Why exactly does this mean Webb is toast?

When I first read what Webb had written, I immediately went to Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi's webpages as well as the DSCC and the DCCC and the DNC to see if they've DEMANDED that a man who writes about FATHERS sexually abusing their underage SONS resign.

Oddly enough, the new moral Democratic Party remains silent.

Speaking of Democrat Candidates/Politicians saying stupid stuff... enter Harold Ford, Sr.
.
Hey Tom, did you know you were a cracker? Well according to Ford you are.

Apparently Tom is not aware that we Virginia voters have high moral standards for ourselves as well as our elected officials.

I'm laughing my a55 off. The press release as posted on Drudge did it for me. I guess what with the MTV generation and the Internet effect that an October surprise has to happen in the last week of October.

He consistently demeaned women both in opinion articles he published and in the fiction published. Published. Not some off the cuff remark. Not some unsubstantiated remarks from his college days. It is crystal clear what Webb thought of women in the military and thinks of women in the military. The fact that he threw in a little child porography is just icing on the cake. What an a55.

As I understand it, Webb writes about Vietnam and the effects of the war. I'm not an expert, but it wouldn't surprise me if writing about these tawdry elements didn't reflect the realties of what he's trying to address.

This is such a desperate move by Allen. This is something that could easily backfire against him. We'll see.

And wawilliyo, Ford Sr. didn't call anyone a "cracker." if noonan were an honest person, he would have corrected the claim he made on this site.

Well Tom it would be no more desperate than the claim that Allen stuffed the head of a dead animal in a black familie's mailbox. The problem for Webb is the race was pretty much tied. Which means any little thing can cost either one of them the election. This certainly can't help the Webb campaign,and as far as it backfiring on Allen, get real.

Tom:

He's not just toast...he's burnt toast.

If we have to explain you wouldn't understand.

Backfire on Allen??? Bwahahahahahahaha!!!!

"Tawdry elements"? Child porn?

Do you call unfair game for outing a child porn writer--one who could otherwise be a U.S. senator?

Oooh man.. Circling the wagons, are we, Tom?

Psycmeistr, can you circle wagons that have already gone over the cliff???

Bullshit Tom.
I've seen the video about a dozen times.

and his words while on the phone to the Corker Campaign (even though the people weren't affiliated with the campaign).

"You Gotta Cracker Here With The Corker People."

So you're going to HONESTLY believe his explanation that while pissed off about someone saying they disagreed with his son had the wherewithall to say "You gotta TRACKER here with the Corker people."

THis wasn't a question, this was a man pissed off showing his true colors.

So you are you going to join the ranks of thosesupporting Democrat racists and Democrat womanizers?

When I read the excerpts of Webb's writings on Drudge, it occurred to me that this wouldn't necessarily mean Dems would not vote for him. After all, they celebrated the idea of having a powerful man being sexually serviced by a subordinate less than half his age, while "working" at his desk and making telephone calls to top government officials. They thought this made him pretty wonderful, and admired him.

When a Democratic senator propositioned and then had sexual relations (that is to say, actual physical sexual relations, not just talking about it) with a 17-year-old subordinate, Dems gave him standing ovations and re-elected him over and over again.

The tawdry history of not just Dem leaders but of their ongoing support by the Party and by the mainstream voters of the party have never ceased to amaze me. So I didn't think that a minor thing like writing about homosexual pedophilic incest would necessarily be a black mark against Webb.

But even with my mental preparation for a lack of outrage on the Left, I was somewhat surprised by Shipley's defense of Webb. So now pornography, even homosexual pedophilic incestual pornography, is really just an effort to 'tell it like it is', ehy, Tom? Just "realities", eh, Tom? Just what happens when people go to war, eh, Tom?

Maybe it's OK if we can just understand the MOTIVATION, eh, Tom? Maybe if the father didn't MEAN to scar his young son for life by sexually molesting him, it's OK, eh, Tom? Maybe it's fine if he didn't do it with MALICE, eh, Tom?

Shipley has taken some pretty radical Lefty positions over the months, but this is the first time I have actually felt total contempt for him.

On the other hand, it kind of sounds like Drudge has given Shipley a new reading list.

From any other person, the first quote on the Drudge page would have gotten an indictment for child pornagraphy. Why has that not happened? This is a published work, and therefore subject to child pornagraphy laws?

Come on - be realistic. That scene is in no way going to hurt Webb. He is writing fiction and a scene like that probably increased his sales at least 50%. Haven't any of you had your wives read you excerpt’s from their romance novels - white hot sex. And if you have been paying attention to fiction on the bestseller lists, it's women with their romance novels. You would have to read the book or have someone tell you if Webb approved or disapproved of the pedophilia. I doubt he approved it. Just writing about it won’t change anyone’s mind.

When did the Dims know and when did they know it?

I mean the Republicans are to keep up with all private text messages and be investigated over it, and resign! Surely the Dims will all resign over this and the 527 Media will have stories for the next 20 or so dayWhen did the Dims know and when did they know it? I mean retail books, not even text messages!

Dim they are.

"Looking over his shoulder, he entered the cave with stealth. The moist evening air was thick with anticipation. He noticed him lying there. The bright Afghanistan moonlight glistening upon his bare bronzed buttocks. Jumbo quietly whispered, "as Allah has said (PBUH) if the meat is left uncovered...shall not the cat eat it?" He moaned passionately. Finally, he could take it no longer and blurted out "Osama, you wild donkey of a man, come away with me and there will be unimaginable delights as we frolic together and hack off heads" Jumbo gently lifted Osama upside down and put his penis into his mouth...

Toast? Surely Webb will be protected by the Constitutions' Right to Privacy for his retail porn? While text messages should fall under the rule of activist judges?

Dims.

sped,

I fully expect Webb to fall below 40% when the votes are counted...I've seen a lot of disgusting things in my life and I'm pretty jaded...what I read horrified me.

Retch.

Reading Toms comments is like reading a NAMBLA press release

"Tawdry elements"? Child porn?"

No, actually, pedophilia, hookers, strippers, guys demeaning women... those are the tawdry elements he's writing about.

