http://www.news-journal.com/news/content/shared/news/stories/0427_kerrymedals.html

Fate of Kerry medals sparks political fray
By SCOTT SHEPARD and MATT QUINN
Cox News Service
WASHINGTON -- Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry accused Republicans Monday of concocting a "phony controversy" over his Vietnam combat decorations and 1971 anti-war protests.

Kerry's accusation came on the same day as The New York Times published a report questioning his long-standing account of those protests -- specifically, whether he symbolically discarded his Navy medals or the cloth "ribbons" worn on uniforms that signify them.

"This is a phony controversy," Kerry said on ABC's "Good Morning America" program. "This comes from a president who can't even show or prove that he showed up for duty in the National Guard."

Kerry had generally avoided questioning President Bush's non-combat National Guard service during the Vietnam War, including a year in Alabama that was not fully documented. But that changed Monday, after the Times article and a Sunday television appearance by Bush confidante Karen Hughes raising similar allegations about Kerry's war protests.

Hughes said on CNN that she was "very troubled" that Kerry had "pretended" to throw away his medals in the protests when, in fact, he had only discarded the ribbons.

"Now, I can understand if out of conscience you take a principles stand and you would decide that you were so opposed to this that you would actually throw your medals," she said. "But to pretend to do so, I think that's very revealing."

Kerry has long insisted that he threw away his ribbons, along with the actual medals of two veterans who were not able to attend the ceremony, and that he has never claimed to have discarded his medals.

But the Times article Monday described the transcript of a 1971 television interview in which Kerry suggested he had thrown away his own medals in the highly publicized anti-war demonstration in which hundreds of veterans toss their decorations over a fence at the U.S. Capitol.

Kerry, appearing on ABC from a campaign stop in West Virginia, insisted Monday that there was "no distinction" between medals and ribbons at the time of the protest.

"We threw away the symbols of the war," Kerry said. "I'm proud I stood up and fought against it, proud I took on Richard Nixon. And I think to this day, there's no distinction between the two (medals and ribbons)."

The 1971 TV interview that was the basis of the Times article was broadcast by ABC on Monday. It had been archived by the communications office in the Nixon White House, which had added Kerry to its infamous "enemies list."

In the interview, during a discussion of Vietnam veterans giving back their medals, Kerry was asked, "How many did you give back, John?" Kerry replied, "I gave back, I can't remember, six, seven, eight, nine."

The host then notes that Kerry had won three Purple Hearts, and Bronze and Silver stars. Kerry says, "Well, and above that, I gave back my others."

Kerry said Monday that he - and the military - use the words "medals" and "ribbons" interchangeably. And he insisted that he has always accurately said what took place in the protest 33 years ago. "I threw my ribbons. ... It is very simple."

Anthony Coley, spokesman for the Kerry campaign, blamed "(Vice President) Dick Cheney and the smear machine" for "pushing" the story, which he described as "just a distraction" in the presidential campaign. And he took the opportunity to attack Bush and Cheney once again for their military records of lack thereof.

"At the end of the day, the debate will be between John Kerry, a decorated war hero, and a vice president who told us he had 'other priorities' in the 1970s and a president who still hasn't answered questions about whether he showed up at the National Guard for his service," Coley said.

Similarly, the Internet-based group, MoveOn.org., responded with a TV ad in defense of Kerry and e-mails to members likening the attacks on Kerry to the "whisper campaign" about Sen. John McCain's mental stability during the 2000 Republican presidential contest against Bush.

Ed Gillespie, national Republican Party chairman, seized on the news accounts to charge once again that Kerry is a serial flip-flopper. Kerry's statement that he had never claimed he had thrown away his medals, as opposed to his ribbons, is "flat-out refuted by his own words," he said in a conference call with reporters.

Gary C. Jacobson, a political science professor at the University of California/San Diego, called the back-and-forth "nit-picking at the margins" that will not change the minds of many voters. "Republicans are preaching to the choir and Democrats are doing much the same thing," he said.

"I don't think swing voters will pay attention on whether it's ribbons or medals," he said. "But the underlying Republican theme is that Kerry flip-flops. It's another item on the long list they will produce," he said.

Jenny Backus, a Washington-based political strategist, said the Republicans, by pouncing on the disclosure about Kerry's comments, were following a "short-sighted strategy" because it only reminds people about John Kerry's military record, "which is his strongest selling point to voters."

But Whit Ayres, a Republican political consultant, called the controversy "noise" that in itself will influence few voters. "My feeling about old Vietnam controversies is they are breathtakingly irrelevant when you have a 19-year Senate career to consider. What matters is his [Kerry's] votes on defense policy, weapon systems and the war on terrorism," he said.

