Drudge/Kerry

johnfoyle · Post by **johnfoyle** » Fri Feb 13, 2004 1:53 am

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk1.htm

martinfoyle · Post by **martinfoyle** » Fri Feb 13, 2004 5:33 am

Here's an update, another one bites the dust.
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk5.htm
and Elvis local rag reports it like this
http://www.canada.com/vancouver/theprov ... cf3191fab8

Mr. Average · Post by **Mr. Average** » Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:19 am

Something tells me the White House Press Corp will become silent on the GWB National Guard attendance non-issue. Immediately.

I wonder how many of the board members are old enough to recall the devastation that the Veterans against Vietnam casued the children who were called to fight that military action? I wonder how many of the board members think of Jane Fonda as a movie actress first, and not as Hanoi Jane. And I wonder if Kerry's association with her, wherein he so defeated the morale of the average American troop (I am not justifying the military action/US involvement...merely stating a fact) has any meaning to the young contributors to this forum.

Imagine giving an 18 year old a gun, a couple bags of pot, and the noble message that he was to keep American safe for his family and his future children...to stop the cancer of communism that was an imminent threat to the freedom of our country. How many 18 year olds are so self actualized that they would question their involvement. Now it is some 60 years post WWII. Then, it was about 20 Years post WWII, and Dad was involved, and for Mom it was way of life. Yet Kerry so effectively destroyed the morale of these soldiers (and that is a mtter of public record, btw) upon his return, asssociation with Hanoi Jane, and testimony/speeches against the troops, that the most decorated military leader of North Vietnam emphatically stated "Should it not have been for the American Veterans against Vietnam, we would have LOST the war outright"!

Call George what you will, and he is certainly no war hero. He opted, as many Yalies of the day, to roll the dice with the National Guard instead of the alternative, sure-fire tour in Vietnam. But to even utter the term 'decorated military veteran' and John Kerry in the same sentence is just plain ignorant of the facts.

Okay, I'm taking cover. If anything will bring A Rope Leash out from undercover, this post will.

I can handle the truth. Crystal Clear.

Post by **BlueChair** » Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:43 am

How legitimate is the Drudge Report? A lot of it seems like right-wing propaganda.

Goody2Shoes · Post by **Goody2Shoes** » Fri Feb 13, 2004 9:51 am

Mr. Average wrote: Imagine giving an 18 year old a gun, a couple bags of pot, and the noble message that he was to keep American safe for his family and his future children...to stop the cancer of communism that was an imminent threat to the freedom of our country. How many 18 year olds are so self actualized that they would question their involvement.

Not many, I would guess. That's why they are the ones who get the job.

noiseradio · Post by **noiseradio** » Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:20 am

How do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake?

Why is the concept of veterans against a war so abhorant? Who knows better than people who were actually there what it was like? Shouldn't those who have seen the horrors be allowed to voice their opposition? Shouldn't policy-makers be required to hear what the people on the front lines have to say about it?

We're NOT talking about WWII, here. It was Vietnam. By all indications, we had no business being there. That's not a shot at veterans. It's a shot at the politicians from both parties who sentenced young men to die indiscriminately in a global game of chess.

selfmademug · Post by **selfmademug** » Fri Feb 13, 2004 10:22 am

With all due respect, Mr. A., I don't think it was/is quite as monolithic as you paint it. Yes it was demoralizing to be told that the loss of life was a an obscene and disgusting waste. For many soldiers, it was a case of kill the messenger, whether the messages came from the the thousands of ordinary Americans who opposed the war-- including lots of WW2 vets like my Dad-- or whomever.

For the record, I think Jane Fonda is a fucking idiot. I'm not nuts about Kerry either-- didn't I write earlier that, as with Ted Kennedy, I'd keep my daughters way clear??-- but his political integrity is way past that of GWB.

As for Matt Drudge, he does something very easy: he simply reports things before the facts are in. It does tend to give you a jump on things, even some legitimate stories.