Before condemning this guy, shouldn't you all read more than 10 or so VERY small excerpts?

As I said before, he's writing about the effects of the Vietnam war, and if you're going to write about it truthfully, there's going to be some stuff in there that most people are going to find offensive. That's just the way it is.

And honestly, I don't know the context that all these passages take place in. I and I gather most of you have not read any of these books.

What if Steven Spielberg were running for office and Drudge ran a headline: SHOCK: SPIELBERG FILM FILLED WITH ANTI-SEMITIC SENTIMENTS AND GRAPHIC DEPICTIONS OF JEWS BEING KILLED IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS.

Judge the works, not small, sensational excerpts from them.

Wawilliyo,

I've listened to the clip as well. Personally, I couldn't tell. But reason, which was shown by the original source Hot Air when they retracted and apologized to Ford Sr., leads one to believe he said trackers because A) He was calling someone about people he thought were trackers. B) He was being film. You'd have to be a real idiot to call an opponent a racial slur on film two weeks before an election.

You just want to assume the worst about Ford. You're letting your contempt for him cloud your judgment.

Wasn't Webb a REPUBLICAN when he wrote those steamy novels ???

SPED-- "white hot sex" between two consenting adults is one thing.

Between a father and his child is totally another.

Quit making excuses.

"Quit making excuses."

Not making excuses. Just being honest here. Quit being reactionary.

Our resident liberals have reacted just as we predicted.

A Republican Congressman exhibits unacceptable behavior and is condemned by the Republican leadership and resigns.

A Democrat exhibits unacceptable behavior by writing and publishing child pornography and he is defended.

Proof again that liberals have no morals, ethics, or decency. Conservatives might be "challenged" in these areas, but when when their unacceptable behavior becomes known, they do the right thing.

Liberals, on the other hand, come up will all kinds of excuses for the behavior: "Its just sex", "I didn't inhale", "It was between two consenting adults", etc. Rarely, if ever, will they do the honorable thing and live up to their mistakes.

So A-10,

You don't think I have any morals, ethics or decency? Don't chicken out by attacking all liberals. I'm the one who made the comments.

And writing paragraph in a book about an incestuous act does not make a book pornographic. It is also MUCH different than making advances on teenage pages.

Leo

Regarding your update, to prove your point remember the wall to wall coverage of Lynn Cheney's book that had a lesbian sex in it? That was covered in the mainstream media for weeks and weeks.

A-10,

Get your facts straight:

A Republican Congressman exhibits unacceptable behavior. Republican leadership ignores it for several years and encourages him to keep running for election. Republican Congressman gets caught and resigns. Republican leadership THEN condemns him and goes into damage control.

Feel better about your 'moral' party now, A-10?

TS,

"And writing paragraph in a book about an incestuous act does not make a book pornographic."

But writing about a incestuous, homosexual pedophile does. Still defending him I see. The correct answer would be: "I don't think people who write about sexually molesting their child should be representing us in the United States Senate."

"It is also MUCH different than making advances on teenage pages."

But not so different than a certain US Representative from Massachusetts actually having sex with a male teenage page. Or allowing your "partner" run a male prostitution from your appartment. I'm still waiting for your outrage and comdemnation of Representative Studds for his behavior, both with the page and his disrespect to the House of Representatives when he turned his back on the Speaker of the House as his censure was being read. Or your outrage when his fellow Democrats gave him three standing ovations. How about your outrage about Representive Frank's behavior. I'm waiting.

Oh, I forgot, Representative Studds recently passed away. I guess you're off the hook. NOT.

I was painting liberals with a wide brush. If you are the exception to the rule, great. Prove it. Show some spine and condemn a liberal/Democrat for their unacceptable behavior. We regularily condemn or criticize conservatives/Republicans when they act out of line. For example:

Representative Foley: Condemned, forced to resign.

Representative Cunningham: Condemned, forced to resign.

Senator McCain: I've criticized him for not immediately rejecting the Democrat VP candidacy.

President Bush: Criticized for failing ro reign in wastefull spending. Criticized for being to nice to Democrats who eagerly take advantage of his civility.

Let me give you some liberals/Democrats you can condemn or criticize just to get you started:

Representative Studds: Sex with teenage pages.

Representative Franks: See above.

Representative Jefferson: Caught accepting $100,000 bribe.

Representative Pelosi: Campaign finance violations.

Representative McKinney: Abuse towards Capital Security personnel.

Senator Reid: Failure to report $1.1 million land deal.

Senator Kennedy: Vehicular homicide while driving drunk and without a license. Calling the President a liar on the Senate floor.

Former Vice President Gore: Soliticing campaign contributions from government office.

Former President Clinton: Too many to list here.

Senator Clinton: Too many to list here.

Senator Schumer: Identity theft (Lt Governor Steele's SSAN and Credit Report)

Senator Robert "KKK" Byrd: "N" word, Grand Kleagle of the KKK.

Senator Kerry: Meeting with the North Vietnamese and protesting against the Vietnam war while still a Naval officer. False statements to Congress. Verbally abusing a Secret Service agent who was sworn to risk his life to protect Senator Kerry. Claiming self-inflicted wounds were from enemy action to get out of Vietnam. Calling US servicemen "Terrorists".

Senator Durbin: Comparing our service members to "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others".

That's a start. Can't wait to hear your responses.

"But writing about a incestuous, homosexual pedophile does."

Uh, actually, no it doesn't.

How say liberals lack values, ethics and decency at the prompting of MY WORDS, but not have the balls to say the same about me?

I'm the one who is saying this is not pornographic. That we should judge him on the entire work. That this is MUCH different than Foley hitting on teenage pages.

I'm the one saying that, when writing a novel, you sometimes describe things are write things from a point of view that does not reflect your personal moral code, and often times contradicts it.

I'm the one who is saying that this should not have an effect on whether you or not you think Webb is fit to serve in the US congress.

If you think writing those words shows I have no morals, decency or ethics, be a man and say so.

It's much easier attacking with a broad brush. In this case it's a blatant cop out.