Ron Miller of Roswell, Ga., a defense consultant who headed Veterans for Dole for Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole in 1996 and is a Bush supporter this year, said whether Kerry discarded his medals or his ribbons "doesn't make any difference."

"It's all the same," Miller added. "That was his way of protesting."

Scott Shepard is a Washington correspondent for Cox Newspapers. Matt Quinn writes for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

kerry is almost the worst candidate in this race

jesus, if were anybody else but Dubya...

didn't even read the article. what a stupid, stupid, stupid non-controversy this is.

at least he fucking EARNED THEM in the first place.

what did bush do? fuck he didn't even go. pussy.

Originally posted by Debaser
didn't even read the article. what a stupid, stupid, stupid non-controversy this is.

at least he fucking EARNED THEM in the first place.

what did bush do? fuck he didn't even go. pussy.


typical conservative response: "way to avoid the issue, liberal, by focusing the hatred at the conservative candidate"

Well its sure a good thing that Bush doesn't lie!:rolleyes:

can we just step back and use some common sense here? the man went and fought in the vietnam war, he saw the atrocities and the ridiculousness of the war and protested against it -- and he's being attacked in the media for this? there is no sane person who knows his history will say that the vietnam war was a good thing. i'd be appalled if he went to vietnam and came back still supporting the war.

Originally posted by Debaser
didn't even read the article. what a stupid, stupid, stupid non-controversy this is.

at least he fucking EARNED THEM in the first place.

what did bush do? fuck he didn't even go. pussy. It's not whether or not he earned the medals, it's that he tried to make himself look great by throwing them away when in fact he kept them and lied about it and changed his story three times.

PS, your arguments hold a lot more weight when you don't start off with "didn't even read the article."

Originally posted by Debaser
can we just step back and use some common sense here? the man went and fought in the vietnam war, he saw the atrocities and the ridiculousness of the war and protested against it -- and he's being attacked in the media for this? there is no sane person who knows his history will say that the vietnam war was a good thing. i'd be appalled if he went to vietnam and came back still supporting the war. Again, you didn't read the article. This isn't about protesting the war.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted
Well its sure a good thing that Bush doesn't lie!:rolleyes:

Originally posted by I_was_aborted
Well its sure a good thing that Bush doesn't lie!:rolleyes: This isn't about Bush. This is about John Kerry.

Originally posted by Nimrod
It's not whether or not he earned the medals, it's that he tried to make himself look great by throwing them away when in fact he kept them and lied about it and changed his story three times.

PS, your arguments hold a lot more weight when you don't start off with "didn't even read the article."

kerry is stuck between his views and media politics. his mistake is trying to appease both sides. he doesn't want to offend anybody by saying he threw away his medals but at the same time he does want everybody to know that he protested (and rightly so) the vietnam war. its just politics. and the whole bush administration throwing 60 million dollars into this really stupid controversy reeks of desperation. And anybody who doesn't understand whats happening here is just clueless and a sucker.

can't they talk about a real issue here?

ribbons vs. medals = flip flopper
wmd vs. secret personal agenda = hero

disgrace.

Who fucking cares?

George lied about when a) war was planned and b) the reason for starting it.

Which one is worse?

Originally posted by Debaser


kerry is stuck between his views and media politics. his mistake is trying to appease both sides. he doesn't want to offend anybody by saying he threw away his medals but at the same time he does want everybody to know that he protested (and rightly so) the vietnam war. So what you're saying is he's telling people what they want to hear depending on who he is speaking to.

Like I said, Edwards had a chance to get my vote - John Kerry is a very scary individual. I think he may even be scarier than Ms. Clinton.

Originally posted by Nimrod
John Kerry is a very scary individual. I think he may even be scarier than Ms. Clinton.

The boogey man is always more boogey than he needs to be. If you need to be scared to hate him, feel free. Meanwhile, I'll spend my time worrying about important issues.

Anyone smell another "Al Gore invented the internet" type smear campaign coming?

Geeze do I hate the "liberal" media.

i'm scared of a person who says nothing at all to me about what's happening in dc. everything is hush hush. that's not much of a democracy.

kerry doesn't run and hide when the liars attack him. gore was a waste.

kerry with mccain as veep - that'd be my first choice.

Originally posted by homechicago
i'm scared of a person who says nothing at all to me about what's happening in dc. everything is hush hush. that's not much of a democracy.

kerry doesn't run and hide when the liars attack him. gore was a waste.

kerry with mccain as veep - that'd be my first choice.
Uh, you're mistaken about one thing - Kerry doesn't run form liars because he is one.


McCain will never run as Kerry's VP. When people suggested that to him, he made a smart political move - he said it was interesting.

He can use this to run as a "moderate, people's candidate" in 2008.

I voted for McCain in the 2000 primary.

