A preview of an interview of impeached former president Bill Clinton ran on Wednesday’s "The Situation Room," in which Clinton blasted "disingenuous" Republicans for their "feigned outrage" over MoveOn.org’s ad attacking General David Petraeus. Clinton put on his best "angry face" during the clip. "This was classic bait-and-switch.... These Republicans that are all upset about Petraeus - this is one newspaper ad. These are the people that ran a television ad in Georgia with Max Cleland, who lost half his body in Vietnam – in the same ad, with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. That’s what the Republicans did."
Clinton also brought up the "Swift Boat" attack on John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign. "These are the people that funded the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. And the President appointed one of the principal funders of the Swift Boat ads to be an ambassador. But they’re really upset about Petraeus. But it was ok to question John Kerry’s patriotism on the blatantly dishonest claims by people that [sic] didn’t what they were talking about."
The clip, which lasted less than two minutes, aired during the last 15 minutes of the 5 pm hour of "The Situation Room." Host Wolf Blitzer played the clip at the beginning of a segment with CNN chief national correspondent John King and new senior political analyst Gloria Borger. The full interview will air on Wednesday’s "Anderson Cooper 360." Host Anderson Cooper was the one who interviewed Clinton
The full transcript of the clip:
BILL CLINTON, FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I think that there was something completely disingenuous about the feigned outrage of the Republicans in the White House and in the Congress about this. This was classic bait-and-switch.
ANDERSON COOPER: "Focused on that as opposed to focusing on what’s really happening?"
(CROSSTALK)
CLINTON: Oh yeah. That’s right. I don’t have to deal with Iraq. I don’t have to tell anybody what I’m going to do. Everything we do in Iraq is obviously right because they said this about Petraeus, as if it were the only issue in the wide world. Come on, these Republicans that are all upset about Petraeus - this is one newspaper ad. These are the people that ran a television ad in Georgia with Max Cleland, who lost half his body in Vietnam – in the same ad, with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. That’s what the Republicans did. And the person that [sic] rode to the Senate on that ad was there voting to condemn the Democrats over the Petraeus ad. I mean, these are the people that funded the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. And the President appointed one of the principal funders of the Swift Boat ads to be an ambassador. But they’re really upset about Petraeus. But it was ok to question John Kerry’s patriotism on the blatantly dishonest claims by people that [sic] didn’t what they were talking about. So, it was just bait-and-switch. It was just, ‘Oh, thank goodness! I can take this little word here, and ignore what we’ve done in Iraq, and what we’re going to do, and the outrageous way we gained political power by smearing John Kerry.'
WOLF BLITZER: Wow. You can watch the entire interview with Anderson Cooper later tonight on ‘Anderson Cooper: 360, ' right here on CNN. 10 pm Eastern. What an interview.
EDITOR'S NOTE: Clay Waters of our TimesWatch project explored "The Myth of Max Cleland" back in 2004, including video of the Saxby Chambliss commercial against Cleland. It in no way suggests that Cleland is like Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein. Over a montage of four photographs, one each of bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, two others of the U.S. military, a narrator reads: "As America faces terrorists and extremist dictators, Max Cleland runs television ads claiming he has the courage to lead," but he voted 11 times against Bush's homeland security measures. The page includes a video link.
—Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Comments Policy
Possibly we still haven't
September 26, 2007 - 18:59 ET by BuffNBonePossibly we still haven't seen Kerry's medical records because the might have shown something else like "The Clap."
"Fighters are fun but bombers make policy"
dems can dish it out all
September 26, 2007 - 19:19 ET by TruthMongerdems can dish it out all year long but they can't take it for just a wee few lousy days:)...hee-hee-hee...
But it was ok to question
September 26, 2007 - 20:30 ET by motherbeltBut it was ok to question John Kerry’s patriotism on the blatantly dishonest claims by people that [sic] didn’t what they were talking about."
Mr. Clinton, no one ever questioned his patriotism. They questioned his truthfulness. They did know what they were talking about. They were there. They disputed his version of the story.
And Kerry did have to admit that he wasn't in Cambodia on Christmas Eve. And he had to admit that he lied (I think he said he got carried away) in his Winter Soldier testimony. He had to admit that he did not throw away his own medals. And he promised to release all his medical records, which he still has not done.
Yes, he was a real paragon of virtue.
PS...oh, he does look angry!! LOL. Did he point his finger in Cooper's face?
