly at their tormentors. Three more months before the election and the dems have lost their composure. Now would be a good time for them to step back, regroup, and refocus on their message. Think that’ll happen? I don’t.
That’s unfortunate because it’s often beneficial to have a loyal opposition to maintain balance and keep you on your toes. However, this “anyone but Bush” mentality isn’t of any value whatsoever and is simply a waste of everyone’s time.
As an example: what message has the Kerry/Edwards ticket been able to get out over the past few days? Just one: “Mr. Bush, tell those mean Swiftvets to stop calling us names!” Not only would it be impossible for Bush to somehow silence a group of private citizens, but it makes plain that Kerry and Edwards don’t have anything more valuable to discuss. When their sole message is “Ow, quit it.”, they’re not adding much to national discourse.
I imagine even Colmes balked at accepting that postulate. If Marsh is what passes for a strategist in the DNC, the GOP has got this election sewn up.
I hope I can find that twit Marsh’s email address.
I believe Bush wasn’t confirmed CIA Director until 1975. I’m thinking that Bush may still have been in Congress in the late ‘60s.
I took a caller to task on a local talk radio show for this same issue, but she used the term “coward” instead of traitor.
Send the email to Hannity and Colmes. I think either one of them will find a way to get it to Ms Marsh.
George H. W. Bush was CIA Director from 30 January 1976 to 20 January 1977. At the time that Bush joined the TANG, he was a relatively minor figure without much clout.
The thing that is most remarkable about this is the state of mind that is required to make this statement. The closest I can come is the Orwellian idea of doublethink, where you can hold two simultaneously contradictory ideas in your head, and believe in both of them. It’s tantamount to a psychiatric disorder.
I hesitate to cast Democrats as unhinged, but faced with evidence like this, what option is there?
That should read: “at the time that Bush Jr. joined the TANG”
My step-dad was an Air Force volunteer in the 60s, “Vietnam Era” vet if you will, and the closest he got to Vietnam was Japan. Guess he betrayed his country as well.
And I suppose that *his* father stopped him from going to Vietnam also. Funny, I never knew that GHWB had any black children. Right on, brutha! I mean, Grandpa!
3 purple hearts on 100 days = unluckist guy in Vietnam = FLIP plus nNo scars from any of them = the Luckiest guy in vietnam. I tried to tell a bunch of them at a march rally that numbers do not lie – they looked at me and said at least Kerry went – Bush did not – and what about you – my answer – Vietnam Combat Officer I did not give people purple hearts for such crap.
Any chance that there’s a transcript containing the Marsh statement?
In 1968, Bush, Sr. was a congress-critter from Houston starting his fourth term. He would run unsuccessfully for Senate in either 1970 or 1972 against Bentsen. I was only in junior high then, so I’m not sure about the year.
<i>”Any chance that there’s a transcript containing the Marsh statement?”</i>
Not posted yet.
My stepdad was a traiter too. He was a civilian contracter repairing aircraft in Vietnam. He never fought in Vietnam… he just dodge mortor shells that came in every night.
I saw her comment and she was given every opportunity to correct her statement… absolutely amazing.
I agree about the Insanity of the Kerry campaign,
but I am roaring about Kelly’s comment.
It is priceless! Ha! Very, Very Funny!
Keep it up!
Oops! Forgot! That was what Slick Willie was working to change.
The Democratic party is fundamentally unserious. Their immaturity knows no bounds. It basically comes down to a belief that they are always right, and so anything they say is justified. Conversely, since Republicans are the source of all evil, anything they say must be bad.
I can accept that as much as a third of the electorate is too blind or too stupid to get this, but the fact that Kerry still has a shot at winning this thing after all the nonsense he and his surrogates have spewn is profoundly distressing.
Bush “betrayed his country”?
Like Alger Hiss betrayal? Or Aldrich Ames? Or the Rosenbergs?
“Betrayed.”
Hmm.
I’d be interested in how Ms. Marsh would characterize John Kerry’s meeting, while a Naval Reserve Officer, with North Vietnamese officials during the war.
I wouldn’t call that betrayal. But given the low bar set by Ms. Marsh’s definition, it seems to me that Mr. Kerry gets a gold medal for jumping over it.
He earns high marks especially, it appears, from the North Korean judge.
SMG
Actually, the statement was WORSE than stated above:
http://www.rightnation.us/forums/index.php?showtopic=50018
Thanks for that, recon.