Originally posted by Nimrod
So what you're saying is he's telling people what they want to hear depending on who he is speaking to.


Who the fuck doesn't?! its called politics.

Originally posted by Jason Smith
Anyone smell another "Al Gore invented the internet" type smear campaign coming?

Geeze do I hate the "liberal" media. You don't think it would stupid of Gore to say he created the internet? It's not llike that was made up. Dude said it.

PS congrats on your baby girl.

Originally posted by Debaser


Who the fuck doesn't?! its called politics. Fantastic. The next time any of you complain about Bush "lying" to "start a war" I will say it's just politics and then say John Kerry lies too.

I think this whole thing is fairly stupid. The guy earned the medals and servered his country. What he does with them afterwards and for what reasons aren't anyones buisness.

but if he has sex with an intern, make him resignfrom his post, make him drop out of the race. that's the only crime in washington and ONLY democrats commit adultery. now, if you say you support the troops and cut veterans funding, and cut their pay while in service, THAT'S admirable. earning ribbons? that's not as honorable as sitting safe in alabama drunk.

Originally posted by Toast
I think this whole thing is fairly stupid. The guy earned the medals and servered his country. What he does with them afterwards and for what reasons aren't anyones buisness.

thats not the point. The point is that his story is changing as to what he did with them.

Originally posted by Nimrod
This isn't about Bush. This is about John Kerry.


Anytime anone has an argument against Bush you simple bring up Clinton and other older democrats that aren't even alive.

Originally posted by Nimrod
Fantastic. The next time any of you complain about Bush "lying" to "start a war" I will say it's just politics and then say John Kerry lies too.

there's quite a difference between lying about medals vs. ribbons and misleading the public to get support to go to war.

by the way before anybody assumes different, I'm pro-war but anti-bush. I am for the war to help liberate the iraqi people and getting rid of saddam, but its just appalling to me how bush completely ran with half-truths and unconfirmed information to "prove" to the public that iraq was a threat to the united states and therefore must go to war to defend ourselves. he sold the war to the people under completely false pretenses, when he should have been making the case for the people of iraq.

Originally posted by homechicago
but if he has sex with an intern, make him resignfrom his post, make him drop out of the race. that's the only crime in washington and ONLY democrats commit adultery. now, if you say you support the troops and cut veterans funding, and cut their pay while in service, THAT'S admirable. earning ribbons? that's not as honorable as sitting safe in alabama drunk. Clinton lied under oath. That was what the big deal was, and that was the reason he was impeached.. It wasn't the adultery part, as Fox News was reporting.

Originally posted by I_was_aborted



Anytime anone has an argument against Bush you simple bring up Clinton and other older democrats that aren't even alive. The only time I do that is when people blame Bush for 9/11. Even Richard Clark admitted if Bush had done everything he suggests that he suggested, there would have been no stopping 9/11 after 1999.

Originally posted by Toast
I think this whole thing is fairly stupid. The guy earned the medals and servered his country. What he does with them afterwards and for what reasons aren't anyones buisness. They wouldn't have been. He made it an issue by running on his Vietnam record, then publicly stating numerous times that he threw his medals away and then saying he only threw some ribbons away.

guest, yes, he lied under oath. that was bad, as was the pathetic reason for getting him there. the gop had nothing on him so they used his personal life as a last attempt to bring him down.

don't you think bush should have to go before a grand jury for lying about why we went to war? isn't war more important, and doesn't it affect more lives than some tramp having sex with clinton? you think w has never lied? he just isn't under a microscope of investigations. were people not intimidated by this administration, real issues and real questions would have to be addressed, but instead, he's the secret guy and gets away with it. he does whatever he wants and no one is allowed to question or complain. we could only do that under dictator clinton.

disgrace.

Originally posted by Nimrod
You don't think it would stupid of Gore to say he created the internet? It's not llike that was made up. Dude said it.

PS congrats on your baby girl.

See, you fell for it too. He said that he took initiative to sponsor legislation that led to the creation of the internet. He NEVER said that he created the internet. It got spun to holy hell

Thanks about the congrats! :D

Originally posted by homechicago
guest, yes, he lied under oath. that was bad, as was the pathetic reason for getting him there. the gop had nothing on him so they used his personal life as a last attempt to bring him down.

don't you think bush should have to go before a grand jury for lying about why we went to war? isn't war more important, and doesn't it affect more lives than some tramp having sex with clinton? you think w has never lied? he just isn't under a microscope of investigations. were people not intimidated by this administration, real issues and real questions would have to be addressed, but instead, he's the secret guy and gets away with it. he does whatever he wants and no one is allowed to question or complain. we could only do that under dictator clinton.

disgrace. I agree with you totally. I was just clearing up a fact.