So, A-10, do you think I lack morals, ethics and decency?

TS,

Almost forgot.

Also waiting on your condemnation of DU, Kos, and the rest of the liberal blogs who regularly ban conservatives for the heinous act of posting a conservative thought. That's supporting free speach. That's allowing dissent. That's being tolerant.

And A-10,

I'm not going to get into a pissing match about condemning or not condemning all the crap that politicians on either side of the aisle have done in recent years.

I'm talking about this press release and how ridiculous it is.

Isn't that something writers are supposed to do, "write what you know"? In this case, Webb seems to have a great deal of knowledge about war, and treatng women like meat. Seeing a pattern here.

TS,

"So, A-10, do you think I lack morals, ethics and decency?"

I don't know you well enough to make a judgement. I would assume you have some level of morals, ethics and decency, but I don't know how much.

But, I have given you the opportunity to show those of us who frequent B4B your level of morality, ethics, and decency, but you have declined to respond.

Besides, don't you recognize "rhetoric", "sarcasm", "parody", and "satire" when you see it? You liberals are experts in rhetoric: "I hate Republicans and everything they stand for", Dr. Howard Dean. Now I am sure that Dr. Dean doesn't really hate all Republicans. I'm also sure that he doesn't hate protecting Americans against terrorist attacks, or stopping illegal aliens from entering the country. If he does, we should add him to the list of liberals/Democrats you should be condemning or criticizing.

"I'm not going to get into a pissing match about condemning or not condemning all the crap that politicians on either side of the aisle have done in recent years."

No, but you'll eagerly jump at the opportunity to get into a "pissing match" when it comes to the present Administration's attempts to protect us from further terrorist attacks. How about being a little fair and balanced, or is that too much to ask?

I'm happy to see there are some honest, rational Freepers at least:

"To: ReagansRaiders
I read Webb's 'Fields of Fire' which, while not a great book and entirely too derivative of Norman Mailer's and James Jones' works, was a solid, well-written novel, and certainly one of the better Vietnam war novels. A published, award-winning fiction writer myself--and no fan of Webb's political views--I resent this attack on his character by way of his fictional works. One of my short stories is about an acquitted child molester; another centers around four people who killed for money. Does that mean I sympathize or empathize with or secretly fantasize about their crimes? Emphatically, no.

Webb has plenty of weaknesses insofar as his political and philosophical views are concerned, all legitimate targets in a political campaign. This article was shoddy and below-the-belt.

3 posted on 10/17/2006 9:15:35 AM PDT by Rembrandt_fan"

"To: Rembrandt_fan
I agree. Writing about an evil character or action is nowhere near the same as ACUTALLY DOING IT. Most of the books I've enjoyed had a great deal of moral ambivalence.

One of the primary reasons for Batman's popularity is because his only superpower is psychosis. Benevolent, certainly, but he is still psychotic.

One of my favorite books growing up was Snow Crash. It has a brief and consensual sexual encounter with a man and a 14-15 year old girl. I can't imagine that the writer was endorsing sexual abuse. And I certainly never thought that that was an invitation to molestation.

9 posted on 10/17/2006 9:31:40 AM PDT by Anvilhead (Dammit Jim, I'm an Ameri-can not an Ameri-can't.)"

So, let me get this straight... based off my words you go on a rant about how this is an example of how liberals have no morals, ethics or decency...

But when asked if you feel the same way about me, you admit I probably have some level of all three.

How exactly can you justify using my words as justification for saying liberals have no morals, ethics or decency, when you won't say the same about me specifically?

And, yes I know what "rhetoric" is... and if that's what you want to call what you wrote, fine. Doesn't make it right. I also know "sarcasim" "parody" and "satire" and what you wrote is most definitely NOT any of those.

And about the laundry list of things you want me to condemn, as I said, I don't want to get into a pissing match here, but more importantly, I'd probably want to look more into before "condemning" or not.

I really don't have the time for that right now.

But as far as Dean's comments go, those I will agree with you were wrong. I wasn't happy that he made them.

Ya know TS, there are are other liberals who regularly post on this blog who will come out and admit it when a liberal/Democrat crosses the line. But not you. You seem to cling to the belief that a liberal can do no wrong and a conservative can do no right.

Further, any comments I make about liberals are directed at liberals in general, not you personally. Unless, of course, they are in the public forum, then they are fair game.

Stop taking everything so personal. When I asked you on a previous thread why do you have BDS, I was not being personal, but I was being serious, and at the same time, poking fun at liberals. We conservatives really do want to know why liberals are so obsessed with hating the President. He seems like a decent guy, trying to do the best anyone can to protect Americans from further harm. Yet you liberals attack anything and everything he does or says. Why?

Now I ask why liberals cannot be honest and condemn or criticize one of their own. But rather than answer, you give me the excuse that "really don't have the time for that right now." Yet you have time to post other comments. All you needed to do was say that you condemn any and all immoral, un-ethical, and indecent behavior by liberals/Democrats and conservatives/Republicans (and everyone in between). It could have been that simple. But no, you take it as a personal attack and attempt to defend yourself, all the while putting up a defense for immoral, un-ethical, and indecent behavior by liberals/Democrats.

Lighten up pal. Stop and smell the roses. Remember, its us conservatives who are the heartless, evil, dispassionate ogres, not you liberals.

And writing paragraph in a book about an incestuous act does not make a book pornographic. It is also MUCH different than making advances on teenage pages.

Posted by: Tom Shipley at October 27, 2006 08:52 AM

So what EXACTLY does constitute a pornographic book Tom? Disgusting, dimeaning, crap! Maybe I'll take up fiction writing. My first book will be named "U.S. snipers & the democratic party". As I portray their hatred for you & as they put bullets in your heads one by one, I'll be campaigning for president(democrat of course, I wouldn't have a prayer with the conservatives).

On the lighter side of this controversy, I saw a stripper do the banana trick in a bar in Okinawa. She also did something similar with a stack of quarters. I imagine Kahn, A-10 and Bearman can probably relate. I am not, however, running for the U.S. Senate.

