Mark said: "and,like a typical liberal Democrat, he wants to balance the budget while at the same time increasing spending by 9.2%..."

Who are you talking about again? Lol!

uh, Mark, I wouldn't bring up anything about "deficits" if I were you.

Rico-

If he were Bush, balancing the budget wouldn't be on the agenda and spending would be increased by 42% (doesn't seem very small government to me).

And Mark-

You should know, by virtue of your countless "examinations" of the media, that the media has a very short attention span. When new developments arise concerning Haditha, we will here about it.

Mark, one good thing about eating a NJ bagel is that it will stay with you till the next day, so you won't need to eat anything else for 24 hours. They come in 3 sizes-big, bigger and biggest. NJ also has a pizza place on every corner. It's required by law. The democratic party here is the most corrupt in the country with the possible exception of Louisianna. Everyone here is pissed at corzine for lying about not raising taxes during the election and then doing just that after the moonbats voted him in. The kool-aders here will continue to support the dem party, but slowly more people are starting to wise up.

"Haditha has dropped off the face of the earth"

bye, haditha. haditha, who?

Hahahhah good luck "burying" the anti-war movement, considering that the majority of Americans now recognize what a horrible bloodbath quagmire this war has become. Given the well-thought out war plan and competent governance here at home, it makes perfect sense to compare Bush to Lincoln! (snark)

And, as everyone else rightly pointed out, I don't think any Republican has the right to claim the high ground on budget matters right about now. Not a sermon, just a thought. :)

Turn off Fox "news" for once. You'll read more about Haditha.

Actually, we were smothered with real important stuff that really matters. Gay marriage. Yikes! It's just too scary for me to even think about.

Haditha? Faggetta aboutit.

Gay Marriage? Oh my goodness honey, cover the kids eyes and ears...

Mark -

"People are a bit sick and tired of you lefties so eagerly accusing our magnificent servicemembers of being war criminals."

You mean like how you righties accused John Kerry of being a war criminal? You know, without any evidence at all other than the unsubstantiated accusations from political hacks? You mean like that?

Mark -

Nobody is "eager" to see our men and women in uniform found guilty of murder. It is the military that has finally launched an investigation into this matter, and when there are developments in that investigation and/or possible charges, then we will all hear about. Wasn't it you who counseled that we should all wait to see the outcome of the Marine Corps investigation before jumping to any conclusions? Now here you are gleefully braying like a horse's a$$ because the media are quietly awaiting new developments in the investigation.

Our troops have endured tremendous hardships in Iraq, and no one would wish on them the additional sorrows of an investigation over bloody massacres. My heart goes out to all of our military involved in this tragic case. But having said that, can we have even one iota of sympathy for the civilians who were killed? Regardless of who may have committed those crimes (and I am not saying it was our soldiers who did it), the one indisputable fact here is that women and children were killed. We can all sympathize for our fallen men and women in uniform, but what if it were your grandfather or little daughter that was killed in their homes in Haditha? Can you not, Mark, show a little more respect for everyone touched by this horrible event, instead of turning it into an opportunity to "bury your so-called anti-war movement over this issue."

Grow up Mark.

Anybody smell that.....I think it's coming from raker & aarontime! Ope yep, unmistakably the sweet smell of bullshiznit!

aarontime isn't too bright. Some accused Kerry of being a war criminal because he admitted to shooting a kid in the back. I guess to the left wing kook a confession isn't proof.

Bagels.... food of the Gods!! Breakfast lunch and dinner... Bagels rule!!!! (and yeah.. I'm from Noo Yawk)

see ya
cathy :)

CJ,

Kerry never admitted to "shooting a kid in the back."

This is what looks to be a lie told by O'Niel, one which has been eagerly swallowed by many on here.

Which, I find ironic, especially in Mark Noonan's case. In the Haditha thread, he charged those of us who were correctly relaying facts about the case for "hating our troops."

But Mark eagerly and spitefully condemned a US troop's action in Vietnaim, defaming that troops character, on tenuous evidence that has now been all but proven a lie. Let's take a look.

John O'Neill claimed:

"In the Silver Star incident, John Kerry's citation reflects that he charged into a numerically superior force, and into intense fire," O'Neill told ABC News in an August 2004 interview. "But the actual facts are that there was a single kid there who had fired a rocket, who popped up, and John Kerry with his gunboat, with or without a number of troops, depending on who you talk to, plopped in front of the kid. The kid was wounded in the legs by machine gun fire, and as he ran off, John Kerry jumped off the boat and shot the kid in the back."