I believe she said both things in her mad dash to tar Bush as a betrayer on as many levels as possible. I think her National Guard comments were actually an attempt to clarify those other statements I seized upon.
Nordlinger, incidentally, had the look of someone who’d just been runover by a crazed, rabid donkey. Priceless.
The betrayal comment is bit much, granted. But it’s hilarious that people are Shocked, Shocked, that this is going on and that it PROVES the Kerry campaign is “unhinged” “wild-eyed” “crazy” <insert favorite RNC adjective here>.
The republicans play the same (or worse) dirty tricks, but they are just better at it.
Bush is not going to win this election. You’ll just have to get your mind around that.
Dude. Matt. The point here is that Clinton dodged the draft completely, participated in anti-America, anti-war activities while in a foreign country, and went on an unsanctioned trip to the USSR, but anyone who criticized him was being “unfair.” Yet now, the same people (see above) who defended Clinton’s actions are criticizing Bush’s, and his are vastly less negative. That’s why we see things like this and feel like we’ve just been runover by a crazed, rabid donkey–it’s because of people randomly shifting reality to suit their needs.
Matt–
You’re kidding, right? Kerry CALLED THE SWIFT VETS HIMSELF. He called them to ask them why they didn’t like him! Buddy, he didn’t do that because he thought he was winning this issue–the issue that Kerry has assured us IS the election.
Beck:
Yes, both sides are shifting reality to suit their needs. I don’t see how the republicans can criticize Kerry for Vietnam with a straight face, given that Bush never even went. As for Clinton, I’m not sure that’s a valid comparison. I think there was some lawyerly dancing around the facts, but the attacks against Kerry are worse.
I don’t think, in the end, it’s really going to matter much. It was a long time ago. Watching the convention, I thought Kerry went overboard on the Vietnam thing. People are going to look at who can do a better job now. Bush has obviously messed it up big time, so it’s time for Kerry to give it a try.
Priceless irony.
How is:
“It was a long time ago.”
Priceless irony? It *was* a long time ago.
Please, please don’t bitch about what a candidate’s spokesman will say. Have you been listening to GWB’s campaign lately?
Pathetic. This lady’s statement is pathetic – but hardly representative.
I know the right-wing think’s the left has cornered the market on hate. That’s why I really can’t respect many of you – you’re ugly with blinders on.
Matt,
The Republicans haven’t critizied Kerry’s Service. Show me a quote where any member of the administration has said anything negative about Kerry’s service. His fellow officers and some enlisted men have along with former POWs that commented on Kerry’s activities when he got back home.
Please none of this SBVfT’s being Rebuplican frontman when the KE04 ties to MoveOn.org, Michael Moore and ACT are much more obvious and in plain view,
Have to admit the SBVfT are getting a hell of a lot more traction with their $300,000 ad buy then all of the Dem 527s are getting with their 10s of millions of dollars.
Is that Kool-Aid? Don’t mind if I do…..
I don’t give a shit what you think about me, Andrew. And as far as I’m concerned, I’m not the one wearing the blinders.
My name is Petey. Love me.
Matt, while I concede that both sides are doing what they can to win (obviously), my thinking is that Kerry hasn’t got a message beyond: “I’m a veteran, vote for me.” His senate record, when he was even present, is ultra-liberal. He really hasn’t accomplished much for Massachusetts (name one major item) and so he’s stuck beating his chest as tough-guy Vietnam vet because he really hasn’t got much else to say.
Now that his paltry war record is under the microscope and crumbling, he’s sunk, from my perspective. He’s been a do-nothing ultra-rich Massachusetts liberal and I’m certainly not willing to have him “give it a try.” Far better someone who has taken the war to our enemies and has achieved more in 3+ years than Clinton did in 8 to make the US and the world safer. Time will tell, I guess, but I’m voting the ‘man of action’ ticket versus the ‘coiffed head in the sand’ ticket.
The latter lost us 3000 dead, a gaping wound in a major city, a wrecked economy, and a scared populace. I’m not willing to go back there again, French ‘goodwill’ (whatever the fuck that’s good for) be damned.
Matt —
The irony is that it’s Kerry who keeps bringing up his Vietnam service. Every chance he gets.
But now that his service has come under scrutiny, we’re told that we should just move on, that Vietnam was “a long time ago.”