The foley issue was a media attempt to supress the republican vote. The Liberal MSM media got a black eye over the folley issue, and may get the other blacked by not reporting this one.

If you that are wondering, the media reports on Folley and underage pages were large over reported. A blogger found the "underage page", and discovered he was 17 turning 18 when all this happened, and the damning IM was after his 18th Birthday.

This was research that the MSM failed or refused to do, before running the story. Although, I agree that Folley needed to be forced out of his seat in disgrace, the media did go to far by reporting half-truths (Lies, in my books) about Folley.

This issue with Web's books and writting will quietly go away if MSM has anything to do with it, and if the MSM has to report it, they will do so under the false impression that the republican are trying to take away his free speech, or something that makes the republican look bad.

That's the world we currently live in, and it will take bloggers, as in the folley case, to find the real truth of the matter.

Tom,

Uh, writing pornography makes what you write pornographic...

Very strange way you look at the world - and I do think that A-10 has nailed you for hypocrisy, the Ultimate Deadly Sin as far as leftists are concerned...

Retired,

Heard about that, but never saw it in my Naval career...I thought it was legendary.

Uh, this is supposed to be some secret bombshell drudged up by Drudge? Jim Webb's novels have been out for years - they are best sellers for crying out loud!

His work has military themes, much along the lines of Tom Clancy. Moreover, unlike the obscure amateur efforts of Lynn Cheney and Scooter Libby (which also have some rather graphic passages), Webb is a writer by profession. His first work, "Fields of Fire", is one of the classic novels to come out of the Vietnam war.

Guess what? War novels often feature some pretty nasty stuff. Anyone here ever read "Jarhead"? Seems former Navy Secretary Webb has written more books than Allen has read.

Fiction writers often draw from human behaviors and environments they have observed themselves. That doesn't mean they condone the behavior portrayed in the novels, anymore than Mel Gibson condoned the brutal torture of Christ in his very graphic film on the subject. But such behavior is a part of the real world. Jim Webb saw many of the unsavory scenes in his novels both as a Marine Corps combat vet in Vietnam, and later as a journalist in Southeast Asia. Sorry to inform all you puritans out there, but some really sick and twisted stuff went down in Vietnam.

But of course, Allen wouldn't know anything about Vietnam, now would he? Desperate to hold onto his seat, he chooses to slander a combat vet, while he himself dodged the draft. Moreover, Jim Webb's son is over fighting in Iraq while Allen's service-age kids enjoy being stateside, free from the war he supports.

Jim Webb and his son have seen the kind of horrible things that I guess Allen and his offspring can't even imagine.

Aaron,

Just 'cause you can write something, it doesn't mean you should... a novel exploring the horrors of war can leave aside references to child molestation. I checked to be sure, and All Quiet on the Wester Front, Red Badge of Courage and Goodbye Darkness all lacked such passages, and they were fantastic books about war.

" Boy's Penis in Father's Mouth 'Not a Sexual Act,' Webb Tells Radio Host..." drudgereport

Thus guy is digging his political grave deeper.

TS..
How you can actually think that it would be out of the realm of possibility that a politician (Ford, Sr.)would make such a stupid statement so close to an election is just...............hysterical.....
Bwaaaaaaaaah!!!

Mark,

The American Heritage dictionary definition of pornography:

"Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal."

These books are about the effects of Vietnam.

The passage about the father and son was witnessed by Webb, and is apparently a culturally accepted display of affection between parent and child in that part of the world... ie... not a sexual act.

Get real guys. It ain't pornography. This press release is a DESPERATE attempt by Allen to smear Webb less than two weeks before the election.

I fully expect Webb to win. We'll see in a couple weeks.

And Mark, I've criticized democrats on this site (I even did in this thread regarding Dean's comments), and I admit when I'm wrong... see Plame affair; NYTimes SWIFT article...

You, on the other hand did not retract your claim that Ford Sr. called someone a "cracker." Also, remember when you wrote about civility on this site and that uncivil discourse would be removed regardless if you were on the left or the right?

Well, I still see Bearman's comments about snipers repeatedly shooting me in the head in this thread... I suppose that's acceptable to you, though.

Tom Shipley wrote:

B) He was being film. You'd have to be a real idiot to call an opponent a racial slur on film two weeks before an election.

FTR, I've seen the video and it appears that he does say "tracker"....though who the hell knows what that is supposed to mean?

However, for someone to discount the possibility of him actually saying "cracker" based on the reasoning you've given, leaves only one conclusion: you know ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about Harold Ford, Sr. and his past antics.

Google the following just as it is typed: "Harold Ford" "white devils"

I watched that event happen on live TV, so I am well aware of what Harold Ford, Sr. is like and what he will, or won't say when film is rolling.

I am not aware of any election that a member of the Ford clan has been involved in, in which the race card was not played at some point. In fact, the "white devil" comment was made when Sr. ran against a black man. (It should be noted that was Sr.'s last race, he abdicated his seat to Jr. two years later.)

"....though who the hell knows what that is supposed to mean?"

A tracker is someone who follows a political opponent hoping to catch an embarrasing moment on tape to exploit.

Like when Allen called the dem tracker a Maccaca... or whatever he said.

steveGA,

Contrast Representative Foley's behavior with that of Representative Studds' behavior (may he R.I.P.):

Foley's behavior, while reprehensible and unacceptable, did not involve any contact with the teenage pages, that we know of. It appears the behavior occurred during the past sveral years. The IM's appear to be with a 18 year old. Once it bacame public about the emails and the IMs (conveniently, just before an election), he resigned.

Representative Studds began his sexual relationship with a teenage male page during his first year in Congress, 1973. It wasn't until 1983 that the House censured him for his behavior. How long did the Democrat leadership of the House know about his behavior before action was taken? Why wasn't Speaker Tip O'Neill asked to resign over the apparent 10 year coverup? Did Representative Studds resign after this sordid affair? No, he was reelected six times. How did the Democrats in the house react to his behavior? They gave him standing ovations and appointed him to Committee Chairmanships.

