Long Time Gone

Sorry, due to laziness and other things completely under my control, I haven't blogged. I'm currently working on some old posts that I haven't submitted, so there are things coming soon.

For now, you can read more on the whole Swift Boat Vets for Bullshit thing on Beau's blog. My first response here. And now my second (this one's more shrill):

Wait, where are all the Kerry supporters? Ah, I see: I'm the only troll here. But unlike right wing trolls, at least I can form a thought out argument.

c baughn: I went to a great deal of trouble to cite my arguments. FactCheck.org is a credible non-partisan organization. Look it up. It checks on both sides of the aisle. The Kerry campaign gave them more records to peruse, and those records are available at the campaign website. Those are valid Navy records, certainly as valid as Bush's Guard records (more on that later). As for the other 250 vets that support the SBVfBS testimony, many of those have not only disavowed allegations against Kerry in the letter, the book, and ads, their "signatures" were put there without their knowledge or consent. So no, I'm not calling them liars. The liars in the group, well, their lies have been refuted and disproved by actual Naval records, other witnesses, and their own quotes. Let's see, was that John O'Neill on the Nixon tapes telling the president that he was in Cambodia? Shouldn't he have been court martialed?

Gerry: I love this "flip flop" thing. Did the GOP send you all a memo reminding you to parrot that phrase every time you get the chance? I also like the Clinton connection. It's amazing. If Kerry has lied more in the last two years than Clinton did in eight, then the lies must be easy to cite. I'd love to hear 'em. And do please make sure to give me something credible, other than littlegreenfootballs or captainsquarterly. Something from a valid news source, not a blog. As for blaming Bush for the SBVfBS and not the group itself, you're wrong. 527s don't officially work for any politician, but they do follow the marching orders of the group they support. Kerry and his supporters have criticized the group directly. But how do you argue that Bush's people or Bush himself is not involved when some of the vets in the SBVfBS actually work for, or are large contributors to the Bush campaign? Finally, now that it is coming into sharper focus that Bush did everything he could to avoid even minimal required service, how does that sit with you? You said:

"I feel that it is an obligation of every true American to serve their country when called."

I'm sure it galls you to no end then that the Commander-In-Chief of this country supported military involvement in Vietnam but did the following:

-- Pulled strings to put himself highest on the list, ahead of others before him, to get into a unit most unlikely to get called up
-- Refused a direct order to take a physical
-- Improperly left his unit before arranging a transfer
-- Didn't even finish his service before his commitment was up
-- Is quoted as saying that if the Guard would have been called up, maybe the war would have turned out different. Is that a backhand to the soldiers in the field, or is he suggesting that the part of military the did his best to do his least be called up? Not that it matters: he wouldn't have gone if his unit did get called up. Papa Bush would have thrown the safety net anyway.

You can read the AP or watch the 60 Minutes rerun for more details. There's a time gap in Bush's service records because he wasn't there to be on record.

I'm not going to contrast that with Kerry's service records because I already did that. How's about I use Clinton? Yes, Clinton used his connections to get out of going to Vietnam. But at least he was consistent. He was against the war. Bush was not. Cheney was not. They didn't go because they felt they had better things to do. True, Bush isn't basing his campaign largely on his military service, but he is the one who is always eager for a fight but hides and is willing to let others fight for him. Funny, it is now as it was then: using soldiers and vets. If you want your leaders to be "true" Americans, then Bush and Cheney aren't your guys.

Ashley: Your anger with Kerry is understandable, but I'm going to have to disagree with the reasoning. I'm too young to actually have been able to comprehend public opinion on the war back then, so I'll go on what I've read and have been told by protesters, vets such as yourself, and politicians who were alive then. Kerry's testimony isn't something that was instrumental in "losing" that "war". It wasn't a betrayal. Your buddies' names are on the Wall because of bad diplomacy, stubborn arrogance, fear mongering, and an underestimation of the enemy (all that sound familiar?). Please tell me how winning a tiny country in Southeast Asia would have been pivotal in beating back the "threat of Communism". What Kerry did was do his part so that as many of your buddies could come home. Yep, atrocities happened on the part of our guys. It happens in *every* war, especially when you're dealing with guerillas who can hide amongst or exploit the innocent. If you think that bringing back as many soldiers as possible who weren't among the many tens of thousands that already died as losing, then fine, we lost. If we had "won", it would have taken more time and many more troops do it, since we weren't going to nuke the place. The longer we would have stayed, the more names would have been on that wall.

I guess to you I'm against freedom and liberty, and all those cliches that your side is used to flinging around. If you want to actually discuss this civil-like, I'm game. But please, if you're going to tell me that Kerry lied or "flip flopped" then please back it up, rather than just shout it out like you think you know what you're talking about. I'm pretty sure I have a reply for every one of them, and I definitely have some Bush flip flops and lies for you to munch on, too.