Hence the priceless irony—which, incidentally, works best if you picture Kerry in full salute, belting out a monotone, “John Kerry reporting for duty”…
Hey – this crew is funny!
So, the Swiftvets are “Republicans” but our Democratic congresspeople parade into the Michael Moore movie, are they still “Democrats.”
That bit about “lawyerly dancing around the facts” re: Clinton is hysterical. You can look it up.
Bill in CO:
“… while I concede that both sides are doing what they can to win (obviously), my thinking is that Kerry hasn’t got a message beyond: “I’m a veteran, vote for me.†His senate record, when he was even present, is ultra-liberal. He really hasn’t accomplished much for Massachusetts (name one major item) and so he’s stuck beating his chest as tough-guy Vietnam vet because he really hasn’t got much else to say.”
You know what, that’s is a valid argument for voting for Bush (not that I will). At least it makes sense. It’s refreshing to have someone make a rational case one way or the other.
It’s a very valid argument, Matt, which is why I—a lifelong registered Dem—am voting for Bush in November.
Kerry’s Senate record does not prove that he has the skills or the leadership to serve as president.
Mary Anne Marsh
Sign your DD180 and release YOUR records.
I would really appreciate it if somebody could post the transcript location as soon as it comes up.
Catastrophe, thy name is Kerry!
Bush did not betray his country by not going to Vietnam. I’m not sure we would have wanted him in combat anyway. He was a nothing then. He’s a nothing now.
It’s odd that nobody has noticed that Bush is a master politician. He’s taken the high ground consistently and let the lefties wallow in their self-made mud hole.
To the earlier poster who couldn’t find a reason to vote for Bush, perhaps the following might be reasons enough for a sane person:
George W. Bush survived a crude coup d’etat and voter fraud that set back a smooth transition to the White House; took over the pig sty left by the Clintons both literally and figuratively; inherited the collapse of the Ponzi scheme economy of smoke and mirrors bolstered by the media; was faced with an intelligence community in ruins and a military both low in morale and materiel, faced a relentless barrage of bashing from every side of the leftwing nutcase community and before he could settle into his new position was hit by the worse act of terror this country ever faced. He was magnificent in his masterful leadership while the media called him a coward for running and hiding, he cooly set to work ignoring the gnats buzzing around his head
Now just three years later, the economy (a real economy) is flourishing, unemployment is down and jobs are up, the integrity of our nation has been restored, the Eurotrash states have been shown up for what they are, ditto the U.N., a terrible scourge has been removed from Afghanistan and Iraq and the other Muslim states are paying attention, the military is once again proud of their CIC, there’s lots more, but the main reason for voting for Bush is that the terrorists have been checked on U.S. soil.
Here’s what’ll happen if Bush isn’t re-elected: The appeasement policies of the Clinton era combined with the appeasement of the U.N. and the Euroweenies will give fundamentalist Islam all the room it needs for a total take over of Europe, North Africa, Canada, South America, etc. In ten years, these cretins that hate Bush will wonder where it all went wrong.
I hope every thinking person gets to the polls and convinces many others to join them in making sure the left is put down—hopefully for the count.
God Bless America.
Matt – Of course no offense to Bill in CO, but if Bill’s is the first “rational case” you’ve heard for voting for Bush, you need to pull your head out of Big Media’s arse and breathe something other than methane.
Better yet, why not read: the Senate Intelligence Committee Report, the 9/11 Commission Report, or either of Bob Woodward’s impartial (or at least not GOP slanted – the guy outed Nixon) books on the War on Terror – Bush at War and Plan of Attack. And I mean REALLY read these historical documents, not just what the New York Times/Washington Post/Dan Rather & Co. has told you about them.
Hell, I even recommend Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies – other than a very few transparent cheap shots against the Bush Administration (i.e. that Condi Rice seemed as if she’d never heard of al Qaeda, even though she’d given a speech months earlier in which she referenced al Qaeda; that Dick Cheney is extremely conservative; and that the Bush Administration was “obsessed” with Iraq even before we launched the Afghan War – we wouldn’t want our leaders investigating all possible culprits and preparing contingency plans, would we?!), Clarke’s book demonstrates Bush’s and his team’s strength and resolve following 9/11 (as do Woodward’s accounts) and Clinton’s consistent failure over 8 long years to even curb the rise of al Qaeda, much less destroy them before they could perpetrate 9/11 (or the Cole, or the African Embassy bombings, or the Riyadh bombings…).