Also from his book, he called the man Kerry shot:

"a lone, wounded, fleeing, young Vietcong in a loincloth."

O'Neill also claims "There was little or no fire."

First of all, here is the US military record on the matter:

He "personally led a landing party ashore in pursuit of the enemy," the citation says, before commending Kerry's "extraordinary daring and personal courage" for "attacking a numerically superior force in the face of intense fire."

ABC News went to the village where this battle occurred and asked those there if they remember this battle. Quite a few did:

None of the villagers seems to be able to say for a fact that they saw an American chase the man who fired the B-40 into the woods and shoot him. Nobody seems to remember that. But they have no problem remembering Ba Thanh, the man who has been dismissed by Kerry's detractors as "a lone, wounded, fleeing, young Vietcong in a loincloth." (The description comes from "Unfit for Command," by Swift boat veteran John O'Neill.)

"No, this is not correct," Nguyen Thi Tuoi, 77, told ABC News. "He wore a black pajama. He was strong. He was big and strong. He was about 26 or 27."

As for O'Neill's claim that there was litte or no fire?

Her husband, Nguyen Van Ty, in his 80s, had a slightly different account of how Ba Thanh died.

"I didn't see anything because I was hiding from the bullets and the bombs," he said. "It was very fierce and there was shooting everywhere and the leaves were being shredded to pieces. I was afraid to stay up there. I had to hide. And then, when it was over, I saw Ba Thanh was dead. He may have been shot in the chest when he stood up."

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/Vote2004/story?id=166434&page=1

It's amazing. Kerry performed heroically in battle and people are trying to spin that action into the actions of a war criminal in a political smear campaign.

The same people who accuse me and others for "hating our troops" when discussing the facts of the Haditha case. Shameless.

This is also an interesting article. Read the whole thing, but I'll highlight this part:

"Mr. Kerry's defenders have received help from unlikely sources, including some who were originally aligned with the Swift boat group but later objected to its accusations against Mr. Kerry. One of them, Steve Hayes, was an early member of the group. A former sailor, he was a longtime friend and employee of William Franke, one of the group's founders, and he supported the push to have Mr. Kerry release his military files. But Mr. Hayes came to believe that the group was twisting Mr. Kerry's record.

''The mantra was just 'We want to set the record straight,' '' Mr. Hayes said this month. ''It became clear to me that it was morphing from an organization to set the record straight into a highly political vendetta. They knew it was not the truth.''

Mr. Hayes broke with the group, ending a 35-year friendship with Mr. Franke, and voted for Mr. Kerry. He has provided a long interview to Mr. Kerry's supporters, backing their version of the incident for which Mr. Kerry received the Bronze Star."

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=FA0713F6355A0C7B8EDDAC0894DE404482

Who isn't too bright here, CJ?

Mark,

To be fair Corzine just got into office. It was Republican Gov's who caused the huge deficits in NJ. I live in NJ.

Tom - you rock. Thanks for educating CJ with the well documented facts.

And what those facts show, of course, is that the Bushian righties gleefully jumped at the opportunity to impugn the honor of one of our men in uniform, accusing him of an atrocity based on the flimsiest of second-hand, politically motivated "testimony".

But this is not the first time these yellow Bush cultists have shamelessly slandered our military. They belittled Max Cleland's sacrifice of 3 limbs in Vietnam. During the 2000 Republican primary they spread malicious rumors that John McCain had become emotionally unstable from his experiences as a POW. They regularly malign any former officer, no matter how highly ranked and decorated, if they in any way disagree with W. The list of honorable service men and women they have "swift-boated" is a long one.

These toads who never fought in combat, who worship a leader who likewise never fought in combat, have no problem slandering those who did. Why do they hate our military so much?

They pretend to "support our military", but in reality they are merely using the military for their own political gain (while finding ways to avoid combat duty themselves). Our military pay the price for W's faux patriotic political posturing.

Aarontime,

It's a shame how those on the right attack others' military records. Guess it proves that Michael Dukakis didn't have the stuff to be president. When a tailgunner who served with the elder Bush made allegations that he acted cowardly in bailing out of his plane, causing the death of two soldiers, Dukakis strongly and swiftly denounced them.

Bush II never condemned the swiftboat allegations. He he distanced himself from them (after weeks of no comment), but never condemned them the way Dukakis did when allegations were made against his father (the Dukais condemnation led to a the story dying a quick death in the press).

