Okay. Let’s follow this down the rabbit hole. Do you have any evidence of these actions?
Oh boy, here we go again. Taking something out of context, or, in this case, only citing a partial statement in an act of refutation. A typically liberal methodology. Thanks for perpetuating the stereotype.
Anyways, I only compared the similarities of neo-conservatism and neo-liberalism in that they both are
FYI: the “infection” would be the “coup”. Got it?
Um, no they don’t. Unless, that is, you maintain that Kerry knew in the late sixties that he would run for president in the early years of the twenty first century. Are you really claiming that? Oh, I do hope so. There’s been perilously little to make me smile. Well, except for the Swifties and their bullshit. And Bush fils and his refusal to condemn them for their lies. Oh, and you and your dogged belief in conspiracy theories that make the Kennedy assassination crowd appear sober and reasoned.
But aside from those things, my life is naught but woe.
Too, I hope I’m correct in inferring that you have not a single shred of even mostly credible evidence (hell, even somewhat credible evidence would be nice) that Kerry was making plans that would only come to fruition 35ish years hence. And then only after he was all but written off as a candidate. Or are you keeping the evidence close to your vest? You wily guy, you. . .
Well, no, I don’t fantasize anything of the sort. It most assuredly did happen. And I fully expect it to happen again.
Okay. Howzabout you point out to me one single instance of me proclaiming my own intelligence. Just one. I’ll be waiting. Right here.
Irony, thy name is Hammersharp.
I forgot what a perspicacious debater you were.
I got it; you’re still wrong. If anything, neoliberalism is an “infection” of the Republican party, a “coup d’etat” of the Republican party. Newt Gingrich wasn’t a Democrat, remember?
You could make a case that Bill Clinton infected the Democratic party with Neoliberalism. I do not believe you could make any such case about John Kerry.
Daniel
Well done, Dopers. The wingers are grasping at straws. 
All hail the bitch goddess Reality. She’s a bitch but I love her.
Oh, btw, for those still believing in the Tooth Fairy and that the Swiftees have no connection with Bush, The NY Times has a diagram showing all the connections.. Long explanatory text (free registration).
FWIW, Harriet O’Neill was married to Jack O’Neill, who is the similarly-named law partner of John “Life-Long Democrat” O’Neill. I’m thoroughly unimpressed with her tenuous connection shown in that NY Times graphic, which amounts to nothing more than the fact that Harriet O’Neill was appointed to an appellate court by then-Governor Bush.
Since a good portion of my professional life is Texas appellate law, I know a thing or two about Justice O’Neill. At the time of her appointment to the court of appeals in 1995, she was already a district court judge in Houston. She was re-elected to that position in '96, and was elected to the Texas Supreme Court in 1998 and 2002. Though she is a Republican, she is a very moderate Republican. She is also a fair and very pleasant person without any apparent vitriol in her. Tying her into this Swift Boat bullshit, even if only tangentially, is nonsense.
Cite.
Uh, oh. There’s a new Swift Boat Veterans for Character Assassination Ad.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040820/ts_alt_afp/us_vote
Like a therapy session in which the, ahem, client rants about some irrelevant issue before spilling his guts about what’s really bothering him we now get to the real nub of their resentment.
Whoop. There it is.
They’re mad at Kerry because he told some hard truths. Atrocities were committed by our side during Vietnam. Of that there can be no reasonable doubt. (Free fire zones, anybody?) He may have exaggerated some but he was more right than wrong. It is telling that no one in the Senate challenged Kerry in 1971when he talked to them. They all knew it was pretty much true.
The Swifties attempts at character assassination having wilted under the harsh light of critical examination they are now reduced to complaining about what’s really on their minds.
So now America is going to be forced to remember some of the ugliest aspects of its past because the very guys who want to make it all go away insist on forcing the issue. Ironic, no?
I have another thread going on about the Republican National Convention here in New York. A lot of anarchists who absolutely despise George Bush are planning on violent doings. I know, because I’ve had the displeasure of communicating with these jerkwheels. Pointing out that violence only plays into the Republican agenda has no effect. They insist on helping Bush precisely because they hate him so very much.
Human beings truly are idiots, no?
Posted here just because I like the verbage:
Hmmm. Interesting. And what is your opinion of our current commander-in-chief, who seems to have been “so-long and see you later” without ever having left the good old U-S-of-A.
Seems like a double standard to me…
I’ve never been in the military, but everything I’ve heard suggests that in Vietnam, most guys were trying every way they could think of to leave. I wouldn’t blame Kerry one bit.
Saying that Johnson was the inventor of neo-liberalism is the weirdest thing I’ve ever heard in my entire life. I love the Straight Dope!
:rolleyes:
Oh human beings are definitely idiots. Moreover, America as a whole is much more comfortable with stupid politicians than smart ones. That’s the real issue with Kerry; he was smart enough to see that protesting Vietnam wasn’t about avoiding getting your ass shot off, it was protesting a meaningless, drawn-out fight that was dragging us into the mud. It was protesting lies and garbage as an excuse for sending kids to fight.
Hey, this is the “Vietnam” election, folks. We get to decide at last if Vietnam was a big mistake or a “noble effort that was sabotaged by the people at home.” Whether Kerry had the right to protest, or was a traitor for doing so… Whether Bush was a weasel for trying to slide through his service, or a hero for supporting the war.