MB, I am a military man,
September 27, 2007 - 11:31 ET by Senior ChiefMB,
I am a military man, and I'm still asking Kerry's half-baked patriotism. He did served but with an agenda- not for God and Country, but for himself and future political ambitions! Three purple hearts and bronze stars, for a scratch and for running away from actual fight, not to mention lying to congress about the real patriots that were still serving in Vietnam.
Concur with the statement
September 27, 2007 - 19:00 ET by BDConcur with the statement about Kerry.
There is something disengenious about having your film crew you in heroic poses, then Medicalling you out after minimum time and a silver star, only to return and discover that the winds of change have shifted.... Now being a protestor moves you up faster...
He shifted with the winds and all for self agrandizement.
He needs to go into
September 26, 2007 - 19:14 ET by zhombreHe needs to go into marketing: Bubba's Bottled Outrage. All Natural Ingredients. Use full strength and it will take the smirk off Chris Wallace's face.
What a whack job our former
September 27, 2007 - 09:12 ET by steviep831What a whack job our former president is. His interview with Wallace was just unbelievable, and now we are graced with this latest interview. If only dems weren't so blind to see this man is nothing more than a power hungry womanizer.
Bubba
September 26, 2007 - 19:15 ET by BradyGee, Bill. Maybe we think we can question Kerry because of his hateful adhominem attacks on the military after his abbreviated albeit heavily decorated service in Veit Nam. Perhaps its ok to question Max (I dropped a handgranade and blew myself up) because of his anti-American rants. And perhaps its ok to be critical of others who go over seas to bash our republic.
General Petreaus? What he did was his duty. How does moveon.org not understand the difference? You? Well if you don't know the definition of "is" then I can understand your confusion.
striking resemblance
September 26, 2007 - 19:17 ET by the mad poleAre my eyes blurry or is he starting to look like Jimmy C?
I think you're right! LOL.
September 26, 2007 - 19:23 ET by motherbeltI think you're right! LOL. And I'll bet the older he gest, the more like him he'll look!
I was thinking W.C. Fields
September 26, 2007 - 22:56 ET by Tom1969caI was thinking W.C. Fields - that nose seems to be getting bigger as he gets older...
~~~
If you don't stand behind our troops, feel free to stand in front of them!
NVA
September 26, 2007 - 19:19 ET by the mad poleThe North Vietnamese never questioned Kerry's patriotism.
"Feigned outrage", Mr.
September 26, 2007 - 19:32 ET by motherbelt"Feigned outrage", Mr. Clinton? No, their outrage wasn't feigned, as yours is now. You play out emotions as if on a stage. No one will ever forget how, at Ron Brown's, funeral, you went from laughter to tears in the space of two steps, when you realized a camera was on you.
Ron Brown
September 26, 2007 - 20:42 ET by NortoBeliever
Ron was a frat brother of mine who was inititated along with a Jewish brother into our frat in 1960. The national kicked us out because we violated the WASP tenets of the national at the time. Ron visited with us in Maine for a college football game.
I was saddened that his "friendship" with the Clintons cost him and 30 or so others their lives, but that is how it goes. The list is long, as I am led to believe, these "friends of Bill's."
The country needs to be well aware of what they are getting if his wife is elected. They will sell our morality to the lowest bidder. My greatest despair over his impeachment was the airing of actions that
were heretofore little talked about in public and would have been better left out of daily discourse. He really dragged our nation into the sewer and "stained" it's reputation.
And get this, Clinton was the commencement speaker this year at the college Ron graduated from. Ironic, and reinforced the reason I withdrew my name for our mailing list, among many others.
I pray he and his wife truly come to know Him, because I see no evidence(fruit).
}}---> Strange isn't it Norto
September 26, 2007 - 21:06 ET by Cool ArrowSame thing happened at Coretta Scott King's Funeral.
Here we had Ted Kennedy eulogizing the woman and it was his brother, Bobby Kennedy, who sought and executed wiretaps on the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.
There is no shame among the corrupt Left.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Norto
September 26, 2007 - 21:09 ET by botgThe list is long, as I am led to believe, these "friends of Bill's."
believer, believe what you will but always check.
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
Spin, uninterrupted
September 26, 2007 - 19:37 ET by nkviking75Of course, CNN allows the myth of the Swift Boat campaign as a pack of lies to continue unchallenged. At any rate, Bubba, your side has perfected the art of phony outrage by constantly claiming we're calling libs unpatriotic.
Hypocritical as always.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
nkviking...the outrage
September 26, 2007 - 21:46 ET by Jernkviking...the outrage isn't phony because regrettably the claim happens to be true.