And these guys on this site... man. Mark strongly stated that soldiers deserve the benefit of the doubt. Case in point, when that soldier was caught on tape shooting an insurgent who lay injured and prone on the ground. He said he deserved the benefit of the doubt, and that the matter should be investigated, and all that. I agree. Our soldiers should get fair treatment and receive the benefit of the doubt because war is hell, stuff happens, people are under stress and all that. If something criminal is deemed to have happened, they should get the appropriate punishment.

Now Mark is willing to defend a soldier who is caught on tape shooting a prone, injured enemy soldier in the face, but is all too happy to slander Kerry on tenuous statements by a politically motivated attack group.

This site tauted these swiftboat vets, despite official military records to the contrary and testimony from people who served more closely with Kerry.

Complete and utter hypocrisy. Shameless.

Hey Tom, check this out

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/the_truth_john_kerry_and_the_n.html

Kerry and the NY Times, still cannot weasel their way out of the Swift Boat stuff...and there is a clear reason why. That article was printed yesterday.

You know Warrior, I'm sure if you look at a lot of Army guys' records, you're going to find a lot of questions.

Question is, do you want to start going over the record of every soldier politician with a fine-tooth comb? Or will you just grow up and accept that Kerry served admirably in the army?

And the article you link to just raises questions. It looks at his record and raises questions, inferring things which make Kerry look bad.

Fact is, most of what I link to came from the ABC story which pretty much exposes O'Neill as a liar. And the part I do quote in the NYTimes article -- the guy who was in the Swift Boat vets, but left and now defends Kerry because he saw how the group was distoring Kerry's record as part of a political attack, is not countered in the article you linked to.

Basically, all you have a suppositions... charges of things that "don't add up." Stuff that can neither be proven nor disproven. It's all just so slimey.

The Swiftboaters are finally being exposed for their slanderous campaign against Kerry which will certainly go down as one of the low-points of American politics.

Shipley and Aarontime,

You boys have never been in combat have you? You really don't know how medal citations are written do you?

Kerry, as commander of his vessel wrote the report, provided all the details and the drafted the citation thereby putting himself in for the medal. That's how it got into the "official record". In otherwords, Kerry recommended himself for the medal.

So please don't make us all laugh again by recounting Kerry's heroic exploits in Vietnam...or was it Christmas in Cambodia?

The ultimate in self promotion was Kerry's "re-enactmnet of one of his heroic exploits so his "film crew" could get it on a 8mm camera. Who in the hell ever did that in a war zone? For what purpose? Maybe to help in a run for political office? Kerry...what a joke, what an embarassment!

Tom, if the Swiftboaters were to be "finally exposed" for slander or libel, they would have been exposed by legal action from John Kerry. They knew when they made their claims, and put forth their names, that Kerry had both the means and the personality to sue them if their statements were false. Clearly they felt safe in making those statements anyway. The two most obvious reasons for their sense of security were that the truth is the best defense against accusations of slander and/or libel, and that they felt safe in knowing that Kerry would never expose himself to a legal system which would demand the release of the records he had been hiding. I always thought the Swift Boaters really hoped Kerry WOULD sue, as that would have required him to be questioned under oath, and to produce certain documents, including his Honorable Discharge, which was dated in 2001. There were so many unanswered questions, including how he could, as an active Navy officer, legally travel to North Viet Nam to parley with the enemy, and how he honorably finished his 6-year hitch while wearing long hair and devoting his time to the faked-up and fraudulent VVAW. The question of lying under oath to the Congress would have been addressed. In other words, Kerry backed down from that fight, and the Swift Boaters seemed to know he would, which gives them a lot of credibility in spite of media efforts to discredit them.

While the official record of the shooting of the Vietnamese man/boy was full of praise for Kerry, witnesses had a very different story, including Kerry's beaching of the boat (some called this a court-martial offense) and then leaving his men behind to pursue a man he had already wounded with a 50-caliber shell. None of us can really know the truth, but the dissenting version is pretty detailed and backed up by many. And if it is true, that action could qualify as a war crime. Remember, Kerry himself, in his SWORN TESTIMONY to the US Congress, admitted to having committed atrocities.

But what you Kerry defenders forget, or ignore, is that Kerry himself brought this upon himself by decided to run on a War Hero ticket. I doubt it would ever have been brought up if he had not postured as the great war hero, and offended so many who had served with him and seen him as a fake and a faker.

As for being a "politically motivated attack group" many of the SB group had voted for Gore and were open about their dislike for Bush. They were clear that they were speaking, openly and named, because they were so offended by the lies told by Kerry, not by a desire to make Bush president.

No one slimed Max Cleland. A simple correction was made to the claim that he had lost his limbs in enemy action in Viet Nam, when it was really a training accident. But he was not called a coward or denigrated in any way.