(This is Guest, btw)

Originally posted by Nimrod
They wouldn't have been. He made it an issue by running on his Vietnam record, then publicly stating numerous times that he threw his medals away and then saying he only threw some ribbons away.

actually the republicans made it an issue because bush has no record to run on. unless the i-completely-misled-the-public-with-false-information-to-start-a-war-that-i've-been-waiting-for-any-excuse-even-before-9/11 is a winnar of a record to stand on.

Originally posted by Jason Smith


See, you fell for it too. He said that he took initiative to sponsor legislation that led to the creation of the internet. He NEVER said that he created the internet. It got spun to holy hell

Thanks about the congrats! :D I have the clip saved.

Gore: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Originally posted by homechicago
don't you think bush should have to go before a grand jury for lying about why we went to war? isn't war more important, and doesn't it affect more lives than some tramp having sex with clinton? you think w has never lied? he just isn't under a microscope of investigations. were people not intimidated by this administration, real issues and real questions would have to be addressed, but instead, he's the secret guy and gets away with it. he does whatever he wants and no one is allowed to question or complain. we could only do that under dictator clinton. Please show any evidence that Bush lied. Please show any evidence that there weren't WMDs, and that Bush knew there weren't WMDs.

Please show any evidence that the information (which was believed by France, Russia, Britain and the UN from their own sources to be true) that Bush presented to Congress was a "lie."

I just want everyone to know:

this thread really pisses me the fuck off.

Originally posted by Nimrod
Please show any evidence that Bush lied. Please show any evidence that there weren't WMDs, and that Bush knew there weren't WMDs.

Please show any evidence that the information (which was believed by France, Russia, Britain and the UN from their own sources to be true) that Bush presented to Congress was a "lie."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/view/

just 90 minutes. unbiased. gripping. truth. if you really want to know whats going on.

Originally posted by mpp
kerry is almost the worst candidate in this race

jesus, if were anybody else but Dubya...

Sadly, I have to agree with this.

Originally posted by Nimrod
I have the clip saved.

Gore: "I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

It was taken completely out of context by the press.

www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=14976&cf=78439

The fact that Gore never said he invented the Internet didn't stop the press from telling, and retelling, a story that fit into its prepackaged narrative: Gore is a liar. But it was the journalists, trying hard to paint a damning portrait of Gore, who played it loose with the facts and perpetrated what added up to a complete fabrication.

Here's what happened. In 1999, candidate Gore was taping an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer in which he said, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." He was no doubt referring to his landmark "information superhighway" speeches, as well as his well-known support of high-tech research that stretched back into the 1980s. (For the record, Vinton Cerf, often called "the father of the Internet," not to mention futurist Newt Gingrich, have both publicly vouched for Gore's role in helping to shepherd the Internet to life.)

So who coined the phrase "invented the Internet" and attached it to Gore? His Republican opponents, who faxed out a press release suggesting Gore had claimed to have done exactly that.

It's no surprise that GOP operatives would willfully misinterpret a statement from a Democratic presidential candidate. What's amazing is that the press went along with it so uncritically. Was it accurate? The press didn't care, as virtually every major media outlet in the country followed the Republican lead and reported over and over again Gore's claim to have invented the Internet.

Originally posted by Debaser

unbiased.
:rofl:

Originally posted by BlueStar


It was taken completely out of context by the press.

www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=14976&cf=78439

I never thought Gore was lying. It seemed more like the man actually believed he created the internet and didn't understand technology at all. This is something we in the technology industry deal with all the time, as we are asked if the user's computer "has the internet" and if not cn it be provided on disk.

Originally posted by Nimrod
I never thought Gore was lying. It seemed more like the man actually believed he created the internet and didn't understand technology at all. This is something we in the technology industry deal with all the time, as we are asked if the user's computer "has the internet" and if not cn it be provided on disk.

You are totally missing my point.

What happened to Gore in 2000 was inexcusable. The press (remember those evil liberals who run the press corps) did not give Gore one inch on any statement. The Internet bit is the biggest example of how the right wing press provided the American public with a pile of shit on a plate and told them to swallow quickly.

THE SAME EXACT THING IS STARTING WITH JOHN KERRY

Who TRULY gives a shit about the ribbons vs. medals controversy. For some reason, the press and Karl Rove are trying to make you believe that this points to some deep character flaw. They like to take a small story and make it point to a larger truism that is so much of a stretch it makes the right look like fucking idiots. What else am I supposed to think when Drudge puts up a fucking story about Kerry getting a $1000 haircut? I'm sure he was fumbling over his fingers to type that one out.

I'm going to give you links to a website that can be viewed as liberal. I'll agree with that statement. Dailyhowler wants to point out the media's idiocy when reporting and swallowing spin put out by government. His favorite old saw is Gore and the Internet comment. Here are a few links. Enjoy!