Some amazing revelations from Clarke’s book, Matt, since from your posts I have presumed that you haven’t taken the time to read the memoirs of the “Hero of the Left” (probably wasted $10 and 2 hours of your life on Fahrenheit, though, didn’t you?):
-Dispels both leftist conspiracy theories that the US, in a long line of “oil grabs” collaborated, or at least enticed, with Saddam in Iraq’s invasions of Iran and Kuwait (page 41);
-Justifies, both morally and militarily, the following US foreign policies as “defensive actions:
-building a stronger military relationship with Israel and an overall stronger military presence in the Middle East(page 47);
-checkmating Iran by strengthening Saddam so Shiite-dominated Iraq would not be defeated and absorbed by a “radical Islamist, anti-American regime” (page 41);
-Justifies Reagan going on the counteroffensive in fighting the proxy wars against the Soviet Union and dispels the recently regurgitated leftist myth that Reagan merely got lucky in defeating the Soviet Union (pages 47-48);
-Justifies Clarke’s own idea to arm the Afghan mujahedeen with US Stinger Missiles, which turned the tide of the Afghan/Soviet War (pages 48-49) – Clarke says that “even with hindsight,” Reagan was right to both assist and arm the Afghans and involve the Saudis and other Arab States in the conflict (page 51);
-Dispels the following Michael Moore myths:
-Bush Family/Saudi Family corrupt ties – “Reluctantly, Bush (Sr.) and his team decided that they needed to protect the Saudi oil fields.” (page 57); Further notes that the Saudis required an explicit promise from Bush 41 that US forces would leave Saudi Arabia when the Saudis said so (page 59);
-Dispels “My Pet Goat”/Bush inaction or confusion in immediate aftermath of 9/11 myth: Clarke was “amazed at the speed of the decisions” flowing from President Bush through Dick Cheney to Clarke (page 8).
Matt, you have some homework to do. Check back when you have informed comments to make. One final recommendation: have the intellectual honesty to at least read the Boston Globe Bio of John Kerry, if you plan on voting for him. There’s enough in that “objective” document to make any voter feel uncomfortable about Kerry’s master plan for to be President.
Esteban – please read my post to Matt, above. It is clear that you, too, have precious little information to work with. Or, maybe you have lots of information but an inferior mind to process it with? In the case of the latter, just piss off.
Pistol– No. I won’t piss off. An inferior mind is one that becomes overly emotional when presented with opinions contrary to his own. That would be you, buddy.
You can flop around all you want about how educated you are on all the literature and documents you named, but for each of us it comes down to what makes sense TO US, and who WE believe to be telling the truth (or in the case of this election, who is lying less about the important stuff). Our sources of information and who we trust need not be the same as yours. Believe it or not, you have not had a divine revelation, and do not know the truth above all others; you just think you do. An ego is a terrible thing to waste, right?
I, on the other hand, think Bush is a largely incompetent dud who has been bad for the economy, bad for the environment and health issues, bad for personal freedom, bad with foreign diplomacy, and– like yourself– he doesn’t seem to like hearing from those who disagree with him. The only thing I give him props for is how he handled the 9/11 aftermath (leadership-wise), and his push for the NASA Mars program.
That may not be okay with you, but I didn’t ask for your permission. Nor do I need it. Go ahead– thump your chest all you want, for all the good it will do you.
Christ, are you ever a long-winded, self-satisfied, condescending, ill-informed bore, Esteban.
Piss off.
I’m sorry, I’m new here. Is there a world war going on? Just trying to get my bearings.
This is a nice mix:
Personally I give him more props for the former, but not a little for the latter. They’re both cool, one is sort of more “important” but whatever.
Hmmm.
“betrayed his country”.
Ok. So let me get this straight, after I’ve scooped my exploded brains off the floor, if you didn’t fight in Vietnam you’re a traitor to your country?
Not to be anal or anything but isn’t the vast majority of the Democratic Party made up of people who actively did not fight in Vietnam? Didn’t John Edwards NOT fight in Vietnam?
So the wanna-be Vice President is a traitor? And so is the presidential cabinet?
Hmmm. I love it. I always wanted to call Democrats “traitor” and now they’ve given me the excuse.