Feel better about YOUR 'moral' party now? At least the GOP boots those who exhibit unaccaptable behavior.

Would you like to express your feelings about my list of Democrats exhibiting questionable or unethical behavior? Mr. Shipley has declined the offer.

Getting truth from Druge is like getting it from Fox which is like getting it from Star magazine.

Anyway if so he was a Republican when he wrote it. I would have hoped he upgraded his morals before switching to Democrat. If not, we will kick him back to the G roup O f P erverts.

Aarontime,

Try getting your facts in order prior to making false statements:

Senator Allen was born on March 8, 1952. He became eligible for the Selective Service Draft in 1971. A lottery was held on August 5, 1971 to determine the order in which men born in 1952 were called to report for induction into the military. The lottery number chosen for March 8 was 229. The highest lottery number called for this group was 95; all men assigned that lottery number or any lower number, and who were classified 1-A or 1-A-O (available for military service), were called to report for possible induction.

Since Senator Allen's lottery number never came up, it would be virtually impossible for him to "dodge the draft".

Contrast this with another politician of the same period. This politician received his induction notice in 1969. Through political pressure by a US Senator, the local draft board's continually postponed his pre-induction physical. In August of 1969, the individual enters the ROTC program at the University of Arkansas and has his Selective Service status changed to 1-D. The individual enrolls at Oxford and organizes and leads anti-war demonstrations in London against the United States. In a December 1969 letter to the Commander of the University of Arkansas ROTC Program he admits that he used the ROTC program to avoid being drafted. He then drops out of ROTC. Now that's a "draft dodger". Who is this mystery man? The 42nd President of the United States, William Jefferson Clinton.

I know this is OT, but I ran across this site: www.beatBDS.com sponsored by the BDS Foundation. They have a 5 Step Program to overcome Bush Derangement Syndrome. Thought I'd share it with our friends on the left.

Step One: Recognize you have a problem. Do you thrown things at the TV whenever the President's image appears. You may have BDS. Do you hold your hands over your ears and yell "YahYahYahYahYah" whenever the President speaks? You may have BDS. Have you threatened anyone who speaks positively about the President with bodily harm? You may have BDS. Do you visit DU or DailyKos to get the latest negative talking points about the President? You may have BDS. Did you go around your neighborhood during the 2000 and 2004 elections and steal Bush Campaign signs? You may have BDS. Are you convinced that anything and everything the President does is wrong? You may have BDS. Do you go into a violent rage when you see an elephant? You may have BDS.

Step Two: Break the Chains that Bind You. Delete all links to DU, DailyKos, and other liberal/Democrat web sites from your computer. Burn those books attacking the President you bought while you were in a fit of BDS rage. Burn your DNC and ACLU membership cards. Contact your cable company and have them block ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, and Lifetime. Cancel your subscribtion to the New York Times, Time Magazine, Newsweek, and USA Today.

Step Three: Avoid others with BDS. Stay away from the following individuals, their writings, and their media products: Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Dr Howard Dean, Code Pink, Geroge Soros, The Dixie Chicks, George Clooney, and any politician with a "D" after their name.

Step Four: Reprogram your life. Start watching the Fox News Channel. Listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Laura Ingraham, Neal Boortz, and Mark Levin on the radio. If you want to try the "Shock Reprogramming" method, listen to Dr. Michael Savage. Visit websites that put more balance in your life, such as OpinionJournal, Townhall, NewsMax, Blogs for Bush, RedState, and Right Wing News. Subscribe to the Wall Street Journal.

Step Five: Atone for your previous behavior. Thank a member of the US Armed Forces for their Service. Donate to the GOP. Confront liberals, the MSM, and Democrats when they lie, distort, and mislead the public. Condemn illegal, immoral, unethical, and indecent behavior.

Welcome back from the dark side. You're cured.

Just kidding. Had ya going there for a minute, didn't I.

As a political exercise, I think we should have a member of the Republican party be exposed for some wrong-doing, and at the same time have a member of the Democrat party be exposed for the same or similar wrong-doing and see what gets reported in the MSM.

Oh, wait, that's right:

Mark Foley................Gerry Studds

Duke Cunningham......William Jefferson

Tom Delay.................Harry Reid

George Allen..............Robert Byrd

Nevermind.

A-10,

Again, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!

Foley was not booted from office, he resigned after these allegations became public. For several years before, Republican leaders of Congress had known that he was harassing underage pages. They did nothing. They still do nothing.

Since you are so moral, shouldn't you be condemning both Foley AND the Republican leadership that turned a blind eye to a sexual predator in their midst?

A-10 -

Wow - Clinton is running against Allen?

Allen chose not to serve - although he supported the Vietnam war, he opted for a student deferment instead of fighting there. Webb did serve, and with distinction.

Everyone knows that Bangkok in the early 70's, the setting from which you cherry-picked the most salacious of your out-of-context quotes, served as the sleezy sex-trade center for GIs during the Vietnam war. You cannot set a novel in Bangkok at that time without bringing out something about the perversions of the sex-trade that was so much a part of the atmosphere of Vietnam-era Thailand. To have omitted it altogether would have been to paint an unrealistic picture.

So Allen chose to stay stateside and not expose himself to the unpleasantries of life in Southeast Asia. Bully for him.

Aarontime,

"Wow - Clinton is running against Allen?"

Just trying to help you out because you seemed to be a bit "challenged" with the definition of "draft dodger". You see, someone who is not drafted because his number didn't come up, isn't a "draft dodger". Someone who fraudulently joined ROTC to get his Selective Service Classification changed to avoid the draft, then dropped out of ROTC, is a "draft dodger". Just wanted to clear that up. At no time was I implying that Clinton was running against Allen.

"you cherry-picked the most salacious of your out-of-context quotes,"

I didn't "cherry-pick", "apple-pick", or "any other berry-pick" quotes. I didn't even use any of Mr. Webb's quotes, so I think its a case of "drive-by-slamming" on your behalf. Next time you take something out-of-context, please make sure you're taking it out of the right context.