Jer
Patrotism attacked? Nah
September 27, 2007 - 01:04 ET by nkviking75Jer, that claim has often surfaced when no one has said anything about anyone's patriotism. The left frequently screams, "You called me unpatriotic!" to divert attention from something outrageous they've said or done.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
That's true, viking. No
September 27, 2007 - 06:23 ET by motherbeltThat's true, viking. No one questioned Kerry's patriotism, as Mr. Clinton claimed. They questioned his veracity. No one questioned Cleland's patriotism; they questioned his vote on the Homeland Security bill (he voted against it because of labor union issues).
"How dare you question my patriotism!" is a mechanism to turn attention back onto the questioner and change the subject. It's a standard liberal tactic. They do the same thing with racial issues: they accuse the questioner of "racism" so that becomes the subject of discussion.
}}---> Sorry MB
September 27, 2007 - 07:00 ET by Cool ArrowBut I was a GI '71-'73. I question Kerry's patriotism since he parlayed a humongous slime on the American Military into a political career.
His message to Congress was "I may not be a war criminal, but everybody else over there is".
He ceremonially and ceremoniously chunked somebody else's ribbons over the White House Wall (translated without correction by the press as "his medals").
His message was a resounding "I don't support your troops, I support me"
So, I guess I have to say I question John Kerry's Patriotism.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
But I was a GI '71-'73
September 27, 2007 - 11:15 ET by ts88Cool Arrow, Thank You for your service to our Country, Thank You all that have or are now serving! with out YOU we would be in a World of shit. Pat
Swift Boated by The Truth!
September 26, 2007 - 19:47 ET by TheTruthA fact the Democrats and liberal media fail to divulge about the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” is the leader John O'Neill is a Democrat and almost half of the members of the “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” are Democrats.
Let’s hope that the Clinton’s are as the LIBERAL media says “Swift Boated” by The Truth!
In Fact
September 26, 2007 - 19:59 ET by Del DolemonteMy Dad's old Commanding Officer, who later became a major Swiftie, actually endorsed Jean-Claude for Senate in MA. He figured that Kerry would be OK in a political office where he couldn't do much harm (if you actually take a look at Kerry's Senate "record", it's nothing to write home about).
But when Kerry actually ran for an office that mattered, he realized that he had to do something to keep him out of the White House. And for his moral courage, he was called a "traitor" by the tolerant people in the Democrat Party.
If John O'Neill is a
September 26, 2007 - 21:57 ET byIf John O'Neill is a democrat then that makes me George W. Bush. I've never seen so much profound ignorance in one place ever before.
And I suppose Max Cleland, who left three limbs in Vietnam and was laughed at by Ann Coulter and morphed into Osama bin laden in a republican smear campaign--is a traitor. You are a group of truly sick people who are so enamoured with your own twisted opinions you can't recognize the truth. Joseph Goebbels would be proud. Eisenhower, Goldwater and any other true republican is weeping.
I don't think so, Tim. The
September 26, 2007 - 22:27 ET by AvatarI don't think so, Tim.
The Avatar
blaster “profound
September 26, 2007 - 22:41 ET by TheTruthblaster “profound ignorance”. . . So by your line of thinking all Swift Boat Veterans are Republicans?
Well, since the bulk of
September 27, 2007 - 19:02 ET by BDWell, since the bulk of veterans are, by nature, republicans... there is potential in the statement that "All Swift boat veterans, with the exception of John F Kerry, are Republicans."
blaster Researching John
September 26, 2007 - 23:08 ET by TheTruthblaster Researching John O'Neill and I stand corrected he is a Republican. I still maintain many of the Swift Boat Veterans are Democrats with the guts to come forward and speak the truth.
Democrats speak the truth?
September 27, 2007 - 07:11 ET by SlasherWhich of the following choices are Oxymoron statements?
A. "Democrats with guts"
B. "Speak the thruth"
C. "Military Intelligence"
Answer
A. only
B. only
C. only
D. all of the above
As an MI officer I can tell
September 27, 2007 - 19:04 ET by BDAs an MI officer I can tell you that it is not "C". There is intelligence in the Military.
So, blaster...
September 26, 2007 - 23:15 ET by acaiguanaAnd I suppose Max Cleland, who left three limbs in Vietnam and was laughed at by Ann Coulter and morphed into Osama bin laden ...
Yes, poor Mr. Cleland, who toyed with a grenade in a war zone and parlayed it into being a 'war hero' under combat and enemy fire...
You mean that Cleland?
Ya see, blaster my man, those of us who were also in Vietnam don't begrudge Mr. Cleland his wounds. We grieve with him as well as those who actually got their wounds in actual combat.