On the other hand, while all the records of Bush's ANG service, and the testimony of his commanding officers, supported the fact that he served honorably and well, the Left never hestitated to slime him with bizarre accusations, finally falling back on the insanity of "Fake But Accurate". The Left is still digging up these lies, and putting them out as if there is any truth to them at all. Bush's records have been public since he ran for governor back in the 90's. Political enemies stooped to forging documents to supposedly support a pack of lies concocted to make him look bad, and when they got caught they continued spreading the same lies.

Bush downplayed the danger of his service and praised Kerry for bravery, stating that he, himself, had never been in harm's way. That ticked off a lot of pilots who understand that he was in harm's way every time he flew that plane, but he was gracious and trying to stop the attacks on Kerry. But he had no control over, or unput to, the Swift Boat group, which was galvanized by their personal dislike for seeing Kerry misrepresent himself and his service, which is, quite simply, the way they saw it.

lovdaright,

I don't think there's been a GOP governor of NJ since 2001...rather hard to blame us for the budget problems of that State five years after we left office.

Almiranta,

But it is a leftwing article of faith that the swift boaters were discredited...you see, the MSM and various leftwing talking heads have endlessly repeated the statement "the swift boaters were discredited" and that means that the swift boaters have been discredited.

Don't try and bring facts and logic into this, the left already has the answer it wants.

"There were so many unanswered questions"

"None of us can really know the truth"

Yeah, Mark, he's really bringing facts to this arguments. Again, just innuendos and testimony that is contradicted by more than 1 source.

You guys are shameless.

RANTA: "As for being a "politically motivated attack group" many of the SB group had voted for Gore and were open about their dislike for Bush."

From a former member: ''The mantra was just 'We want to set the record straight,' '' Mr. Hayes said this month. ''It became clear to me that it was morphing from an organization to set the record straight into a highly political vendetta. They knew it was not the truth.''

You want facts, Mark?

here you go. Factcheck.org:

The Bronze Star

One of the accusers says he was on another boat "a few yards" away during the incident which won Kerry the Bronze Star, but the former Army lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water that day backs Kerry's account. In an Aug. 10 opinion piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal , Rassmann (a Republican himself) wrote that the ad was "launched by people without decency" who are "lying" and "should hang their heads in shame."

And on Aug. 19, Navy records came to light also contradicting the accusers. One of the veterans who says Kerry wasn't under fire was himself awarded a Bronze Star for aiding others "in the face of enemy fire" during the same incident."

The Silver Star

Several of those who appear in the ad have signed brief affidavits, and we have posted some of them in the "supporting documents" section to the right for our visitors to evaluate for themselves.

One of those affidavits, signed by George Elliott, quickly became controversial. Elliott is the retired Navy captain who had recommended Kerry for his highest decoration for valor, the Silver Star, which was awarded for events of Feb. 28, 1969, when Kerry beached his boat in the face of an enemy ambush and then pursued and killed an enemy soldier on the shore.

Elliott, who had been Kerry's commanding officer, was quoted by the Boston Globe Aug 6 as saying he had made a "terrible mistake" in signing the affidavit against Kerry, in which Elliott suggested Kerry hadn't told him the truth about how he killed the enemy soldier. Later Elliott signed a second affidavit saying he still stands by the words in the TV ad. But Elliott also made what he called an "immaterial clarification" - saying he has no first-hand information that Kerry was less than forthright about what he did to win the Silver Star.

There much, MUCH more here. I suggest you all read it.

http://www.factcheck.org/article231.html

More on the bronze star for those who won't link to the site:

The Bronze Star

The most serious allegation in the ad is that Kerry received both the Bronze Star, his second-highest decoration, and his third purple heart, which allowed him to be sent home early, under false pretenses. But that account is flatly contradicted by Jim Rassmann, the former Army Lieutenant whom Kerry rescued that day.

Van O'Dell, a former Navy enlisted man who says he was the gunner on another Swift Boat, states in his affidavit that he was "a few yards away" from Kerry's boat on March 13, 1969 when Kerry pulled Rassman from the water. According to the official medal citations, Kerry's boat was under enemy fire at the time, and Kerry had been wounded when an enemy mine exploded near his own boat. O'Dell insists "there was no fire" at the time, adding: "I did not hear any shots, nor did any hostile fire hit any boats" other than his own, PCF-3.

Others in the ad back up that account. Jack Chenoweth, who was a Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding PCF-3, said Kerry's boat "fled the scene" after a mine blast disabled PCF-3, and returned only later "when it was apparent that there was no return fire." And Larry Thurlow, who says he commanded a third Swift Boat that day, says "Kerry fled while we stayed to fight," and returned only later "after no return fire occurred."

