Holy $#!+

Julian Sanchez | 9.4.2004 6:51 AM

Ok, I had heard about this, but haven't really been paying attention to TV convention news since Monday or so, so I hadn't seen it until tonight with friends who TiVOed it. And I understand that it's already gotten enough buzz for this to be redundant. But I feel like it's worth a couple news cycles when it's abruptly revealed beyond any possible doubt that a sitting U.S. Senator is completely batshit insane.

Start your day with Reason. Get a daily brief of the most important stories and trends every weekday morning when you subscribe to Reason Roundup.

NEXT: Little Rock Bypass

Hide Comments (164)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

James Kabala 21 years ago

What is the story with Miller? I vaguely remember as governor of Georgia in the nineties, and he wasn't considered a right-winger at all. His two great crusades were trying to get the Confederate flag off the Georgia flag and giving free Mozart CDs to every new mother. If he had been a Senator in the nineties, would he have voted for all these weapons systems?
James Kabala 21 years ago

What is the story with Miller? I vaguely remember him as governor of Georgia in the nineties, and he wasn't considered a right-winger at all. His two great crusades were trying to get the Confederate flag off the Georgia flag and giving free Mozart CDs to every new mother. If he had been a Senator in the nineties, would he have voted for all these weapons systems?
James Kabala 21 years ago

What is the story with Miller? I vaguely remember him as governor of Georgia in the nineties, and he wasn't considered a right-winger at all. His two great crusades were trying to get the Confederate flag off the Georgia flag and giving free Mozart CDs to every new mother. If he had been a Senator in the nineties, would he have voted for all these weapons systems?
James Kabala 21 years ago

Sorry about that multiple post.
Charlie (Colorado) 21 years ago

You don't get out much, do you?
Rick Barton 21 years ago

SEN. ZELL MILLER-D GEORGIA: In their warped way of thinking, America is the problem, not the solution.

The complaint that Miller is bemoaning is against the actions of the American government not all "America".

They don?t believe there is any real danger in the world except that which America brings upon itself through our clumsy and misguided foreign policy.

Check out the the straw man fallacy that Miller employs. No one would contend that it's the ONLY real danger, but the evidence is that our government does indeed bring us into danger with its misguided foreign policy. The evidence is that then 9/11 happened as a result of our government's support for the Israeli government's occupation. Note that the 9/11 commission findings reveal:

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission.

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/nation/9222612.htm
thoreau 21 years ago

Chris Matthews went to pretty absurd lengths in questioning Miller.

Then Miller went to COMPLETELY INSANE LENGTHS in his response.

I don't mind Matthews getting a come-uppance. But let's not mince words: Miller went crazy when he implied that he'd like to shoot a gun at Matthews or skewer him with a sword or something.
J. Goard 21 years ago

Seems more and more like "left-wing media bias" is really many conservatives' unwillingness to handle hypotheticals, analogies, and gradation of judgments. Matthews was just thinking about the content of the speech, trying to turn disgusting rabble-rousing soundbites into something halfway respectable. Whatever I think of his technique in general, he tried to do his job in this case. A good example of why:

"It's the journalist, not the soldier, who insures that the soldier defends a free society rather than a brutal dictatorship.

"It's the professor, not the soldier, who insures that the soldier defends citizens rather than pack animals.

"It's the artist, not the soldier, who provides the populace with ambitions other than for temporary power.

"It's the engineer, the teacher, the investor, the doctor, the manager -- not the soldier -- who work against the future need for soldiers."
Mo 21 years ago

John,
So who gets the blame for wanting to remove those programs, Dick Cheney, the SecDef that asked, or John Kerry, the Senator that went along with the SecDef's request? Isn't Cheney more culpable for weakening our defense, since it was his idea?
kevrob 21 years ago

To be fair to Zell, he didn't challenge Matthews to a duel, straight out. He opined:

MILLER: You know, I wish we...

MILLER: I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel.

MILLER: Now, that would be pretty good.

Don?t ask me?don?t pull that...

If I ever said about someone who has been a complete jackass "That fellow deserves a horsewhipping" nobody would take that seriously, as

1.) I don't own a horsewhip, nor a horse for that matter. I don't even know where I would go to get one.

2.) The expression is so obviously anachronistic that it would be seen to be rhetorical.

To be fair to Mr. Kerry, he would fight for defense spending, if it affected jobs in Massachusetts, or a campaign donor, just like 90% of the pork-gobbling, graft-swilling pols in Congress do, regardless of party or ideology. Check out this episode, as reported by the L.A. Times, noting all the grease covering various bipartisan mouths: http://tinyurl.com/33amm .

Kevin
davepotts 21 years ago

"Matthews has intentionally upped the confrontational tone of the program to try to save his statist ass. Too bad he can still get Republicans on at all, they should have blackballed hardball after the Malkin beat down.",

As if the republicans aren't statist asses. Give me a god-damned break. What the hell has happened to the healthy libertarian disgust at both left AND right? Maybe its got something to do with those jackasses at the LP nominating an uneducated wacko to run for the Presidency, I don't know. If Kerry wins, we end up no safer, and with a bloated and globally ineffectual leviathan-state that sucks the life out of its citizens. If Bush wins we'll end up no safer, and with a bloated and globally ineffectual leviathan-state that sucks the life out of its citizens.
Dan 21 years ago

You need a bit of the backstory on this. A few days earlier, Matthews did a complete hatchet job on Michelle Malkin. She was invited onto the show to promote her book, and had been told that the Swiftboat thing might come up shortly before they got to her book. She didn't know much about the issue, and read up a bit on it. Then Matthews treated her as a representative for the group, and started badgering her. When she said that one of their claims was that Kerry had a self-inflicted wound for his first Purple Heart, Matthews accused her of saying that Kerry had INTENTIONALLY shot himself. He then wouldn't let her get in another word and started berating her and calling her names. She never got to talk about her book at all. She was clearly unprepared about the Swiftboat thing, but Matthews made it look like she was there to defend them, when she wasn't.

Now, Zell Miller saw that, and heard Malkin's response on her blog later, and got incensed. When he was invited onto Hardball, he had been telling people, "If he tries to railroad me like he did that poor women, he's got a surprise coming."

So Miller was all set to be confrontational. Then an honest mistake happened - Matthews tried to make an analogy about Republicans being accursed of stealing lunches from kids or whatever, but the noise drowned out the lead-in to that, and all Miller heard was, "You've been accused of stealing lunches....etc". He went ballistic, and the train wreck continued from there.

But God, it was fun to watch.
Reg 21 years ago

Some of Zell's attacks were aimed at John Kerry that were unfair. But his attacks on the Democratic party were right on target. A party that embraces Michael Moore and his propaganda of lies and half-truths really is more interested in bringing down the president than reforming the middle east and combatting Islamofascist terrorists.
PapayaSF 21 years ago

As frequently happens here, Dan has a sensible, well-written, informative post.
The Lonewacko Blog 21 years ago

Dan appears to be correct:

Miller: "But I don?t have to stand here and listen to that kind of stuff. I didn?t say anything about not feeding poor kids. What are you doing?"

Nice try though. Maybe you guys could find an alderman saying something bad off-mike or something.
SM 21 years ago

I wouldn't call it well-written. He left caps-lock on for INTENTIONALLY. 😉
Jim Walsh 21 years ago

Reading Zell's comments reminds me of the anti-Catholic Church comments of people like Gary Wills. At some point you have to say: look, if it's really so bad, why don't you defect?

(For the record, I'm no longer either a Democrat or a Catholic)
crimethink 21 years ago

kevrob,

I guess Clintonian word-mincing comes from both sides of the aisle. 😉 But repeatedly saying he want to get in someone's face, then saying that it would be great if he could challenge him to a duel, is clearly a threat, however idle in this case.

Dan,

All right, sounds like Malkin got a raw deal a few days ago. Still, Zell continued flipping out even after Matthews tried to clarify his question. It was several lines afterward that Zell began musing about duels, so the misheard question is not an excuse.
Gadfly 21 years ago

The GOP is a big tent. They not only welcome screwballs, they put them center stage in prime time. Uniters, you know.
Reg 21 years ago

"Zell continued flipping out even after Matthews tried to clarify his question"

Zell didn't flip out until Matthews began talking over every word Zell said. Matthews is an ass, worse than O'Reilly.
Gary Gunnels 21 years ago

Carter was a pacifist? 🙂

Carter was a lot of things, but he wasn't a pacifist.
pdf 21 years ago

>At some point you have to say: look, if it's really so bad, why don't you defect?

If Miller actually joined the Republican party, no one would put him on TV any more. As it is, he's a novelty, like a dog that can count to ten. But the Republican party is already stuffed to the walls with cracker idiots willing to lie on cue about their own party's history. No room for glory there. (By the way, Dick Cheney wanted to gut the defense budget, and actually thought Democrats didn't vote to cut enough during the time that John Kerry was supposedly voting against all these armaments - and, as long as we're discussing what actually happened instead of what happened in the fever swamp of Zig-Zag Zell Miller's burnt brainpan, the vote was on an omnibus appropriation bill, not on any specific weapons system - and again, Cheney wanted to cut the budget even more than the Democrats would permit him to do).
dan 21 years ago

Anyone who has wasted their time watching "Slimeball " lately knows that Chris is the champion of the have you stopped beating your wife question. Anyone who listened to Zell's speach knows that he did not say anything like what Chris was trying to accuse Zell of saying. Miller kicked the whinning media fairies butt, and Chris deserved everybit of it. If it makes you uncomfortable to see a real man defend himself from cheap shots, look away. It will be over soon.One sure sign you are a girlie man is that when you're called one, you whine about it.
Joe L 21 years ago

No Carter was INCOMPETENT, but probably not a pacifist. If this is about Matthews and Miller, Go Zell... Heck if it was Miller versus O'Reailly go ZELL!
What some people hereabouts don't like, say Sanchez and Gillespie and Gary, is that someone defended themselves against Matthew's badgering. Now if it had been Sollum or Kerry v. O'Reilly I'd imagine the headline would be, "Really Mr. O'Reilly have you NO shame?!"
Just whose ox is being gored....
Ron Hardin 21 years ago

You're insane if you're watching Matthews. Miller wasn't going along with the format, as if he thought it beyond commentary that Matthews would put schtik over security.

Well, if there's going to be schtik, see if you like this one, Miller was saying.
callforjustice911 21 years ago

Obviously, Hardball is in trouble. Matthews has intentionally upped the confrontational tone of the program to try to save his statist ass. Too bad he can still get Republicans on at all, they should have blackballed hardball after the Malkin beat down.

Comment by: Hank Reardon at September 4, 2004 11:14 AM

That right wing ultra-selfrighteous Republican Malkin got what she deserved, making false statements regarding the service that Kerry did in in Nam. And Matthews called her on it.

She would not answer yes or no, as to whether Malkin thought that Kerry was a traitor, and that is all that Matthews wanted. Yes. No. plain and simple as per "Hardball."

And that nutty Zell-- shouting like Rudolf Hess during a NAZI party meeting ! And that outrageous mean spirited attack he made against Sen. Kerry.

Then he challenges Matthews to a duel ? and "Get out of my face" he says ???

This is an "esteemed" Senator ?????

If this is what the Republican Pary has wasted to count me out. Self righteous rightwing in spirit, launching Swift boats adds when they say they have nothing to do with it.-- And then that Convention-- I'm a Republican and the mean spirited things that they said have caused me to abandon my Party.

I am still a Republican waiting for the Party to move closer to the middle rather than way out there beyond right field, so far out that I cannot see them on the field.

So...

I'm a Republcan voting for Kerry.

Why ?

Right Winger Republicans say he is a "flip flopper"

Is he?

What these ultra-rightwingers in the Republican Party don't say and most people are TOO STUPID TO TO CONSIDER, is that the reason Kerry voted the way he did on the issues in question IS:

In approriations bills sent to the Senate and Congress the final bills are almost always coupled with things that anyone with a critical way of voting will vote upon based upon the things that they want versus the thing that they don't want.

It bugs me when the Republican rightwingers say:

"Kerry voted for the war then voted against it"

And with regards to his voting on the war:

Kerry is right. Bush bushwhacked us into believing that there were "weapons of mass destruction" there. "We would be welcomed there by the Iraqi's"-- so and and so on--

RIGHT !

Then,

Kerry voted for body armor for our troops, then voted against it."

On and on they blast him.

But the fact is that the approriations bills are those things coupled with PORK BARREL PROJECTS and other items that Sen. Kerry did not want. Very often in the political game things that everyone wants is often packaged with things that would never fly on their own merit.

Kerry did not vote specifically against those things that the Republican right wingers are hitting him against.

What is needed is "line item" approriations bills.
Not just a bundle as it is now of "take it or leave it" in the voting process.

I hope that Kerry can, and will explain the REASON to the American people as to why he voted the way he did, pointing out as I have here that appropriations bills are not one item bills, but a group of many appropriations issues.

But the fact is we are in Iraq and we must now defeat the Islamofascists with all the might that we can muster. There is no turning back now.

But in this, I will not jump on the Texas Bandwaggon and vote for that brash brainless Texan. Instead I will vote for one that has seen battle, and had the courage to go into a war when that war was not popular.

Maybe he will bring some sense into the picture that is so lacking now.

Bottom line: Our current Commander and Chief is a "nitwit"

callforjustice911

P.S. I love Hardball. We need more people like Chris Matthews. Hit 'em hard Chris ! Pin 'em down.
anonymous coward 21 years ago

Man, callforjustice911, I originally assumed that you were just a crazy troll. I don't know whether voting for Kerry makes you appear nuanced, or even crazier.
Richard 21 years ago

Chris Matthews used to be a legislative aide for Tip O'Neil back when he was the Speaker of the House. Miller knew that Matthews is a big Democrat and you can see clearly that he wasn't taking any shit.
PapayaSF 21 years ago

That right wing ultra-selfrighteous Republican Malkin got what she deserved, making false statements regarding the service that Kerry did in in Nam. And Matthews called her on it.

Errr, no. There is evidence that at least one of Kerry's wounds was (UNintentionally) self-inflicted, and thus not eligible for a Purple Heart. That's all she said. Matthews then began screaming at her, thinking she meant "intentionally," which she didn't. Matthews clearly hadn't read Unfit for Command, where this is discussed. He was out of line.
vidkunquisling 21 years ago

What's "batshit insane" about stuffing a bully like Chris Matthews. If more of his guests lit into him like this, maybe he'd let someone finish a sentence occasionally.
herryoyo 21 years ago

To be fair, yes, Matthews does badger people and cut them off. Also, the senator was having difficulty hearing, so that did exacerbate the situation.

The batshit insane part comes from the senator going off like a 15 year old who gets beat down in a first person shooter or on a message board. His commentary about being face to face wasn't to alleviate the sound levels, it was because he was suggesting he could beat Matthews up. Then he ventures into the realm of wanting to duel?

I expect that kind of behavior from anonymous teenagers online. I don't expect that kind of behavior from a senator on national TV.
Hank Reardon 21 years ago

Obviously, Hardball is in trouble. Matthews has intentionally upped the confrontational tone of the program to try to save his statist ass. Too bad he can still get Republicans on at all, they should have blackballed hardball after the Malkin beat down.
Jon 21 years ago

"Errr, no. There is evidence that at least one of Kerry's wounds was (UNintentionally) self-inflicted, and thus not eligible for a Purple Heart. "

Uh, no. Such wounds *are* eligible for a Purple Heart.
Hank Reardon 21 years ago

Did I say Republicans? Zell,of course, is a Democrat. And I wouldn't expect J.C. Watts to come to Michelle Malkin's defense considering her outspoken disappointment in minority progress.
eponymous 21 years ago

what's insane are the libertarian sympathies for the democratic party and their media operatives that is evident in Reason editorializing nowadays

there is a Republican Liberty Caucus but not even a libertarian aspect to the democrat party--hell noone's gonna take your porn or abortions away
dead_elvis 21 years ago

Looks to me like Zell is saying that ALL weapons systems deserve our (significant amounts of) money. In his speech he makes no distinction between weapons that were a decent buy and ones which were of questionable value, such as the B-1, Patriot, SDI). Voting against those programs doesn't mean one isn't concerned about the defense of the country.
m 21 years ago

From the Hardball transcript, after Matthews has asked Malking several times if she's saying Kerry deliberately injured himself:

MATTHEWS: Your saying there are?he shot himself on purpose, that?s a criminal act?

MALKIN: I?m saying that I?ve read the book and some of the...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle.

MALKIN: Some of the veterans say...

MATTHEWS: No. No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose.

MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that.
Ken Shultz 21 years ago

I'm reminded of the description Madeline Albright gave of her meeting with Kim Jong Il way back when. Kim Jong Il was being both cordial and rational in their discussions, but a celebration for the ?Dear Leader? seemed to ruin the tone. They walked together into what looked like a football stadium, and, at first, everything was completely dark and perfectly quiet. Once they were shown to their seats, a spotlight was shone on Kim Jong Il. Suddenly, the lights came up. Thousands of people on the field broke into a perfectly choreographed dance in celebration of the "Dear Leader" while tens of thousands in the stands sang songs about him and shifted placards glorifying his accomplishments in perfect precision. According to Albright, the celebration had a profound psychological impact on Kim Jon Il; afterwards, it became impossible to communicate with him in any meaningful way. It was as if Kim Jong Il, after the celebration, suddenly thought of himself as the ?Dear Leader?, above mortal concerns like the United States and likes of the Madame Secretary.

Zell Miller must have still been in the throes of a similar frenzy when he miked up and joined the discussion. When he suggested a physical confrontation with Chris Matthews, no matter what was said, it was the political equivalent of a rock star suggesting that he trash a hotel room after a concert. It was as if the Senator was thinking something along the lines of, ?I don't have to answer to mere mortals like you, Matthews. Didn't you see the crowd? They applauded every other thing I said; they chanted my lines back at me; they loved me, not you...you worm. I?m wonderful, and everyone but you seems to realize that. How can an entire arena of people be wrong about how wonderful I am? ...and then you have to try and ruin it. You come and ask me?these?these questions!? Temporary insanity of the megalomaniacal grandiose variety, I?d say. I suspect that the kinds of personalities who are driven into politics are highly susceptible. Indeed, I once read that President Bush?s handlers sometimes schedule speeches in front of our armed forces in order to buoy his mood.
D Anghelone 21 years ago

Constipated bats would be something insane.

Where's the transcript? Why isn't that 'transscript'?

What's insane? Duelling? Choose your weapon! Why isn't that 'dueling'?
Sarnath 21 years ago

Interesting how Miller wasn't willing to stand behind comments he made in his speech.
John Thacker 21 years ago

dead elvis-- your general point is solid but certainly falls down in the specific case because Sen. Kerry has voted against nearly every new weapons system, both those of questionable value and those which are not. That has been a key part of his senatorial campaigns and messages to groups whose endorsement he was seeking as well.

Insane? Sorry, don't see it. I see someone who has obviously gotten tired of being insulted for a very long time.
crimethink 21 years ago

Matthews is a die-hard liberal, but I have to agree with Sanchez' diagnosis of batshit insanity. Matthews was asking a legit question -- whether it would be fair to question a Republican's voting record on the terms Zell was questioning Kerry's.

Yeah, maybe he misheard Matthews, and thought he was accusing Zell of denying kids their school lunches or something. Still, as we often say here on H&R, the best solution to bad speech is more speech, not an invitation to duel.

And imho Matthews could kick the shit out of Zell anyhow.
Reg 21 years ago

How was Zell insane? How do you respond to such inane questions?

MATTHEWS: OK. Do you believe now?do you believe, Senator, truthfully, that John Kerry wants to defend the country with spitballs? Do you believe that?

MILLER: That was a metaphor, wasn?t it? Do you know what a metaphor is?
__
MATTHEWS: No. Do you believe that they don?t believe in defending the country?

MILLER: I question their judgment.

_____
Zell responded appropriately, throwing in a little humor, to such an ass of an interviewer. I don't think I've ever seen anybody take on Matthews as well as Zell did.
callforjustice911 21 years ago

Hank Reardon" wrote:

"Calforjustice911, Your love of Chris Matthews indicates to me you are probably not a Republican."

HA ! I have been a registered Republican since 1972. I have voted Republican ever since then, till Bush, the stupidest President the US has ever had, came to power. He is just TOO FAR right for my liking. And he is taking this country down the wrong path. We cannot stand alone, any one with sense can see that. But not him and his ultra-rightwing supporters... Many of which are also religious fanatics, as in the "Christian Coalition" ilk.

" We are a big tent, but we wouldn't mind if you'd go ahead and burn your Party ID card."

No, I will vote my conscience and hope that the Republican Party will rid itself of this right wingers, and come more to the center line.

"Your boy Kerry thinks his four months of action earned him a job as commander in chief, however, his inability to consider the long term consequences of pissing off our soldiers alone disqualifies him for any office of any importance."

I don't think so. Four months of being on the battleline as a volunteer is MORE COURAGEOUS sitting at home getting drunk serving in the National Guard.

"Accusing your brothers of being war criminals plays well in Boston, but it is a stupid move if you have national aspirations, which it is obvious Kerry had. The guy you call a nitwit at least had enough sense to avoid alienating a revered segment of society."

His policies today make him a "nitwit" Going into Iraq with false pretenses. Bushwacking the American people to go along with that war makes him a "nitwit."

(GEEZ: I saw on Face the Nation this morning that EVEN Pat Buchanan an right wing Republican criticise Bush war policy in Iraq.)

Then:

Privitizing Social, Security- Giving tax breaks to companies sending our jobs overseas, and other such irresponsible policies make him a "nitwit."

SO-- it is what Bush has done in the last four years that makes him a "nitwit"

Comment by: Hank Reardon at September 5, 2004 10:09 AM

Then Joe L. wrote:

"If Kerry wants to put it behind him, he needs to repudiate the Fullbright Testimony and the Winter Soldier Hearings. Admit that he was angry and foolish, and gullible and naive for having believed those people. THEN, he can begin to talk about what he did in Vietnam and what he wants to do in America in 2005. Until then, he is what he has been, a man that wants it BOTH WAYS and is petulant when that is denied him."

Comment by: Joe L. at September 5, 2004 10:37 AM

So Mr Joe L.

I should just forget what those Vets just out of Nam in that Half Way House for Vets told me back in 1971 ?

It did not happen ?

Don't think so.

Mi Lai was just the tip of the iceberg.

In war terrible things happen. People do things that they would never do otherwise. And 35 years later they all would wish to forget, and at the very least never admit it.

America in the conduct of war is not so clean of atrocites as one might think.

In WWII, when our subs we sank Jap vessels out at sea then surfaced-- I saw on the history channel in the "Color of War" series one very horrific scene where our "honorable" sailors made sport of tommy gunning Jap sailors in the water. Like "shooting ducks" in a pond. Some close up pleading for help.

Tell me that is not an atrocity ?

And in Viet Nam we did not do things just as terrible?

The fact is that we as Americans don't want to dwell on the things that we did in warfare. Interesting how such atrocities get covered up, especially if the nation in question is the victor.

Things 35 or more years ago, things said in youth don't hold much water with me. It is where we are now and where our nation is going that counts.

And Bush's way is wrong. But we need to win the War on Terror. And now going into the 3rd year of it, anyone with sense can see that we have been bushwacked into a war with Iraq. A quagmire that we are now in. There was far more justification in hitting Afganistan, and possibly Iran than Iraq. And from my armchair I can envision that Saddam would quake in his boots over the ramificatons of having conducted the War on Terror properly.

"Weapons of mass destruction" as the justification Ha !

Where are they in Bush's misplaced call for war against Iraq?

callforjustice911
PapayaSF 21 years ago

Regarding Purple Hearts:

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2105532&

Yes, you can get a Purple Heart for an unintentionally self-inflicted wound sustained in action. That's why Max Cleland didn't get one: not in action at the time. That's why Bob Dole did get one of his when his grenade bounced off a tree and he caught a fragment in his leg: it happened in combat.

But the charge is that one of Kerry's Purple Hearts (I think it was catching his own grenade fragment in the butt) was awarded for an incident that did not involve enemy fire, when he supposedly shot a grenade into a pile of rice while too close. That's what Malkin was trying to say to Matthews. And if the other vets are correct and there was no enemy fire at that time, it certainly does seem like Kerry doesn't deserve that one.
Hank Reardon 21 years ago

You won't see this athiest leaving the GOP due to a supposed shift to the religious right. At least Republicans who believe that life begins at conception want to protect that "life". Where as, Kerry, who also said he believes that life begins at conception, sees no delima in terminating that life, regardless even of whether the fetus is viable outside of the womb. Then again, he is a self-admitted baby killer. That's the kind of guy callforjustice911 can really get behind.
Hank Reardon 21 years ago

I find it very hard to believe that anyone who can stomach "Face The Nation" considers themselves to be a Republican. Bob Shieffer is more biased than even George Stephanopolis! The only redeeming aspect of that program is that it is only on for half an hour.
Fodderstompf 21 years ago

dan writes:
I have yet to see the trolls and Kerrvorkinanist here

Oh yeah? Well, you're a Bushnit... Bushman... Bushmanson! So there!

refute point by point what Miller said in the Keynote Speech.

That's a nice way of sidestepping the piles of criticism aimed at the content of Miller's speech. It wouldn't be any more or less convincing if someone collected the lot of it into a point by point rebuttal.

Davod writes:
Miller didn't lie.

He lied repeatedly. He said Kerry "has made it clear that he would use military force only if approved by the United Nations." That's a lie. He said that Kerry "would let Paris decide when America needs defending." That's another lie.

But I was talking about previously was something else: Miller knowingly mislead his audience when he listed those weapons systems, as if Kerry had voted to "shut them down". He took his cue from the Republican National Committee, which had composed a very similar list last winter.

Kerry and Edwards voted against the 87BN.

Bush threatened to veto the $87 billion if the bill wasn't to his liking.

The reason doesn't matter.

Willful ignorance is neither pretty nor clever.

Joe L. writes:
Kerry's "testimony" in 1971 is/was bogus. He's quoting from the "Winter Soldier" Hearings and from members of the VVAW. Read Burkett's rendition of these so-called "vet's" and their leaders.

Like many Republican talking points, this one gets repeated a lot, but is never (that I've seen anyway) substantiated. Which of the people who testified in the Winter Soldier Investigation were bogus?

PapayaSF writes:
But the charge is that one of Kerry's Purple Hearts (I think it was catching his own grenade fragment in the butt) was awarded for an incident that did not involve enemy fire, when he supposedly shot a grenade into a pile of rice while too close. That's what Malkin was trying to say to Matthews.

You're conflating two different incidents, I think. Malkin was trying to insinuate that Kerry's first Purple Heart was intentionally self-inflicted. Kerry received a shrapnel wound on his shoulder and he fired no grenades according to Runyon and Zaladonis, the other two Swift boat vets onboard that day.

The SBV for Bush have also elected to focus on Kerry's third Purple Heart, which he received for an injury to his arm when an explosion rocked his boat. Previously on that day Kerry had also received a shrapnel wound to his buttocks when destroying a pile of rice with a grenade. That injury may have been enough to earn him a Purple Heart on its own, but considering the other injury later during the same mission, the question is academic.