But what we don't like is any wounded veteran being used by politicians like J.F. Kerry as pawns to cherry pick veterans as symbols of honor and duty.
We don't like the misrepresentation of Mr. Cleland's wounds as proof of a lousy or bad war.
You see, blaster, wounds exactly like Mr. Cleland's have left limbs in Ft. Bragg, Ft. Riley, Ft. Sam Houston, Ft. Bliss, Ft. --- well you get the point.
So, until you can accept the simple fact that this game afoot by the Demcrats with Mr. Cleland actually was a charade and an insult to those who died face down in the mud during a battle for our country...
Well, as I said before, we veterans all mourn Mr. Cleland's wounds as we would any brother in arms.
Just not to elect John F. Kerry.
ACA
...
Quoted from: 'Acaiguana Notes from the Bomb Shelter' (soon to be a movie at theaters near you)
...don't begrudge
September 27, 2007 - 00:26 ET by...don't begrudge Mr. Cleland his wounds. We grieve with him as well as those who actually got their wounds in actual combat.
"The 2nd of the 12th Cavalry was engaged in a combat operation at the time of this incident. Max Cleland was with the Battalion Forward Command Post in heavy combat involving the attack of the 1st Cavalry Division up the valley to relieve the Marines who were besieged and surrounded at the Khe Shan Firebase. The whole surrounding area was an active combat zone (some might call the entire country of Vietnam a combat zone). (Is Iraq a combat zone?) Max, the Battalion Signal Officer, was engaged in a combat mission I personally ordered to increase the effectiveness of communications between the battalion combat forward and rear support elements: e.g. Erect a radio relay antenna on a mountain top. By the way, at one point the battalion rear elements came under enemy artillery fire so everyone was in harms way.
As they were getting off the helicopter, Max saw the grenade on the ground and he instinctively went for it. Soldiers in combat don't leave grenades lying around on the ground. Later, in the hospital, he said he thought it was his own but I doubt the concept of "ownership" went through his mind in the split seconds involved in reaching for the grenade. Nearly two decades later another soldier came forward and admitted it was actually his grenade. Does ownership of the grenade really matter? It does not."
Maury Cralle'
Battalion Executive Officer
2d/12th Cavalry Battalion
1st Air Cavalry Division
During the assault on Khe Shan
ACA--You're proof that propaganda works. I don't care if you were in Viet Nam, you self-righteous bastard.
}}---> Thanks, Blaster
September 27, 2007 - 00:34 ET by Cool ArrowI don't know the facts, and I wasn't there. 1972 I was diverted to Germany from Oakland Army Base when R.M. Nixon decided he wasn't sending in any more for a while.
My brief and limited knowledge of grenades, though, seemed to include a pin that kept the grenade safe until it was pulled. Is there a history of grenades exploding with the pin in place?
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Is there a history of
September 27, 2007 - 00:46 ET byIs there a history of grenades exploding with the pin in place?
You weren't there and neither was I, but I'll believe a C.O. before I fabricate falsehoods to fit my political agenda.
}}---> Fair enough Blaster
September 27, 2007 - 01:04 ET by Cool ArrowI worked in Finance. Was privy to many Article 15's and Courts Martial.
IMHO the CO's statement seems highly sanitized. Understandable under the circumstances, but much is being withheld.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
As someone with advanced
September 27, 2007 - 19:19 ET by BDAs someone with advanced knowledge of grenades, I will make a few observations.
Grenades effectively have three security mechanisms to protect the user. 1.) A clip to bind the spoon to the body in order to prevent the hammer to fall and the cap to be fired. 2.) a Pin to hold the spoon in place to prevent the hammer from falling and the cap from being fired. 3.) a Spoon to be hold under the hand when the clip has been removed and the pin pulled. Normally this prevents the spoon from flying off, actuating the hammer and cap and the explosive charge. The spoon will usually not fly off until the grenade is released from the hand in the air in flight.
Some soldiers elect to remove the clip from the grenade when they remove it from its shipping carton believing that it is an extraneous step and will hamper them in contact. To my view this is not adviseable and is not usually practised in the units I have been in for reasons that will become clear.
Others will then straighten the feet on the pins to reduce the friction required to pull the pin and making it a smoother action. This is NOT adviseable since the pin's o-ring can catch on ALLL sorts of things like twigs, branches, door jams etc, and thus actuate the grenade while still attached to the soldiers LBE. This would usually be very fatal.