That’ll cheese them off.
Long-winded? I can go along with that. I like hearing myself talk sometimes. I make no bones about it.
Self-satisfied? More or less, yeah. We appear to have that in common.
Ill-informed? You aren’t equipped to assess that.
And, yep– I can be condescending. Some people need to be condescended to.
As for pissing off; hey, it’s your site. You say I go, I go; not like I have any power over that. Consider it a done deal.
Sorry I disturbed you. It’s just that rabid, holier-than-thou mongering masquerading as rational discourse amuses me.
Enjoy your soapbox.
You didn’t disturb me, Esteban. You bored me.
And a personal blog is almost by definition a soapbox—though I hardly think I treat this particular forum as closed circle, what with the open comments and the links I provide to other sites / opinions. I just have no patience for feeble blowhards who think articulation and a studied vocabulary are substitutes for substantive argument. I mean, let’s face it: “I, on the other hand, think Bush is a largely incompetent dud who has been bad for the economy, bad for the environment and health issues, bad for personal freedom, bad with foreign diplomacy,” and “He was a nothing then. He’s a nothing now,” is hardly trenchant analysis.
As for your “holier-than-thou” bit…well, I’ll let others decide which of us is striking that particular pose.
I like your site, Jeff, which I just found today (can’t remember which blog linked to you for Marsh’s comments, which I witnessed live last night – I hope Hannity bans her for that reckless comment), although I’m probably biased because I happen to agree with your perspective, at least from what I’ve read so far. I’m going to check out your liberal media bias postings – just finished Goldberg’s Bias and I’m starting Bozell’s Weapons of Mass Distortion. I can’t believe I only recently heard of liberal media bias, in spite of being exposed to it all of my life!
I’ve bookmarked the site, so keep up the good blogging. Somewhere, Esteban is surely pissed off…
Esteban,
Are you done yet? Yawn City.
[comment by Esteban deleted. Gist: Jeff is not open minded, Esteban was attacked first (which, he says, isn’t surprising, given how evil right wingers are, blah blah blah), and Jeff will inevitably get in the last word because this is his site.]
Well, at least Esteban was correct about that last bit…
<snicker> (re: Esteban)
As a point of fact/open question, I keep hearing how Bush has somehow been “bad for the environment”, yet I haven’t seen a single example cited. How he’s been “bad for health care”, ditto. How the Patriot Act has removed everyone’s freedoms and we’ve become a police state, yet I can’t find any examples of the Patriot Act even being used much less misused.
There’s a lot of rhetoric about the supposed terrible things Bush has done or not done, but very little in the way or hard evidence. ‘Tis the season for this sort of thing, I guess, but it bores me. Let’s debate issues, not imaginary grievances and useless fictions. (Bush = idiot, etc.)
To answer a question posed a while back in the thread: less than 40,000 men went to Canada to avoid the draft.
FWIW…
It’s amazing how certain myths take on a life of their own, isn’t it?
A few years ago I recall Paul Krassner saying that it was getting harder and harder to write satire because reality was getting so surreal. “Whenever I’m not sure whether I’m dreaming, I flap my arms. If I don’t take off and fly, then I’m not dreaming.”
Whaddayaknow, I’m not flying.
Pistol,
I didn’t say it was the first or only rational argument I’ve heard for voting for Bush. I just said it was refreshing to hear something beyond the “Kerry’s a lying flip-flopper” argument.
As to your points, no, I haven’t seen Moore’s movie. I’m voting against Bush more than I’m voting for Kerry. Kerry’s not great, but he’s better than the alternative. I’m not a raving leftie, and I think, intellectually, some of the idea Bush puts forth have some merit. But his execution is lousy.
Hey Matt,
Why do you think Kerry’s better? What are his plans? It seems he wants to raise taxes, has proposed a couple trillion in spending, and he is again aiding and abetting our enemies by promising to bring the troops home – the mission be damned? You think that’s all good?
So Bush’s execution of World War IV is not good enough, huh? And Senator Kerry will be better at it, because, why? Somehow, I don’t think WW4 will stop just because we switch Presidents.
On the personal side of Kerry, I can’t help but think that when I get acupuncture I have ten or twelve “wounds” that are worse than the single wound that Kerry for which took his first Purple Heart. And my pieces of “shrapnel” (acupuncture needles) are actually larger and embedded more deeply in my skin than the offending sliver Dr. Letson pulled out of Kerry’s arm.
