Ted Sampley is quite a character and his issues with Kerry and McCain go back to the Senate Special Committee on POW-MIA affiars in the early 90s , which Kerry chaired and McCain was a member of. Initially, McCain was the the target of Sampley’s ire, and was targeted in a series of articles tarnishing his patriotism and accusing him of being a “Manchurian Candidate”, copted by the KGB during his captivity. (For a contrary look at these accusations, read this.
Sampley’s charges languished until McCain began his run for the presidency. Then they started to percolate throughout the conservative media and commentary base (NewsMax, Front Page, TownHall, etc.), which seemed to accept the story uncritically. The accusations never really hit the mainstream media, but was reprinted on right-wing sites a lot and possibly did real harm to McCain during the primaries.
Now Sampley trots out his new organization (he has several) to get the smear machine against Kerry, his other long-time enemy, going. He’ll probably get more mainstream media attention this time, but if Republican operatives are depending on Sampley to carry the anti-Kerry standard it could backfire, especailly if media sources look at his background and not blithely accept his stories.
Relying on a story on NPR last week, it is my understanding that since both President Bush and Senator Kerry have opted out of public funding they can both spend what ever amount they want up through their respective party’s convention but that after the convention each is limited in what they can spend whether they are taking public money or not. Maybe somebody with an expertise in this stuff can give us a definitive answer. I may have misunderstood the NPR story but I think that is what the supposed expert who was doing the talking had to say. His point is that from now until the Republican convention the President might bury Senator Kerry in advertizing because there is no point to saving it up for the general election.
And speaking of the “Republican smear brigade,” our friend Beagle has brought up the prospect of a Kerry self destruction in General Questions, on the topic of Bush allied web sight depreciating Senator Kerry’s record in Vietnam (e.g., he wasn’t awarded the decorations in Vietnam–of course he didn’t get them until well after the events and after he had left Vietnam, there is a procedure, you know). In the GQ he suggests that there are “other” scandles being held in reserve to dump on Kerry at some more advantages moment. How our friend knows that he does not tell. If he is privy to the internal workings of the GOP propaganda machine you would think that he would keep his mouth shut so as not to give away the ambush. If he isn’t privy to the plan then he doesn’t know any more that he is told each day by Rush and the boys and he is blowing smoke. Having uncovered the ambush you would think that if he is to maintain any credibility he would tell us what these reserved mud balls might be. Otherwise we must conclude that our friend is once more engaged ia an exercise in wishful thinking, friends, wishful thinking.
I’m sure that in the mind of Beagle and the other Bushistas, Kerry’s choice of having a bagel or cereal for breakfast is a “scandal” just waiting to be dumped on the six o’clock news.
That’s what my father called it when he was flying missions against German submarines while the United States was “neutral”.
BTW, at least half of the comments here have ignored the issue. Not the testimony in front of the 1971 committee, but its use as an instrument of propaganda against actual US POWs. I know that sometimes English is a difficult language, but this is seriously malfeasance. Hey, rubes, read the article!
Nothing. Taranto’s daily column, which I enjoy immensely and recommend, is a mix of serious, snarky and funny. Mostly the latter two (his bye-kus are great – his “what would XX do without YY” headling riffs are hilarious). This tidbit fits squarely into the “snarky” column. Why someone decided to start a whole thread over it is a question best left to that person. It’s kind of like quoting Al Franken. How seriously some people some people in this thread are taking it given that it’s in the BBQ Pit and not GD is best left to them.
So, should the civil rights movement been shut down lest reports of difficulties demoralize the troops? Should the troops in-country be denied access to radios capable of non-official business, lest they be swayed by the siren song of propoganda? Perhaps all reports of casulaties (and all untoward events) should be suppressed, lest the American people lose faith in their government or the war effort?
Should all reports of police brutality and corruption be suppressed, lest public confidence be shaken and the good cops morale be injured? Are any protests at all allowed over anything, or is the danger of perceptions of disunity being used against us just too horrific to contemplate.
You are not accusing Kerry of lying, as far as I can tell. You are suggesting that some how he is responsible for the fact that his testimony before congress on the conduct of the war in Vietnam was used as propoganda against POWS. Yes, had he not testified, those particular words would not be a potential torture device. In which case no doubt the North Vietnamese would have given up on torture?
Certain Veterans may feel conflicted about Kerry. On the one hand, he served honorably in Vietnam.
On the other hand, he allied himself with hippie-freaks when our boys were dying in Vietnam. (Or so they will smear.) Policywise, that’s understandable. Viserally - well, welcome to the 432nd Battle of the so-called Culture War.
OTOH, Kerry is such a square that maybe the Jane Fonda accusation won’t stick.
I guess the election will be about gay marriage and the Super Bowl.
Why don’t you answer this question: If some American POWs were tortured while listening to Kerry’s speech, how the fuck is that Kerry’s fault? He didn’t deliver the speech in person, the torturers played a recording of it. If someone tried to smack some sense into your head with an encyclopedia set, are you gonna blame Britannica?
When Kerry was testifying in front of the Senate in 1971, there were ELEVEN TV cameras covering his comments – INCLUDING SOVIET COVERAGE. (Eleven was practically all the advanced TV cameras at the time)
His comments WERE LIES – and he knew it. His own statements made him a culprit in crimes against humanity, if they were true. He, himself, said it was a systematic problem throughout the entire leadership structure – I guess, except HIMSELF.
He was too stupid to know that the barbaric North Vietnamese would use his comments as a reason to torture his “comrades-in-arms”? FUCKING HELL, HE WAS! He just didn’t care. Similarly his estimate that “2,000 would die” as a result of the US leaving SE Asia was only wrong by a factor of 1,000.
My father knew that the United States was winning WWII, because every time the Americans captured an island he would be beaten. I have a feeling that if someone like Kerry had existed at the end of WWII, had Dad still managed to survive prison camp, he would have killed him.
“Life without, fine!” “That will be the Crown Plaza compared to what this rat fuck put me through.”
Kerry was trying to end the war but he also had an obligation to speak out if atrocities were being committed by US soldiers which they fucking were.
Should Kerry have ignored those atrocities? Should he have suppressed the findings of his investigation?
Are you sure you’re not a Freeper? Because blaming Kerry for crimes committed agianst POWs is so ridiculously twisted and partisan that I have to wonder.
Good God, Beagle, have you entirely lost all contact with the mother ship? I’ve seen some pretty heavily rightarded stuff on these boards, in my time, but I’m beginning to seriously question your sanity.
What in the world does the Japanese record on POW’s, appalling as it is, have to do with John Kerry?
And are you seriously trying to suggest that when John Kerry spoke of atrocities committed by some American soldiers in 'Nam, he was making it up? Seriously? This isn’t some misguided attempt at a very, very bad joke?
I thought this “war protestors are traitors” drivel was gone, never to return. Its like a rotting corpse strolling into my living room and sitting on my couch.
Your last two posts left a slime trail on my monitor. I urge you to reconsider.
I’d be interested in having someone show some support for the following statements he made:
“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.”
“Blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties”
Tell you what you do, pal. Amble on over to Google and enter something along the lines of “US soldiers war crimes Viet Nam”. Take a sandwhich with you, you’re going to be a while.
It happened. Not because American soldiers are any worse than anyone else’s soldiers, they most assuredly are not. It happened because when you soak any human being in cruelty and brutality they become cruel and brutal. I daresay very few of us can be entirely sure how we would respond under the same circumstances.
Kerry told the truth. It is a bitter and shameful truth, but the truth, nonetheless.
)