And if the other vets are correct and there was no enemy fire at that time, it certainly does seem like Kerry doesn't deserve that one.

Speaking of "other vets" being correct gives the wrong impression. The majority of vets who were actually present during the incidents for which Kerry received his medals don't agree with the SBVT's stories. (Not that this should come as a surprise to anyone; Republican smears have never been known for their veracity.)
Fodderstompf 21 years ago

Hank Reardon writes:
At least Republicans who believe that life begins at conception want to protect that "life". Where as, Kerry, who also said he believes that life begins at conception, sees no delima in terminating that life

As a fellow atheist I agree: religious politicians are okay, but it's terrible when they don't want to make their religious beliefs the law of the land. It makes me so mad when they say that their religion shouldn't be allowed to dictate what I'm allowed to do. They give religion a bad name with their immoral tolerance for other belief systems than their own.

Then again, he is a self-admitted baby killer.

Then again, that isn't true.
Mason 21 years ago

She was on the show to talk about HER BOOK, you crazy troll.
Davod 21 years ago

Completely batshit insane - a particularly appropriate statement when applied to Senator John Kerry.

I listened to part of Millers speech to the convention. He was blunt and straightforward. You may not like what he said but I bet he spoke for a lot of your basic blue collar democrats. Those of you who attribute cracker overtones to his speech just didn't want to hear what he was saying. Nothing racist or bigotted in what he said.

I also watched part of the exchange between Mathews and Miller. Miller got the better of Mathews because he was prepared to bully Mathews. The 'duel' statement was an apt 'metaphor' and harkens back to a time when commentators didn't get away with treating people the way Mathews and other so-called news commentators treat people now.
Joe L. 21 years ago

Callfor justice911, READ THE FRIGG'N BOKK STOLEN VALOR BY J.D. BURKETT!
Next time some "halfway house vet" tells you some sob story about PTSD and burning villages, take a page from Burkett's book, ask said no doubt homeless vet, his name his SSN, his Date of birth, his term of service, his branch of service, or his place of birth... he doesn't even have to give you his SSN.
Then contact the relevant services personnel Section and file a FOIA request for that person's service record, it's not private... and from that Record I am willing to bet:
1) Your homeless, PTSD suffering "vet" isn't even a vet
2) he or she (since "China Beach" selfless, PTSD suffering FEMALE vet's havee an appearance)that person did not serve in Vietnam OR
3) Even if 10 and 2) above ARE true, that the "poor vet" was a cook, clerk, or bottlewasher!

HELL,Callforjustice, I no longer buy "the humping the ruck story" because the odds say ANY Vietnam vet was in a base camp, as the Tooth:tail ratio was 1:10 in Vietnam.
Read the book, you'll be amazed at the boondaggle that Veterans Affairs can be. To recieve treatment, psychological and "outreach" one simply has to CLAIM to have been a vet. VA doesn't check, a goodly portion of the time.
HELLO LIBERTARIANS, VA is a gov'mint office, it "proseprs" when it ahs customers, so the more vet's it treats the better for the VA.
Joe L. 21 years ago

Fodderstompf, Hey read Burkett's "Stolen Valor" he has a WHOLE chpater that substantiates that "Republican talking point." or would you rather just keep living in the Media Cocoon?
If I recall, the HEAD of VVAW was never in Veitnam and may never have even been in service. Read the book, file the FOIA's yourself...if you don't believe Burkett. Of course, he hasn't been sued for libel and the book hasn't been revised recently (IIRC) so mayhap he's onto something here.
Oh and BTW, first time I've heard this called a "Republican talking point." I'm taking that to mean that it's starting to sink in amongst people and so rather than deal with the charge, the DEMOCRATS'S talking point is to smear the approach. How about that?
Hank Reardon 21 years ago

Religious conservatives just don't bother me much. In the end, religious freedom is their main issue. Necessary for their right to worship however they wish is a right to privacy. I would also have to say, as pius as they are, they're a hell of a lot more tolerant than in some other places, where we'd have already lost our heads. The most these bible belters down here get from me is a few minutes of polite listening to their warnings of damnation. I even allowed to go out and pick up another sixpack today!
callforjustice911 21 years ago

"You won't see this athiest leaving the GOP due to a supposed shift to the religious right. At least Republicans who believe that life begins at conception want to protect that "life". Where as, Kerry, who also said he believes that life begins at conception, sees no delima in terminating that life, regardless even of whether the fetus is viable outside of the womb. Then again, he is a self-admitted baby killer. That's the kind of guy callforjustice911 can really get behind."

Comment by: Hank Reardon at September 5, 2004 02:51 PM

"Self admitted baby killer" ???

Huh !!!

Did not see Kerry kill any babies. Nor did he "admit" to such.

Back it up with a Kerry quote.. Stupid !

However, HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF FREEDOM OF CHOICE ?

One can be against the practice of abortion, such as Kerry said he is, but still allow for it under our form of government, backed by the LAW OF THE LAND (Roe vs Wade) guaranteeing the right for one to choose what they will do with regards to abortion.

I for one am appalled regarding abortion, however I also know that WE CANNOT LEGISLATE MORALITY with regards to this issue. The issue was decided upon with Roe vs Wade in 1973. Unless one is on a religious campaign to overturn that, they should not go there. (And Sen. Kerry's campaign is not about "abortion" it is about the overall state of our Nation-- which I remind you is headed down the wrong path)

But I think that the anti-abortion people of the religious right should take some initiative in this-- How about if THEY, in all of their self righteousness, put it upon themselves to PAY FOR THESE CHILDREN TO BE BORN AND RAISED !

Take the full responsibility for that. After all their is a big demand for adoptions here in the US and it makes me wonder why such is so when so many aboritions are being done. Why are they not stepping up to the plate ?

Easy for them to strive for a moral law that makes abortion out and out illegal... But they are not willing to PUT THEIR BIG MOUTHS WHERE THEIR MONEY IS !

Makes me sick really, how self-righteous the religions right is, that they have the AUDACITY to impose their moral convictions on those that see otherwise.

And I have the faith, a solid Christian main line faith. But I also know that as a Christian in our society WE MUST NOT IMPOSE OUR MORALITY UPON OTHERS THAT REFUSE IT, OR WHEN THE LAW OF THE LAND ALLOWS FOR THE PRACTICE.

I am against abortion, and would encourage anyone considering it not to consider it. But if they do that is their CHOICE, and they must live with it and stand before God with that decision.

Nations that go the path of implementing RELIGOUS MORALITY... History shows where that leads. Go back and read the history books that deal with what happens when religious morality is mixed with the secular law of the land. We live in a society that has freed itself from that.

Otherwise we might just as well toss that hard earned freedom (in this case to choose) and go for a theocracy-- where one can be jailed or hung for making the "wrong" choice.

callforjustice911
eponymous 21 years ago

how does the 'hardball' transcriber even detect what's being said under the rhetorical questions that matthews shouts, without pause for an audible response?
Rick Barton 21 years ago

Evidence that Kerry might well be lying about Viet Nam: Nat Hentoff just said on C-Span's "Book Notes" that there was a request under the Freedom of Information Act to release the relevant documents germane to the four months in question, and only like 6 out of 100 pages came back. Where are the rest? Kerry won't approve their release.
callforjustice911 21 years ago

Callfor justice911, READ THE FRIGG'N BOKK STOLEN VALOR BY J.D. BURKETT!
Next time some "halfway house vet" tells you some sob story about PTSD and burning villages, take a page from Burkett's book, ask said no doubt homeless vet, his name his SSN, his Date of birth, his term of service, his branch of service, or his place of birth... he doesn't even have to give you his SSN.
Then contact the relevant services personnel Section and file a FOIA request for that person's service record, it's not private... and from that Record I am willing to bet:
1) Your homeless, PTSD suffering "vet" isn't even a vet
2) he or she (since "China Beach" selfless, PTSD suffering FEMALE vet's havee an appearance)that person did not serve in Vietnam OR
3) Even if 10 and 2) above ARE true, that the "poor vet" was a cook, clerk, or bottlewasher!

HELL,Callforjustice, I no longer buy "the humping the ruck story" because the odds say ANY Vietnam vet was in a base camp, as the Tooth:tail ratio was 1:10 in Vietnam.
Read the book, you'll be amazed at the boondaggle that Veterans Affairs can be. To recieve treatment, psychological and "outreach" one simply has to CLAIM to have been a vet. VA doesn't check, a goodly portion of the time.
HELLO LIBERTARIANS, VA is a gov'mint office, it "proseprs" when it ahs customers, so the more vet's it treats the better for the VA.

Comment by: Joe L. at September 5, 2004 03:56 PM

JOE L.

You are an idiot. How old are you? Probably not even on this earth in 1971... And if so, too young to even know what was happening then. All you know is from what you have read.

I was in that Vet's halfway house. And these were not "cooks" or backliners. They were font line troops. And if they were acting, they put up very good acts... They certainly were not "sob stories" that I heard as they screamed out in nightmares well beyond many a midnight, remembering what they did, and what they went through.

Say what you will from your armchair, reading your books about events that you have not experienced.

Go ahead.

But you will get nowhere with someone that knows, that had an experience with front liners that did know and were there in Nam. And their experiences were enough for me to change what I thought about that war.

callforjustice911
Hank Reardon 21 years ago

I support a woman's right to do whatever she wants to her body, including stopping it from having a baby, as long as that baby is still completely inside of her. The issue is that if Kerry believes it is life at conception, he should at least show a modicum of respect for it's rights. Also, I think you will find plenty of anti-abortion groups spending money setting up adoptions.

As for "self admitted" baby killer, perhaps I am stupid for thinking that when Kerry said he was involved in atrocities the likes of Gengis Kahn's I just assumed that included baby killing.
Lloyd 21 years ago

Dan nailed this thing, unlike Julian or many of the other commenters. There's a few media outlets in need of such reporting and writing skills. Technically, you can make a case that Miller was out of line, just as technically, Michelle Malkin did not clarify her self-inflicted wound statement. However, when you've got a crazed, spittling, high decibel maniac like Matthews cutting you off after 2 seconds, twisting what you say in the most embarrassingly biased and ignorant ways, its amazing Matthews hasn't had a Rome/Everett incident. That's from the time when Jim Rome was just getting his televized sportstalk show started, made some arguably tasteless remarks to then LA Ram quarterback Jim Everett, and promptly got the table and the chair he was sitting in upended on top of him by Everett.
callforjustice911 21 years ago

Hank Reardon wrote:

"As for "self admitted" baby killer, perhaps I am stupid for thinking that when Kerry said he was involved in atrocities the likes of Gengis Kahn's I just assumed that included baby killing."

Comment by: Hank Reardon at September 5, 2004 04:53 PM

In that war our troops dropped napalm on villiages-- certainly babies were killed.

That "atrocity" was one done in war and sanctioned by the United States in war,

ON the other hand abortion is not an "atrocity" if sanctioned by the Law of the Land such as abortion is.

It might be an "atrocity" to me, and you on moral grounds, but not according to social laws of the United States (Roe vs Wade; 1973).

Making the jump from killing babies in an overall "Gengis Khan" action in war, is NOT SAME as terminating an unborn life as in an abortion.

It does not take too much brainpower to see the distinction.

Hummm...

I guess since we atom bombed two cities in Japan, killing untold babies, then....

callforjustice911
Hank Reardon 21 years ago

Callforjustice911,
Why do you hate America so much. You must be the most hateful Republican I have ever witnessed. You hate Bush, you hate our actions in Vietnam, you hate our actions in WWII, you hate our liberation of Iraq, you hate people trying to get to heaven. Other than that loser John Kerry what elso don't you hate?
Joe L. 21 years ago

callforjustice,
Good thing you didn't hang out in a halfway house for ODESSA, man, or you'd be full of pity for the poor misunderstoood SS troops, too...
BTW, I was alive in 1971 and you know what Callfor justice, very few of us know ANYTHING beyond our sense, your philosophy of "you just read it in books" really undermines a lot don't you think?
Why does an apple fall? Hey don't talk about gravity, man, unless you've performed the experiments yourself, becuase theories of gravity come from books! When did the Second Wolrd War end, DUDE, you'd better have been born in 1938 or earlier, 'cuz if you weren't the only way you know is from BOOKS! My point being, books inform us of things we do not otherwise have data on, and your attack is fundamentally flawed, UNLESS you live your whole life solely on self experential data. I doubt that to be the case, case, so as non-referential material is the basis of YOUR world I think you'll have to grant me the same right.
Read Burkett's book.... Find some of those troops and file your own FOIA's OR go on-line, find a Medal of Honour recipient, or a Navy Cross recipient, or a Distinguished Service Cross recipient, or a Air Force Cross recipient (?)-hey it's THOSE PEOPLE in the Air Force I don't keep track of them-or a SEAL or UDT member (All this can be found on-line) and go and interview one of these "vet's". All these folks are bona fide "experts" and if YOU can't tell the truth from the chaff I'll bet they can... They'll ask units, times, places, terms, names and you just might be amazed at what you discover.
In my extended family I have a "Marine Sniper" who served in Vietnam and that was in "Blue Light" at the time of the Iranian Crisis. Personally, I think he's full of S^&*. I'm thinking about asking him about Gunny Carlos Hathcock-Father of Modern Marine Sniping. I betcha my family member doesn't have a clue about him... The number of SEALS, and LRRPS and other special op's folks in the world is astounding! They didn't serve or they aren't special op's but they are numerous. One final note, you realize that there are about 10 FAKE Medal of Honour recipients as living REAl recipients, don't you? People lie, they like to LIE A LOT about their accomplishments, and IF by lying than can get sympathy and goodies they will lie really well. AND, if you haven't served, they have an easy time of lying don't they, because you have no frame of reference by which to judge them.
You can believe what you want, but a failure to examine your beliefs is proof of "non-rationality" in an economic sense. It may be psychologically EASIER but that doesn't make it wiser.
J. Goard 21 years ago

Jeez, where would one even begin with the Miller speech? It seems to me that any interviewer interested in reasonable analysis would have no choice but to jump on him right away. What else are you supposed to do, pretend that such despicable propaganda is an informed argument requiring further exposition? What the hell would any of you do in Matthews' position?