It seems to me from reading the account above that Cleland might have performed two of these steps for whatever reason and either dropped the grenade as he exited the aircraft or the pin caught on the airframe, pulled itself out as it removed itself from his LBE, and thus drop on the ground behind him.
I would be inclined to believe that if this were the case it might be because Cleland might have been overly excited and brash in preparing his gear for the mission.
that's a fine way to address a vietnam vet
September 27, 2007 - 02:15 ET by mastersofdeceitblaster do you have a link where this other soldier came forward and admitted it was his grenade? I'd like to know his name.
Oh and your last words to aca prove you're the perfect example of how the dems and yours on the left sudden fascination with vets in the 04 election was just temporary.
Look, I don't hate John Kerry, from what I've read he served well in his four months and 12 days in vietnam. But 04 was a "pump up" kerrys credentials, and discredit bush.
Bush is a liar; Bush lied to the American people;
Bush is a coward; Bush is a deserter; Bush is a draft dodger;
Bush joined the Guard to avoid Vietnam; Bush went AWOL.
Bush and Uncommon Valor
Just because someone served
September 27, 2007 - 09:43 ET byJust because someone served in Viet Nam, doesn't mean they can trash disabled vets with lies. If ACA is so fn brave, I suggest he walk up to Max Cleland tell him to his face, his wartime injury is a charade.
The actual complaint
September 27, 2007 - 19:21 ET by BDThe actual complaint against Cleland actually revolved around his desire to not pass the required legislation favored by his constituents, not his wartime experience.
Even a medal of honor recipient must face poor votes in congress, not rest on his past laurals...
Well said, aca.
September 27, 2007 - 01:12 ET by Dave RAs a resident of Georgia, I am rather embarrassed by the antics of Mr. Cleland, as I have never felt he deserved the status of "war hero."
My mom lost several close friends in Vietnam. All were killed in actual combat. Those guys, and many like them, are the real heros of that war.
And welcome back, BTW.
Long time no see.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
C'mon Dave...I lost a good
September 27, 2007 - 02:43 ET by JerC'mon Dave...I lost a good friend too in Viet Nam, in combat. And no matter how it occurred, Cleland was there, and left his blood and three of his limbs on foreign soil in service to his country. Whether you agree with his politics or not, [and I know you don't, but that's fine--I respect your adherence to your beliefs] Cleland didn't deserve the type of attacks he withstood in his political campaign.
He never claimed or considered himself to be a war hero, and he certainly wasn't anyone's "prop" during his reelection race for the Senate. The fact is the Democrats, including Cleland, were the ones pushing for Homeland Security legislation and the Republicans initially resisted it. Then later, when Cleland and fellow Democrats didn't support the Republican version [the GOP belatedly realizing the public was overwhelmingly in favor of a Homeland Security bill] Bush and Republican congressional candidates started playing the "soft on security" card. It was cynical, it was dishonest, and it worked.
Jer
Jer,
September 27, 2007 - 03:13 ET by Dave RFirst of all, I'm not a republican (if you click on my bio, you'll notice the word former appears just ahead of republican), as I have been extremely critical of Mr. Bush in his handling of the Iraq situation over the last two years, along with a litany of other things.
Secondly, I live in Atlanta, have all of my life. Max pulled a stint as Secretary of State here for a number of years. I have met the man numerous times. My father, a former Marine and Korean War vet, who is now 80 & dying from Alzheimers, knows him quite well. My dad is a licensed mechanical & civil engineer, RLS and RLA (landscape architect).
I made numerous trips to Max's office over the years getting my dad's professional registrations renewed. Believe me, Max is a very nice and decent man. One of the nicest people I have ever met, actually, but somewhere along the way he allowed himself to be co-opted to a huge extent.
I hate to say it, but Max suffered his inhjuries as the result of an unfortunate accident. Was he courageous? Yes, and I will always respect the man for his service as well as his fortitude in coming back from those injuries and accomplishing much. Many people would not have been able to do that. I doubt I would have, actually.
And you are correct (and I should have made it clearer above) that he himself never really held himself up as a "war hero," but the local media around here did all it could to promote that idea.
As for the Departmant of Homeland Insecurity, I have never been in favor of creating that monstrosity. I think Chertoff is an incompetent boob and should have been fired long ago, and don't even get me started on the TSA.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Dave, as a matter of fact I
September 27, 2007 - 03:39 ET by JerDave, as a matter of fact I had read your bio earlier today (well yesterday), so I was already aware of your political philosophy from that as well as having read a great many of your previous posts.
