Funny, I don’t recall saying that Bush was responsible. What I do recall saying is:
So. Next time you wanna accuse me of playing the hyper-partisan spin game, I would appreciate it if you would get your ducks in a row. Makes knocking them over much easier.
Interesting indeed. I did not know that.
Elvis1, did you read what I said? I said that my assertion about Cleland jeopardizing national security was a ridiculous one. Of course he wasn’t doing that. He was opposing a bill for a legitimate policy reason. I know that.
However, the mythology that Bush somehow compared Cleland to Osama bin Laden is also ridiculous, and yet this is cited as gospel by every liberal commenator. For one, Bush had nothing to do with the anti-Cleland ads. Two, as your own source pointed out, nowhere in that ad does it compare Max Cleland to OBL. The ad twisted the facts for political purposed (as every political ad does), but simply showing the faces of OBL and Hussein in an anti-Cleland ad certainly does not mean that the ad is comparing him to them. The ad was talking about terrorist threats to the U.S. and it showed pictueres of two of them. It didn’t say Cleland supported them or was doing their bidding. It simply asserted that our security was threatened because of Cleland’s inaction. Now I disagree with that assertion, but it’s certainly does not rise the level of foul play that is suggested by the liberal mythology about the ad.
Ah, okay, I read that too quickly.
Nope, not buying it, there’s no way to assert that without implying either:
Nos. 1 and 3 are equally unfounded and scurrilous. No. 2 would lead, uncomfortably, to concluding he was right, but that possible imputed motive is foreclosed by the Saddam and Osama images, which are at the least fearmongering. No, one can only conclude that the ad was a smear.
Do you think Cleland’s appointment was a payback for that, or just “keep your enemies closer”?
Elvis, I think the makers of the ad were trying to imply that Cleland cared more for his union buddies than the security of the U.S. It’s a scurilous implication, I’ll grant you that, but that sort of thing is par for the course (unfortunately) in political campaigns. So was it unfair? Yep. Was it more unfair than other political ads used by both the left and the right? Nope.
The Export-Import Bank board of directors, from what I understand, has to have a certain number of appointees from each political party. I guess a Democrat’s seat was up and Bush nominated Cleland. It seems like a strange pick in retrospect, however, given the depth of Clelands opposition to Bush.
Ummmm, by saying that Kerry only had superficial, trivial wounds in Vietnam when in reality he was severely injured. And by endorsing the claim that there was no enemy fire on the day that Kerry won his bronze star.
If our country adopts a policy that any combat injury can be dismissed with a claim that the wound is superficial, how many veterans will suffer?
And dozens of veterans are willing to testify that there was enemy fire on that day. (In fact, the member of the slander squad who made the claim was himself awarded a medal for valor under fire that day, which is a rather odd achievement if there wasn’t any fire to be under.) That sort of malicious lie is betrayal by my standards. Dole is basically asking us to believe that dozens of veterans are all either nuts or liars.
Well, renob, I’m going to have to disagree that that’s “par for the course”, but we might as well leave it there.
That is not only untrue factually (Kerry still has shrapnel in his thigh), but demeans every other veteran who was wounded in a war but didn’t die, himself and Cleland notwithstanding, by calling into question the credibility of the Purple Heart itself.
Dole, who I never would’ve voted for but had come to like in a way since he retired, really embarrassed himself in my opinion. Those comments were disgraceful and low. Like the saying goes, ‘For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose Bob Dole?’
Can’t go there. He was not, by any stretch, “severely injured”. He was slightly injured, at most. He was awarded three Purple Hearts, and that was his ticket out of The Shit, and he accepted. Don’t blame him one little bit.
That said, Dole’s claim that Kerry “didn’t bleed” is perfectly ridiculous, unless someone can explain how one can punch a chunk of metal into one’s butt and not bleed. Somebody should have vetted that speech, because that’s drooling stupid.
Dole “clarifies” his remarks to Joe Scarborough.
Naturally, Scarborough never went into the importance of factuality in any of this. Nope, the intent was to try to refocus attention on *all * 527 efforts being equally sleazy no matter if they’re telling the truth or not.
Bob, you’re just the latest person the Bushites have called upon to sacrifice their credibility in a political cause. Congratulations. Now go back to the Viagra commercials.
I enjoyed John Podesta’s response to Dole’s statement:
“John Kerry carry’s shrapnel in his thigh as evidence of his service during the Vietnam war. George Bush carries two fillings in his molars.”
Or words to that effect.
The real, burning question is this: did Cleland play ‘Psyche!’ with his letter against Patterson?