Sorry to hear that, Matt. I don’t really think that Kerry is better than the alternative. Lots of big blue sky proposals with no details.
“The devil is in the details” as the old saying goes. After the attempt at HillaryCare, I’m still not interested. Most any health care reform or government insurance program will make the pledge to reduce the deficit impossible to reach. He will have to tax more than just the rich. He just can’t admit it.
Boy oh boy, Estebore, you’re not just drinking the Kerry kool-aid, you’re taking a Kerry kool-aid shower.
Is it possible that Jeff isn’t so much concerned with your debating prowess– which I’m confident he could destroy even after a marathon stare-down with his apple– but he simply doesn’t like your attitude or the fact you’re insulting his other guests.
Nah, couldn’t be. We “right-wingers” are so, so scared of the case to be made for John Kerry.
By the way, if you or John Kerry ever come up with one, let us know…
Well, I, for one am sorry Esteban turned out to be such a studied gasbag. Who knew? He’s got that cool black garb and that uber-jaunty flat rimmed hat and shades and when that cat picks up that guitar you can buy for $179.99 (order now!) and plays that Malaguena or Spanish Rose…well, I just can’t believe he turned out to be such an ass. Sigh. Those artistes can be sooo snotty sometimes.
Damn.
Dying thread.
Jeff, you do know whom I’m referencing here, right? Right?
Jeff:
This dude.
Okay, now you’re just fucking with my head.
Segovia wasn’t posting long-winded, sanctimonious, dismissive, high brow effluvia on this thread just last night was he??
I mean, everybody knows of Segovia’s ground-breaking right hand finger technique and his disdain of Esteban’s soft, fleshy tone, right?
But, c’mon, man. Segovia?
PS. Didn’t Segovia sire a child at age 76 or was that Esteban?
So many questions. Questions.
Well, I went to Viet Nam. I’m no big war hero. I wnet because I happened to be wearing Uncle’s suit when LBJ got that wild hair up his ass.
I left my youth there. I lost close friends there. My children are named after young men who never grew old.
John Kerry came back from his big deal four months in-country and bobbing around Yankee Station on a destroyer and ran for office as a hero. He won the primary and lost the general election. It was only then that he discovered all those war crimes. He surrounded himself with a bunch of people, many of whom it was later proven, never served so much as one day in uniform. Many more spent not one day in Southeast Asia. He repeated their stories before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations when none of them, not a single one, would testify under oath. They would not testify even when granted immunity. As my children grew up they were presented with Kerry’s ‘testimony’ as fact as they went through school. Luckily they knew their old pop and I was able to refute that perjury.
Several thousand children did not have ol’ dad to refute it, their fathers came home wearing shiny aluminum boxes. Since the brunt of casualties in war are the young, most of the dead had no children. They all had mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers. Every one of those family members were told of Kerry’s ‘testimony’. They were told about how common rape and murder were. It was just a minor lie, in service of a greater good, John Kerry’s political career.
The man that stood over 58,000 open graves and pissed on the bodies and those 58,000 neatly folded flags is back. This time he’s wrapped himself in those flags and has dug up those bodies to stand on, hoping to give himself the stature to be elected.
This is Esteban’s candidate. This is Matt’s hero.
I was there. I’ve seen heros. I’ve had their blood on my hands. John Kerry isn’t fit to speak their names. To this day he’s never apologised to those mothers, fathers and children.
It’s not about George W. Bush. It’s about a man who willingly lied about the dead for political gain. It’s about restoring the honor to the young men who, in America’s name, came home in coffins. It’s about the other two and a half million no longer young men who are tired of the slander.
Peter,
I NEVER said Kerry was my hero. Get your facts straight. I don’t actually like Kerry much, frankly. But I’ll hold my nose and vote for him because I like Bush even less.
Thank you, Peter.
Your post above is the most moving thing I have read on the Swiftvets issue, and I’ve read everything I can find.
Thank you, sir.
Casey:
FWIW, 40000 Canadians volunteered and served along US forces in Vietnam:
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/5344/cvvm.html
Kinda balances out the gutless cowards (I’m looking at YOU, Bill Clinton) who skipped the country rather than fight or go to prison.
Turns out Bush was worse than a dud. I almost feel sorry for you fools. A shame I have to suffer with you.