Of course I didn't know anything about your father, but it is obvious he will leave you a proud legacy, and a service to country that the rest of us can only respect and admire.
Anyway, I just have a reflexive dislike for attacks on the motives and loyalty of those who I know are patriots. And I was just as upset by the insinuations directed at General Petraeous as I was by the tactics employed against Cleland. And I have said so, repeatedly.
Take care, friend, Jer
Cleland admitted it was not
September 27, 2007 - 09:57 ET by ConservativeRexCleland admitted it was not in a combat zone...initally was embarassed by the attention...quote Mr. Cleland-"I didn't see any heroism in all that. It wasn't an act of heroism. I didn't know the grenade was live. It was an act of fate".
Refer to Jill Zuckman--Boston Globe Magazine August 3, 1997--"Finally the battle of Khe Sanh was over. Cleland, 25 years old and two members of his team were now ordered to set up a radio relay station at the division assembly area, 15 miles away. The three gathered antennas, radios and a generator and made the 15-minute helicopter trip east. After unloading the equipment, Cleland climbed back into the helicopter for the ride back. But at the last minute, he decided to stay and have a beer with some friends. As the helicopter was lifting off, he shouted to the pilot that he was staying behind and jumped several feet to the ground.
"Cleland huanched over to avoid the whirring blades and ran. Turning to face the helicopter, he caught sight of a grenade on the ground where the chopper had perched. It must be mine, he thought, moving toward it. He reached with his right arm just as it exploded, slamming him back and irreparably altering his plans for a bright, shining future." Cleland has repeated this story many times and would again..if asked. It did not happen in battle, it was not a Viet Cong grenade, it was an accident pure and simple, It does not need to be ginned up as anything other than that.
And that gives the
September 27, 2007 - 10:15 ET byAnd that gives the republicans a right to trash him? You people are sick!
Blaster, your logic is
September 27, 2007 - 12:45 ET by ConservativeRexBlaster, your logic is bassackwards.....it was YOUR party who was using Mr. Clelands war wounds as a selling point for being patriotic. Your party ran him up on stage like Mortimer Snerd...he (they) got called on it..simple as that. Nobody is denying him his share of sympathy for getting injured, we'd feel the same for anyone with industrial injuries.
Mr. Clelands downfall was letting himself be used by power hungry cretins who thought they could make hay with their own special "war" hero. It failed, miserably.
So in a manner of speaking, it was YOUR party who trashed Mr. Cleland. He just realized it too late, if he has realized at all.
blister,
September 27, 2007 - 12:55 ET by Dave RWhat gives you lefties the right to trash Gen. Petraeus?
Or, for that matter the other honorable members of our military, who risk their lives every day so that nose-picking, booger-eating, bed-wetting commie-libs such as yourself, have the freedom to come on this site and belittle them.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
responding to the president
September 26, 2007 - 20:04 ET by clubdittocomevery one of the president's accusations could have been refuted but wolf would never have dared! he would never have gotten another interview!
Billy-Joe-Bob-Bubba-Arkansas white trash.
September 26, 2007 - 20:16 ET by Dave RNormally this is the point where I would urge caution, as continuing along this vein might produce a stroke.
However, as this involves a Clinton, I am assuming his anger is about as genuine as everything else about them.
When I'm president, privatization is off the table because it's not the answer to anything.-Hillary Rodham, September 3, 2007 AARP Legislative Conference.
Whore Record
September 26, 2007 - 20:18 ET by BarkerMost people don't know how valiantly the patriot Bill Clinton fought the technology battle with China.
Or how he led the fight to personally destroy any eruptions that popped up over the years.
And did you know that Bill Clinton single-handedly grappled with evil in the Oval Office?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I did not have sex with >insert name here<" --Slick Willie
I suppose it shows how much
September 26, 2007 - 20:25 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltI suppose it shows how much this "Betrayus" ad backfired, that they need to call on Bill Clinton to do damage control!
And Mr. Clinton, what about the Democrat Senators that signed the resolution denouncing the ad? Were they disingenuous also?
I was thinking along those lines, too, JohnGault
September 26, 2007 - 20:29 ET by RJThere's no doubt they brought him out to stop the bleeding....
And Clinton's phony anger.....didn't we go through the same thing with Chris Wallace?
Clinton's fake emotions
September 26, 2007 - 20:37 ET by motherbeltAnd Clinton's phony anger.....didn't we go through the same thing with Chris Wallace?
Oh, yeah, the guy turns emotions on and off and changes them like flipping a switch.
I read somewhere after the Wallace incident that he went in there loaded for bear; he planned to blow up like that. He just waited for the opening and then "spontaneously" erupted. Whether that's true I don't know, but it's plausible, given his manipulation of emotion for his own purposes.
And Mr. Clinton, what about
September 26, 2007 - 20:42 ET by motherbeltAnd Mr. Clinton, what about the Democrat Senators that signed the resolution denouncing the ad? Were they disingenuous also? -WhoIsJohnGalt
<sarc>
Oh, no, the Democrats who signed were genuinely "concerned," and they have a right to their own opinion on that. It's the Republicans who "feigned" anger in order to make partisan points. And to attack his wife, too, no doubt, because they "know" she's unbeatable!
Clinton is a classic example
September 26, 2007 - 20:39 ET by robert108Clinton is a classic example of both the pathological liar and the malignant narcissist. After he lied about Monica, how is it that he has any credibility at all?
"I think that there was
September 26, 2007 - 20:51 ET by Conservative_in_mass."I think that there was something completely disingenuous about the feigned outrage of the Republicans in the White House and in the Congress about this. This was classic bait-and-switch."
C'mon Bubba, why so outraged? Is it because Hillary is catching heat for not condemning the ad? So you figure you'll give them the "Chris Wallace" treatment; come out all pissed off and that will take the attention off of her. Not gonna happen Bubba.
The anger is real; the reason you can't see it is that you have no respect for the military, so it is difficult for you understand why the ad upset the average American. You figured Hillary would get a pass. Wrong. Then you calculated that the old Clinton triangulation technique would come to the rescue. Didn't work... public still pissed.
So now this is the latest trick. Bubba the lightning rod for controversy. You will no doubt convince your lapdogs in the media, but you will not fool the public.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
Point of Order
September 26, 2007 - 21:25 ET by ChaitealoverOne point about the ads that seems to be overlooked is that Kerry & Cleland were running for elective office, a state of being that invites critical ads. General Petraeus was not running for office, he was performing his sworn duty as a General of the Army of the United States. Of course, the other point is that the ads about Kerry & Cleland were factual and the one about the General was not.
Chai
"Our people have shed more blood for the liberty and freedom of other peoples...than all the other countries put together. And I don't feel any need to apologize for the United States of America" - Fred Thompson
Chaitealover, you've hit on what the left always misses
September 26, 2007 - 21:35 ET by terrigIt never ceases to amaze me that the left cannot get it through their heads that those two were running for office at the time. The General has not run for office (as of yet), he's been too busy in the service of his country.
Clinton's feigned outrage would be comical if it wasn't so sad.
So you can criticize
September 26, 2007 - 21:43 ET by balboaSo you can criticize politicians running for office, but not a general?
}}---> Sure you can, Balboa
September 26, 2007 - 21:53 ET by Cool ArrowAnd in exactly the same way we voice our disgust at seejay for his racist remarks, Democrats should voice their outrage at the unfounded claim by their contributor (MoveON) that Petraeus is a traitor.
This isn't rocket science.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
Terrig just said that
September 26, 2007 - 21:56 ET by balboaTerrig just said that "those two" were running for office and the general wasn't. So apparently you can attack politicians, but not generals?
}}---> Sorry Bal
September 26, 2007 - 22:09 ET by Cool ArrowIf how I said it seemed to be an attack at you. It wasn't.
My problem is that the Senate unanimously confirmed the man and ran for cover when their great Oz (MoveOn) spoke through its prophet, the NYT.
~LYDSEXICS UNTIE!~
apples and oranges
September 26, 2007 - 22:23 ET by RiharA General is not allowed to respond to verbal attacks by the government. Polititians can. Is it OK to hit something that cannot hit back?
When a liberal speaks, the truth is busy elsewhere.
Only if you are A
September 27, 2007 - 09:19 ET by JimboOnly if you are A liberal.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Bal
September 26, 2007 - 23:40 ET by well99Sure you can.You can criticize anyone you want.Including the military.It is a free country.You can call them baby killers.You can go to their funerals and heckle their family as they mourn their loved one.You can do as Shuster did and try to make points off their deaths.You can report their deaths before the families have been notified.You can even equate them to Pol Pot,nazi's and terrorist.
Just a note:This isnt directed at you Bal but the military has been criticized.It isnt nothing new.
So in response to Clinton's
September 26, 2007 - 23:48 ET by balboaSo in response to Clinton's remarks, why not just say, "Yeah, he's sorta got a point. Not quite the same thing, but I can see where he's coming from."
(ducking and covering)
It is his right to say it.
