tOFFICIAL Libs disgusted by the Slandering of McCain's Military Service thread

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by LA_Spartan

A 28 year old decorated veteran realizes, from personal experience, that the war is a bad idea. At the time 60% of Americans believed the war was a mistake. So, instead of doing nothing, this 28 year old joins the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (an organization of 20,000!! vets), testifies before the Senate and speaks out against the war.

Even though history proves that the war was a mistake, not only do you refuse to praise this young man for standing up for his convictions, but you condemn him for doing so?


And how exactly did the left kill soldiers in Iraq? Which liberal failed to have a post-invasion strategy? Which liberal completely misread the post-invasion environment in Iraq?

Maybe I can help. From: WinterSoldier.com - John Kerry and the VVAW: Hanoi's American Puppets?

Conclusion

The newly uncovered documents help clarify the relationship of the North Vietnamese, the Vietcong, the PCPJ, the Communist Party of the USA, and John Kerry's VVAW. They indicate that these organizations worked closely together, using the Paris Peace Talks as a central point of communication, to employ the strategy and tactics devised by the Vietnamese communists to achieve their primary objective: the defeat of the United States of America in Vietnam.

P.S. liberals. If you are going to employ your immature tactic of attacking the messenger, you'd better have more than "I don't like it. Waaaaa."

[GRR Spartan]

No, we're just waiting for folks like you who love combat from afar to enlist and get you butt into Afghanistan instead of ranting the GOP party line here on a daily basis.

Come on. Suck it and go Polyboy.

[LA_Spartan]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

P.S. liberals. If you are going to employ your immature tactic of attacking the messenger, you'd better have more than "I don't like it. Waaaaa."

So you're basically citing an organization which is the sister organization to the Swift Boat Vets as your "source"? (From an interview linked on WinterSolder: "Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Scott Swett, the co-author (along with Bob Hahn) of WinterSoldier.com, SwiftVets.com and HillCAP.org. He worked closely with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and other anti-Kerry veterans' groups during the 2004 presidential campaign") A solid, reliable news source.

And your 2 documents?

The first document is a 1971 "Circular" distributed by the Vietnamese communists within Vietnam.

The second document, captured by US military forces in South Vietnam on May 12, 1972, is a communist Directive designed to motivate discussions within Vietnam about promoting the ongoing antiwar activities in the United States.

Why are 2 documents distributed by Vietnamese within Vietnam in English?

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by LA_Spartan

So you're basically citing an organization identical to the Swift Boat Vets as your "source"? No bias there.

And your 2 documents?

Why are 2 documents distributed by Vietnamese within Vietnam in English?

Wow. That didn't take long. So predictable. Identical to the swift boats?

Wrong.

The documents were for operatives in the U.S.?

Care to join the actual discussion?

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by GRR Spartan

No, we're just waiting for folks like you who love combat from afar to enlist and get you butt into Afghanistan instead of ranting the GOP party line here on a daily basis.

Come on. Suck it and go Polyboy.

Well, gramps. If the war with iran comes, I just may be going.

I don't love combat. I fear combat.

How about you?

Do you fear combat?

Wait a second, you support the War in Afghanistan. Why aren't you there?

Been there done that only apply to democrats?

[MSU '73]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Wow. That didn't take long. So predictable. Identical to the swift boats?

Wrong.

The documents were for operatives in the U.S.?

Care to join the actual discussion?

The first document is a 1971 "Circular" distributed by the Vietnamese communists within Vietnam.

In ENGLISH?

[LA_Spartan]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

Wow. That didn't take long. So predictable. Identical to the swift boats?

Wrong.

Read my edited post. The same guy writes both sites.

The documents were for operatives in the U.S.?

WTF are you talking about? For operatives in the U.S.? Did you even read the article you linked?

Here are the full paragraphs:

The first document is a 1971 "Circular" distributed by the Vietnamese communists within Vietnam. It discusses strategies to coordinate their national propaganda effort with their orchestration of the activities of sympathetic counterparts in the American anti-war movement. Specifically, the document notes that the Vietcong and North Vietnamese delegations to the Paris Peace talks were being used as the communications link to direct the activities of anti-war activists meeting with them in Paris.

The second document, captured by US military forces in South Vietnam on May 12, 1972, is a communist Directive designed to motivate discussions within Vietnam about promoting the ongoing antiwar activities in the United States. The fifth paragraph of this document makes clear that the Vietnamese communists were utilizing for their propaganda purposes the activities of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. The protest described as occurring from April 19 through April 22, 1971 coincides directly with the dates of Dewey Canyon III, the Washington, DC, protest led by John Kerry, during which John Kerry's testimony before Senator Fulbright's Foreign Relations Committee was a televised centerpiece. The description of the protest activities in the Directive even include the "return their medals" ceremony in which John Kerry and other VVAW members threw their medals and/or ribbons toward the steps of the US Capitol, with several shouting threats of violence against their government as they did so.

So, Sec. MacNamara, why is a Directive designed to motivate discussions within Vietnam in English?

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by LA_Spartan

Read my edited post. The same guy writes both sites.


WTF are you talking about? For operatives in the U.S.? Did you even read the article you linked?

Here are the full paragraphs:



So, Sec. MacNamara, why is a Directive designed to motivate discussions within Vietnam in English?

I screwed that up. You can see it was translated by Joint U.S. Public Affairs Office (JUSPAO).

It's underlined.

Now, would you care to join in the discussion?

[LA_Spartan]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

I screwed that up. You can see it was translated by Joint U.S. Public Affairs Office (JUSPAO).

It's underlined.

Now, would you care to join in the discussion?

So I raise some legitimate concerns with your original post, and you're pretending that I'm not discussing the "issue" with you?

And you still haven't addressed the fact that you are citing a Swift Boat site.

Since you won't do the research, here's some more information about your friend Scott Swett

According to the Frontline Webasite, which has published his attacks on IVAW and VVAW (see post below for an example of his writings) Scott Swett is:

Scott Swett is the primary author of a new book on the 2004 presidential campaign, To Set The Record Straight: How Swift Boat Veterans, POWs and the New Media Defeated John Kerry. He is also the primary webmaster of WinterSoldier.com and SwiftVets.com.

His biography is a little more filled out, by the invaluable Sourcewatch who provide the following, regarding his activities:

Scott Swett is

• webmaster of WinterSoldier.com website
• webmaster of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth website
• director of 'Free Republic' (Latest Articles)
• rumored author of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (2004 book)

Scott Swett created and managed the web sites SwiftVets.com and WinterSoldier.com during the 2004 campaign, working closely with Swift boat veterans, former POWs and other Vietnam veterans to help bring their experiences to the public. WinterSoldier.com began as a repository of information about the "war crimes" propaganda of John Kerry and the VVAW, but soon became a key communication center for the veterans' movement. After their unsuccessful May 2004 press conference, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth turned to Scott to rewrite their own web site and manage their online communications. He continued to work with the Swift Vets and with other veterans' groups, including the organizers of the September 2004 "Kerry Lied" rally in Washington and the producers of the POW documentary Stolen Honor, throughout the campaign.

[EComCon]

Originally Posted by dru

A link to whoever is "slandering his service" would be nice.

All I've heard so far is people pointing out that being a POW does not necessarily make someone a foreign policy expert, as McCain seems to claim it does.

This might be the Worst

Everyones Entitled to My Own Opinion - WCLT News, Newark Ohio

[Ybob]

Originally Posted by greenjoker

I wonder if Kerry lost as many boats as McCain crashed planes?

Originally Posted by greenjoker

Military career = fly a plane, have fun drinking and womanizing, crash plane, repeat a few times, get captured by enemy, spend time in prison writing a confession.

Originally Posted by greenjoker

If Kennedy lost multiple ships the way that McCain crashed multiple planes then people might well have questioned his naval career.

Wow. Congrats on being an awful human being.

Even if this is a schtick, that's pretty ridiculous.

Well's Hall...

[LA_Spartan]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

You must have missed the part about: Ranking Member....

You do realize that you become the Ranking Member just by being there the longest, don't you?

Or are you willing to admit that John Conyers, Henry Waxman, Robert Byrd, Ted Kennedy are all highly qualified elected officials?

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by LA_Spartan

So I raise some legitimate concerns with your original post, and you're pretending that I'm not discussing the "issue" with you?

And you still haven't addressed the fact that you are citing a Swift Boat site.

Since you won't do the research, here's some more information about your friend Scott Swett

[/list][/indent]

laSpartan,

You know what, I'm bored with this immature tactic. Instead of acknowledging that my source was valid, you immediatley switched attack to the second source. You got excited about it being in English, then when shown why, you didn't acknowledge your error.

I'm just going to say that if you want to discuss something, you must first acknowledge your errors and the points being made.

Only then will we move on and discuss something else.

I'm going to give you the bottom line: Many of us weren't angry or critical of what kerry did in Vietnam. We were, however, very angry about what he did when he got home.

Throwing medals, "Ghengis Khan," and working for the U.S.'s defeat as a mouthpiece of the vietcong.

[sarcyspice]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

laSpartan,

You know what, I'm bored with this immature tactic. Instead of acknowledging that my source was valid, you immediatley switched attack to the second source. You got excited about it being in English, then when shown why, you didn't acknowledge your error.

I'm just going to say that if you want to discuss something, you must first acknowledge your errors and the points being made.

Only then will we move on and discuss something else.

I'm going to give you the bottom line: Many of us weren't angry or critical of what kerry did in Vietnam. We were, however, very angry about what he did when he got home.

Throwing medals, "Ghengis Khan," and working for the U.S.'s defeat as a mouthpiece of the vietcong.

Actually.... if you are going to use any person as a source, then it is not fair to question who the source is in relation to other matters.......to see whether it is credible?? or should we take everything written as gospel and not question it at all...

after all is that not what you did with clark?????

If the person who wrote it is connected to the swift boaters, which it looks like it is, then spartan has a very valid argument and you are trying to deflect that

[GRR Spartan]

polyboy is a shill for anything and everything GOP.

He's just doing his assigned or volunteered job as a GOP footsoldier on Wells.

Polyboy thinks posting here as a fair exchange for not enlisting for a shooting war he supports.

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by sarcyspice

Actually.... if you are going to use any person as a source, then it is not fair to question who the source is in relation to other matters.......to see whether it is credible?? or should we take everything written as gospel and not question it at all...

after all is that not what you did with clark?????

If the person who wrote it is connected to the swift boaters, which it looks like it is, then spartan has a very valid argument and you are trying to deflect that

I don't deflect. I just simply don't want to let you people spin this argument away from the central message.

Again, I'm bored with this tactic. Instead of dealing with the information, you attack the messenger. It must be how you maintain your narrow world-view.

Tell you what, just focus on the second source if you want to get involved in this discussion.

Otherwise, you aren't invited to this discussion.

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by GRR Spartan

polyboy is a shill for anything and everything GOP.

He's just doing his assigned or volunteered job as a GOP footsoldier on Wells.

Polyboy thinks posting here as a fair exchange for not enlisting for a shooting war he supports.

Hey, hypocrite. Are you posting from Afghanistan?

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by sarcyspice

after all is that not what you did with clark?????

No. Did you ever respond to my post regarding clark claiming McCain had not excutive experience?

I don't recall. I even asked you nicely to read the link.

[sarcyspice]

Originally Posted by Polynikes

I don't deflect. I just simply don't want to let you people spin this argument away from the central message.

Again, I'm bored with this tactic. Instead of dealing with the information, you attack the messenger. It must be how you maintain your narrow world-view.

Tell you what, just focus on the second source if you want to get involved in this discussion.

Otherwise, you aren't invited to this discussion.

And again you try and evade the question that spartan asked and I asked...... so lets put this in language that even you can understand....

YOU were the one who brought up the quotes of scott swett to prove your point, yet when people ask you about the credibility of the person YOU posted YOU are the one who trying to deflect the conversation.....

are you denying the quotes YOU posted come from a person who's partiality may be in question since he has links...very strong links.. to the swift boaters......therefore his credability on the matter may be scewed...

a simple yes or no would suffice.... thank you!!!

after all... we wouldn't have questioned it so much if YOU hadn't posted it in the first place.... and YOU had found a source to back up your arguement better than the one YOU did.......

[Polynikes]

Originally Posted by sarcyspice

And again you try and evade the question that spartan asked and I asked...... so lets put this in language that even you can understand....

YOU were the one who brought up the quotes of scott swett to prove your point, yet when people ask you about the credibility of the person YOU posted YOU are the one who trying to deflect the conversation.....

are you denying the quotes YOU posted come from a person who's partiality may be in question since he has links...very strong links.. to the swift boaters......therefore his credability on the matter may be scewed...

a simple yes or no would suffice.... thank you!!!

after all... we wouldn't have questioned it so much if YOU hadn't posted it in the first place.... and YOU had found a source to back up your arguement better than the one YOU did.......

No. I do not feel that his information is incorrect.

Yes, everyone has bias.

Now, quid pro quo. Or, shut thy hole.