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121103.shtml

http://www.dailyhowler.com/h052400_1.shtml

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh121203.shtml

Nimrod, I don't view this as an idiological issue. I truly believe you are an intelligent human being who has a set of beliefs different than mine. I can live with that. This type of bullshit about the metals is so much spin and so little substance that I'm surprised you give it creedance.

Originally posted by Jason Smith

Who TRULY gives a shit about the ribbons vs. medals controversy. For some reason, the press and Karl Rove are trying to make you believe that this points to some deep character flaw. They like to take a small story and make it point to a larger truism that is so much of a stretch it makes the right look like fucking idiots.

Exactly.

This whole thing almost sounds like that 'Mayor Quimby even released Sideshow Bob' campaign ad.

I agree that the media is only after the story. They are with everything.

Most of the media is moderate (capitalist - story = ratings, ratings = viewers/readers = money). I believe the majority of the major newspapers are liberal. The NY Times is a good example.

Anyway, here's my take:

If Kerry wants to keep running on his "conscientous war hero" platform, then his conscientousness and war hero status is open game.

Originally posted by Nimrod

:rofl:

did you even watch it you closed minded fuck? nah, didn't think so. go back to fox news or what ever the fuck right wing propaganda you get all your mindless opinions from. that documentary shows both sides. shit if you want to serve your own ego that series has objective stories about clinton fuck-ups to. i dunno why i even try to help your ignorant ass.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I agree that the media is only after the story. They are with everything.

Most of the media is moderate (capitalist - story = ratings, ratings = viewers/readers = money). I believe the majority of the major newspapers are liberal. The NY Times is a good example.

Anyway, here's my take:

If Kerry wants to keep running on his "conscientous war hero" platform, then his conscientousness and war hero status is open game.


The Washington Post and the New York Times are not read by a majority of the country. Sure, stories for their syndication arm make it into other papers, but don't give them more credit than they deserve. Ask anyone who lives in Orlando, Albequerque or Amarillo how their paper leans. Remember, the NY Times broke Monica and never let it die. They ran with Troopergate.

Never mind the entire talk radio industry being controlled by the right. Don't throw NPR back at me as being the liberal side of the dial. I'll remember that next time I'm listening to a story about the 25th anniversary of the Laverne and Shirley show debut.

The right controls more than you think and more than you'll admit to.

As for Kerry and what is fair game; I agree that his beliefs about Vietnam and his objectioning status post war are up for grabs. What kills me is that the press is deciding what is an issue and what is not. I don't give two shits about the medals and ribbons and which one is and which one isn't. I care about his reasons behind doing the medal toss. That isn't being presented as the issue. It's "Kerry the flip-flopper".

Originally posted by Debaser


did you even watch it you closed minded fuck? nah, didn't think so. go back to fox news or what ever the fuck right wing propaganda you get all your mindless opinions from. that documentary shows both sides. shit if you want to serve your own ego that series has objective stories about clinton fuck-ups to. i dunno why i even try to help your ignorant ass. I saw a bit of it when it was on PBS, and saw it the last 2 times you posted it. So yes, I did watch it already, but thanks for the assumptions.

Originally posted by Jason Smith



The Washington Post and the New York Times are not read by a majority of the country. Sure, stories for their syndication arm make it into other papers, but don't give them more credit than they deserve. Ask anyone who lives in Orlando, Albequerque or Amarillo how their paper leans. Remember, the NY Times broke Monica and never let it die. They ran with Troopergate.

Never mind the entire talk radio industry being controlled by the right. Don't throw NPR back at me as being the liberal side of the dial. I'll remember that next time I'm listening to a story about the 25th anniversary of the Laverne and Shirley show debut.

The right controls more than you think and more than you'll admit to.Drudge broke Monica, not the Times.

Talk radio isn't supposed to be "unbiased." It doesn't pretend to be. The simple fact is that if a liberal radio show could get as good ratings as a conservative one, there would be more liberal radio talk shows. Talk shows aren't news. Rush Limbaugh isn't news. Sean Hannity isn't news. Alan Colmes isn't news. Those shows are opinion.

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
I saw a bit of it when it was on PBS, and saw it the last 2 times you posted it. So yes, I did watch it already, but thanks for the assumptions.

thats the first time i posted it, liar. The first time was about rwanda and the second one was a different documentary focusing on how iraq is today. The one I just posted is a completely different one. i love how you ask for facts but then ignore them and PRETEND you didn't. its disgusting.

Originally posted by Debaser


thats the first time i posted it, liar. The first time was about rwanda and the second one was a different documentary focusing on how iraq is today. The one I just posted is a completely different one. i love how you ask for facts but then ignore them and PRETEND you didn't. its disgusting. Liar? I never said I just watched it. I figured it to be the same exact thing you posted previously as the Iraq one.

If it's different, I apologize, but really, your vehemence in this thread is unwarranted.

Christ, this is an issue? Hell, if this is an issue then we should really be trying to find out what Bush meant when he said "I havent commited a felony in the past 20 years."

But no that doesnt matter, what matters is that Kerry once mentioned he wanted to increase the tax on gasoline way back in the 80's.

Gimme a freaking break.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">This is an entierely valid reason for me not to vote for Kerry. He is obviously a person that should not be president since he lies about stuff that doesn't matter INTHE FUCKING FIRST PLACE.</font>

Originally posted by Mr. Rhinoceros
<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">This is an entierely valid reason for me not to vote for Kerry. He is obviously a person that should not be president since he lies about stuff that doesn't matter INTHE FUCKING FIRST PLACE.</font>

That's the best kind of stuff to lie about

'Fake facilities'

The inspectors have uncovered no evidence that any weapons were actually built in the immediate years before the war, the leak of the report suggests.

Its focus is intelligence, using documents and interviews with Iraqi scientists to build up a picture of the secret world of Iraq's weapons programmes.

The survey group has been under pressure to prove the Bush administration's case that Iraq's weapons posed a significant threat.

Bush's statements, in chronological order, were:

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

United Nations Address
September 12, 2002

Even before formally declaring war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the President had dispatched American military special forces into Iraq to search for weapons of mass destruction, which he knew would provide the primary justification for Operation Freedom. None were found.

Throughout Operation Freedom's penetration of Iraq and drive toward Baghdad, the search for WMDs continued. None were found.

Posted 3/30/2004 9:25 PM Updated 3/31/2004 8:37 AM

Continuing search finds no WMDs
By Steven Komarow, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — U.S. arms investigators scouring Iraq are finding more evidence of Iraq's prewar interest in chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. But the inspectors haven't found any weapons




Now, please show me articles from major sources that show otherwise, that shows this HUGE threat was real - not like Korea which actually has many nuclear weapons, and such. Show me how I wasn't lied to.

New York Times April 28,2004

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is investigating whether the unit — named the Counter Terrorism Evaluation Group by its creator, Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy — exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq to justify the war.

The C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies found little evidence to support the Pentagon's view of an increasingly unified terrorist threat or links between Mr. Hussein and Mr. bin Laden, and still largely dismiss those ideas. Foreign Islamic fighters have sought haven in Iraq since the American-led invasion and some Sunnis and Shiites have banded together against the occupiers, but the agencies say that is the result of anger and chaotic conditions, not proof of prewar alliances.


Let's blame Clinton or Kerry instead of the guy currently in charge.

what this thread really shows is how catering the media is to the conservative agenda...

Kerry shouldn't be so harshly compared to himself from 30 years ago, if you did that to anyone you would find many contradictions. If you were to do it to George W Bush, you would probably find him doing cocaine and driving while under the influence, much different than today (i hope).

I think its ridiculous that this is of so much controversy, what about Condi Rice saying that they are almost sure a terrorist attack will happen before the election, this seems like they know its going to happen, so they BETTER fucking prevent it from happening this time



unless they want it to

quiet CD, i agree

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Drudge broke Monica, not the Times.

Talk radio isn't supposed to be "unbiased." It doesn't pretend to be. The simple fact is that if a liberal radio show could get as good ratings as a conservative one, there would be more liberal radio talk shows. Talk shows aren't news. Rush Limbaugh isn't news. Sean Hannity isn't news. Alan Colmes isn't news. Those shows are opinion.

Do you even know how Drudge operates? He has bitches in newsrooms who leak shit to him. Look at his page right now about the Sadaam insurgency being planned before the invasion. He may have "broke" it, but I guarenfuckingtee that he didn't do ANY of the legwork to get the story. The Times was beat out of breaking the story from leaks in their newsroom.

Unfortunately, if you listen to your average conservative talk radio host, his callers will all talk about how great it is that someone is speaking the "truth". Your sitting there and telling me that every dittohead doesn't see what Rush spews out of his mouth as the truth? That's the same as news sweety in their eyes.

And liberal radio does get good ratings. Randi Rhodes will prove that in one year. I'll bet the mortgage on it. She did it in West Palm, she'll do it nationally. If Air America could get their shit together and put up more hosts like Rhodes, it will be as potent a force, both for ratings and for getting the message out, as the Rush/Sean/Boortz/Beck/Liddy/North machine.

Originally posted by Quiet CD
what this thread really shows is how catering the media is to the conservative agenda...

Kerry shouldn't be so harshly compared to himself from 30 years ago, if you did that to anyone you would find many contradictions. If you were to do it to George W Bush, you would probably find him doing cocaine and driving while under the influence, much different than today (i hope).