Did our C-in-C even support the war? Hmmm. I don’t think he’s ever said. It takes a special kind of courage to keep your mouth shut in times of crisis, and do what everyone else is doing. It’s that type of courage that we need to have leading our country in times of cr…oops! Guess not. :rolleyes:
So, I think what the Swifties are saying is that Kerry killed US boys in Vietnam because he traitorously opposed the war and accused people of committing atrocities, etc. It was the “stab in the back.” Of course! The Dolchstoss! Down with Kerry and the traitors! They’re the ones who defeated us in Vietnam! They’re the ones who caused 9/11. Up with the Fuehrer! Sieg…
Ahem. Got carried away there, for a moment. :rolleyes:
Anyway…
Do yourself a favor. Google Dolchstoss (or Dolchstosslegende). Interesting stuff!
Sorry, people. Vietnam is back. Time for you 50-60-somethings to figure out what you really thought about the war.
As for me, I think I know who I’m voting for, here…
Sorry, didn’t mean to startle you, but I’m a stealth Boomer…
I think pretty much what I thought then, with minor corrections in orbital trajectory. Those people I have known from those years to now are, for the most part, pretty settled. These “swift boat” guys are our opposite numbers, and they are equally committed (albeit wrong).
If there is such a thing as “we” in this aspect, and I very much doubt that there really is, then “we” have already made our choices, long since.
It is now for others to choose, people for whom Da Nang has no more resonance than Chosin Reservoir.
Life is very strange. Clinton trounced the elder Bush, who flew an 'plane called an ‘Avenger’ in WW2. He was shot down. I beleive that Avenger pilots had a 50% chance of survival (at best) when shot down. Questions have been asked concerning the death of the other crewman who died (they usually had a crew of three). Guesses on the political affiliations of those who asked these questions?
Point is, Bush senior’s job was very dangerous indeed. Clinton very safe. Clinton won.
Now Kerry supporters and the man himself hope to win votes on his war record vers the Bush minor who did not seek to fight.
Who sees the contradiction in this? What difference will it make? How futile all this is.
That deserves a BIG smile!
I concur.
Going we had types:
Gung-Ho, support our country at any cost.
Daddy did it so I have to do it.
It’s good for me (résumé, training, reputation, etc.)
Oh, neat, I get to kill people!
I’m going because it’s the ‘right thing to do!’
Uh, draft notice? Can we smoke it?
Oh shit, is there some way I can avoid this? (subdivided into several categories)
Probably a few more I missed.
Coming back we had:
Oh shit, I’m lucky to get out alive!
What, I have to wait a year before I can go back?
That was wrong and it’s gotta be stopped.
Stay away from me, motherfucker!
Former POWs, VERY glad to be home.
Former friends, draped with a flag.
And since then “we” have done what “we” had to based on what “we” had to work with. “We” are all individuals now. Some have joined various types of groups some haven’t.
The only way I treat VietNam veterans equally (i.e., rather than addressing their individual attributes) is when I run into them I tell them, “Welcome home!” Something they didn’t get in the 60’s and 70’s, but should have.
“Questions have been asked”? Not really. One single gunner from Bush’s squadron made a claim that he did not see any smoke or flames from Bush’s TBF (TBM?) before Bush bailed out, with the clear implication that Bush panicked and doomed his two crewmen. While it is possible that some fringe groups picked up on that story, I heard no one in the Clinton campaign or the DNC ever make any reference to the charges. The was certainly no hue and cry from the “Liberal media” about the issue. It was reported once as the disgruntled ex-airman made his claim and promptly sank like Bush’s Avenger into the deeps.
There is no comparison between the Swiftie Liars and that single unexplored claim–unless one wants to point out that the Democrats in '92 took the high road by ignoring it while the current Republicans have gone to great lengths to prop up men who have demonstrated a propensity to lie for the sake of making a political point (I find it astounding how many of the current accusers can be shown to have defended and praised Kerry throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, only to change their stories after being recruited to smear him. One can almost give credit to O’Neill for being consistent in his hatred for (and willingness to lie about) Kerry.)
I’ve seen at several other sites ( daily kos for example), a flyer purportedly from the Bush Campaign in Florida, promoting the Shifties at a rally. For most people, it is evident enough that the Shifties are acting on behalf of Bush. Is this enough to demonstrate coordination of the type that would raise any legal trouble for Bush or for the Shifties?
And this just in…
http://atrios.blogspot.com/
(blog spot, but connected to Chicago Tribune, which wants a registration…)
“…The commander of a Navy swift boat who served alongside Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry during the Vietnam War stepped forward Saturday to dispute attacks challenging Kerry’s integrity and war record…”
"…John O’Neill, author of a highly critical account of Kerry’s Vietnam service, describes the man Kerry chased as a “teenager” in a “loincloth.” I have no idea how old the gunner Kerry chased that day was, but both Leeds and I recall that he was a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore.
The man Kerry chased was not the “lone” attacker at that site, as O’Neill suggests. There were others who fled. There was also firing from the tree line well behind the spider holes and at one point, from the opposite riverbank as well. It was not the work of just one attacker…"
- William Rood, an editor on the Chicago Tribune’s metropolitan desk
So, whaddaya think, Sam? Have they had their full and fair hearing yet? Gotten the tedia attention they deserve? Any doubt left that this is an Atwater style smear campaign?
Embarassed yet?
No.
The Sam stood on the burning deck Whence all but he had fled;
The flame that lit the battle’s wreck Shone round him o’er the dead…
Ken Cordier (a veteran appearing on the newest swiftboat ad) was a member of the Bush campaign up until a few days ago.
That link goes to a Google cache because (surprise!) you won’t see his name if you go to Georgebosh dot com today.