September 27, 2007 - 00:10 ET by well99I just dont think he has any integrity.I have no respect for him at all.What tees me off the most is when he first ran I had high hopes for him.He was a total disappointment.I dont care which party you belong to if I think you will do good for the country I would vote for you.He is one of the worst politicians we have had.Ford is one of the last decent men we have had as president.As someone has stated the military cant fight back so even though people have the right to take cheap shots doesnt make it right.Politicians can and are allowed to strike back.
Simple
September 27, 2007 - 09:13 ET by JimboBecasue he doesnt, and I don't.
Jimbo says - "There is a fine line between freedom of speech and treason"
Further point of
September 26, 2007 - 21:42 ET by JerFurther point of order:
The swiftboat ads aboout Kerry were not true according to the men who served under him.
The ad on Cleland was short on facts and long on malice and shame.
Jer
jer
September 26, 2007 - 21:50 ET by botgsay what???
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
botg, other than putting an
September 26, 2007 - 22:33 ET by Jerbotg, other than putting an extra "o" in "about", I said what I intended.
Look, I don't think the swiftboaters and anti-swiftboaters are ever going to see eye to eye, so reopening that debate isn't going to resolve anything. But the ads attempted to discredit his service, and almost everyone who served directly with Kerry, i.e. his shipmates, took exception.
Regarding Cleland, as I recently noted on another thread, even Chambliss eventually pulled the offensive ads pictorially linking Cleland with bin Laden and Saddam Hussein.
Jer
well Jer
September 26, 2007 - 22:33 ET by botgwho are the swiftboaters a knitting circle from Omaha?
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
botg, maybe a circle of
September 26, 2007 - 23:24 ET by Jerbotg, maybe a circle of nitpickers, but my understanding was that only one or two actually served directly alongside Kerry and they were largely discredited.
However, conservative_in_mass says 12 of Kerry's shipmates say he was "unfit". I've requested some proof of that. So, we'll see.
Jer
Jer
September 26, 2007 - 23:27 ET by botgas you see elsewhere on this thread you made the original statement now back it up as it is your burden to prove
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
Corection: c_i_m said
September 26, 2007 - 23:30 ET by JerCorection: c_i_m said "served with"...not shipmates.
Jer
Jer, what does "under"imply?
September 27, 2007 - 10:37 ET by Conservative_in_mass."The swiftboat ads aboout Kerry were not true according to the men who served under him."
Jer; serving "under" to me implied those individuals he commanded. The stats I gave you were people who served "under" Kerry.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
Roll call
September 27, 2007 - 10:55 ET by Conservative_in_mass.Jer: "I've requested some proof of that. So, we'll see."
The list:
Unfit to command:
Robert Elder, Larry Thurlow, Robert Hlldreth,Thomas Heritage, George Elliot, Al French, James Gavin, Terrance Costello, Ralph Dawson, William Shumadine, William Houle, George Bates
Deceased: Robert Crosby, Frank Gilbert
Not Available: William Imbrie, Mike Bernique.
Supports: Rich McCann, Skip Baker, Rich Barker.
3 "Support Kerry"
4 N/A
12 "unfit to command"
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
12 nay 3 yea
September 26, 2007 - 22:47 ET by Conservative_in_mass.of the 19 men that served with Kerry, 12 stated he was unfit. Three supported him, four were deceased or could not be located.
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
CIM
September 26, 2007 - 22:54 ET by botghey don't you get it? It's a 3 to 12 consensus!
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
Botg
September 27, 2007 - 11:15 ET by Conservative_in_mass.I keep forgetting....the new math! Anyway I posted the list of names...for, against, n/a for comment.
BTW your tag line on the bottom is priceless....
The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese. ~ Unknown
Conservative_in_mass...I
September 26, 2007 - 23:10 ET by JerConservative_in_mass...I know you're geographically closer to the issue, but I have to call for some proof of the 12-3 claim.
Thanks, Jer
Jer
September 26, 2007 - 23:21 ET by botgthese are your words which started this discussion
The swiftboat ads aboout Kerry were not true according to the men who served under him.
it's up to you to provide the proof, do some of your own research before you make a fool of yourself. Well at least next time it's a little late for you tonight.
Yes, you are even more annoying than Blonde. the EYE
botg, Actually the words
September 26, 2007 - 23:48 ET by Jerbotg,
Actually the words which started the discussion were those of Chai, who stated
"...the other point is that the ads about Kerry & Cleland were factual...."
So far, I don't feel very foolish, but maybe I will later. I'll let you know.
Jer