BTW, in general, I'm sick of Matthews too.
Jennifer 21 years ago

So the only way Call for Justice can love America is to love it unconditionally, even when we do wrong and innocents die as a result?

And remember: Bush is NOT America; hating one does not equate to hating the other.
davod 21 years ago

J. Goard:

Miller's speech was sharp and to the point without the flowery mincy rhetoric you may be used to. Propoganda, I don't think so. Go back and read what he said. He meant every word of it. Mathews needed an hour to go over everything Miller said in his speech. Mathews was not capable of interviewing Miller in a reasonable fashion and Miller knew it.
david53 21 years ago

The Hardball transcript itself is in dispute.If Malkins' statement " some of them say that " ends with a period, it means one thing ; if she was cut off... it means who knows what? These type of shows where the host asks a question and then proceeds to talk over the guests' answer or ask yet another question before the first is fully addressed shouldn't be cited as evidence to readily if at all.I don't think anyone could transcibe this type of conversation without a great deal of trepidation.
Hank Reardon 21 years ago

Sorry Jennifer, Bush is not America, and hating him doesn't mean you hate America. However, a common MO of Bush haters is an unnatural skepticism of everything this country tries to do. I used to think it was a communist conspiracy, but now I think it is just a bunch of morons who think we'd be better off if we never faught a war. We're not always perfect, but I don't criticize our troops for doing what they think will get them home alive.
callforjustice911 21 years ago

Hank Reardon wrote:

"Callforjustice911,
Why do you hate America so much. You must be the most hateful Republican I have ever witnessed. You hate Bush, you hate our actions in Vietnam, you hate our actions in WWII, you hate our liberation of Iraq, you hate people trying to get to heaven. Other than that loser John Kerry what elso don't you hate?"

Comment by: Hank Reardon at September 5, 2004 05:29 PM

You had better pull up your pants Mr. "Reardon" your butt and your stupidity is showing.

Now:

1. I do not "hate" America as you say. I am here and LOVE IT.

2. Hateful Republican ??? Take a look at that "hateful" party turncoat, good ol' Boy Zell of GA. I am not like him at all. Watching him on TV reminded me of having seen a speech given by Lester Maddox-- and that demonstrates hate.

3. I hate Bush ? Did I say that ? What I do, however hate, is the fact that this dumb man is in the Presidental office. And we are to blame for that by putting him there.

4. I hate our actions in WWII ??? Did I say that ANYWHERE in what I wrote ? humm..

I was making a distinction between (moral)standards, that is between atrocities in war vs abortion. Not that I like the actions done in war, but they were necessary in the context of war. It is easy for us in History's armchair to say what was morally right and wrong. But if we lived back then, we certainly would have thought different from how we think now. In the context of WW II what we did then was right. But when we think about it now... Much is considered from our perspective, which was not the perspective then.

The hate that you falsely ascribe to me has nothing to do with what we did in war. I was however making the distinction between the events in history and how we percieve them-- that is my point. And in making that distinction, there is a HELL of a big difference between atrocities in war and abortion.

5 I hate the our liberation of Iraq ????

Where in what I wrote DID I say that ? It is not that I hate the liberation of Iraq, but I certainly dispise, not hate, the way the Bush bushwacked us into going there. If anything, though I did not write it, that I DO HATE, that fact that I and Americans were dupped by Dubya' to go there.

6 And lastly you wrote: "you hate people trying to get to heaven"

And this-- SIR, is the stupidest thing that you wrote. That you would assume that I hate those trying to get to heaven. Just to inform you; try to get to heaven and you won't get there. One only gets to heaven by Christ, his Grace and his mercy, not by "trying" (works lest any man boast). As for me in this, I am headed to heaven by virtue of and only by my Saviour Jesus Christ. (Not that I wanted to say that here, but you compell me to do so).

And with regards to your question as to what I DO HATE-- I will answer now so as to make it clear as to what I DO HATE--

Islamoterrorism, and Islamoterrorists.

These I do hate.

But as for Sen, John Kerry, he is getting my vote as a very disenfranchised Republican that has seen the truth.

callforjustice911
callforjustice911 21 years ago

Joe L worte:

callforjustice,
Good thing you didn't hang out in a halfway house for ODESSA, man, or you'd be full of pity for the poor misunderstoood SS troops, too...
BTW, I was alive in 1971 and you know what Callfor justice, very few of us know ANYTHING beyond our sense, your philosophy of "you just read it in books" really undermines a lot don't you think...

You Mr Joe L. assume too much.

Here is what I think about the "SS" and NAZI war criminals. They certainly would not get any "sympathy" from me if I were on the bench as judge:

http://www.geocities.com/callforjustice911/index1a.htm

Cut and paste the above to see.

And how old were you? I was draft age, and you?

And I don't at all put down reading as a means of getting knowledge of events. But reading a view requires reading an opposing view if you are to glean the facts.

The fact of the matter is that I DID witness the travails of a few that came back, not all, but a few. There were as I consider what they said atrocities going on there.

And irregardless of what you "read" that does not take away the validity of what was related to me, buy those that WERE there.

callforjustice911
Hank Reardon 21 years ago

At last, a correct answer, Islamoterrorism. And you may have been Bushwacked, but not me, I didn't give a shit about WMD, I just wanted to put pressure on the Saudi's and there was no better way to do that without getting another source of oil. War for oil? hell fucking yes! That may be too much forward thinking for someone of your diminished mental capacity, Callfor"justice"911. What about the justice for our innocent victims?
Jor 21 years ago

What's amazing is, its pretty clear that Miller's behaviour was completely out of line for a US senator. Everyone knows Mathew's can be a jack-ass, but Miller went into Cheney-You territory with his remarks. I think its reasonable to say, he went ape-shit.

The reason the republicans will win the election, just looking over comments here, are that their are way too many true believers. This is such a clear-cut-case, its almost absurd. Half the wingnuts commenting, apparently think Miller did nothing wrong. It truly is amazing. On the other hand, most democrats realize Kerry isn't nearly perfect, and has a shit-load of flaws (c.f. Iraq). But the size of the hack-gap is just gigantic. And I don't completely understand why.
Swift Bote 21 years ago

Zell has been in Georgia politics for a long time. It was in Georgia that he got the nickname "Zig Zag Zell".

Zell wasn't in Georgia politics so long because he was such a statesman. Zell is a shrewd politician. He knows how read and respond to the polls and the winds of political change.

Those who refer to Zell as being an old Dixiecrat and lump him in with the old segregationists are just idiots who watch too much "In The Heat Of The Night". Zell was never thought of as a conservative in Georgia.

(BTW, I've lived in Georgia almost all of my life. I've been all over Georgia and much of the south; so I've heard many southern accents, but I've never met anyone who sounds like Zell Miller.)

Zell was a top dog in Georgia politics for a very very long time. I hear that when he went to Washington he got very pissed at the Northeastern democrats looking down their noses at him. He did not like playing second fiddle.

Nevertheless, Georgia's political landscape changed dramatically over the years. I'm wondering if Zell's conservative facade is in part to help get that statue of him built on the state capitol grounds.

There are a lot of military bases in Georgia. For most Democrats in Georgia, except those who campaign directly in Atlanta's housing projects, supporting more military spending is a no brainer.
callforjustice911 21 years ago

Hank Reardon wrote:

At last, a correct answer, Islamoterrorism. And you may have been Bushwacked, but not me, I didn't give a shit about WMD, I just wanted to put pressure on the Saudi's and there was no better way to do that without getting another source of oil. War for oil? hell fucking yes! That may be too much forward thinking for someone of your diminished mental capacity, Callfor"justice"911. What about the justice for our innocent victims?

Comment by: Hank Reardon at September 5, 2004 06:42 PM

Well for someone that accuses me of "diminished mental capacity" I cordially invite you to click on my red name at the end of this message-- If you have not done so, if you do so now you will be re-directed to my web site that will provide the answer to your question.

Or if you can't do that due to your "superior" intellect, then simply cut and paste this:

http://www.geocities.com/callforjustice911/index.html

This is what I think about those that died on 911 and all those after.

callforjustice911

(Geez... even my logon name indicates the answer)
Joe L. 21 years ago

Callforjustice,
What you're saying is "I knows what I knows and I won't be convinced t'otherwise." I have presented an alternative view point and rather than saying I'll read it or I have read and here's why I don't buy it... you just keep on keep'n on.
And why would it be important if I were draft age in 1971? Is there or WAS there some magic about being 18-26 in that year? I mean are you saying that being born in the era 1945-1953 makes you somehow an EXTRA-Special, Super-Duper person? More qualified to feel others pain to judge Presidential nit-wittery? Who cares if I was 15 or 51 in 1971?
OK, here it is, I was in 'Nam in 1971, with SOG, in Cambodia, I don't like to talk about it much, but it's SEARED into my memory... especially the mission to kill the American deserters in Laos, in Operation Tailwind, when I personally called in the VX gas on the Paddy Lao....
thoreau 21 years ago

Chris Matthews is a major league asshole. Big time.

And Zell Miller had the chance to be the better man, but he chose to sink even lower than Chris Matthews. Chris Matthews did what very few could even contemplate: He found a way to make Chris Matthews look good.

I'm not sure what that has to do with some of the other things being debated here, but it's the truth. Zell Miller went so crazy that even Chris Matthews, on a particularly obnoxious night, looked good by comparison.

Another sign that Zell Miller is, well, a little out there: He recently called for repealing the 17th amendment.
Hank Reardon 21 years ago

I am not going to bother checking the links, if you insist that you are smarter than I am then fine. That just makes it even harder to believe you support John Kerry!
thoreau 21 years ago

CORRECTION:

Chris Matthews did what very few could even contemplate...

SHOULD read

Zell Millerdid what very few could even contemplate...
callforjustice911 21 years ago

Joe L. wrote:

OK, here it is, I was in 'Nam in 1971, with SOG, in Cambodia, I don't like to talk about it much, but it's SEARED into my memory... especially the mission to kill the American deserters in Laos, in Operation Tailwind, when I personally called in the VX gas on the Paddy Lao....

Comment by: Joe L. at September 5, 2004 07:08 PM

Humm, Joe L, if you were really there...

Interesting bit of your "bio" Some might even say with regards to that, that those American deserters were summarily executed killed without a trial. OK. Just for the debate, maybe they deserved it.

And VX gas... right... against the Geneva Convention...

If so, let's talk about atrocities, then.

Just for the debate, WHAT DO YOU CONSIDER AN ATROCITY IN WAR ?

callforjustice911
callforjustice911 21 years ago

Hank Reardon wrote:

"I am not going to bother checking the links, if you insist that you are smarter than I am then fine. That just makes it even harder to believe you support John Kerry!"

Comment by: Hank Reardon at September 5, 2004 07:13 PM

Well, Mr. Reardon, for you ignorance is bliss, but for those that want to know what I really think about Islamofascists do check it out by clicking on my name after the "Comment by" at the end of this message.

You will find that I am a thinking Republican that is voting for Kerry yet still is fully behind the War on Terror.

It is just that the Republican right wingers are so far out on the right that they rejoice in the senile statements of Zell Miller of GA, a throwback to the days of Lester Maddox.

callforjustice911
http://www.geocities.com/callforjustice911/index.html
Joe L. 21 years ago

callforjustice911:
1) VX is not per se against the Geneva Convention... It IS against the CWC now...
2) If anywhere close to serious, you really need to get cable TV under that rock you live under. So I'll let others more attuned to irony answer for me...
Dan, Hank, Jennifer?
Scatalogicus 21 years ago

thoreau: I happened upon the Constitution Party platform recently. They call for repeal of the 17th:

The U.S. Constitution, as originally framed in Article I, Section 3, provided for U.S. Senators to be elected by [S]tate legislators. This provided the [S]tates direct representation in the legislative branch so as to deter the usurpation of powers that are Constitutionally reserved to the [S]tates or to the people.

The Seventeenth Amendment (providing for direct, popular election of U.S. Senators) took away from [S]tate governments their Constitutional role of indirect participation in the federal legislative process.

If we are to see a return to the [S]tates those powers, programs, and sources of revenue that the federal government has unconstitutionally taken away, then it is also vital that we repeal the Seventeenth Amendment and return to [S]tate legislatures the function of electing the U.S. Senate. In so doing, this would return the U.S. Senate to being a body that represents the legislatures of the several [S]tates on the federal level and, thus, a tremendously vital part of the designed checks and balances of power that our Constitution originally provided.

Haven't thought it out, but it seems appealing. Putting States in competition in the Senate might limit Federal pork and power.
Scatalogicus 21 years ago

(but then CP is another one of those wacky 3rd parties, and this might be evidence suggesting Miller is nuts)
Joe L. 21 years ago

"It is just that the Republican right wingers are so far out on the right that they rejoice in the senile statements of Zell Miller of GA, a throwback to the days of Lester Maddox.

callforjustice911"
Uh, callforjutice be awful careful there, you DO know that Zig-Zag Mel spoke before Clinton in '92, right? So he's senile and a throwback, even in '92? Or just after he decided to support someone you don't like?

Atrocity, atrocity, well firing the .50 caliber HMG isn't a war crime, even if that is the the standard urbnan myth of the Armed Services, so JFK is safe from that one, THOUGH HE thinks he's a criminal because of it... Let's see, firing H&I in Free Fire Zones or firing in Free Fire Zones is not per se an atrocity... though again, Senator Kerry wants to wear a hair shirt, Gucci of course, over that one, too.

Well let's see... torturing prisoners is, executing thousands of prisoners is (it's difficult to surrender as an individual and I am loathe to press murder charges on troops in contact), let's see technically using barbed lances or spiked clubs is too. Oh the usual napalming orphanages or running the nuns thru the chipper shredder probably count, too. Still so much of the battlefield fun stuff is OK, B-52's, BLU-82's, Cluster Bombs, even Napalm are all OK, though don't tell Clark Clifford this, he hasn't heard that yet.
callforjustice911 21 years ago

callforjustice911:
1) VX is not per se against the Geneva Convention... It IS against the CWC now...
2) If anywhere close to serious, you really need to get cable TV under that rock you live under. So I'll let others more attuned to irony answer for me...
Dan, Hank, Jennifer?

Comment by: Joe L. at September 5, 2004 07:44 PM

See:

http://www.chm.bris.ac.uk/motm/vx/vxh/synth.htm

cut and paste the link.

You are right about the CWC (Chemical Weapons Convention). I made the mistake of writing the Geneva Convention which deals with conduct for and toward prisoners of war. Maybe even those American deserters that you wrote that you allegedly went on a mission to kill.

So "excuuuuse me"

But to use VX gas... ?

Btw: I've never been under a rock, and by the way, I do have cable TV and not a dish. However, I think very straighly and your "irony" excapes me, so "excuuuuuuse me" again.

callforjustice911
thoreau 21 years ago

I have very little interest in giving more power to the people in the state capitol. My interest is in limiting the power of government at EVERY level. Repealing the 17th amendment might appeal to those who trust their state politicians more than the feds, but I trust none of them.
callforjustice911 21 years ago

Joe L wrote:

callforjustice911"
Uh, callforjutice be awful careful there, you DO know that Zig-Zag Mel spoke before Clinton in '92, right? So he's senile and a throwback, even in '92? Or just after he decided to support someone you don't like?"

HAAAAA !!! LOLROF!

A lot can happen to a old man's brain in 12 years. Someone should have been wathcing over Zell as closely as Nancy Regan looked over her husband, the very esteemed Ron Regan. Pres.Regan knew that he was losing it, he had the wisdom to bow out of the public eye when he posted his farewell ten years ago. That was his last appearance.

But not for Zell. He was let loose. And anyone with any sense at all and the brains to consider what he said would know that he lost.

(Except for the brainless Repbulican rightwingers that cheered him on. All thinking Americans in both parties should be ashamed of those that allowed him to make such an ass of himself. An old senile man.)

Then Joe L. wrote:

"Atrocity, atrocity, well firing the .50 caliber HMG isn't a war crime, even if that is the the standard urbnan myth of the Armed Services, so JFK is safe from that one, THOUGH HE thinks he's a criminal because of it... Let's see, firing H&I in Free Fire Zones or firing in Free Fire Zones is not per se an atrocity... though again, Senator Kerry wants to wear a hair shirt, Gucci of course, over that one, too."

The above is stupid irony of your's isn't it. Not worthy of comment from me, as it reflects how stupid you are. And so is all of the ranting following:

"Well let's see... torturing prisoners is, executing thousands of prisoners is (it's difficult to surrender as an individual and I am loathe to press murder charges on troops in contact), let's see technically using barbed lances or spiked clubs is too. Oh the usual napalming orphanages or running the nuns thru the chipper shredder probably count, too. Still so much of the battlefield fun stuff is OK, B-52's, BLU-82's, Cluster Bombs, even Napalm are all OK, though don't tell Clark Clifford this, he hasn't heard that yet.

Comment by: Joe L. at September 5, 2004 07:56 PM

END OF STORY... You are revealed.

callforjustice911
Joe L. 21 years ago

Callforjustice,
must have been asleep a couple of years ago, then... But "Google" "tailwind" & Peter Arnett and all will be clear. The story is all about ME!
I'm betting that Hank and Dan will back me up on this... HECK Jennifer probably will be able to link me to it too.
callforjustice911 21 years ago

Thoreau wrote:

"I have very little interest in giving more power to the people in the state capitol. My interest is in limiting the power of government at EVERY level. Repealing the 17th amendment might appeal to those who trust their state politicians more than the feds, but I trust none of them."

Comment by: thoreau at September 5, 2004 08:03 PM

For more info an Zell Millers notion to repeal the 17th amendment cut and paste this website:

http://web.morons.org/article.jsp?id=5407

With sympathy for the man I would be loath to call him a moron. However in his old age he needs a keeper to keep him out of the public eye, so as not to inspire true morons in this country.

callforjustice911
just wondering 21 years ago

But, thoreau, are the state governments curtailing our rights to the degree that the federal government is said to?
Joe L. 21 years ago

"END OF STORY... You are revealed."
I've been revealed as what? My interest is piqued....
thoreau 21 years ago

just wondering-

If you try to build something on your property without a permit, odds are that most of the laws you'll be in violation of will be state and local, not federal. Yes, there are plenty of federal laws, particularly environmental laws, that you might be breaking, depending on what you build and where you build it. But in most cases relevant to a homeowner, most or all of the permits you'll need to build on your property will be state or local matters.

If you're arrested for a victimless crime (e.g. drugs, prostitution, certain types of gambling), it's still far more likely that you'll be violating a state or local law. Yes, the federal war on drugs is expanding, but most drug offenses are still handled by state and local authorities.

If you want to start a business, although it certainly depends on what you want to do, most of the permits and licenses will be state and local matters.

Now, it's certainly good that the feds don't play a big role in these things. It's just too bad that other governments DO play a big role in these things. So I have ZERO interest in giving more power to the people in the state capitol. It's easy to romanticize the state governments, but the fact is that they are full of wasteful busybodies, just like the feds.
callforjustice911 21 years ago

Joe L wrote:

Callforjustice,
must have been asleep a couple of years ago, then... But "Google" "tailwind" & Peter Arnett and all will be clear. The story is all about ME!
I'm betting that Hank and Dan will back me up on this... HECK Jennifer probably will be able to link me to it too.

Comment by: Joe L. at September 5, 2004 08:20 P

Yes I now recall that. So... ?

It was a false story.

But that does not mean that all stories of atrocities in Nam are false.

Atrocities happen in war. That is the way it is.
And to think that Kerry was wrong when he made the statements that he did, and the things that I learned from those that were there-- Sorry, but to think that the US is absolutely clean in not committing such atrocities is simply overstretching it a bit.

Victors in war determine what is an atrocity or not. The U.S is no execption. The United Sates of America is not so high and mighty so as not to commit atrocities. It happend in Iraq at Abu Gareb, and thank God that it was exposed. And hopefully such will not happen again. But in war, expecially "Total War" such considerations are often tossed to the wind. A person that commits an atrocity of war while wearing their nation's uniform dishonors their nation. But then again, the War on Terror as brutal as it is may unfortunately make us toss those considerations aside.

As for revealing you. Those stupid statements rambling on and on with no point... that is enough.

callforjustice911
Fodderstompf 21 years ago

Dan writes:
When she said that one of their claims was that Kerry had a self-inflicted wound for his first Purple Heart, Matthews accused her of saying that Kerry had INTENTIONALLY shot himself.

It was smart of Matthews to ask her to clarify, because the phrasing is meant to evoke the idea that Kerry injured himself on purpose. As has been noted, when Matthews pressed her, she refused to say anything except that "some" have accused Kerry of it - which is probably true, considering all the lies Republicans have been telling about Kerry, but is not something O'Neill and the bigot Corsi claim in their book.

Reg writes:
A party that embraces Michael Moore and his propaganda of lies and half-truths really is

...still better off than one which embraces the even less honest, considerably more odious Rush Limbaugh.

PapayaSF writes:
There is evidence that at least one of Kerry's wounds was (UNintentionally) self-inflicted, and thus not eligible for a Purple Heart.

Bobdole got a Purple Heart for an unintentionally self-inflicted wound. Are you saying Bobdole didn't deserve his Purple Heart?

Fat White Guy writes:
The problem with Kerry's first purple keart was how he characterized it as having been recieved in combat. A claim he has since recanted or changed

Untrue. Spectacularly so.

davod writes:
Go back and read what he said. He meant every word of it.

Nonsense. As a Senator he knew very well that he was misleading the audience when he raved about the weapons systems and body armor votes.
Joe L. 21 years ago

Oh and Callforjustice,
was he a throwback to Lester Maddox in '92 or just in 2004? In '92 it made more sense as Bill had ties to Fullbright and other segregationists in Arkansas, but all that didn't matter THEN did it?
I don't think it matters now or then, but apparently YOU think it counts today, so I just thought you'd like a little backstory.
Joe L. 21 years ago

You're right Call, enough...
Evidnece and logic can only take you so far. The other party has to be willing to accept them. You're not, so have a good night.
callforjustice911 21 years ago

Joe L.

Did I say he was any better with his views then ?

It is his senility that is in question. 12 years since has obvioiusly made the difference. His rhetoric has become unleased by it.

And for the sake of his shame, he must retire and fade from public scrutiny.

BTW: I voted for Bush Sr. in 1992-- but I am not going to vote for his stupid little son in this election. And as a Republican waiting for my Party to move closer to the middle, I AM PROUD OF IT, making a stand for one that has a vision for America. This Wednseday, I will be campaigning in my home town for KERRY, along with other thinking Republicans doing the same.
just wondering 21 years ago

Damn - a strong argument. I'll have to think about it some more, but thanks for answering.
Gary Gunnels 21 years ago

PapayaSF,

Your earlier remarks did not make the distinction you now make.

Here's your earlier statement:

There is evidence that at least one of Kerry's wounds was (UNintentionally) self-inflicted, and thus not eligible for a Purple Heart.

thoreau,

You rightly criticize the cult of local government that is so commonly held amongst "conservatives." Then again, now that conservatives rule the roost in DC, it appears that local government isn't all that important to conservatives anymore, and thus we have Bush spouting crap about a federal amendment to "protect" marraige. I am not voting for Kerry, but crap like that will not engender me to the Republicans or Bush either.

BTW, did anyone else notice that Cheney's daughter (who happens to be a lesbian) wasn't on the stage during the final bow? Heh, talk about "family values."
dan 21 years ago

Matthews is rude, pushy loudmouth trying to make his mark (and dollars) by beating up people who are gullible enough to believe that their views will be given a fair airing. Why any Republican would subject themselves to meet Chris on his ground is beyond my comprehension. I am amazed and amused by their vain efforts. That said, I have yet to see the trolls and Kerrvorkinanist here refute point by point what Miller said in the Keynote Speech. Chris and his friends will continue to be unhappy for at least another four years. They all ought to find themselves hobbies or start working out; else they will likely ruin their health.I guess by this definition Miller did act crazy. He agreed to be interviewed by Matthews.
Gary Gunnels 21 years ago

thoreau,

Something like 30 state legislatures are controlled by the Republicans; have we noticed a decrease in the reach of government under these regimes?
Davod 21 years ago

Fodderstompf:
Stick to the facts, just the facts. Miller didn't lie. You follow the practice of the Kerry apologists - always explaining why Kerry did something. Kerry and Edwards voted against the 87BN. How many others voted against the 87bn. The reason doesn't matter.
Ruthless 21 years ago

As I alight, 115 other flies on the string.

I can recall when my grandparent's house got wired for electricity. My uncle did it so it wasn't state of the art. Each room had a big bulb with a long string.

If I had a hankering for a rock hard biscuit before it was pitched to the dogs, I had to stumble into the kitchen when it was pitch dark.

When you reached up for the string in the kitchen, your hand would slip off because 95 percent of the flies in the house chose that string to kick back for the night.

A Kodak moment for sure.
Gary Gunnels 21 years ago

Ruthless,

Sounds like grandmother's house in the bayou. 🙂
Hank Reardon 21 years ago

Calforjustice911, Your love of Chris Matthews indicates to me you are probably not a Republican. We are a big tent, but we wouldn't mind if you'd go ahead and burn your Party ID card.

Your boy Kerry thinks his four months of action earned him a job as commander in chief, however, his inability to consider the long term consequences of pissing off our soldiers alone disqualifies him for any office of any importance. Accusing your brothers of being war criminals plays well in Boston, but it is a stupid move if you have national aspirations, which it is obvious Kerry had. The guy you call a nitwit at least had enough sense to avoid alienating a revered segment of society.
Ruthless 21 years ago

Gary,
And then, when the time came to can cabbage, whoa!
Gary Gunnels 21 years ago

Ruthless,

I can't say my grandmother ever canned cabbage; she did can tomatoes though.
Gary Gunnels 21 years ago

Joe L.,

Maybe instead of babbling on with psycho-babble, you ought to make an actual argument. Hell, I didn't even say anything about about the Matthews-Miller exchange, I remarked on portions of Miller's speech! You apparently can't even properly categorize comments. 🙂
Joe L. 21 years ago

Callforjustice911 or whatever...
Kerry's "testimony" in 1971 is/was bogus. He's quoting from the "Winter Soldier" Hearings and from members of the VVAW. Read Burkett's rendition of these so-called "vet's" and their leaders. A large number of them were NEVER in the Armed Serices, and a large number of them NEVER SERVED IN VIETNAM, and I'm not talking about the VVAW in general, but those hwo spoke at the WInter Soldier Hearings. Kerry was passing along mostly made up B.S. to the Fullbright Committee! Now YOU may care to take it as gospel but time as shown that much of the "truth" of Vietnam is simply fantasy made up out of the whole cloth of Leftist propaganda. Yes My Lai happened, no My Lai was NOT an every day occurence. So Kerry "ratted" out his comrades, gave aid and comfort to the NVA and wasn't even truthful about it! HE WAS THE NITWIT, for unquestioningly accepting the staements of his fellows and then repeating them.
But tlet's follow your logic, shall we? So you're comfortable voting for a "War Criminal? A self-confessed war criminal... after all he DOES admit to committing atrocities.
The sad thing is, Kerry is in a boat of his own making. He could have opposed Vietnam, I would have too. However, he chose to do it the popular way, by making the troops out to be beasts and the So, Vietnamese to be despised. And that wasn't the TRUTH. And now it's coming back to haunt him.
If Kerry wants to put it behind him, he needs to repudiate the Fullbright Testimony and the Winter Soldier Hearings. Admit that he was angry and foolish, and gullible and naive for having believed those people. THEN, he can begin to talk about what he did in Vietnam and what he wants to do in America in 2005. Until then, he is what he has been, a man that wants it BOTH WAYS and is petulant when that is denied him.
Phil 21 years ago

The reason doesn't matter.