"You cannot set a novel in Bangkok at that time without bringing out something about the perversions of the sex-trade that was so much a part of the atmosphere of Vietnam-era Thailand. To have omitted it altogether would have been to paint an unrealistic picture."

I'm pretty sure the readers whould have survived with out the "most salacious" descriptions.

Mark -

"a novel exploring the horrors of war can leave aside references to child molestation. I checked to be sure, and All Quiet on the Wester Front, Red Badge of Courage and Goodbye Darkness all lacked such passages..."

The works you cite, although all very excellent, take place during WWI, the Civil War, and WWII respectively, which were very different environments from Vietnam.

I'm sure you'll agree that one of the things that distinguishes a good writer (and Webb is widely acknowledged as an excellent writer) is his/her ability to paint a vivid picture of the novel's setting. The fact is, Bangkok in the early 70's was not the kind of place that makes for G-rated reading. It wasn't Gettysburg, ca 1863.

If that is something you'd rather not read, that's fine - you are free not to. But it is not up to you or A-10 to decide what is and what is not an appropriate setting for a novel about Vietnam. Maybe if you'd taken any of the literature classes Webb taught at the Naval Academy, you'd understand that.

btw, if anyone would like to read some excellent literature, I'd highly recommend Webb's "Fields of Fire".

A-10 -

"I'm pretty sure the readers whould have survived with out the "most salacious" descriptions."

I see. Well, I'm pretty sure as well that we could have watched a movie about Jesus Christ without being subjected to hours of the some of the most graphic, disturbingly twisted, blood drenched violence ever filmed. And yet, Mel Gibson chose to focus his film, which the Right lauded, on the most sickening details of Christ's crucifixtion. And you know what? - that's his right as an artist.

Gibson thought it was important to hone in on some rather disturbing material in excruciating detail. Had he chosen to "spare us the gory details", it would have resulted in a completely different movie. Likewise, Webb chooses to depict scenes which give the reader a sense of the depravity of 1970's Bangkok.

There are many other widely acclaimed writers who have written similar scenes into their depictions of that particular time and place. Considering the truly vile stuff that was going on in Bangkok at that time, the only surprising thing about the quoted passages is how few of them there are. After all, Webb's written 6 novels.

Don't like it? Fine - Read Bambi instead. But don't even try to compare this with Mark Foley. To quote Jules from Pulp Fiction: "...ain't the same ballpark, ain't the same league, ain't even the same f***in' sport".

I'm really disappointed it took Rove/Drudge this long to pull this stuff out. They must be losing their edge.

Aarontime,

The last time I checked, Mel Gibson wasn't running for the US Senate, but I may be wrong.

"Aarontime,

The last time I checked, Mel Gibson wasn't running for the US Senate, but I may be wrong."

So, if he were, you wouldn't vote for him because he showed violence in a film he directed?

TS,

"So, if he were, you wouldn't vote for him because he showed violence in a film he directed?"

Never said that. Would have a bit of problem with some of his other behavior though.

Did you catch my post of the BDS 5-Step Program? I did that just for you.

Yeah, I saw it. I appreciate it, but i like being right, not Right.

TS,

I see you have abandoned the "Terror Finance Tracking Program" thread. Some of the posters there are wondering why you think disclosing classified programs that can get US servicemembers and American's killed is for the "good of the people". They'd also like to know why the media gets to decide what classfied programs get to be exposed or not, instead of the US Government. Could you answer those questions for them?

TS,

"but i like being right, not Right."

That's almost as funny as the 5-Step Program, cause you are usually WRONG.

Sorry, couldn't help myself.

A-10

"The last time I checked, Mel Gibson wasn't running for the US Senate, but I may be wrong."

Yes, but if Gibson were running as a democrat against Allen, I can readily imagine Allen's campaign commercials, featuring snippets from "The Passion of the Christ" taken totally out of context.

The campaign commercial would show a quick clip of unidentified, sweaty snarling soldiers gleefully splaying open an unidentified nude back. In the background, the narrator would say, "Why does Mel Gibson get off on sleezy S&M? What does this say about his moral compass?" blah blah blah

A-10, I've tried multiple times to post in that thread this afternoon, but I am sent to the page notifying me that I'm not signed in (even though I am) and that I'll have to wait for a moderater to post my comments. Still have seen them posted as of yet...

In fact, I tried to post a comment in this thread with the link I tried to post, but that too went to that page.

So, I'm not including the link this time... let's see if this works.

I just tried pasting the link again and it didn't work... must have to do with that...

Steve Jarding just wrote an excellent letter to George Allen. I can't link to it since links are not currently working, so I'll just print the full text:

George Allen: You Have Not Earned the Right to Question Jim Webb's Recollections of War - So Just Shut Up

To: George Allen and his campaign
From: Steve Jarding
Re: Shame on both of you

George Allen and his campaign hit men this week chose to again attack Jim Webb and his military experiences, this time by taking passages from Webb's novels to try to suggest that the explicit war time experiences Webb writes about are demeaning and repugnant.

On their attacks, I would like to say two things. First, the novels that the Allen camp attacks include Fields of Fire, which has been called the classic novel of the Vietnam War and was for years required reading on college campuses nationwide in classes relating to the illumination of war. They include, The Emperor's General, which has been called a masterpiece of literature and was called by that raving liberal George F. Will, "This compelling, fascinating exercise of historical fiction proves, again, that Jim Webb is as fine a novelist as he was a Marine." And they include Born Fighting, which has been called brilliant and the most important ethnography of our time. Perhaps the Allen camp should learn to read books before they begin burning them.

Second, let me say one more time to George Allen and his lapdog assassins. Senator, you have not earned the right to question Jim Webb's wartime experiences, from the ugliness of combat to the ugliness of what happens to civilians in nations ravaged by war. Senator, Jim Webb wrote of things he witnessed. They may have been ugly, but we should learn from their ugliness about the consequences of our votes and actions before we send men and women into war.

And Senator, you would not know this, but, war is demeaning, war is repugnant. People die and get maimed there. Innocent boys and girls are forced into prostitution, and are forced to perform heinous acts there. Jim Webb witnessed it all. And he wrote about it. You don't think this is happening in Iraq?