PS-- If I don't reply to this thread again it's cause I'm heading out of town for a few days!

martinfoyle · Post by **martinfoyle** » Fri Feb 13, 2004 4:45 pm

This piece names the lady in question
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004071162,00.html
and here's a photo
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004071781,00.html

Mr. Average · Post by **Mr. Average** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 6:08 am

A few Comments:
Goody - exactly. I agree 100%

Noise - I agree with you in principle. In point of fact we are arguing the same exact point with one exception: if the Veteran reacts against the military involvement/war in such a way as to aid and abett the enemy, then they are walking the thin line between truth / honor and high treason. Kerry, if he indeed testified and provided incendiary anti-war protest testimony by reporting these events as 'first-hand', meaning that he directly observed them, then as an officer he is in direct violation of not reporting them AS THEY OCCURED. If, on the other hand, he testified with Jane and others that he 'heard' about these transgressions aimed at defamation of the role of the american soldier in Vietnam, then he is irresponsible at the very least. What we know for sure is that his testimony and protest was used DIRECTLY by our Vietnam War enemies to demoralize and fragment the spirit of our troops in southeast Asia. That is aiding and abetting, which is reprehensible and repugnant. Noise, American casualities can be traced to his position and his public protestations.

The silly part of this discussion is that for Kerry, Bush, and anyone else aspiring to the highest office of the land, politics will always muddy true valor and true intent. Both men have flip-flopped on too many issues to mention...driven by politics. It becomes so entrenched in their personal psyches that they believe in their omniscience...they believe that they are endowed to a higher authority than the common man.

I am not a Vietnam War advocate. I used WWII to put the context into play so that younger readers could make a little more sense of why a young man would so readily take up the cause THEN versus NOW. Temporal proximity...Mom and Dad...the era's definition of honor and glory. What Kerry did was IMO, repugnant. He is no better than Hanoi Jane for publically derogating soldiers that remained in harms way. And he testimonialized that he "burned his medals out of embarrassment for what they represented". Amazingly, the medals are now worn with pride and honor. He lied abut disposing of them.

I really hope that ALL Veterans, God Bless them, can look at what George did by taking the most likely 'least path of resistance' using the power of his affluency and his father to join the National Guard, and what Kerry did, by providing sound bites used to demoralize the kids who were dying for no Goddamn good reason, before they make a final decision on who will be able to make this country safer for our children and our childrens children. If the answer is made to appear easy and obvious, then it is based on politics and rhetoric as much as fact...because there is no easy answer.

Bluechair and Selfmademug - I am in agreement that Drudge holds limited credibility. That is why I did not advocate or support the transcribed reports that mr foyle posted re : allegations of infidelity. I took the thread down a different path, which steered clear of giving this recent Drudge report any substance, Frankly, it is the least of my concerns re; John Kerry and his ability to lead a nation. On a more personal note (IMO) his wife, who earned money the old-fashioned way...she married into it, is no Hillary. In other words, he will have enough of a problem dealing with his wife and his fortune that HE married into if the allegations are substantiated. In other words, there is no hell like a woman scorned. Hillary did not fit the cliche' because she wasn't a woman scorned. She was a political animal who knew exactly what was going on...no surprises.

Pov · Post by **Pov** » Sat Feb 14, 2004 9:18 am

BlueChair wrote:How legitimate is the Drudge Report? A lot of it seems like right-wing propaganda.

Drudge was the first person to break the Monica Lewinsky story, but he is somewhat of a pariah to the news media. I'm sure the major news outlets are scouring the planet for confirmation. If they find any, we'll be sure to hear about it. If not, then while some damage may have been done Kerry should be able get over it.

Who Shot Sam? · Post by **Who Shot Sam?** » Tue Feb 17, 2004 9:03 am

This story appeared today. Shoots Drudge's exclusive to hell. Of course, there's no screaming headline this time around. Drudge is the real sleazeball...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... =printable