The mantra of the dumb and unthinking.
Gary Gunnels 21 years ago

dead_elvis,

Basically, yes. I think its also the case that Kerry never actually voted against any of those weapons systems. As I recall, an article on Slate also states that Cheney as Secretary of Defense opposed at least some of these appropriations. And of course Rumsfeld opposes some current appropriations. Mere opposition to a particular military appropriation doesn't really tell me much.

John Thacker,

Is that the case? Has he voted against everyone of them? And even if that is the case, does that matter? Are a lot of these weapons systems remotely useful in the sort of asymetrical warfare we are confronted with today? Rumsfeld appears to argue that at least some of these Cold War type systems (which is what Miller seemed to zero in on) really aren't that useful.

James Kabala,

...and giving free Mozart CDs to every new mother.

If this was in line with some notion of Mozart's music being good for childhood development, that is, improving intelligence, etc., then he believes in psuedo-scientific non-sense.

Jim Walsh,

The reason why Miller doesn't switch parties is simple - if he became a Republican no one would care what he says.

PapayaSF,

There is evidence that at least one of Kerry's wounds was (UNintentionally) self-inflicted, and thus not eligible for a Purple Heart.

Unintentionally self-inflected wounds can still garner a purple heart as I understand it. Furthermore, said evidence (as I understand it) is the third hand account of the doctor who states that he treated Kerry, but whose signature is not on the medical form which details Kerry's injury and treatment. The Swift Boat group's story is thus hardly unimpeachable.

Davod,

He was blunt and straightforward.

So what?

You may not like what he said but I bet he spoke for a lot of your basic blue collar democrats.

And that's supposed to inspire confidence in a libertarian?!?!?! 🙂

Propoganda, I don't think so. Go back and read what he said. He meant every word of it.

Zig-zag Milller has always known which way the political wind is blowing; hell, he's had more flip-flops than George Wallace or Fob James! 🙂

Davod,

I would have voted against the $87 billion myself. To be blunt, the notion that voting up or down on defense appropriations is some sort of litmus test for patriotism, etc., or is a proxy for such, is non-sense.
Jason Sonenshein 21 years ago

"there is a Republican Liberty Caucus but not even a libertarian aspect to the democrat party..."

--eponymous at September 4, 2004 11:39 AM

Yes, there is! It's called the Democratic Freedom Caucus. Check it out at http://www.progress.org/dfc! After the election, I am going to try to get a chapter started here in Ohio. If any other Ohioans are interested, please send me an e-mail.
Jor 21 years ago

More republican chivalry right here, A republican delegate, kicked a female protestor, while she was on the ground, surrounded by three secret service members. He kicked her in the back.

http://ww2.7online.com/global/video/popup/pop_index.asp?ClipID1=247870&h1=Headline&vt1=v&at1=News&d1=111867&activePane=info&playerVersion=8&rnd=51992696

(via atrios)

Considering a couple crazy people on the net who created a video that associated Bush with Hitler, suddently meant the entire left considrs Bush, Hitler --- I think its fair to say that the entire right is full of chicken hawks who believe in kicking a women while she is on the ground, being restrained by three other men.

A young Zell Miller in training. Long live the GOP.
Gary Gunnels 21 years ago

American politics is becoming much more like its character in the 19th century.
Gary Gunnels 21 years ago

Dan,

While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief.

Here's one point I find quite disturbing; apparently - if I read zig-zag Zell right - merely disliking Bush's presidency is a dangerous notion. I mean really, if this is zig-zag Zell's attitude, one wonders why he even condones having an election. After all, why should our President-Savior face the possibility of an electoral loss? 🙂
Fat White Guy 21 years ago

The problem with Kerry's first purple keart was how he characterized it as having been recieved in combat. A claim he has since recanted or changed or whatever it is Kerry does when one of his tales falls apart.
callforjustice911 21 years ago

Errr, no. There is evidence that at least one of Kerry's wounds was (UNintentionally) self-inflicted, and thus not eligible for a Purple Heart. That's all she said. Matthews then began screaming at her, thinking she meant "intentionally," which she didn't. Matthews clearly hadn't read Unfit for Command, where this is discussed. He was out of line.

Comment by: PapayaSF at September 4, 2004 10:16 PM

Sorry, PapayaSF-- THERE is absolutely no proof of that other than what Kerry's detractors say. These Swift Boat nitwits that were not even on his
boat have no say whatsoever. Kerry did not "intentionally" wound himself, and Matthews was trying to get Ms. Malkin to say "Yes" or "No" with regards to intentionally wounding himself in battle to earn a purple heart.

She would not give a straight awnser, because either way she would have undermined her own position. Think about it in the context of what she said-- she was implying "intentionally" and that is what Matthews was hammering her on, and rightfully so.

Anyone that would believe that Kerry intentionally wounded himself, in battle is less than a nitwit.

The fact is that Kerry won a Silver Star, a Bronze, and three Purple Hearts.

A hero by MILITARY STANDARDS !

And his detractors, motivated by their hatred of the fact that he turncoated to the anti-war side , are trying to take his distinction away--

Even if he did or did not toss his medals over the fence in that protest 35 years ago-- DAMNIT HE STILL EARNED THEM !

And I just love the way the detractors say that "what atrocities were commited there in Viet Nam?" and they want proof of it.

I know this, I was a tenant in a half way house for Viet Nam vets in 1971. I became their nighttime counselor by default. I saw what these vets were like, and I heard what they said they did, and the awful things that some of them did to civilians in Viet Nam. IT IS A FACT THAT WE DID COMMITT ATROCITIES THERE. And I heard tales of such from Vets having just returned from the battle field who were decompressing from their experiences over there. It was awful for me have heard their stories, and it was certainly awful for them to have done what some of them said they did. But not all of these Vets committed atrocities, in fact the vast majority of them had a clean conscience. But some did not.

Would they now admit 35 years after that they committed atrocites? Would they in a right mind even go there now? But it was happening, and there are newsreels and programs that show such.

AT LEAST KERRY, A WAR HERO, HAVING EARNED HIS HONORS, HAD THE GUTS TO SAY WHAT HE SAID BACK THEN.

Lt. Calley at Mi Lai was just the tip of the iceberg. Someday, perhaps the other side of the story from those that we fought will come out. In fact I think it is already beginning to happen. The "other side fo the story" there was an article in I think Time or Newsweek recently about the Swift Boats on the Hap River. One of the Viet Cong soldiers that fought on that river in the month of Feb. 1969, (the same month at Kerry was there) stated that they did set traps for them of the type that Kerry described. And they waited in ambush when the Swift Boats came up the river. The did not set traps and leave. They waited in ambush. And they opened fire when the action began. That is exactly what Kerry said happened in that month of Feb. 1969. I trust him and the statements of those on his boat and no one else.

But...

That is a hell of a lot more than those that have such bitterness that they would try to demean his honor in having earned the honors HE DID EARN.

I was on both sides of the Nam issue then. I was for it, and then I was against it. I would have gone myself had not the war ended before I could be drafted. I still to this day have my draft card. I never burned it, like many of my age group did.

After I heard the stories of these Vets in that half way house in the year of 1971-- I turned against that damned war. Some of these guys that I knew were tramatized by what they had done over there, and what they described to me were atrocities just exactly as Kerry had said happened.

As far as I am concerned and as any THINKING INDIVIDUAL SHOULD BE CONCERNED, those "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" need a swift kick in the ass and another boat to sail on as they look for "truth" which they certainly have not found.

And for "anonymous coward"

Man, callforjustice911, I originally assumed that you were just a crazy troll. I don't know whether voting for Kerry makes you appear nuanced, or even crazier.

Comment by: anonymous coward at September 4, 2004 09:04 PM

Yep, I am both nuanced and crazy. Nuanced as in subtle, and crazy as in being crazy for Kerry
(and a Republican, too)

callforjustice911
Call me snake 21 years ago

Sanchez's characterization of Miller as "batshit" sounds as desperate as the average Kerry campaign staff meeting right now.

Oh, I'm sorry, Reason is a nonpartisan outfit.....
m 21 years ago

Again, from the Hardball transcript:

MATTHEWS: Your saying there are?he shot himself on purpose, that?s a criminal act?

MALKIN: I?m saying that I?ve read the book and some of the...

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: I want an answer yes or no, Michelle.

MALKIN: Some of the veterans say...

MATTHEWS: No. No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose.

MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that.
callforjustice911 21 years ago

M,

And with regards to that, remember that Matthews was attempting to get Ms. Malkin to say Yes or No. He was not interested in getting hearsay from others that she was siding with.

He wanted her opinion not that of others.

She would not put "her" opinion on the line, but instead said:.

MALKIN: Some of the veterans say...

MATTHEWS: No. No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose.

MALKIN: Yes. Some of them say that.

Notice how Malkin deflects the a direct answer from Matthews with "Some of them say that."

But Matthews was not interested in "some of them" he was interested in her opinion rather than "them" (Kerry detractors).

Ms Malkin does not have a leg to stand on as SHE WAS NOT THERE ! She only believes what the detractors say, and even THEY WERE NOT THERE !

So there you have the direction that Matthews was going had Malkin said bluntly "Yes" to Matthews question.

And if she had said "No" ?

Then why would she have even been on the show? And you can bet that Matthews would have asked that too, had she said NO.

callforjustice911
thoreau 21 years ago

If I were a staunch Kerry supporter, I would say that our friend "Callforjustice911" is almost too good to be true.

Think about it: In some of his posts he projects a VERY hawkish image. He claims to have voted GOP most of his adult life. He uses some of the terminology generally associated with uber-hawks, e.g. Islamofascist, whereas most people out there say "Islamic terrorists" or "Islamic fundamentalists." (Not harping on which terminology is better, simply observing that certain words are most frequently associated with certain ideas and opinions.) He even had a post in another thread where he talked about how he has his guns ready for the Islamofascists, having smeared his ammo with pig fat.

Very hawkish sound to it. Not that there's anything wrong with it, but that particular brand of hawkishness is rarely associated with Kerry supporters. And since Kerry is struggling to overcome a dovish/wimpish/whatever image (however accurate or inaccurate it may be), it would be ideal (from the perspective of a Kerry supporter) to have more support from people like our friend "CFJ911".

Yet he also seems to be pretty firmly in favor of Kerry on a lot of issues.

Now, maybe CFJ911 is simply a person who doesn't fit any of the pre-defined molds. On a libertarian forum that would hardly be shocking. On the other hand, the way he combines all of the imagery and language of one side (gotta love the bullets dipped in pig fat) with (most of) the positions of the other side, well, it's uncanny. It makes me wonder if he's simply adopting all of that language to try and innoculate himself against charges of dovishness before wading into the fray with hawkish Bush supporters.

Then again, who knows? In the end, I suppose it's futile to try and psychoanalyze posters hiding behind the refuge of anonymous screen names, but something about this just seems fishy.
callforjusttice911 21 years ago

Hank Reardon wrote:

Let's see, favors conficating the EARNINGS of the wealthy to support the unproductive class, sees malpractice as the problem with health care, harping on wrong limb amputations but never mentioning cerebral palsy, and buys into the folly of Kyoto because we found the ice man and have had two hurricanes. Yep, you sounds like a thinking Republican to me.

Comment by: Hank Reardon at September 6, 2004 12:31 PM

Gawd-- you are dense!

I gave just a few examples-- not the whole body of data that lends support for global warming and Kyoto. YOU NEED TO DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH ! But then again ultra-rightwingers in the Republican Party can't do that. They have got to listen to the Christian Coalitionist element that has taken over the party-- No thinking is allowed, unless sanctioned by them.

And with regards to what you say is the "unproductive class" that is "confiscating the EARNINGS of the wealthy" What are you an oxymoron?

Kerry and Edwards ARE WEALTHY !

So if what you say is true then they are allowing the confiscation of their wealth ?

What a dummy you are!

And this "unproductive class" that you mention-- how about including in it those that suffer with "cerebrial palsy"? That "unproductive class" that "confiscates the REARNINGS of the wealthy" includes all those with various disability that PREVENTS THEM FROM BEING WEALTHY !

What would you advocate for them, toss the "un-productive class" out on the streets, maybe shovel them into graves, rather than lend them a hand of support?

But if you are talking about loafers as the "un-productive class" they too are in the Republican Party. (As if ONLY the Republicans are exempt from having loafers which would be in this "un-productive class")

Disabilty, (as in cerebrial palsey) being "un-productive" also crosses Party lines. I know many legit disabled un-productive individuals in my Republican Party, but in your blindness (self imposed ultra right wing disability) you cannot see them or even those that are by choice members of this "un-productive class."

You want the whole book here on this, from Kyoto to your so called "un-productive class" that as you say "confiscates the earnings of the wealthy."

I don't have the time, but few examples that I did provide should give you a place to start.

That is, if you have the MIND TO THINK and DO SO.

callforjustice911
A thining Republican, voting for a thinking Democrat, John Kerry.
callforjusttice911 21 years ago

Thoreau wrote:

Then again, who knows? In the end, I suppose it's futile to try and psychoanalyze posters hiding behind the refuge of anonymous screen names, but something about this just seems fishy.

Comment by: thoreau at September 6, 2004 01:30 PM

Yes, I do like fish, salmon especially. Trout is pretty good with butter, and so is catfish. Love 'em all.

A batch of bacon and a pork chop in between is fine with me, too. I save the grease for those bullets that I might need should the War on Terror come my way.

Don't doubt what I write. I really believe what I say and will stand firmly behind my convictions. I am a very moderate Republican. I have voted Republican most of my life.

But not this time. Look at Bush's record. Domestic. Foreign.

Think about it critically, and then decide.

This next election will go down in History one way or the other.

I just hope for all that the way it goes is the right one.

And my opinion now, is vote for Bush and the wrong way will be revealed.

callforjustice911
stan 21 years ago

Will all you Bush lovers please take his rolled photo out of your butts and go hang out somewhere else?

I've often wondered if there way ANYTHING that the current Repubs could pull that would result in a sound condemnation from basically all Republicans. I thought Zell's speech and subsequent meltdown were pretty good candidates, but apparently not.

I guess I can still hope that videotaped footage of Karl Rove beating a blind nun with a 3 legged puppy might push you over the edge.
Del 21 years ago

Zell took some cheap shots at Kerry and I think misrepresented his record, but I gotta admit I was glad to see him chew out Matthews. There's no ruder interviewer on television, even moreso than O'Reilly. He cuts people off, doesnt give them a chance to respond, butts in,... he's really incredibly rude. I think he likes to try to show how smart he is, so therefore he doesn't listen. He pulled the same thing with Michele Malkin, which I'm willing to admit even though I don't agree with her politics. Zell was perfectly sane in everthing he said. Challenging someone to a duel, figuratively, is the kind of response Matthew's behavior deserves.
thoreau 21 years ago

stan-

Maybe it would be better if Bush was in the video, not Rove. If it were Rove people would (quite rightly) point out that Bush and Rove aren't a priori one and the same.

And even then, the video would have to be authenticated by Fox News. And even if it was, a lot of people here would still point out that John Kerry is worse.
Fodderstompf 21 years ago

thoreau writes:
If I were a staunch Kerry supporter, I would say that our friend "Callforjustice911" is almost too good to be true.

That's the exact opposite of the conclusion I reached - I thought he's too bad to be true. Let's face it: his incoherent, combative screeds ain't helping Kerry any.
Hank Reardon 21 years ago

I condemn plenty of Bush's policies. Campaign finance reform, calling CO2 pollution, the looming mercury regulations, steel tariffs, faith based initiatives, the war on drugs, buddying up with Kennyboy, the FCC crackdown, the broadcast ownership percentage backdown, Norm Minetta in the cabinet, inviting Ted Kennedy over for a movie, voucherless "accountability". And more for sure, but Thoreau is right, I still think John Kerry would be worse.
Ken Shultz 21 years ago

"I've often wondered if there way ANYTHING that the current Repubs could pull that would result in a sound condemnation from basically all Republicans."

I've asked that question on this board before, but I it was phrased differently. I asked, as I recall, whether or not a complete suspension of Habeas Corpus would be sufficient cause for a critical mass of Republicans to stop supporting the Bush Administration.

It seems pretty clear to me now that the answer is no. The answer shouldn't have surprised me much; we saw the same behavior from the Democrats during the Clinton Administration.

I suspect the principled voter is actually a swing vote phenomenon...much to the Republicans' dismay.
Jeff Hallman 21 years ago

In the late 70's the USSR deployed intermediate-range nuclear missiles in Eastern Europe. Even that noted warmonger Jimmy Carter realized that we had to respond with our own deployment or all the Soviets to slowly take over by intimidation. The Soviets funded the nuclear freeze movement, which attracted a large number of useful idiots in Europe, and some here as well. John Kerry was one of them.

The freeze movement peaked during the Reagan administration when the US missiles were finally ready to be deployed. Reagan refused to be intimidated (as Kerry and others were) and began deploying. The Soviets backed down and withdrew their missiles.

The freeze movement was the clearest and most striking example of left wing stupidity in my lifetime. How anyone associated with it can ever be taken seriously when it comes to foreign policy is beyond me.

And by the way: I suppose it's a sign of impending senility, but can anyone tell me whether I should fear a nuclear winter more or less than global warming?
callforjustice911 21 years ago

That's the exact opposite of the conclusion I reached - I thought he's too bad to be true. Let's face it: his incoherent, combative screeds ain't helping Kerry any.

Comment by: Fodderstompf at September 6, 2004 02:49 PM

And you, Mr "Foddrstomphf" cannot understand me.

Why?

Because you are one of those bone head rightwing Republicans that support Bush ! (Got to put your brain on hold to be in that crowd)

That is why you don't understand.

And yes, I am as good to be true as ever a "thinking" Republican can be.
AND... I am campaigning for Kerry this week and to election day. Out there representing "thinking" Republicans for Kerry, getting them to go out and vote. And you know what, there are other "thinking" Republicans like me, ones that know that Bush is a bushwacker. The Dub'ya duping Americans into fighting the War on Terror in the wrong country. Sure, Saddam needed to go-- but not now when we have al-Qaeda Islamofascists to deal with.

I was bushwacked into believing that Iraq at this moment was the country we should have invaded. Iran, and North Korea are the real threats. They were then and they are now.

callforjustice911

P.S.

Get out there and vote for Kerry ! All of you that can think and can arrive at the right conclusion. Incedently, all the hype about how far ahead Bush is in the polls is very well explained at;

http://www.rasmussenreports.com

(this group combines the polling of many sources, finds the mean, and comes up with a better estimate as to where the electorate is headed)

It seems Fox media, (right-wing and very unbalanced reporting) and other right wing media outlets like Time polls more than the others that say otherwise. At the very best Bush only gained a 4 to 5 % gain, not 12 % as Fox Media would like everyone to believe. It is still too close to call.
Bill 21 years ago

Callforjustice911 just proved that he/she is a fool. Anyone that thinks that Time is a right-wing media outlet cannot possibly be trusted to perceive reality in a competent manner.
callforjustice911 21 years ago

Callforjustice911 just proved that he/she is a fool. Anyone that thinks that Time is a right-wing media outlet cannot possibly be trusted to perceive reality in a competent manner.

Comment by: Bill at September 6, 2004 08:14 PM

Well then "Bill" explain to me then why Time has poll results that are SO far off from all the rest of the polls and why is it that FOX Media (rightwing unbalanced as they are) are so apt to quote them as being the absolute truth, when "rasmussenreports.com" polls say otherwise?

Maybe I am more liberal in my thinking than I thought. But I assure you this I am no fool. Could it be that Time, or maybe someone over at Time has "wishful" (Republican) thinking as being the reason for thier poll being SO far off from the mean, that is by the "fair and balanced" rasmussenreports.com ?

Guess I put Time and their reported polls in the rightwing camp by "association" with the fact that rightwinger Republicans are so apt to quote them, and only them.

Yeah... Guess that is it.

Callforjustice911
callforjusttice911 21 years ago

Oh, BTW Bill and all you Bushies:

As of today, at 5:34 PM MST, Monday Sept. 6th... rasmussenreport.com after averageing their polling reports shows that Dub'ya has only 1.1 % edge over Kerry-- NOT THE 11% that Time reports.

See it for yourself:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

A source that one can trust for "fair and balanced reporting" when it comes to election polls.

All I can say with regards to that, if Bush screws up anymore than he has already-- Kerry will be our next President. (Thank God!)

Maybe someone at Time misplaced the decimal point in doing averages.. Yeah that is it.

Callforjustice911
Bill 21 years ago

Callforjustice911,

I don't have the time to teach you statistics. Time might have measured a short-lived "bounce" from the convention, or their methodology may be flawed; both are likely.

I'm not a Bushie. I'll be voting for Badnarik (sp?), even if I don't like him as a candidate. I just want to give my vote to the Libertarians. Voting for Damn-publicans or Dumb-o-crats simply compounds the problems of this country. I'm sure that one of the reasons you're getting so little respect on these boards is that you actually think that voting Democrat will be better than voting Republican. You're just in denial like most Americans. You want to believe that at least one of the major parties is on your side. Well, sorry, but you'll continue to be disappointed until you come to understand that the Democrat and Repulican parties have symbiotic relationship--they both work together to parasitically feed off the citizens of this country.
callforjusttice911 21 years ago

Bill,

Good to hear that you are not a Bushie.

As for me, after this polarized election I may very well aboandon both Parties. I will vote my conscience, or write in Mickey Mouse.

But the Libertarians will never win, and to vote for them, well--- Might just vote for Mickey Mouse.

Or, on the other hand..

If the election is really close, and I dislike both Rep. and Dem. candidates, but would prefer one evil over the other, vote for the Independant that would best take away votes from the one that I dislike more than the other...

Sort of like what Nadar did in the last election-- costing the Dems the White House, so that Dub'ya could get us in this mess that we have now.

Callforjustice911
Fodderstompf 21 years ago

Joe L. writes:
Fodderstompf, Hey read Burkett's "Stolen Valor" he has a WHOLE chpater that substantiates that "Republican talking point."

I've read one chapter from the book that purports to debunk the Winter Soldier Investigation, but doesn't offer much in the way of details. It claims that fake witnesses had appropriated the names of real veterans, but names none of these fakes - nor does it tell us how many of the over 100 veterans who took part in the WSI were under suspicion.

If I recall, the HEAD of VVAW was never in Veitnam and may never have even been in service.

You're probably talking about Al Hubbard, who had served in the Air Force, but apparently not in Vietnam and not as an officer. He was an organizer in the WSI, but he didn't testify.

Hank Reardon writes:
The issue is that if Kerry believes it is life at conception, he should at least show a modicum of respect for it's rights.

He has, I should think. I mean, Kerry hasn't arranged an abortion for an ex-girlfriend, has he? You're unhappy with Kerry because he doesn't strive to make his religious beliefs the law. I think it's a positive trait that he doesn't want to ban abortions for those who don't share his religious views. If only all religious politicians were as reticent to legislate based on what their invisible friend tells them...

Also, I think you will find plenty of anti-abortion groups spending money setting up adoptions.

I think you'll find Kerry supports social programs meant to help pregnant women avoid having an abortion.

when Kerry said he was involved in atrocities the likes of Gengis Kahn's

That isn't true, either. You're 0 for 2.

Rick Barton writes:
only like 6 out of 100 pages came back.

There are over 100 pages of such documentation online at Kerry's campaign website.

Where are the rest? Kerry won't approve their release.

And that's "evidence", is it? Do you consider Bush's refusal to release his military records as evidence that he really was AWOL?
Bill 21 years ago

Callforjustice911,

I voted for Nader in '96 and '00 to punish the Democrats. I would not have voted for Clinton or Gore even if Nader wasn't running. I knew quite a few folks that did the same thing. I finally couldn't stand the Dems anymore, and I almost moved to the Republicans, but I didn't. How is it wasting one's vote to vote for a third party? If the Dems lose, will you have wasted your vote for Kerry? One of the biggest problems in US politics is short-run thinking. I give my vote to the Libertarians in hopes that, over time, they can have have more influence over American politics. Perot lost the 1992 election, but he had a huge influence on the country and both Clinton and Bush. The credit for the reduction of the deficit in the '90s should go to Perot and the workers of the US economy, not any of the elected officials in Washington. Please, don't vote for Kerry. Vote for the party that you would most like to see have a greater influence in America than they do now. Winning is not everything, but positive change that occurs in the long run is very important.
Hank Reardon 21 years ago

Callforjustice911,
Since you are a "thinking" republican, and we are all stupid, could you please describe the vision you see in John Kerry. Is it his desire to work closely with France, Germany and Russia? Or maybe it his plan to raise taxes on the wealthy, who only get that way by trampling over the poor and the weak. Or, is tort reform and medical malpractice your issue? after all, I expect big things from a candidate that selects a junk science, fetus channeling trial lawyer as a running mate. I'm sure Kerry will flip flop on his Kyoto vote, Do you believe energy rationing in a quest to solve a false problem is a good idea?

The only benefit from a Kerry administration that I can see would be that the media would allow him to get away with the "atrocities" that are necessary to win a war. Good thing he's had some practice.
Hank Reardon 21 years ago

CFJ911
I appreciate your 911 memorial. You could also add a section on recent attacks on innocent civilians in Iraq, Afganistan, Russia, Isreal, Spain and too many others to name.
callforjusttice911 21 years ago

Hank Reardon wrote:

"Callforjustice911,
Since you are a "thinking" republican, and we are all stupid, could you please describe the vision you see in John Kerry."

Rightwingers are stupid. Case in point-- they allow their minds, if they have any, to be swayed by the likes of Zell Miller. BTW: I voted for Bush I in ,92 and Good 'ol Boy, Zell was a Democarat then. Now after 12 years, being that he is senile, he is in the right Party that suits him, along with the nitwits that have taken the Republican Party over.

"Is it his desire to work closely with France, Germany and Russia?"

Absolutely ! You think that America can go it alone in the War on Terroy ? At least Bush said it like it will be when he said, "We cannot win the War on Terror" the truth with his stand alone foreign policy. (He soon retracted that statement. humm, talk about "flip-flop")

Now, if we want to win the War on Terror we will need the support of the world. Fortunately, I think the recent aims of al-qaeda and their allies have signficantly re-direced Russia to our side. I don't think that Putin will object to what we do in Iraq or anywhere else. And France has not been immune from Islamofascist terror either. Eventially they will wake up to it and come to our side.

But that stupid Dub'ya sitting in our Presidental office now.. when it came to attacking Irag.. A right war, but in the wrong place. And furthermore-- NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, which was posited as the REASON for war. Dub'ya and his Haliburton cronies duped the American people. And where are all the Iraqis that Bush said would wave American flags to welcome us?

Instead I see the wounded and the bodies coming home.

Bush goofed big time. He needs to admit it, and now we need to re-direct our War on Terror efforts. John Kerry is the ticket as far as I, as a "thinking Republican" can see. At least he has some experiece in war. A Siver Star, a Bronze, and three Purple Hearts...

Says a lot against one who sat on his ass during the Viet Nam war.

Then you wrote:

"Or maybe it his plan to raise taxes on the wealthy, who only get that way by trampling over the poor and the weak."

Yeah, like his wife who is not "wealthy" ? Or his running mate who is not wealthy? Guess they are voting to be "trampled by the poor and weak" ?

Hummm... They are taxing themselves then, eh ?

"Put your money where your mouth is"-- An old saying that Kerry and Edwards are willing to impose on themselves.

Humm... as a "thinking" Republican, (and a poor one too) they have got my vote if they are going to "tax the wealthy' of which they are. And all for my sake as a "poor" Repbublican. (There are such you know-- Poverty is not limited to the Democrats)

Then you wrote:

"Or, is tort reform and medical malpractice your issue?"

Well now... The rightwinger Republicans ran on that issue over four years ago. They got the Presidency, the House and the Senate... HAVE THEY DONE ANYTHING TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE ?

Well, in looking at Edwards and the torts that he was involved in, he rightfully went after insurance companies that screwed people that were injured due to malpractice. But the fact is that our medical system is so screwed up that malpractice is a common event, such as getting the wrong leg or arm amputated, which has happened."

Then you wrote:

"after all, I expect big things from a candidate that selects a junk science, fetus channeling trial lawyer as a running mate. I'm sure Kerry will flip flop on his Kyoto vote, Do you believe energy rationing in a quest to solve a false problem is a good idea?"

The above is a case in point as to how stupid you are as rightwing (non thinking) "Republican." Kyoto will be signed under Kerry-- if the non-thinking rightwing Republicans don't intervene and stall it in the House and Senate. And energy rationing to as you say to "solve a false problem" is a good idea?"

FALSE PROBLEM ??? If you are referring to Global Warming, it is a fact. Look into what those living up in the Artic say about "Global Warming"-- 10,000 year permafrost melting, glacieris retreating, winters becoming shorter. Then in Europe and elsewhere, photos taken 100 years ago of ice covered mountains showing that the ice is retreating. Even yesterday, I heard that on one Alpine slope they found bodies of WWI soldiers that appeared that had been buried during WWI.. And rember the 5,000 year old "Ice Man" found in the Alps as the 5,000 year old ice melted around him? humm... wonder why the ice is melting after 5,000 years? Do your research on this issue. It is obvious that Global Warming is not "junk science"

It will be interesting as to what "junk sientists" say about the two mega hurracines that have hit Florida, with another big one Ivan in the wings. (one of the factors of increasing ocean temperature) Oh, and forget the "fact" the that the ocean is rising, and chunks of ice, some as big as Rhode Island, are breaking off of the South polar ice sheet.

And our "bumb ass" Republican rightwingers don't see it ? (Or maybe they just cannot read the "handwriting on the wall")

Then you wrote:

"The only benefit from a Kerry administration that I can see would be that the media would allow him to get away with the "atrocities" that are necessary to win a war. Good thing he's had some practice."

Stupid, the above reveals to all how stupid you are as Republican. It is not even worth a resopnse.

Callforjustice911
callforjusttice911 21 years ago

Hank Reardon wrote:

CFJ911
I appreciate your 911 memorial. You could also add a section on recent attacks on innocent civilians in Iraq, Afganistan, Russia, Isreal, Spain and too many others to name.

Comment by: Hank Reardon at September 6, 2004 10:29 AM

Thanks,

You see even a "thinking" Republican who supports a Democrat such as Kerry, can support the War on Terror.

Our outrage over 911 and the things that follow is not limited to Party affiliation.

As for your suggesion, I am thinking of making another page link that will present the ever increasing Islamofascist atrocities.

Democrats and Republicans, "thinking or not thinking" need to stand together on this. The debate should be not for or against, just how to do it.

Callforjustice911
callforjusttice911 21 years ago

Additional:

With regards to the atrocities of the Islamofascists, I advocate that we should all see the terrible things that these bastards do to those outside of their evil faith. And it is evil and does wish to take us and Western Civilization down as "infidels"

They wish to Talibanize the world, everyone under sharia law.

Soft rhetoric does not do it in the War on Terror to motivate people to really take action against these aims.

Everyone NEEDS to see the videos that these Islamofascist bastards put out. And they need to hear what they say as the saw off innocents heads or blast them away with their Ak's such as the horrific video of the murder of 12 Nepalese ccoks. How these Islamofascists derided their Buddhist religion before they slaughtered them...

But our "weak kneed" western media refuses to show us these tapes. They don't want to "offend" us with such scenes. Instead, other agences that also distribute porn, such as Ogrish.com post them for all to see.

But we need to see it, on a non-porn site, and hear the rhetoric of the Islamofascists that wish to take us down.

Why should we see such?

Because to do so will motivate us for the demand of retribution and justice for these crimes against humanity. That is what it took after WWII to motivate people to put ropes around the necks of NAZI war criminals and hang them in public. People had to see the atrocities on film, to gain the outrage over such inhuman acts, then despach these bastards from the living.

We must see the crimes of Islamofascists in their entirety to undestand the gravity of what we and western civilization now faces. And we must then root out these murderers, so that we and civilization as we know it will survive.

I am keeping an archive of these video feeds. They are sickening, disgusting to watch. But they motivate me to cry our of justice, as they should everyone that sees them.

Somdday, perhaps I will be able to find a site that will host my Islamofascist atrocity archive, with translations of the Islamofascist rethoric that goes with them. And there won't be any porn to interfere with the message.

A message that calls for justice !

callforjustice911
Hank Reardon 21 years ago

Let's see, favors conficating the EARNINGS of the wealthy to support the unproductive class, sees malpractice as the problem with health care, harping on wrong limb amputations but never mentioning cerebral palsy, and buys into the folly of Kyoto because we found the ice man and have had two hurricanes. Yep, you sounds like a thinking Republican to me.
joe 21 years ago

I find it difficult to believe that there are people who, with a straight face, will argue that Zell Miller's behavior was completely normal and appropriate.

He challenged a journalist to a fucking DUEL. What is wrong with you people? That's in-SANE!

These are the same people who claimed his froth-mouthed rants at the convention were winning over ordinary Americans.
thoreau 21 years ago

joe-

More importantly, these are the same people who claim that the Democrats are consumed by blind rage.

Although looking at Miller, I can see that at least one Democrat is in fact consumed by blind rage.
joesuxsux 21 years ago

stan,

Bush has a hard core of 25-30% Kool-Aid drinkers who wouldn't flinch if he was shown live on CNN fucking a Great Dane up the ass and wiping his dick off on the American flag. They'd go right on repeating "...brought honor, dignity and integrity back to the White House (beep)." These people think Jesus changed his name back to George W. Bush before he came back for the second go-around. But unfortunately for Bush, 30% isn't enough.
Bill 21 years ago

Cletus,

One is never delusional for voting their conscience. Of course, the vote may or may not be best.

As far as the war is concerned, we won't know whether it was worth it or not for at least 20 years. If democracy takes hold and the number of radicals decreases, I will consider it a success. If not, then it's a failure. I imagine many soldiers think the same. Success is its own reward. Failure always sucks.
Gilbert Martin 21 years ago

"But no less delusional than a group of people so mired in groupthink they don't have the guts to demand some kind of explanation from their fatuous leader and his toadies for launching one of the most poorly planned (and executed) military endeavors in recent history"

"Regardless of whether one believes the war was just, incompetence should NEVER be rewarded when the lives of US servicemen are at stake."

You're just as big a pompous blowhard as Kerry is (and he's a damn big one). YOU'RE no authority on what is or isn't poor military planning or execution - or what constitutes incompetence.
Rick Laredo 21 years ago

Shotguns at 10 paces will resolve the situation. /R
M. Simon 21 years ago

"I never did give them hell. I just told the truth, and they thought it was hell."

Harry S Truman, in Look, Apr. 3, 1956

My guess is that Julian never had the opportunity to hear a real Democrat speak before. My condolences.
Fred Gillette 21 years ago

I wish Zell had concluded his speech with a Dean Scream.
joe 21 years ago

I thought the Rebel Yell worked nicely.
gaius marius 21 years ago

He challenged a journalist to a fucking DUEL. What is wrong with you people? That's in-SANE!

speech and dialogue together, it says everything awful that there is to say about jingoism in american politics. miller's two-parter is the second most frightening episode i've seen from a politican recently, next to bush's "global democratic revolution" screed last year.
joesux 21 years ago

joesuxsux: I take it that you think joe sucks double. Since I didn't post on this thread, perhaps the movement is gaining momentum. Do we have a joesuxsuxsux?
Rick Laredo 21 years ago

joe and mr. lower case, relax. Millers comment was a figure of speach.
Either one of you ever had a dissagreement with someone and have you said to them, or they say to you, "Let's take it outside."? Same thing. The "going outside" rarely happens, and even if it does the result is usually two male adults "woofing" at each other. However in my experience when to females go outside you usually get a cat fight. Go figure. /R
jag 21 years ago

Callforjustice911,

As a Republican, I am thrilled you've seen "the light" and are a now a Kerry supporter.

Please, please, stay there.
Bill 21 years ago

This is one sad thread. It seems like half of the posters are at least as insane as poor ol' Zell. Oh, well, politics can make one crazy. Maybe it's time we all took a break. (This goes double for every politician and bureaucrat. They can take the rest of their lives off, as far as I'm concerned. Couldn't we just give them all a golden parachute and go without a government for a while?)
callforjustice911 21 years ago

Callforjustice911,

As a Republican, I am thrilled you've seen "the light" and are a now a Kerry supporter.

Please, please, stay there.

Comment by: jag at September 7, 2004 05:20 PM

Jag,

I'm here to stay. Bush needs to be exposed, and thinking Republicans can do it.

As for the media being congrolled by righwinger Repbulicans, well FOX NEWS and MSNBC sure are.

cut and paste the following links.

Slantometer of Media:

http://www.mediatenor.com/slant.html

Commondreams and the Media:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1201-13.htm

Fox News Not Fair, Not Balanced:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1201-13.htm

Fox's Slated Sources:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1201-13.htm

Fox News biased against Kerry.
New Anti-Kerry Ad: FOX and MSNBC Roll the Tape, Don't Check Facts
http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=34394

Now after reading these tell me that Fox is not a mouthpiece of the Republican Party ?

Bush should just be honest with all of us, and put FOX News right there in the White House. Let FOX cover all that he says....

HUMmmm....

Maybe Fox can do us all a favor... 24hr Bush coverage.

Gawd... A Bush "Reality Show"

Can you handle it Ozzie Osborne fans !

Callforjustice911
joesuxsux 21 years ago

Gilbert Martin,

How's this for an expert? "Every day I have to work with the fucking stupidest guy in the world."
--Tommy Franks on Doug Feith.
Jose Ortega y Gasset 21 years ago

Just a thought on the end of a long thread (most of which I have not read)... what is wrong with dueling? I would think a purported libertarian like Sanchez would support the right of two consenting adults to shoot at one another. If one is a politician and other other a journalist... I fail to see a down side.
callforjustice911 21 years ago

Today's Sept 7th rassussenreports.com says that Kerry and Bush are running dead even, not the 11 to 12 pt edge that Bush has as reported by FOX (ultra-rightwingers, with unfair and unbalanced reporting)says. Seems that those poll takers at Newsweek and Time are way off of the national pulse.

See:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm

By the way, gettng back to the original point of this thread, check up and see what ranting Zell Miller stats are as reported by rasmussenreports-- split firmly along Party lines.

The idiot rightwingers in the Republican Party love him. The thinking Democrats, and the few thinking Republicans like myself, hate him.

What a shame to have put that senile Old South "Republicrat" up on the stand as a keynote speaker. His rant was shocking to say the least. And with his adrenaline up and what little brains he has on hold, his candor with Chris Matthews was even worse.

Shows any "thinking" person where the Republicans are taking this country...

And good 'ol Boy Zell wants to repeal the 17th Amendment ?

Geeeezzz !

callforjustice911
Cletus Nelson 21 years ago

Bill:

That's why I'm voting LP this year.

Delusional? Probably.

But no less delusional than a group of people so mired in groupthink they don't have the guts to demand some kind of explanation from their fatuous leader and his toadies for launching one of the most poorly planned (and executed) military endeavors in recent history

Regardless of whether one believes the war was just, incompetence should NEVER be rewarded when the lives of US servicemen are at stake.
gaius marius 21 years ago

"going outside"

which is fine if you're a drunk in a bar, mr laredo. this is a sitting senator on a television news program. this is all the restraint he has?

just another sad testament to 1) the stupefying condition of american plebiscitarian politics and 2) the masses' eagerness to accept the very worst, so long as it comes from their team.

Please log in to post comments

Holy $#!+

Latest

Yes, Trump Really Put Higher Tariffs on Israel Than Iran

Senators Make Modest Moves To Reclaim Tariff Powers From Trump

The Supreme Court Blesses the FDA's Rejection of Flavored Nicotine Vapes

Trump's Tariffs Target Uninhabited Islands, Economic Dead Zones, and Individual Regions of France

Trump's New Tariffs on These 3 Countries Look Particularly Foolish

Recommended

Login Form