Perhaps if you had read Webb's book, you would not be so quick to take his experiences and attempt to twist them for selfish, personal, political gain. Perhaps if you had purchased Webb's books and at least read about these types of atrocities, you would not have been so gung ho about blindly following the misguided and malfeasant actions of another man who did not witness firsthand the ugliness of war, George W. Bush. And perhaps if you had gone to Vietnam and served as a company commander instead of serving as a drover at a dude ranch, or serving as a surfing instructor on Malibu Beach, you would temper your feigned indignation. A man who did read this same book you disparage, John McCain, praised its honest portrayal of the heinous nature and repercussions of war.

Perhaps Senator, if sheltered Hollywood neighborhoods and elitist dude ranches had unspeakable death, destruction, rape, and unspeakable inhumanity to man and woman, you might now know how self serving your shock and indignation is. But, until you have witnessed firsthand the ugliness of war and the destruction it reaps upon all people, including the innocent ones, you should learn to keep quiet.

I understand, Senator, that your campaign is desperate and as such it is doing desperate things. But it is not lost on anyone that you were the one who went on statewide television pleading for a campaign on the issues. You clearly did not mean the words you uttered.

You don't think I have any morals, ethics or decency?

I don't know about those, Tommie, but I do know that you have no brains.

Why don'cha ask Michael J. Fox-Sheehan if cloning human embryos in order to get stem cells for research will enable us to find a cure for you...

1H8L1BS - why don't you crawl back into whatever petri dish you slithered out of?

Now we are finding out Lynn Cheney writes about lesbian sex and Scotter Libby has written graphic pedophilia passages. Republicans seem to have a problem when it comes to sexuality.

Makes no diff what the libs spew on here. The initial poll is 70% to 30%. I'm sure Aarontime has enough of an education with his foul accusatory mouth to understand just WHO is the 70% of people. The other 30% are his favorite group of pornstars and babykillers. Have fun on the 8th...your gonna need that professional help they instituted in Florida after the 2000 election. Stay calm...stay calm...the Republican hordes are coming to smash you.

Now Aairheadtime, you STFU, you girly-boy. I was addressing Tommie, not your sorry ass. Petri dish this, beyotch...

TS,

Yes, there seems to be some type of delay getting comments posted. At least I'm not getting the dreaded "Blue Screen".

TS,

Do you have the "Remember Me?" Radio Button chosen. If you don't, sometimes it acts as if you aren't logged in.

steveGA,

"Again, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT!!!

Foley was not booted from office, he resigned after these allegations became public."

I never said he was "booted from office". That would take Impeachment by the House and Conviction by the Senate (sorry I have to explain these fundementals, but liberals don't seem to be very well schooled in civics). Impeachment is warranted for "high crimes and misdemeanors". Since Representative Foley apparently didn't break any laws, the worst he could expect is a censure.

He resigned. As the Speaker of the House has indicated, had he not resigned on his own, he would have been asked to resign. As it appears Representative Foley places the good of the House of Representatives and the nation about his personal fortunes, he resigned on his own. Something a number of Democrats in similar positions have refused to do (Studds, Jefferson, et al.)

"For several years before, Republican leaders of Congress had known that he was harassing underage pages. They did nothing. They still do nothing."

Are you basing this on what you read on DU or the DailyKos, or the facts? Since all of the facts are not yet out, you are either conducting an exercise in wishful thinking, or have been reading too much DU/DailyKos.

What exactly do you want the Republican leadership in the House to do? He has already resigned. Since be broke no laws, he can't be prosecuted. Do you want them to take away his pension? Brand him on the forehead with an "E" (for "emailer")?

Can you tell me what the Democrat leadership in the House were doing when Representative Studds was having sex with teenage pages? Why did they cover up the affair for ten years? Why didn't they ask him to resign?

Can you tell me why the Democrat leadership stood by for years as William Jefferson Clinton harrassed staff members, paid interns, and volunteers? He was even accused of rape? Why didn't they do anything about his behavior?

Why is there such a double standard? Why are Republicans dragged through the coals and pounded in the press for the same behavior that Democrats get a pass on?

"Do you have the "Remember Me?" Radio Button chosen. If you don't, sometimes it acts as if you aren't logged in."

No, i but I will click it in the future.

Well, I still see Bearman's comments about snipers repeatedly shooting me in the head in this thread... I suppose that's acceptable to you, though.

Posted by: Tom Shipley at October 27, 2006 02:30 PM

BbbBbBbBbubut it's just fiction Tom, and and and I have my rights bro, and and I think I'll run for president AFTER it becomes a best seller. Waaaaaaaaaaaa! Poor baby!

Jim Web had a radio interview with Mark Plotkin earlier today. He responded to Allen campaign's "charges" for including sexually graphic scenes in his fiction writing, Webb spoke forcefully, making several points.

First, Webb noted that he actually SAW the particular event mentioned by Mark Plotkin "happen in a slum in Bangkok," and that it was "not a sexual act."

Second, Webb talked about how "the duty of a writer is to illuminate his surroundings," noting that he is a "serious writer" who has "made my career as a novelist." Webb blasted the Allen campaign for its "smear after smear," pulling excerpts out of context and "pound[ing] people over the head" in classic Karl Rove fashion.

Third, Webb criticized George Allen for running this kind of campaign. Webb charged that this is because "George Allen doesn't have an accomplishment" of his own, despite many many years of public service.

Fourth, Webb bristled at Mark Plotkin actually reading a sexually explicit passage on the air. Webb said that this was "not appropriate for you to read on WTOP."

Fifth, Webb pointed out that the scene Mark Plotkin referred to is the sort of thing that "hundreds of thousands of military men" in places like Vietnam and Thailand have experienced. More broadly, this is what a novelist does, depicting how the "human species behaves" with all its good and bad parts. [Note by Lowell: if George Allen ever READ great fiction, he might know that!]

Sixth, Webb explained that his novels were not "Tropic of Capricorn" style novels, but that his books "go after themes" and aim to show "how the world lives."

I no longer get the dreaded "blue screen--"I think Mark has it set up to affect the trolls, which is how it should be. That's one way of getting rid of them.

If I were you, Tommie, I'd shoot myself...no, I mean, I'd stop posting here because I'd be aggrivated by that "blue screen."

that would solve your problem, Tommie--just go away. AmericaBlog would love to have you; you're an idiot like most of them...

You can tell this hit home with the lefties purely by the number of posts.

I've noticed that when we manage to really point out something ludicrous - you lefties dial into your mind programming left talking point web sites to find out what to think and say. This is after a day or so, not at first. That's also part of the pattern.

"BbbBbBbBbubut it's just fiction Tom, and and and I have my rights bro, and and I think I'll run for president AFTER it becomes a best seller. Waaaaaaaaaaaa! Poor baby!"

Are you 2?

"I've noticed that when we manage to really point out something ludicrous - you lefties dial into your mind programming left talking point web sites to find out what to think and say."

Boy, that's a lame argument Kahn. Because there are a lot of posts, the left must be wrong. Why not respond to ths substance of those posts?

And, at what point does "the lefties are just regugitating talking points" become a talking point? It seems it's thrown around a lot on here as a way of not responding to what people actually have to say.

For the record, all the opinions on here are my own. If I read someone's opinion on a issue that I like, (which is usually a newspaper op-ed), I'll link to it. I normally don't go to "leftie" sites.

Other posts of note:

"If I were you, Tommie, I'd shoot myself..."

"Now Aairheadtime, you STFU, you girly-boy."

"The other 30% are his favorite group of pornstars and babykillers."

Blogs for Bush: Featuring the best and brightest of American Conservatism.

TS,

The comment: "Now Aairheadtime, you STFU, you girly-boy." was directed at Aarontime, who, on another threat (What is Winning the War on Terrorism, accused conservatives, particularly those of us with User Names which reference the military (funny, maybe because we actually have served in the Armed Forces), of being "hand-wringing hysterical little girls".

He further accused us of "project(ing) that the people who disagree with you (us) are really the effeminate ones."

So, here we have "Aarontime", accusing conservatives of calling those who disagree with us "effeminate", while he's calling us "hand-wringing hysterical little girls". If he wasn't so pathetic, he'd be funny. I think he's a candidate for the 5-Step Process.

Of course, when I responded to his insults, pointing out his hypocracy, he tucked his tail between his legs and crawled off to the corner to sulk.

So, if you weren't following the other thread, now you know why "Aairheadtime/Aarontime" was being categorized as a "girly-boy".

Ok Tom, you obviously are not as intelligent as you pretend to be, so let this 2 yr. old explain. This thread is about OUR outrage over inappropriate sexual references in writings done by a possible future leader of our country. YOU Tom do not think they are inapropriate, and that we should leave this fellow alone, right?

Then Tom, you display your ignorance and hypocrisy in trying to get Mark to ban my post just because I'm talking about inapropriate things!! Wow man, you are a talking walking leftist, and your consistent with your party. Good for you man! I can hardly wait to see you bite the dust(politically for you in Rio Linda).

I've probably tried a million times to post on this thread but the only thing I get is that I'm not logged in with my TypeKey account. I am.

What gives?

Let me try it this way. Webb was absolutely right. Fathers "greet" their little sons this way in Asia. Exactly how Webb described it.

www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_4_4.htm

Read the article

Jewish mohels did it after circumcision. It's called Metzitzah. They stopped doing it after they learned boys could get infected with herpes this way.

Mothers in a few cultures (I've heard Eastern Europe and indigenous people in Latin America) do it when trying to soothe little boys to sleep

If I were you, Tommie, I'd shoot myself. Fortunately, I'm not, and it's great to be me.

You're an idiot, Tommie, a first-class moron. Get lost, jerk...

No Little Bear. It's your ignorance about other cultures. You infer sexual meaning and purpose when a father in Asia takes his little son's penis in his mouth. But that does not mean that the father was performing a sexual act. It only means that YOU think it is a sexual act. It's in the eye of the beholder.

The situations Webb described what happened in the bars and brothels in Asia are not meant to be pornographic or salacious. He is describing those situations to show the culture clash between Western soldiers and Asian women. Between two cultures who both had and have very different notions about the human body.

The same cultural differences that make it perfectly okay for women in Africa to walk around ‘topless’ or men in Indonesia to wear penis gourds.

"If I were you, Tommie, I'd shoot myself. Fortunately, I'm not, and it's great to be me.

You're an idiot, Tommie, a first-class moron. Get lost, jerk..."

Too funny. Notice that the libs in this thread are presenting good arguments in the defense of Webb and his writing, and the conservatives... well, you all can read.

Guess who wrote the following?

Webb's cultural and political portrayal of Vietnam 25 years after the war's end is delivered with such bold strokes and magical detail that it really doesn't matter that the plot itself is relegated to the backseat. This is a highly personal and empathetic look at today's Vietnam, a land of misery and inequity, yet one still vibrantly alive.

">Sen. John McCain

Bear,

Mark's own policy is to ban posts that talk about violence toward other posters. A policy I absolutely agree with.

Webb's writing about the experience of Vietnam. In that experience, as Spook has corroberated, you see some unseemly things. Good writers relate the truth of what they see. Doing so sometimes means writing about those unseemly things. Mark Twain was not a racist, yet he named one of his characters Nigger Jim. Why? Because he was trying to accurately portray the mores of the region and the time. This is what Webb has done with his books.

The penis in the mouth thing is not a sexual act, as has been shown here. It is a cultural thing that soldiers in that region witnessed. He's writing the truth. That book has been widley heralded by many vets and critics, including Republicans. Only now that he's a Democrat and a threat to beat Allen is this seen as unseemly.

If you're going to condemn public officials for what they write, why hasn't there been outrage at Scooter Libby, who wrote a book that involves beastiality.

You guys are taking a completely irrational, holier-than-thou politcal stand that makes absolutely no sense.

This is politics at a new low.