I think its ridiculous that this is of so much controversy, what about Condi Rice saying that they are almost sure a terrorist attack will happen before the election, this seems like they know its going to happen, so they BETTER fucking prevent it from happening this time



unless they want it to If Bush ran on a platform of "30 years ago I was really awesome" then sure, but the fact is, it's Kerry that brought this stuff upon himself by continuing to trumpet his own achievments from 30 years ago, and changing the facts depending on where and when he's speaking.

Originally posted by Jason Smith


Do you even know how Drudge operates? He has bitches in newsrooms who leak shit to him. Look at his page right now about the Sadaam insurgency being planned before the invasion. He may have "broke" it, but I guarenfuckingtee that he didn't do ANY of the legwork to get the story. The Times was beat out of breaking the story from leaks in their newsroom.

Unfortunately, if you listen to your average conservative talk radio host, his callers will all talk about how great it is that someone is speaking the "truth". Your sitting there and telling me that every dittohead doesn't see what Rush spews out of his mouth as the truth? That's the same as news sweety in their eyes.

And liberal radio does get good ratings. Randi Rhodes will prove that in one year. I'll bet the mortgage on it. She did it in West Palm, she'll do it nationally. If Air America could get their shit together and put up more hosts like Rhodes, it will be as potent a force, both for ratings and for getting the message out, as the Rush/Sean/Boortz/Beck/Liddy/North machine. I just said Drudge broke the story. I never said he was the investigator. Drudge never claims that he is.

So you're saying that every Rush fan agrees with everything Rush says? That's an ignorant statement. I'm not a big Rush fan, but I agree and disagree with him depending on his take.

Radio is paid by advertisers. Advertisers buy time on shows with good ratings. Ergo, if Liberal radio would get good ratings, you'd hear more liberal talkshows.

this just sounds like manufactured controversy to discredit kerry.. it doesn't matter WHICH PART of the medals he threw away.. hello, it's a fucking symbolic gesture. the ribbon is a symbol, the medal is a symbol.. maybe everyone else was throwing away their ribbons, so they did it that way together.

Originally posted by Nimrod
If Bush ran on a platform of "30 years ago I was really awesome" then sure, but the fact is, it's Kerry that brought this stuff upon himself by continuing to trumpet his own achievments from 30 years ago.

This is true. And this is why Kerry has chosen to address this controversy/attack by the Bush campaign. He could have just ignored it, as most people wanted him to, but since his campaign has been built around his military service...

Originally posted by if you are
this just sounds like manufactured controversy to discredit kerry.. it doesn't matter WHICH PART of the medals he threw away.. hello, it's a fucking symbolic gesture. the ribbon is a symbol, the medal is a symbol.. maybe everyone else was throwing away their ribbons, so they did it that way together. He could have said that he threw away the ribbons.

This reminds me of when Riddick Bowe threw the heavyweight title in the garbage, except Bowe did it on camera.

Originally posted by Nimrod
I just said Drudge broke the story. I never said he was the investigator. Drudge never claims that he is.

So you're saying that every Rush fan agrees with everything Rush says? That's an ignorant statement. I'm not a big Rush fan, but I agree and disagree with him depending on his take.

Radio is paid by advertisers. Advertisers buy time on shows with good ratings. Ergo, if Liberal radio would get good ratings, you'd hear more liberal talkshows.

no, you implied that the liberal media had no stake in Clinton's bad publicity and only because of people like Drudge and the ilk did Monica's name ever gain noteriety. The NY Times has historically been exhibit number 1 when people try to point at the liberal media. What I was saying was that even though Drudge "broke" the story, it was because of the "liberal" NY times' legwork that he was even able to break it.

I never said that all of Rush's fans believe every fucking work coming out of his mouth. You tried to make the distinction between opinion and news where you think EVERYONE who listens to Rush knows that he is spewing his opinion. My evidence of that being bullshit is in the legions of dittoheads who take his spin as the truth, thus making it, in their eyes, news.

Liberal radio has been plagued by really boring liberals trying to be intellectual. Mario Cuomo is about as exciting as reading the owner's manual to an El Camino. The people who have tried to finance any sort of liberal talk radio have always tried to be above the fray and not stoop to the level of demagoguery (sp?) that runs through Rush/Boortz/Sean et al's veins. Air America, and especially Randi Rhodes, may change that.

Nimrod, you're getting only half of what I'm saying. You're smarter than this. Think for just a few more seconds.

Wait, didn't Drudge run the Lewinski story after Newsweek decided not to go with it at the last minute. I never heard anything about the Times breaking any ground on that. I just thought they leaked the relevant info about the Newsweek story to Drudge, which is entirely different than leaking it to Drudge just before they were about to run it.

Originally posted by tweedyburd
Wait, didn't Drudge run the Lewinski story after Newsweek decided not to go with it at the last minute. I never heard anything about the Times breaking any ground on that. I just thought they leaked the relevant info about the Newsweek story to Drudge, which is entirely different than leaking it to Drudge just before they were about to run it.

Yes.

NEWSWEEK had the story three days prior to the Times learning of it. A NEWSWEEK reporter informed her friend, who worked at the Times, of the story.

Then Drudge's chrony (who is now a ME at the Times) told him.

Love him or hate him, you have to admit Matt Drudge has one of the coolest jobs on the planet.

By the way, the Gore quote was no more taken to the extreme than the previous VP's spelling error.

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">I can't believe this is the political topic of discussion of the day. It's so idiotic.</font>

Originally posted by tweedyburd
Wait, didn't Drudge run the Lewinski story after Newsweek decided not to go with it at the last minute. I never heard anything about the Times breaking any ground on that. I just thought they leaked the relevant info about the Newsweek story to Drudge, which is entirely different than leaking it to Drudge just before they were about to run it.

You are correct. I'll admit when I was wrong. We liberals will do that.

Originally posted by Nimrod
It's not whether or not he earned the medals, it's that he tried to make himself look great by throwing them away when in fact he kept them and lied about it and changed his story three times.

PS, your arguments hold a lot more weight when you don't start off with "didn't even read the article."


Non-issue. It's 2004, not 1971 loser. God, make the discourse lamer, please.

i find this thread humorous.

heh tweedyburd

<font color=#007AAA face="courier new">I can't believe this is the political topic of discussion of the day. It's so idiotic.</font>


wait a few more years pal

Horseface

Kerry got politically raped. I feel so bad for the guy. Not to mention the Iraq war would be over by now had he been elected.

Kerry got politically raped. I feel so bad for the guy. Not to mention the Iraq war would be over by now had he been elected.

haha, you're fucking delusional.

Coming from your kind that would mean I'm perfectly sane.

I bet ol' Lt. John would have strapped the uniform on and gone over to Iraq by himself, huh, single-handedly winning the war! Or would he just have pulled out all of the troops and admitted defeat? Which is it in your fantasyland scenario?

You call it admitting defeat. I call it ending an idiotic (not to mention illegal) war that should have never been waged and has no real end, only a highly organized withdrawal.

You can't win in Iraq. It's impossible.

And stop talking like I think the guy is Superman. He's just an intelligent guy who could have actually brought sound, sane policy to the White House instead of fucking it up the ass for eight years. Kerry's biggest downfall was his lack of charisma for the oh-so-crucial "swing vote" that is basically represented by people who pay attention to politics once every four years and have not a fucking clue about anything.

So you would have advocated a full withdrawal of US troops in 2004.

Absolutely. That wasn't the most popular opinion at the time, so I wouldn't have expected Kerry to do so. But, I do believe that after a few attempts to follow through on campaign promises, Kerry would have smartened up and stopped trying to restructure the war and just bring it to an end.

Absolutely. That wasn't the most popular opinion at the time, so I wouldn't have expected Kerry to do so. But, I do believe that after a few attempts to follow through on campaign promises, Kerry would have smartened up and stopped trying to restructure the war and just bring it to an end.

And how would that have turned out better than what has ended up happening?

The fact that you even asked that question after all of the years of debate really amazes me. Have you been asleep since 2005 or something?

My guess is Gish08 gets all of his news from the moveon.org forums

The fact that you even asked that question after all of the years of debate really amazes me. Have you been asleep since 2005 or something?

I'm serious. I don't deny that things got worse in Iraq after Bush was re-elected, but it has stabilized to some extent since the surge, has it not? I wouldn't call things hunky-dory there, but I really don't know how tucking tail and running in 2004 or 2005 would have led to obviously better results. There might have been fewer American casualties, sure. But less violence in the region overall? I don't see it.

There's a higher concentration of troops in critical areas, ensuring more security while the rest of the country is put on the backburner. The media doesn't talk about it because everyone's sick and tired of hearing about the consequences of Bush's war plans. And so am I. Fuck the war, it's a waste of time, effort, and money. Call me a pussy who accepts defeat, I don't really care. It's a dumb fucking war.

Not to mention the Iraq war would be over by now had he been elected.

http://savegabc.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/lex-luthor-wrong1.jpg

CUT AND RUN

STAY THE COURSE

(repeat x1,000)

Neither of those memes are true.

However it's naive bleeding hearts like Gish08 that wanted to pull out immediately in 2004/2005 and essentially invade a nation, destroy its stability, and leave it to the jackals. Really, that is the least compassionate thing someone can do.

"The war was illegal! The war was wrong!" Irrelevant at that point.