A serious discrepancy in the account of Kerry's accusers came to light Aug. 19, when the Washington Post reported that Navy records describe Thurlow himself as dodging enemy bullets during the same incident, for which Thurlow also was awarded the Bronze Star.

Thurlow's citation - which the Post said it obtained under the Freedom of Information Act - says that "all units began receiving enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire from the river banks" after the first explosion. The citation describes Thurlow as leaping aboard the damaged PCF-3 and rendering aid "while still under enemy fire," and adds: "His actions and courage in the face of enemy fire . . . were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."

A separate document that recommended Thurlow for that decoration states that all Thurlow's actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire." It was signed by Elliott.

The Post quoted Thurlow as saying he had lost his citation years earlier and had been under the impression that he received the award for aiding the damaged boat and its crew, and that his own award would be "fraudulent" if based on his facing enemy fire. The Post reported that, after hearing the citation read to him, Thurlow said: "It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case. . . My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting. . . . I am here to state that we weren't under fire."

None of those in the attack ad by the Swift Boat group actually served on Kerry's boat. And their statements are contrary to the accounts of Kerry and those who served under him.

Jim Rassmann was the Army Special Forces lieutenant whom Kerry plucked from the water. Rassmann has said all along that he was under sniper fire from both banks of the river when Kerry, wounded, helped him aboard. Rassmann is featured in an earlier Kerry ad, in fact, (see script at left) saying "he (Kerry) risked his life to save mine."

On Aug. 10, Rassmann wrote a vivid account of the rescue in the Wall Street Journal that contradicts the Kerry accusers. Rassmann said that after the first explosion that disabled PCF-3:

Rassmann: Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

Rassmann said he recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for that action, and learned only later that the Bronze Star had been awarded instead. "To this day I still believe he deserved the Silver Star for his courage," he wrote. Rassmann described himself as a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans," Rassmann said. But he said Kerry "will be a great commander in chief."

"This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency," Rassmann said. "Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam."

On Aug. 22 the Washington Post quoted a new eyewitness in support of Kerry's version. The Post said it had independently contacted Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat directly behind Kerry's, and that Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47 assault rifles.

Langhofer: There was a lot of firing going on, and it came from both sides of the river.

Swiftboat was just a bullcrap way to try and discredit Kerry as he had a good chance at being the next president.

Republicans will stoop to anything, including discrediting a decorated war veteran with lies, there is no low that they will not go.

Expect a little taste of you own medicine in the future.

Swiftboat was just a bullcrap way to try and discredit Kerry as he had a good chance at being the next president.

Republicans will stoop to anything, including discrediting a decorated war veteran with lies, there is no low that they will not go.

Expect a little taste of you own medicine in the future.

Tom -

Despite your valiant efforts to bring some enlightenment to these ninnies, alas, "against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain".

What Bushians still won't own up to is the double standard they are applying to Kerry vs Haditha. Since Kerry was a Bush opponent, they have no problem smearing his combat record and immediately jumping the conclusion that Kerry commited an atrocity - all based on politically motivated thin air. However, since the Iraq war is Bush's source of hero-worship, they stubbornly give the accused Marines in Haditha ALL the benefit of the doubt - in stark contrast to the complete lack of respect they showed Kerry's service to our country.

Although the Haditha massacre has enough evidence of wrongdoing to warrant a full-scale military investigation (in contrast to Kerry receiving a medal for what his accusers have belated labeled a war crime 35 years after the fact), Mark and others have gone on to suggest that anyone who wants to know what exactly happened at Haditha is both unpatriotic and slandering the military. Even the merest whiff of a suggestion that a few Marines may have stepped over the line in this case (way over the line) brings a torent of hate-filled invective and emotionally charged cries of SLANDER.

The blatant hypocrisy here is stunning even by Bushian standards - and suggests once again that the Bushians interest in the military is mostly limited to using it as a tool for emotional manipulation and political gain.

"Kerry commited an atrocity"
You're blaming the worn people, Kerry testified before Congress that he committed atorcities. No one accused him of anything until he lied about what happeed in Vietnam.
Christmas in Cambodia, the magic hat, the CIA agent, and so on, and so on, and so on ...

"Kerry commited an atrocity"
You're blaming the worng people, Kerry testified before Congress that he committed atorcities. No one accused him of anything until he lied about what happeed in Vietnam.
Christmas in Cambodia, the magic hat, the CIA agent, and so on, and so on, and so on ...