Great, now the Swifties have a source of income besides the Bush campaign!
I’m not sure how much thanks you can give to Kerry. He remained pretty tight lipped about the whole think to a point that members of his own party were complaining that he needed to respond. ONly after it had been blown out of proportion did he respond. I think you can thank that pesky liberal media for the free publicity.
Thanks for the bullet points, Diogenes the Cynic - very helpful.
A question, if this is not too much of a hijack. What are the consequences if it is determined that the Bush campaign has been actively working with the SBVTs? Will it then be just a matter for the court of public opinion, or are there actual legal actions that can be taken that will affect the Bush campaign?
Well one clue is to ask yourself whether the Bushistas are outraged at the half-truths, distortions and outright misinformation that was used to justify the Iraq invasion.
That’s what I was afraid of. Forget Bushitas, though, I’m really more interested in the swing voters. Why should the Bush campaign care if there is nothing that can be done to them anyway from a legal standpoint? Where is the risk?
I just don’t really see this blowing up on them, no matter what connections come to light.
While I can be persuaded that you feel impelled to be even-handed in all circumstances, this is nonsense. While such terms as “peckerwood” and “cracker” may well be mildly perjorative, in certain circles, they are by no stretch of the imagination “racial epithets”. I was born peckerwood, and consider the term indicative of no more than affectionate disdain. James Carville frequently refers to himself as a “coon-ass”, being a native of Louisiana. Bill Clinton oftimes refers to himself as a “hillbilly”. These are not racial slurs. Have you ever known anyone to sidle up to such and make glancing reference, like saying “the n-word”, which is entirely proper when dealing with something as reprehensible as an actual racial slur?
As well, I have on many occassions used the term “peckerwood” in reference to myself, or another Texan (though I would naturally stop short of accusing someone of being an “Aggie” without actual proof…) To date, this is my first rebuke for such. As you reside in Georgia, do you recall anyone recoiling in shock and dismay at the word “cracker”, (as would be entirely appropriate for an actual “racial slur”, none of which I will dignify by usage, even for purposes of example).
Is there a recent memo that I have overlooked?
Please be assured that the esteem and reverence with which I regard those who sit at the Right Hand of Cecil is undiminished. But you are wrong.
This just in- the March 18, 1969 weekly report from Task Group 115 corraborates Kerry’s version of the events.
How can any rational human take the Swifties seriously as they continue to deny the official records:
Mr. Thurlow, precisely what would be Kerry’s motivation in making up the story? And why would his entire crew back him up on it?
Some people do not like even the appearance of impropriety. The resignation of Bush’s lawyer sends the signal that all was not kosher in Ginsberg’s interactions with the swift boaters.
Oh, but it gets better! This just in, courtesy of the wonderful folks over at Washington Monthly previously incarnated as Calpundit
(Note: excerpt includes links that require registration, reproduced “as is”, since it is fair to assume that they aren’t “making shit up”…)
I don’t think they are “shameless”. I just think they have gotten away with it so long, they think they need not pay heed to the ordinary niceties that bind ordinary folks.
Minor note, for those unfamiliar. Coon-ass does not mean black. It means cajun. I believe it doesn’t qualify as a racial slur.
[Aside: good clarification, E-Sabbath. Its a common mistake, like the ignorant presumption that Texas is part of “the South”, and I overlooked it…)
Now this, from Talking Points Memo, without which no citizen can hope to be well informed…
They’re fighting back! They’re actually rarin’ up on thier hind legs and fighting back! Hallelujah!
Of course, they’re likely to be disappointed, GeeBubbya is probably out clearing brush, tending to the ranch, ya know, been in the family for months…
(Dear Mr. Cleland: Revenge is sweet, and you heartily deserve your pound of flesh! May I respectfully suggest you find some way to work the phrase “Let’s roll!” into the mix, as you roll your wheelchair into the fray! Sic 'em, Max! Sir.)
This just in: Cleland unsuccessful in delivering letter. No word yet on what lame-ass excuse was offered. Mealy-mouthed, back-stabbing chickenshits.
Glad to see your standard of proof when it comes to questioning Mr. Kerry’s character remains the same, Mr. Moto — thus showing everyone just how well qualified you are for the position. First off, there is no direct, verifiable quote from the Kerry campaign in the cite you gave. It gives a general description saying that the Kerry campaign has conceded the point but no name and no direct quote, which makes it, at best, a secondary source. Here I’ll show you.
See? Not only is the authoritativeness you just boasted about a figment of your imagination but it reads an awful lot like an urban legend. I’m not saying such a quote doesn’t exist for sure but you have clearly failed to find one.
Secondly, I am NOT the only one still arguing the point. That idea is also a figment of your imagination. Fred Kaplan is a highly respected journalist has written an article for Slate saying that YES Kerry DID spend Christmas in Cambodia. Since you appear to have missed the link the first two times, I’ll happily give it again.
Thirdly, I really wish you would explain to us why you seem to have such a ball attacking Kerry’s character but don’t seem to care about the fact that George Bush, the President of the United States is a repeatedly-exposed lying sack of shinola. I mean, here’s a guy who uses henchmen to question a decorated veteran’s character by lying their heads off when he himself used his daddy’s connections to get a safe slot in the Texas Air National Guard and then couldn’t be bothered to finish his minimal requirement and then, here’s a surprise, lied about it. I mean, if character is such an important issue for you and everything, shouldn’t you be attacking Bush? Why not?
See, where you and I differ is that I think that it’s the lying, irresponsible coward who’s character ought to be attacked — to say nothing of the character assassins who are doing his dirty work for him and let’s not forget their eagarly gullible fan base. I would submit that, on the surface at least, it’s a reasonable-sounding position. Obviously, you disagree.
So, tell me. What are the errors of my ways?
Did I miss a mention of thid editorial by Bill O’Reilly, or didn’t it come up yet?
I assure you it’s all because the liberal media controls all information. All of it is pure bullshit, with only people like SBVFTs trying to valiantly hold their candle against the hurricane of liberal lies!
Keep in mind, too, some people have thrown their lots in the The Shrub, and will fight tooth and nail to try to make sure the nation “stays the course”.
Kind of like cornered rats…but less cuddly.
-Joe
I wonder if Mr. Thurlow is also planning on giving up his Bronze Star. I mean, if he’s telling the truth now, then that means he lied back then in order to fraudulently get his Bronze Star. That accusation he’s directing at Kerry points both ways, after all.
Mr. Thurlow’s stance is to suggest that he was unaware of the specifics of his award, believing that his courage in rescuing fellow Swifties was being rewarded even though they were not under fire. This account is, as noted, rebutted by numerous and sundry testimonials, and official reports.
Apparently, Mr. Thurlow believes he was rewarded and bemedaled for his dauntless courage in jumping into the water without floatation devices or water wings. Or, at least, that is what he would have us believe.
I doubt that my opinion on his viewpoint needs restating.
One great commentary, like the ones you’ll rarely see in the “liberal” media mainstream:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/plaidder/04/27.html
Not good enough, as many on the right will dismiss any opinion from the left; so, lets get an opinion from a veteran then:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/08/25_unfit.html
Is this just in? With all the bullshit flying through the air, and the rebuttals following swiftly on its heels, its hard to know…
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5818634/
Zippidy-do-dah, zippedy-ay, my oh my what a wonderful day
Plenty of anguish, coming their way
Zippidy-do-dah, zippidy aaayyyyyyyy…
It also requires us to believe that Thurlow never once bothered to read the text of his own citation- something that would indicate a lack of vanity on a par with Jesus.