Radical leftist group moveon.org is at it again...spreading lies once more. They have a new ad that attacks the swift boat veterans for truth ad- an ad that is in no way connected to the president, and the people who run that group said that even if the president told them to stop running it, they wouldn't stop. They have that right, of course. Not to mention, John Kerry, who- I'll say it again for the idiots out there- is a SELF DESCRIBED war criminal.
The ad from moveon attacks the vets and claims they're spreading lies...they also claim that President Bush is linked to the ad, which isn't true. First off- moveon has no idea if what the swift boat vets' ad says is truthful or not, and on top of that, they're accusing these men of lying while lying themselves by claimimg Bush is connected to it. This is common logic used by the fools at this radical group, and it's disgusting! They are demanding the president take this ad off the air- which means, they want to hold their radical views, yet they don't want anyone else to have their free speech rights and do the same! They also demand that a man who isn't associated with the ad remove it, an attempt to link Bush to the ad which his people have already condemned.
The ad also lies and claims that George Bush failed to appear for his air natl guard duty, yet the records came out, and witnesses came forward to prove that theory false and nothing but a lie used by groups like moveon to further than liberal agenda and attack a man who was NOT missing from his duty. They attack Bush, claiming he had his dad pull strings to make sure he didn't go to vietnam...BUT, they never mention that Bush took part in missions protecting the US in the air natl guard, and that there is nothing illegal or immoral about NOT going to vietnam. They claim Bush evaded service, which is a very serious charge that has no evidence to support it. They talk about how John Kerry, remember- he's a self described war criminal, chose to go to Vietnam and fought heorically- moveon's idea of heroism is burning down villages and shooting men in the back, I guess??
What's even more outraegous is that moveon even lies about what the swift boat vets ad says! On their site, they claim the following:
"Incredibly, the "Swift Boat Veterans for Bush" operatives have responded to our
campaign by issuing a statement that claims, "We were there. We served with John Kerry."
But even that is a lie. While the ad presents its subjects as former crewmates of
Kerry's, the reality is that the only thing most of the men share with him is that they
were in Vietnam at the same time. And the men who did serve with Kerry are unanimous in
their support of him."
Only problem is- in the ad, the military men NEVER claim they were crewmates of Kerry. They merely say they "served with" John Kerry in Vietnam. These men were all on swift boats in the SAME UNITS as Kerry- which means, they were right there with him. Not on the same boat, they never claim they were, but if you're a few yard from someone (swift boats traveled in units of many boats, in close contact), that is, by definition, "serving with" that person. How insane is it that the moveon ad contains at least 3 lies about Bush and the swift boat vets...it even contains a lie about the very ad they're attacking!
They go on to claim that Bush (again, the White House has condemned the ad) is "re-opening this national wound" by bringing up the past...YET, in the same piece/ad they attack Bush and claim he didn't show up for duty (proven to be untrue by the press and the white house, and witnesses who were with him at the time, and medical records from the time, etc). In the ad they say that Bush can't have it both ways, yet it seems moveon is the group trying to have it both ways- either bringing up the past and attacking one's military record is "re-opening this national wound" OR is it okay to make baseless attacks on a sitting president who has nothing to do with the ad in question?
Let it be known, moveon is nothing but a group dedicated to lies...lies about anyone who doesn't fit their far left agenda. It's time we remove the loophole that allows these groups to air such propaganda. It's time we stop allowing billionaire radicals like George Soros to use hundreds of millions to lie to the American people. It isn't right, and it's unamerican, and I am, once again, sick of it. One thing all sane people know for sure- you cannot reason with the radical fools at moveon.
Posted by Josh at August 18, 2004 12:22 AM | TrackBack"the White House has condemned the ad"
- When was that? Must have been fairly recent because as of August 5th, they had nothing to say regarding the ad:
"Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.
The White House declined."
link: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/president/articles/0805KerryMcCain05-ON.html
- I expect you'll retract that false claim from you're blog, unless of course you can actually prove they condemned the ad.
Posted by: lowdown at August 20, 2004 06:26 PMsorry there genius. no apology...the white house, thru scott mcclellan has said they dont approve of any of the ads from ANY of the "shadowy" 527's. which means, they dont approve of this one, nor do they support it. bush has said time and time again, he will not attack kerrys vietnam record and that his service in that war was "noble."
ill forgive you for not knowing all the facts.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at August 20, 2004 06:29 PM"sorry there genius."
- What did I do to incur such disparaging sarcasm? Why do you feel the need to ridicule those with a different opinion then your own?
"no apology"
- I didn't ask for an apology. I asked if you would retract the statement if you couldn't prove it.
"the white house, thru scott mcclellan has said they dont approve of any of the ads from ANY of the "shadowy" 527's"
"they dont approve of this one, nor do they support it"
- Very true. But you said they "condemned" the ad. That's incorrect. Scott Mcclellan was given the chance to condemn the ad and didn't. Here's a loose transcript of the press secretary's response to the ad:
"Q. Do you -- does the President repudiate this 527 ad that calls Kerry a liar on Vietnam?"
"MR. McCLELLAN The President deplores all the unregulated soft money activity"
.. obviously he's not directly answering the question, so they ask again:
"Q So the President joins McCain in criticizing this particular ad?"
"MR. McCLELLAN: We hope the Kerry campaign will join us in calling for an end to all the unregulated soft money ads and activity that are going on. Again, the President has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative attacks from shadowy groups. And the President thought he got rid of this kind of activity when he signed the bipartisan campaign finance reforms into law. This campaign should be about the issues and it should be about the records."
... Again, he's said nothing specific to the ad. He's merely discussed a seperate, if not loosely related, issue.
"Q Scott, more specifically, though, will the President or the campaign ask this particular group to pull this particular ad off the air? "
"MR. McCLELLAN: We're calling for a cessation to all the unregulated soft money activity, and we hope that the Kerry campaign will join us."
.. That was a very specific question and the White House spokesman refused to answer it. The Bush administration, unlike Sen. McCain, is neither condoning nor condemning this particular ad.
LINK:http://shapeofdays.typepad.com/the_shape_of_days/2004/08/the_bush_campai.html
"bush has said time and time again, he will not attack kerrys vietnam record and that his service in that war was "noble."
- He did call it that during an interview, but during the same interview he was given the chance to condemn the "Swift Boat" ad and once again declined to do so.
Link: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040813/pl_nm/campaign_bush_kerry_dc"
- Interestingly, Kerry, for all his faults, actually condemned ads criticizing Bush:
link: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0818-03.htm
"ill forgive you for not knowing all the facts"
- I never claimed I knew all the facts so no forgiveness is necessary I suppose..
to begin with- legally, bush cannot have any contact with them or publicly tell them to stop running the ad, as kerry has demanded he do. as moveon has demanded he do. that violates federal law.
scott said what he said- the only thing that needs to be said. bush, personally, doesnt support any of the ads by the "shadowy" groups (527's using soft money.)
why should the president even condemn this ad in particular? these 250 men have a right to have their voice heard...and there are NUMEROUS problems with kerrys statements...either hes a war criminal or he lied about all of these so called atrocities (even the men ON his very boat disagree that they committed such atrocities and never saw any- they also say they were never in cambodia, tho kerry has told that lie for decades.) which means- these men almost surely have a point and you cannot discount the ad from a group of 250 men yet praise the handful that support kerry- 10 or so, i believe?
so, in the end, condeming all of the ads is all that is needed. you cant come out everyday and condemn every particular ad- esp. ads like this that were put out by men who risked their lives in vietnam, who have earned the right to have their say. theres little chance that ALL 250 men are lying, if ANY of them are lying...so your echoing of the calls for condemnation dont even begin to make sense. even minus the fact that ALL these ads have been condemned.
as for kerry condemning ads against bush- please, PLEASE dont use a radical peace hippie groups like commomdreams as a source for 1...and 2. kerry has no condemned a thing. he hasnt spke out against michael 'anti-american' moore, the guy was on stage while all these hack celebs called bush every name under the sun, and he didnt tell them that it was wrong or to cut it out- he said that these people share the true values of america! he wont speak out against moveon and their constant radical ads- comparing bush to every evil entity on the planet...he wont speak out against billionaire george soros who has given over 10mil of his own money to fund radical groups and has said living in the us while bush is pres. is like living under hitler from his days as a boy under nazi occupation. he hasnt spoke out against idiot tom harkin who called the vice pres a coward, simply because he didnt fight in vietnam...he hasnt spoken out against the radical rhetoric from al gore, howard dean, al sharpton, kucinich, etc. so, lets not post something saying that kerry is condemning ads attacking bush, when we all know that is complete bunk.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at August 20, 2004 11:06 PM"to begin with- legally, bush cannot have any contact with them or publicly tell them to stop running the ad, as kerry has demanded he do. as moveon has demanded he do. that violates federal law."
- Really? How so? Do you have a link to support that assertion?
"bush, personally, doesnt support any of the ads by the "shadowy" groups (527's using soft money.)"
- But you didn't say Bush "doesn't support" them. That wasn't the issue. You said he "condemned" the ads. Are you now retracting that claim?
"why should the president even condemn this ad in particular?"
- Interesting question, but completely irrelvant to the subject at hand. You said Bush condemned the ads. Whether or not he "should" have is not the question. The question is, if Bush condemned the ads like you claim he did, where's the evidence?
"you cant come out everyday and condemn every particular ad"
- That would be a good point if not for the fact that the white house press secretary was given the oppurtunity and asked directly if Bush condemned the ads or not and he refused to answer.
- That would also be a good point if not for the fact that you claimed he did condemn the ad. Now you're saying he can't condemn the "particular ad". Unless I misunderstand you, you seem to be completely contradicting yourself.
"PLEASE dont use a radical peace hippie groups like commomdreams as a source for "
- The link was to commondreams.. but the source was the LA Times (I really wish you'd put a little more effort into reading my arguments and evidence). Kerry's written statement condeming the anti-bush ads has appeared in several other publications as well.
"kerry has no condemned a thing. he hasnt spke out against michael 'anti-american' moore"
- Kerry condemned the ad. That is a fact I've stated and proven. Your claim that Kerry as not condemned "a thing" is directly at odds with this actuality and is the type of exageration that only serves to weaken your argument.
- Additionally, it's true that Kerry has not condemned all anti-bush sentiment. I don't see how that inherently negates his condemnation of the attack ads though. As you said, "you cant come out everyday and condemn every particular ad.." Since, to my knowledge Kerry, unlike Bush's press secretary, wasn't asked a direct question, it's a little unfair to expect him to condemn every anti bush remark out there. He wouldn't have the time.
Posted by: lowdown at August 21, 2004 07:24 PMwell, we can say one thing about...youre not of the genius type. the subject IS whether the bush camp should even have to condemn the ads- they shouldnt. and when the white house said they do not support any of these groups running these ads, that is, bu definition, a condemnation. calling these 527's "shadowy groups" is a clear condemnation as well. so, they have condemned ALL ads by the 527's. thats that.
now, my "assertion" that 527's cannot have any contact with any campaign- thats the law. these groups arent even allowed, by law, to try to sway the electorate- which means, many of them are violating the law- probably most famous of these being moveon, who have released numerous ads, full of complete distortions, and outright lies to sway the electorate away from pres. bush.
what are you talking about, kerry condemned the ads. i said micheal moores film.
as for your source...gosh, im sorry- the la times is SO much better. heck, why dont you go a step further and throw in a quote from the ny times editorial board while youre at it...or maybe find a ny times article posted on moveon(dot)org- that would be the ultimate objective source!
now, lets go thru this one last time- if you say that you do not support the actions of a group, that is clearly a condemnation. a condemnation is a statement showing that you do not agree with a groups actions, and that you disapprove of it. therefore, when you say you dont support any of the 527 groups ads, and you call them "shadowy" groups operating on the fringe...you have condemned their messages. i dont think that all of them should be condemned, but im not gw bush.
"well, we can say one thing about...youre not of the genius type"
- That's productive.
"the subject IS whether the bush camp should even have to condemn the ads"
- Read my first post and tell me if I wrote anything about the subject of whether or not the white house "should" do anything. I took issue with the assertion that the White House condemned the ad, and that's it. You stated a fact, I refuted it. Now it appears as though you're more interested changing the subject.
"calling these 527's "shadowy groups" is a clear condemnation as well"
- The White House has condemned 527's. They have not condemned the Swift Boat ad in particular, which is the point I illustrated when I quoted the White House secretary. If you have no evidence to submit that might support the claim I've contested, I wish you would just drop the subject instead of repeating yourself.
"now, my "assertion" that 527's cannot have any contact with any campaign- thats the law"
- That's only part of your assertion. You also said it would be illegal for the White House to "publicly tell them to stop running the ad". I've asked you to provide evidence of this claim since I'm a little skeptical and you have not.
"what are you talking about, kerry condemned the ads. i said micheal moores film"
- Actually, first you said, and I quote, "kerry has no condemned a thing" (assuming by "no", you mean "not"). That's the statement I took issue with. I even quoted it for you. I'm not sure how you misunderstood that.
"as for your source...gosh, im sorry- the la times is SO much better."
- You must have thought I was lying when I said Kerry's written statement appeared in several other publications as well. Here they are:
http://www.record-eagle.com/2004/aug/081904.htm
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/17/war.records.ap/
http://news.findlaw.com/ap_stories/a/p/1131/8-17-2004/20040817141507_068.html
- Or are these sources not "objective" enough for you, either?
"now, lets go thru this one last time- if you say that you do not support the actions of a group, that is clearly a condemnation"
- One more time? Isn't this the first time you've actually explained how "not supporting" = "condemning".
"a condemnation. a condemnation is a statement showing that you do not agree with a groups actions, and that you disapprove of it."
- Mostly true.
"therefore, when you say you dont support any of the 527 groups ads, and you call them "shadowy" groups operating on the fringe...you have condemned their messages"
- If the Bush administartion helped maintain a 527 by supplying it with money, necessities, or any kind of immaterial assistance or authorization then they would be, by defintion, "supporting" the ad. They don't so this, so they don't support the ad. Unfortunately, they refuse to express a strong dissaproval of the ad so they don't condemn it either. Let me ask you this, if you believe the White House has condemned the Swift Boat ad, then whey didn't they just answer "yes" when asked: "So the President joins McCain in criticizing this particular ad"? They could have made their point about soft money ads at the same time, but they chose to instead ignore the question and change the subject to the broader idea of 527 groups.
oh dear god, you either 1) dont read well, or 2) you read fine and just want to ignore what is written.
they shouldnt have to condemn the ad to begin with- this group of 250 men earned the right to speak.
by calling ALL of the 527's shadowy groups, and saying they dont condone any of the groups- they are condemning them ALL...including the sweft boat vets for truth ad- see, ALL means, ALL. not some, not most...but every single one of them.
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at August 22, 2004 01:28 AMyoure missing a vital point here. 1) many legal pundits have said that it would possibly be illegal for bush to tell them to stop running it. 2) bush has no reason to tell them to stop or to condemn the ad to begin with. they served their country, they have earned the right to speak out...250 men to 10 on kerrys side. it seems these guys win in the numbers category- and that usually lends credence to what a group is saying...
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at August 22, 2004 12:57 PM"they shouldnt have to condemn the ad to begin with- this group of 250 men earned the right to speak."
- This is irrelevant since you already claimed Bush condemned the ad. Whether he should have or not is an all together different argument I'm not interested in at this point. I can't make myself any more clear.
"by calling ALL of the 527's shadowy groups, and saying they dont condone any of the groups- they are condemning them ALL...i"
- This, on the other hand, is the argument. You're saying that by condemning all 527 groups in general, they have indirectly condemned the swift boat ad. The problem with this is
1. They were given the opportunity to unambiguously critize the ad in question and declined to do so.
and
2. All you said in your post was the "White House has condemned the ad". You neglected to mention that their criticism was more than a little.. indirect. Seems a bit misleading to me.
"many legal pundits have said that it would possibly be illegal for bush to tell them to stop running it"
- First you say the White House condemned the ad. Now you say it would be illegal for them to condmen the ad. Please clarify your argument.
Posted by: lowdown at August 22, 2004 02:21 PMlook. i dont know if youre just trying to be annoying or if youre really this stupid- with your constant ridiculous comments on the site, im leaning toward the latter.
i said- the white house condemned all the ads from these groups.
they have no reason to condemn this one ad in particular when asked for a condemnation by members of the left leaning press who want nothing but to do the same thing your trying to do.
these men have a right to be heard, and the white house understands that...so, theres no way they should condemn them in particular, or single them out in any way.
i said that legal pundits have said it would illegal for the bush team to tell them to STOP RUNNING the ads...not that condemning ALL the 527 ads is illegal. again, you cant read- lending credence to the theory that youre just not the brightest bulb in the pack. no rational person needs things explained to them 50 times before they understand (or still DONT understand in your case).
Posted by: Josh Bozeman at August 22, 2004 06:24 PM"look. i dont know if youre just trying to be annoying or if youre really this stupid- with your constant ridiculous comments on the site, im leaning toward the latter."
- Ouch. It seems as though I've offended you. I thought that as a freedom loving American, you would welcome a different opinion. If I was wrong, just let me know.
"i said- the white house condemned all the ads from these groups."
- No, that's not what you said. You said, as I quoted in my very first post, "the White House has condemned the ad". And that's what I've been discussing. If it was a mistake, just say so and restract it, that's all.
"they have no reason to condemn this one ad in particular when asked for a condemnation by members of the left leaning press who want nothing but to do the same thing your trying to do"
- You haven't offered any evidence that would suggest the press member who asked the White House a direct question was biased.
- