Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Into the Abyss
Posted by: Jon Henke on Sunday, March 23, 2008

Paranoid conspiracy theorist Glenn Greenwald proclaims the story of Barack Obama's long-time pastor/personal advisor's sometimes-racist and segregationist behavior to be the merely "manufactured Wright "controversy"".

This same Glenn Greenwald was just weeks ago claiming that the controversy over John McCain's acceptance of an endorsement by the also bigoted (but far, far less relevant to the candidate) John Hagee was "growing, though still not as much as it ought to" and that the mere personal "alignment" with such a bigot "ought to be the story".

What's more, Greenwald actually claimed at the time that a Presidential candidate should not be "held responsible for the views of those who support them, unless the candidate seeks out that support and/or expressly welcomes it." And yet, when precisely that situation obtains with Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright, Greenwald scurries to dismiss it as a "manufactured" "controversy".

I realize that Glenn Greenwald has little credibility with those outside of the choir to whom he preaches, and that many outside of that choir regard him as the disingenuous, intellectually dishonest, partisan hack that he is. But the great irony is that Glenn Greenwald has become exactly what he claims he is opposing in posts like this...
There is no better phrase to describe the animating feature of the modern Limbaugh/Kristol/Fox News conservative faction than "threatened tribalism." The belief that they are good and pure, yet subjected to unprecedented systematic unfairness and threatened by some lurking Evil Other against whom war must be waged ... is the centerpiece of their ugly worldview.
That describes Greenwald and his ilk. Perfectly. I've watched his dishonesty and I've been on the receiving end of it. They have no qualms against using the very tactics they claim to oppose. They may have some legitimate grievances - and you'll note that I haven't expressed an opinion on the McCain/Hagee or Obama/Wright controversies beyond noting that there was bigotry from both pastors - but if they are right about the things they criticize, then they are only doubling the problem.

UPDATE:

Skippy - who made the mistake of assuming Greenwald was honest, but quickly corrected the error when he discovered otherwise - puts his finger on it exactly....
the left side of blogtopia (and yes, we coined that phrase) did agree a few months ago to abandon principled debate in favor of duplicitiousness, invective and logical fallacies in lieu of actual points and structured argument.

we're sorry, we didn't keep the memo, so we can't really tell you exactly when this was decided, but we're pretty sure it was sometime early in the primary season.

that's when lefty's decided it was not only all right to utulize the same unprincipled screaming tactics to pollute public discourse as the righties, but it was also quite acceptable to use them against fellow progressives.
There is plenty of dishonesty and partisan blindness on both sides. It is instructive to observe those who find that tool useful when it serves their side.

UPDATE II:

It gets worse. In attempting to absolve himself of his own ugly worldview, Greenwald writes that he has two choices...to play nice, regardless of what the "other side" does, or to "Take whatever standards the Right uses — no matter how depraved and dishonest those standards are — and demand that they be applied equally, not only by them, but also to them, to ensure that these distortive tactics are either applied to both sides or not at all."


Greenwald's moral standard is, literally, "he did it first" - the belief that he can adopt a tactic, provided he can find somebody on the other side who has adopted it first. That's the moral reasoning of a child. No, actually, that's the moral reasoning that I wouldn't allow my child to get away with. The difference is, my own child understands that it is wrong. Greenwald, for all of his sanctimonious preening, does not possess even that most basic moral understanding. This is the equivocation, the fraud, that permeates his writing.

Remember: when you read Glenn Greenwald, you are reading somebody who openly embraces the worst "distortive tactics" that he believes his enemies will use.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
What you’ve hit on is the phenomenon of "gotcha game" politics. Catch a politician with one error, one supporter who is controversial, or one slip of the tongue and all reasoned debate goes out the window and it’s pile on and try to do damage to the credibility of the candidate. There’s a lot to criticize McCain about concerning his war policies, but instead we get a focus on one misstatement about Iran. It’s done on the left and the right, and people do respond hypocritically — it all depends on whose ox is getting gored. I see it against Democrats (swift boaters) against Republicans (forcing Trent Lott to quit over a silly birthday party comment) and the like. In the You Tube age people watch for anything politically incorrect and run with it. Real debate is sacrificed to the gotcha game. Candidates become scripted, safe, and avoid actually saying what they truly think. They are packaged as products, meaning that the genuine ones become rare.

The good news: the public seems on to this. They go for candidates who seem a bit outside the safe norm, Carter, Reagan, Bush the Younger, Clinton, McCain and Obama. Often these candidates also disappoint, but ultimately the American public may be wiser than the political operatives give them credit for.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
He really is quite insane...

...

I’m not sure if I’m talking bout Erb or Greenwald...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Jon Henke said, in June, 2006:
Those would be great points, except that Ridenour and Patterico appear to have entirely missed the point of Greenwald’s post. [update: in the process of writing this post, I see the same error has shown up here at QandO] It was not a serious suggestion that the Right has an obligation to denounce any incidence of that kind of rhetoric; it was a response to the recent suggestion from some Right wing bloggers that the Left had been remiss in not denouncing an obscure blogger for obscene rhetoric. Goose, gander.

Look, nobody has an obligation to condemn every bit of vile political rhetoric. There’s not enough time in the day, and there are far more important topics. When so inspired, by all means, criticize the Ann Coulter’s, Digby’s, Bill O’Reilly’s and Michael Moore’s of the world. But don’t start the "if you don’t condemn it, you must support it!" game. Not unless you’re prepared to play it.

Greenwald’s point was perfectly reasonable — and perfectly obvious.
It looks like you understood the point back then — i.e., don’t spend a week demanding that Barack Obama denounce Louis Farrakhan, someone whose endorsement he never sought, and then ignore the story of John McCain seeking and praising the endorsement of radical Christian ministers. To demand that Standard X be applied equally is not to endorse Standard X. Back then, you yourself explained that slowly (and with futility) to your confused co-blogger whom you mocked for failing to understand it. Now, that basic principle eludes you.

Then again, that was all before you became the paid blogger for George Allen and some GOP campaign committee — something you did even after you admitted that you wanted the Republicans to lose a house in the midterm elections, giving new meaning the word "hack." It looks like both your ability to understand basic logical principles as well as your integrity have atrophied significantly during that time — hardly surprising given the ultimately hackish jobs you have taken.

Finally, the personal paid blogger for George Allen and Mitch McConnell’s campaign committee isn’t really someone qualified to decree who has credibility and who doesn’t. If someone in those positions were of the opinion that I was credible, I would no longer think that I was, for that reason alone.

Let’s review one more time, slowly, for the QandO readership:

* "Demanding that Standard X be applied equally is not the same as advocating Standard X."

* "One can oppose Standard X and simultaneously demand its equal application without being guilty of ’hypocrisy.’"

* "One cannot say that the GOP should lose a Congressional house in the midterm election and then go and work for pay for George Allen and Mitch McConnell without being guilty of supreme hackery."
 
Written By: Glenn Greenwald
URL: http://
Erb sees much, much more deeply into the reality of the world than you or I (or anyone else not-Erb). We should just be grateful that he stoops to share his brilliant insights with us.

Hoo-hoo!!! Gleen himself enters the fray! (Well, supposedly. Has anyone checked the ISP?) Guess the hoi polloi will bet themselves some educamation now, yessirreebob.

I’m pretty sure he’s written a NYT best-seller and been quoted on the floor of the Senate, so he obviously is smarter and knows more than the rest of us put together.
 
Written By: JorgXMcKie
URL: http://
Hey Jorg. Did you know that GrenWort has written a NYT best-seller and been quoted on the floor of the Senate ?
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Let’s review one more time, slowly, for the QandO readership:
Was this the real Glen Greenwald or just another sock-puppet applying his usual Standard X moniker?
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Let me get this straight, Greenwald... you’ve said that Henke (who I haven’t seen commenting on Obama’s relationship to his minister) is a hypocrite on the Wright/Farrakhan/Hagee issue because he once worked for George Allen... while you have never worked for George Allen and therefore are not a hypocrite on the Wright/Farrakhan/Hagee issue.

That’s the point you are trying to make here? If so, I’m going to have to ask you to connect the dots a bit, because I don’t see the slightest connection. Come on. Humor me.
 
Written By: J Sterlace
URL: http://
This is an interesting post. We’d love to have your point of view represented in this week’s Carnival of Politics, a weekly blog magazine about politics. If you’re interested please consider submitting this post at www.carnivalofpolitcs.com/submit.

This isn’t a spam bot. I’ve actually read your post and think it is interesting.
 
Written By: Carnival of Politics
URL: http://www.carnivalofpolitics.com
Come on .. GrenWort has a point.

We shouldn’t be judgmental. We should all mindlessly vote for Obama out of shame for our slave-master past.

You say you don’t have a slave-master past .. I won’t be judgemental, but you should be ashamed that you don’t have a slave-master past and vote for Obama out of this shame.

GrenWort should also end his endless whinning about Bush and the war because it’s all judgmental. This should then cause him to have shame for his judgmental statements and mindlessly vote for Ron Paul Ralph Nader, which neither he or I should judge to be a complete waste of a vote, as Ron Ralph is a nice guy who is lonely.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
It’s good to see that Glenn has finally understood the concept of the group blog. I do wonder if he has apologized to Reynolds yet.

Somehow I doubt it.

To be accused of hackery by this chinless uberchump should give Jon a warm, comforting feeling for the rest of his days.
Finally, the personal paid blogger for George Allen and Mitch McConnell’s campaign committee isn’t really someone qualified to decree who has credibility and who doesn’t. If someone in those positions were of the opinion that I was credible, I would no longer think that I was, for that reason alone.
Which "I"? Ellers? Ellison? Elle McPhereson?

Good day, sir!
 
Written By: Uncle Pinky
URL: http://
Now, that basic principle eludes you.
No, Glenn, I gave you that benefit of the doubt when I read through what you had written. I hoped to find that you had merely suggested that. But you went further. You explicitly pushed the Hagee story and suggested it was important - that it was significant. You specifically said that a Presidential candidate should not be "held responsible for the views of those who support them, unless the candidate seeks out that support and/or expressly welcomes it." You can’t crawl behind the "I was just pointing out the hypocrisy" shield, not after pushing the Hagee story and so much else.

You don’t get to pretend that it’s wrong to link a blog that elsewhere wrote something bad when you have linked a blog that implied a political opponent was a pedophile.

You don’t get to criticize others for ugly discourse when you have, yourself, implied that a political opponent was a pedophile.

You don’t get to run and hide behind "they did it first" when you get caught being the ass.
Then again, that was all before you became the paid blogger for George Allen and some GOP campaign committee — something you did even after you admitted that you wanted the Republicans to lose a house in the midterm elections, giving new meaning the word "hack."
Actually, I’m quite glad you brought that up. It’s a perfect example of just what a brazen liar you are. And I use the word "liar" very intentionally. Yes, I am challenging your integrity.

When I went to work for Allen...

  • You claimed I had been hired based on a series of posts I had written defending Allen. That was a lie. I informed you that you had no basis for making that claim. You knew you had simply made it up. You neither corrected your claim, nor mentioned that I had challenged it.


  • You claimed I was a hack because I had previously endorsed a Democratic takeover "of Congress". In fact, I had endorsed a Democratic takeover of the House. I informed you of this verifiable, factual error, and not only did you not correct it, you left unchanged your claim that this constituted a change in my political views. You knew what you had written was false - we even exchanged emails about it - yet you preferred to question my integrity, rather than reveal what I had told you.


  • I never worked for any campaign committee. You made that up.


  • Finally, saying "he wanted the GOP to lose the House, but he went to work for the GOP in the Senate" isn’t exactly the hypocrisy you seem to think it is. If you need me to explain to you the difference between the House and the Senate, and the difference between wanting gridlock and working for one side or another, I will be glad to do so. I would bet, however, that you know exactly what the difference is, and you are just trying to throw mud into the water to obscure your shameless dishonesty and feigned ignorance.


You don’t know why I took those jobs, nor do you know what I did in them. I am confident that I acted with integrity throughout. Unless you endorse anarcho-capitalism, then you also support a side you find less than noble. Don’t play that stupid game with me, you fraud.

Our political calculations may differ, as do everybody’s, but don’t tell me for a moment that you can challenge my integrity. You are a verifiable liar and I have the goods to prove it. You know that, I know that.

 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Boris Erb:
What you’ve hit on is the phenomenon of "gotcha game" politics. Catch a politician with one error, one supporter who is controversial, or one slip of the tongue and all reasoned debate goes out the window and it’s pile on and try to do damage to the credibility of the candidate.
Ah, Boris, Barack Obama doesn’t have "one supporter who is controversial." Barack Obama has attended for 20 years a racist church headed by a black supremacist pastor who follows the "black theology" of James Cone, which is racist (and teaches that violence is a necessary part of any revolution, and revolution is at the heart of "black theology," which teaches that God is black and whites are evil).

Now, you might excuse racism by blacks (you no doubt teach your students that blacks cannot be racists, since that is virtually an academic principle by now), but attending a church that teaches it disqualifies the attendee from being a candidate for President of the United States.

The proof of this pudding, Boris, is in the very books on "black theology" that Wright demands you read. Said "black theology" is the basis of Wright’s ministry and thus the basis of the teachings of his church. No one can attend such a church for 20 years without subscribing, implicitly, to its teachings.

It is not a small matter, and I suspect that there are a lot of Democrats who supported this Obama character who are now very embarrassed, and this is not going to get better. It’s going to get worse.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Jon, I am sorry that you have come to this opinion and conclusion about Greenwald than many of us already had.

In the same crew I would add much of the leftward blogger, like Willis and everyone else on the new and improved townhouse list who run theor blogs liek a large coordinated political campaign.

 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Greenwald has beclowned himself, and he’s feeling the heat, as his appearance here suggests. He’s a sorry Sidney Blumenthal wannabe, without the writing ability or political judgement. What a putz.
 
Written By: Obama’s Conscience
URL: http://
OK, I’m missing something here. How does ones’ job or positions that one takes in the real world impact ones’ credibility. Certainly it creates bias — we’re all biased and our jobs and experiences help shape how we are biased. But to argue against someone’s position because he worked on the Allen campaign would be argumentum ad hominem, it has nothing to do with the position or reason for the position given.

That said, I do understand that partisan blogs tend to emphasize their positions and good things about their side, and bad things about the other side. That isn’t necessarily hypocrisy, it might just be choice of focus. Here, though, it looks like a double standard is being used by Glenn Greenwald (who apparently is someone as disliked by Q&O readers as much as I am). OK, you’re playing the game. The Republicans are playing the same ruthless game. Serious question: is playing that game really good for American politics? If you think the other side started it (Lee Atwater seemed to push politics in this direction) is mimicking them the best way to counter it? This is why so many Americans hate politics, the gotcha games look petty and even slimey. Or is this all just entertainment for political junkies?
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Oh, I realized this about him some time ago. We all make mistakes, we all make errors in judgment, we all are subject to biases and blindnesses. It is the human condition. When he slurred me, lied about me and refused to correct his lie in 2006, I woke up a bit.

But when he implied that a political opponent was a pedophile, that was the last straw. There is no excuse for that. It is the behavior of a scoundrel.

I’ve documented it often since - search this site - and I’ve seen it in many other instances. Even when I agree with his underlying points - and it’s more often than you might think - his rhetoric is absurd and his style is mendacious.
 
Written By: Jon Henke
URL: http://QandO.net
Greenwald’s moral standard is, literally, "he did it first" - the belief that he can adopt a tactic, provided he can find somebody on the other side who has adopted it first.

Look, we forced Glenn to lie and distort, and we ought to be men and apologize.

By "we", of course, I mean "someone out there". Someone else, actually, since I distinctly recall an Atrios lie from 2002 that has been my excuse for lying ever since. Or was it Krugman? Well, it was some lefty, anyway.

And by "be men", I don’t mean to imply that women can’t also apologize.

But anyway, Glenn would never have turned into a weaselly liar if not for us (broadly defined to mean "the rest of you"), and I feel terrible about it.
 
Written By: Tom Maguire
URL: http://
How does ones’ job or positions that one takes in the real world impact ones’ credibility.

Well, Glenn is arguing in Greenwaldian fashion (lying) about what Jon has said and why he took those jobs. The Gleens seem to believe that they can impeach Jon’s character thereby nullifying his argument in that old, stale logos/ethos/pathos gallimaufry. I’ve always maintained that one should match ethos to ethos, logos to logos and so on. To refute logos with ethos is, indeed, an ad hominem dishonesty.

Jon has always, as far as I can recall, been completely upfront about working for political campaigns. He has taken sabbaticals from the blog while doing so, to prevent that old appearance of impropriety. Further, he doesn’t seem to misrepresent himself under various handles or fail to correct mistakes when they have been pointed out to him. Ethos v. ethos with Greenwald then, The Boys from Brazil don’t even lay a glove on him. Frankly he gets a first round KO. Especially with evidence of Ellers McEllerson’s mendacity on this very page.
 
Written By: Uncle Pinky
URL: http://
Boris:
who apparently is someone as disliked by Q&O readers as much as I am
Disliked? Goodness, Boris, you are a gift that never stops giving. You are the sloppiness of thought incarnate. You are the averted eyes of an academic generation with diminished capacity. You are absent character, mendacity, ignorance, and deceit wrapped up to look like a political science professor.

Disliked? You’re the gold standard of semi-official lying and demented patois.

You are not a product that the frequenters of this blog are just going to let sit around on its shelf getting stale.

With your immunity to facts, your astonishing fear of truth, your pee-pee dances of on-the-fly conventional wisdoms caked up against the inch-thick eyeglasses of the village weirdo, you are a prize that any blog would envy.

It’s not everyday that a candidate for the most ridiculous person alive walks in and takes a seat at the end of the bar and starts chatting, endlessly.

It’s a sight to see.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
You don’t get to run and hide behind "they did it first" when you get caught being the ass.


And this is the essential nugget. Greenwald just made a monumental ass of himself all based on a need to get out of the whole he dug for himself in the Haggee situation.

And he’s making a bigger ass of himself running around on blogs making childish illogical equivalency arguments.

People are laughing at you Glenn(s), not with you brother.
 
Written By: Twicedimed
URL: http://
I’m just glad to see that he signed on as Glenn Greenwald. That, itself, is progress.
 
Written By: Dale Franks
URL: http://www.qando.net
But anyway, Glenn would never have turned into a weaselly liar if not for us (broadly defined to mean "the rest of you"), and I feel terrible about it.
Yes Tom, and your writing is why JOM is another favorite stop for me as well as it seems Karl Rove as well.

And for those who want to read more analysis of Greenwald’s buffoonery see this.
I’m just glad to see that he signed on as Glenn Greenwald. That, itself, is progress.
:)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
That, itself, is progress.
And suspicious. Are we SURE it’s Greenwald?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I’m just glad to see that he signed on as Glenn Greenwald. That, itself, is progress.
Yeah, well the question is, who else has he signed on as, and not just here, over this. Look close at the threads at Reynolds’ place.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
So let me summarize the exchange:

Obama: We should have a national conversation about race.

Old Punk: OK, here is what annoys me about some black people.

Lefties: The Old Punk is a racist, as are all righties.

One might well argue that this does discourage anything like a candid conversation.
So who is being intolerant ?
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Note to Glenn: Sometimes you’ve got to learn how to quit when you’re behind.

Way, way behind.
 
Written By: Rich Horton
URL: http://www.iconicmidwest.blogspot.com
GlennGreenvald - someone else who needs to learn the first law of holes...
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
I see it against Democrats (swift boaters)
Well, given that Kerry put his 3.5 months of service 35 years prior at the top of his resume, it did sorta make sense to look at those 3.5 months, no?

And it is hardly a surprise that the guys he slandered back then, his previous comrades in arms, would want payback.

And, it hardly helped Kerry that he lied about Cambodia, he lied about his first (and possibly 2nd) Purple Hearts (allowing him to leave his tour early), and lied to get the "V" with that Bronze Star, so it was Kerry who shot himself in the foot. Democrats should sue the guy, since he missrepresented himself as a war hero who could stand up to Bush on national defense.

A more correct example might be the Rather/Mapes attempt on Bush, but that was always a streach since Bush was running on his previous 4 years, not his ’70s Air National Guard service. The fact that the Bush docs proved to be forgeries was just the nail in the coffin to that sad attempt.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Don, I’ve already corrected you in a past post about your claims about Kerry. The smearing of Kerry was dishonest, despicable, and based on lies. It’s not surprising that a swiftboater has gotten the GOP in trouble by embezzling. Those guys were liars to the core. Kerry is an war hero and veteran. Those attacking him and calling him a liar when the evidence has been refuted should hang their head in shame.

But at least ’swiftboating’ has taken its place in the American political lexicon as lying to smear someone else.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
I don’t know if this applies to you, personally, Jon - nor do I care for purposes here - and I can’t be bothered to check if Greenwald has made this argument himself, but -

I think the Reynolds incident is a great tool for pointing out Glenn Reynolds’ basic hypocrisy, as well as the conservative blogosphere in general.

They’ve been making all kinds of nasty suggestions and insinuations about Obama for a week straight on Wright, with the message that, since Obama went to the church, he probably shares the guy’s views, or at least is a dishonest, ill-judgemented, relativist wink-and-nodder at Wright’s alledged racism. He’s guilty, because he associated.

Glenn Reynolds just associated with an offensive racist. By the standards applied by the conservative blogosphere to Barack Obama, Glenn Reynolds is guilty. Furthermore, Glenn has attempted - like Obama - to deny the message but pardon the institution delivering it ("Hey dude, it’s a group blog!")
I’ll get to your beef with Hagee, but first and foremose, GG did the world a favor by demonstrating how Glenn Reynolds - and everyone defending him while piling on Obama - is applying their own double standards. They’re as guilty as you think Greenwald is. At least he’s provided a rationale for your perceived contradiction.

There is plenty of dishonesty and partisan blindness on both sides. It is instructive to observe those who find that tool useful when it serves their side.

Yeah, like Glenn Reynolds. And by ignoring his dodging and weaving, but going ape on your comparison of whatever GG said about John Hagee, you don’t exactly come off as a non-partisan adjudicator of Truth, either.

I think GG’s criticisms of you aren’t very convincing - he’s left aside impartiality for his grudge with you. I think you’ve also wandered away from empirical discourse. You haven’t done a very good job of explaining exactly why GG’s statement that he pushed Hagee to hold John McCain to the standard that Obama was being held to with Farrakhan, is invalid.



 
Written By: glasnost
URL: http://
Those attacking him and calling him a liar when the evidence has been refuted should hang their head in shame.
You keep this up and it will be you hanging your head. May I remind you of Kerry’s Christmas memory seared into him (allegedly) in Cambodia. Every aspect of that story has been shot down - emphatically. And not all of the other detractions have been refuted - not by a long shot. You keep saying they have been refuted - prove the point. You can’t! Not until Kerry releases his military records. And until he does so, you can point to site after site that says they have refuted the claims - but they haven’t.

Take my advice - This is an argument you need to steer clear of Doc. It is one you can’t win without Kerry releasing his records. And I will bet money H*ll will freeze over twice before that happens.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
SShiell, hell you can find the refutations and info on the Christmas in Cambodia on Wikipedia — and they give links to their sources. So, no, I do not need to stay clear of this issue, nor do I think people should be forced to release private records because some lying smearmongers make up stories. That feeds into the smearmonger tactics and people shouldn’t give in to those sorts of demands.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris:
Those guys were liars to the core. Kerry is an war hero and veteran. Those attacking him and calling him a liar when the evidence has been refuted should hang their head in shame.
The core group of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were Kerry’s fellow Swift Boat commanders — the officer corps he served with — and the chain of command.

Calling them liars, Boris, shows what an ill-informed person you are.

I happened, by the way, to catch these guys months before they became famous when they gathered in DC to begin telling what they knew about Kerry and his fitness to be commander-in-chief. These were regular, everyday American vets, people of no particular political persuasion, most of whom could barely contain their fury when it came to speaking about John Kerry.

They were perhaps the most honest people who got involved in the ’04 election, and you, Boris, are still a creep.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
LOL funny to see Erb- who loves to put on this above it all act- getting hot and bothered over the "Swift Boat" stuff.

nor do I think people should be forced to release private records because some lying smearmongers make up stories
Eh. When you’re running for Pres. based on your war record, you have to defend that record, even against "lying smearmongers".

Unless, of course, you can’t defend.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
If anyone is actually interested in why the "Christmas in Cambodia" claim is nonsense, this might help.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
That’s an awfully clear and straightforward analysis, McQ. Are you sure you don’t want to revisit it and dick it up with some military jargon and all sorts of circumlocutions, so that a Swift Boat denier like Boris can be frozen with confusion before he discounts it?
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Shark, throw Erb a "Swift Boat" bone and just like a dog he will chase after it. It don’t matter that it is made of rubber - it don’t matter that it will taste like crap - it don’t matter that he is defending the indefensible - just like the mutt he is, he will take off after that bone til the cows come home and defend to the death his hero - John Kerry. LOL!

We’ve had this "Christmas in Cambodia" discussion before and as before Erb went apesh*t in his defense of Kerry. Didn’t matter that Nixon wasn’t President on Christmas Eve 1968 or that there is no evidence he gave a speech anywhere as the president-elect on that day, doesn’t matter that the river Kerry was on does not go into Cambodia (then or now), doesn’t matter that Special Ops had their own river resources and there is no record of any such mission, doesn’t matter that he has never been able to produce even one member of that Special Ops Team he deposited in Cambodia to speak up for him, doesn’t matter that Kerry has stated that all of this is contained in a persoanl ledger which he has never been presented to the public (if it ever existed at all), doesn’t matter that Kerry just flat-out lied. We can all just go and see all the "refutations and info on the Christmas in Cambodia on Wikipedia."

And how many times has he Erb slapped people down for using Wikipedia but then uses it himself when it suits him. Go ahead and check the Wikipedia links - I did. The links take you to some other persons opinion or to some other persons assessment or some other persons take on the issue. Not one link to their sources lead you to Kerry’s military records or to any documentation that supports in any way the case of Kerry’s seared memory.

Kerry can put any and all possible questions down with one simple act - release his military records. An act he has sworn to do on two seperate occasions - once on the Don Imus show and once on Face the Nation. But those records are still not available. Why? Like I said, H*ll will freeze twice over before the public gets access to those records. Yet Erb defends the man. I guess I shouldn’t wonder when some of his other personal heros are the likes of Jimmy Carter, Juan Cole, and John Murtha.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
That’s an awfully clear and straightforward analysis, McQ.
If you enjoyed that McP, here’s a wonderful variation on the theme you might remember.

Heh ... This one involves the "Football Fans for Truth". I don’t know what the Baseball Fans for Truth" were doing that day.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
I missed that. Why would someone lie about something like that? Yet another attempt to be "one of the boys?"

It was clear that Kerry would never be president when he engaged in wearing spandex while bicycling in public. Presidents don’t do that.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
Those guys were liars to the core. Kerry is an war hero and veteran.
WAAAAAAHHHH! Mommy!!
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
It is time to note that Erb, last year, was forced to retract his claims about the SBVfT being, I think it was, ’completely debunked’ (if anyone wants to look through the archives to find it). He was directly (and repeatedly) asked about ’In Cambodia for Christmas’ and the ’No Man Left Behind’ narratives and maybe others.
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
Wow, you guys can’t let go of those swiftboat liars, even when one of their ring leaders is caught embezzling. Instead you attack a war hero because you disagree with him politically. Absolutely disgusting, Kerry is far more honorable than you guys. Oh well, you at least inspire me to work hard to make as many people as possible immune to that kind of attack dog dishonesty. Attacking Obama via his preacher, Kerry with debunked liars...gutter, gutter, gutter....
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Erb,
Was John Kerry in Cambodia for Christmas of 1968 as he said numerous times including on the floor of the Senate, and as was seared into his memory?
As per the No Man Left Behind narrative, did John Kerry remain at the scene in the immediate aftermath of the mine explosion?
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
Attacking Obama via his preacher...


Erb, I’ve long rolled my eyes at the knee-jerk treatment you get from many commenters here. I often disagree with you, but I think it is unfortunate the way you get piled on.

Having pointed that out at the get-go, I’ve got to call you out on Jeremiah Wright. Obama is not one of those people who only goes to church on Easter, and whose preacher would not recognize him if they passed in a crowd. Wright is, by Obama’s admission, an important man in Obama’s life - a spiritual advisor and father figure, who reportedly gave him the title of his book. That makes his views very relevant.

The American voter deserves to know whether the advisors (spiritual, economic, military, or other) of their leading candidates are spouting off vitriolic oratories of the kind we have heard from Wright. This is as true of the Right as of the Left. Just as Fallwell’s retraction of his 9/11 comments (and others) are not enough to make me forget the asinine things he has said, I won’t easily forget the insanity and hate I’ve heard from Wright. And I don’t think it is only the gutter partisans who should be concerned about Obama’s ties to such a man. Who would want their president to be associated with this man, and to have him as an advisor in any capacity?

I have plenty of other reasons to distrust Obama, but this didn’t help. He has said "I think it’s important to judge me on what I’ve said in the past and what I believe." I’ve done that, and I grant that I hear very different rhetoric from Obama than from Wright. But how much difference is there between his image and his inner beliefs? It is an important question. Would you say it is inappropriate that this question has been raised?

You are wrong to think that this issue is only mud and lies.
 
Written By: Wulf
URL: http://www.atlasblogged.com
Wow, you guys can’t let go of those swiftboat liars, even when one of their ring leaders is caught embezzling. Even though there were about fifty of them, and embezzling has nothing to do with the truth of their claims, as long as I can cite such a fact, I feel completely free to deny all the other stuff they said by just calling it "debunked," even though I can’t point to any debunking that actually says anything of consequence.

Instead you attack a war hero because you disagree with him politically. I absolutely refuse to believe you are attacking him because he deserves any such attacks, even though over fifty guys that served with him also attacked him. Absolutely disgusting, Kerry is far more honorable than you guys. Besides, he was in favor of being honorable before he was against it. Oh well, you at least inspire me to work hard to make as many people as possible immune to that kind of attack dog dishonesty. And I will continue working hard, posting immense word-count comments that are so dense they affect the very fabric of the space-time continuum. They will prove by their very volume that you righties are deluded fools who just won’t listen to enlightened leftists such as myself, despite our clear superiority in intelligence and morality.

Attacking Obama via his preacher, Kerry with debunked liars...gutter, gutter, gutter.... And I’m going to keep saying that because I’m so invested in this Kerry thing that I will deny any evidence you put in front of me. After all, like all wise leftists, I’m so smart I can intuitively tell when someone is practicing gutter tactics, and I don’t need to find out any facts beyond knowing that my idols such as Kerry and Obama are being attacked. So you guys might as well stop with this defense of those swiftboat liars. Nyah, nyah, nyah, I have my fingers in my ears, I can’t hear you.
 
Written By: Ott Scerb
URL: http://cluelessprof.maine.edu
Kerry is far more honorable than you guys.
Really, Erb? I gave you - let’s see now:
Didn’t matter that Nixon wasn’t President on Christmas Eve 1968 or that there is no evidence he gave a speech anywhere as the president-elect on that day, doesn’t matter that the river Kerry was on does not go into Cambodia (then or now), doesn’t matter that Special Ops had their own river resources and there is no record of any such mission, doesn’t matter that he has never been able to produce even one member of that Special Ops Team he deposited in Cambodia to speak up for him, doesn’t matter that Kerry has stated that all of this is contained in a persoanl ledger which he has never been presented to the public (if it ever existed at all), doesn’t matter that Kerry just flat-out lied.
I count 5 - to be sure let’s count them again - yes, 5 areas regarding Kerry’s "Seared" Cambodian memories that your Wikipedia source does not refute, that none of the sources you can point to can refute and the best you can do is:
Instead you attack a war hero because you disagree with him politically.
No, I did not attack the man because I disagree with him politically. I never mentioned his political background nor his position relative to any of the current issues of the day - in this or any other comment I have made about the man. I did not even bring up any of the other areas that people discuss relative to the Swift boat issues - his purple hearts or medals. Why? Because I believe he earned them - but that’s just me. I do have problems with his post war activities but that is another issue.

I even disagree with a lot of Democrats but I do not attack them. In fact, I would like to see one Democrat run and would support his candidacy for the Presidency - Lieberman. OK, I guess you can call him a former Democrat. I attacked and will continue to attack Kerry because he is a LIAR! And I hope you will fight just as hard to make as many people as possible immune to his kind of dishonesty. But somehow I don’t think you will.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Wulf, I understand your perspective here, but I still disagree. Please consider these points as you assess the situation.

First, you have to separate the candidate from the preacher. In politics, the role of ’spiritual advisor’ is mostly symbolic, and Wright has done a lot of good in that Obama could easily have focused on that. Clearly his stances, his votes, and his career do not show any kind of radicalism, and he has not espoused such. So I do not think it at all fair to tie some of Wright’s comments to Obama, any more than it was to condemn George W. Bush for speaking at ...oh gee, I forgot the name, that college that was so controversial.

Second, one shouldn’t condemn a preacher like Wright because he was a fighter in a world of injustice, coming of age during the civil rights movements where blacks were consistently and often violently discriminated against. He was part of a great and noble struggle, one where notions of group solidarity and anger over a past filled with evil helped gave the movement strength. Young blacks like Obama learn to respect the efforts of people like Wright. And like any up coming generation, can take the good and put the radicalism in context. I have a student who is a child of two hippies. They are still pretty radical, and this student is certainly no conservative. But she dismisses her parents more radical views on Bush and the economy and takes a pragmatic progressive approach. That’s sort of like what’s happening here. Obama condemns and disagrees with the sixties style firely radicalism of this elderly and respected clergyman, even while honoring the work he has done, and understanding why that radicalism was necessary.

Finally, it should be noticed that Obama has tried to elevate the discussion in his speech, and for most people it succeeded. We have to get passed the "what exactly did he hear, and did he talk to Wright about it" pettiness and more towards a discussion of these issues, what Obama really thinks, what McCain thinks, etc. I hope the country can do it. If McCain beats Obama but Obama’s candidacy pushes for a more open discussion of race and its complexities in American society, especially as our demographics change dramatically — it will be worth while, in my opinion.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
SSHiell, you and Don display all the symptoms of BDS, except it’s focused on Kerry. You’re beyond rational, you’re rabid. If your views were different, you’d have this animus directed at Bush and be posting at the Daily Kos, it’s the same sort of thing, just a different target.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
SSHiell, you and Don display all the symptoms of BDS, except it’s focused on Kerry. You’re beyond rational, you’re rabid. If your views were different, you’d have this animus directed at Bush and be posting at the Daily Kos, it’s the same sort of thing, just a different target.
That’s right Erb. Blame some malady for our foul thinking. Don’t even try and address the points I made. As usual you have been caught up short and instead of an honest discussion of the Kerry lies, you make it a personal attack. You call out my having political differences with Kerry as the rationale for my fervor. Wrong. In fact you can’t find a single thing I have said about Kerry politically.

You can’t believe that I could have such feelings toward Kerry just because he lied. You are wrong. There is a thing among members of the military, something you know nothing about - It is called honor. When Kerry lies about his war record, he denigrates all those who served in that theater of war. Just as he tried to get political points by claiming he attended a World Series game when he was really at a fundraiser - he has cheapened the experiences of those who actually attended. And with his Seared memory, he has besmirched those who served honestly. And the fact that he did so just to build up his own credentials galls me and should gall anyone who has any honor. Had he just let it go and just recounted the real adventures he took part in, I would not be having this conversation with you.

Imagine this, if you will. Another PhD, somewhere in the US plaigerizes your works in order to gain praise from his admirers. Would that anger you? Would you want that offense to be dealt with? Severely?

I never served in Southeast Asia. I came into the military in August 1973 - after the war was over. I watched the fall of Saigon on television with millions of others and wept at the tragic end of that debacle. I could have embellished my own record - there isn’t anybody here who could check up on me. But that is not something I would do.

Can you not admit there are holes in Kerry’s Cambodian fable? Look again at my points - Can you truly say they have been refuted? You, who pride yourself on your integrity and ability to look at something with questioning eyes - can you not just admit there might be some problem with his tale? If, by questioning this, I am suffering from some form of BDS as you say, then so be it. I can live with it - Honorably!
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
There is plenty of dishonesty and partisan blindness on both sides.
While true, this statement is misleading. The left engages in dishonesty as a matter of course. From Hillary Clinton’s amazing Bosnian adventure, to Dem Senators pretending that they didn’t say what they said in 2002-2003 about WMD’s, Saddam and the threat he posed to the world, Senate reformer Harry Reid’s shady real estate deals and favors on behalf of Jack Abramoff’s clients, to Dianne Feinstein presiding over military appropriations for her husband’s companies, union supporter Nancy Pelosi’s opposition to union organization for her hotel work force, to bureuacratic snafus moving 900 FBI files to Bill Clinton’s White House, campaign finance abuse, feigned ignorance of Los Alamos spying, claiming that in 1992 the economy was in the worst recession since the Great Depression, LBJ and Kennedy stealing elections, etc., etc., etc.

When one group does something 1000 times more than another, it is misleading to claim moral equivalence between the two. Republicans are far from perfect, but they are no where near as dishonest as Democrats.
 
Written By: jt007
URL: http://
Erb must have missed this:
Erb,
Was John Kerry in Cambodia for Christmas of 1968 as he said numerous times, including on the floor of the Senate, and as was seared into his memory?
As per the No Man Left Behind narrative, did John Kerry remain at the scene in the immediate aftermath of the mine explosion?
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
The left engages in dishonesty as a matter of course.
LOL! No, both sides do it. The right accuses the left, the left accuses the right. Both are right.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
LOL! No, both sides do it. The right accuses the left, the left accuses the right. Both are right.
Said like the good Soviet man you are, Erbie. That’s exactly the line we heard from the Communists for decades to justify their own behavior. "Look! You Americans do it too!" The fact that their offenses were a hundred times worse was beside the point for the moral equivalence crowd. Just like it is with you and today’s left.
 
Written By: Grocky
URL: http://
Boris:
Finally, it should be noticed that Obama has tried to elevate the discussion in his speech, and for most people it succeeded.
Obama’s speech was a diversion during which he tried to say his own grandmother was as bad as Jeremiah Wright. Absurd.

And he’s trying to lie about what his church is actually about, suggesting that it’s nothing out of the ordinary, thus tarring all black churches with the racist "black theology" of Wright and the church.

 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
P.S.

And "most people" don’t yet understand what the church is all about, but they will.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
That’s exactly the line we heard from the Communists for decades to justify their own behavior. "
Then I’m sounding like the anti-Soviet man because I am using that line to condemn that kind of behavior, not justify it! And, while the Soviet actions were much worse than ours, I think the political games of the left and right in the US are pretty similar. Everyone can give a litany of the wrongs the other side has done, why not have both sides try to do it right?

My blog today gives what I plan to be my last word on the Obama-Wright issue.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Boris:
My blog today gives what I plan to be my last word on the Obama-Wright issue.
Your first or last word on any serious subject is as meaningless as anything you say in between.

About left and right in America:
Everyone can give a litany of the wrongs the other side has done, why not have both sides try to do it right?
Boris, the very first thing you don’t understand about this question is the question itself, which would require that you understand the intellectual history of the right and the left in the United States.

For starters, consider that the Democratic Party was the Jim Crow party. That the "Progressive" Democrat Woodrow Wilson was a bitter racist who resegregated Washington DC, and that FDR and his New Deal coalition had an absolute dependence on the segregationist South.

And nearly 30 years after Brown v. Board of Education, it was Richard Nixon who most effectively desegregated Southern schools.

It was Ronald Reagan who knew that the Soviet Union needed one good hard shove and it would go. He did that over the objections of the Left and the Euros.

Contrast that with the Left’s always present ardent desire to lose wars with murderous regimes or terrorists, Cold or hot.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
My blog - which I patheticly and predictably, and with much cowardice, don’t allow comments on - today gives what I plan to be my last word on the Obama-Wright issue.
You keep forgetting to write that part, Erb.

Don’t worry... I fixed it for you.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
SShiell, you haven’t convinced me Kerry lied, and the evidence I see allows for different interpretations. It is clear the swiftboaters lied, they said Kerry could not have been in Cambodia, when their leader had told Nixon back in 1970 that he was in Cambodia. Now there is the embezzlement thing. All you have against Kerry is innuendo and accusations. The Swiftboaters are proven liars and now there’s criminal behavior. They are scum. Kerry is a war hero.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Erb,
Was John Kerry in Cambodia for Christmas of 1968 as he said numerous times, including on the floor of the Senate, and as was seared into his memory?
As per the No Man Left Behind narrative, did John Kerry remain at the scene in the immediate aftermath of the mine explosion?
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
SShiell, you haven’t convinced me Kerry lied, and the evidence I see allows for different interpretations.
I don’t give one hoot for the different interpetations you refer to. Kerry’s speech (twice given on the Senate floor) told specifics and only these are the specifics I have referred to. I don’t refer to any other spin - only one his actual words and there are far too many holes there for him to have spoken truly. HE LIED. He may very well have been a war hero to some but for me the bottom line is, as far as his Cambodian Fable is concerned HE LIED.

I have already stated that my opinions differ with the Sift Boat folks referring to Kerry’s other combat actions during the war. His post-war actions however do not put Kerry on my Christmas list.

I further brought up one further point and that is his military records. Twice, on the record and in public, he swore to release them to the public. He has not done so. Regarding this commitment HE LIED. So, whether or not a Swift Boater is indicted for embezzlement means nothing in this discussion. It does not make Kerry any less a LIAR. You can bow down to his war hero-ness all you want, that will not change the fact that he is a LIAR.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
HE LIED
You’re wrong.

Good, we have our argument down to four words. And it doesn’t look like either of us is going to change the other one’s mind. But we do have the verb "to swiftboat someone" and a swiftboat leader is charged with embezzlement. But you can hang on to your KDS if you wish.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
But you can hang on to your KDS if you wish.
It will be my pleasure to do so. Some day Kerry will die (I do not wish ill on him or anyone for that matter, but death does come to us all) and I will honor the occasion by pouring a good bottle of wine on his grave - I will drink it first . . .
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Erb,
Was John Kerry in Cambodia for Christmas of 1968 as he said numerous times, including on the floor of the Senate, and as was seared into his memory?
As per the No Man Left Behind narrative, did John Kerry remain at the scene in the immediate aftermath of the mine explosion?
 
Written By: Anonymous
URL: http://
testyourself [url=http://test.com]testyourself[/url] testyourself [url= http://test.com ] testyourself [/url]
 
Written By: testyourself
URL: http://test.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider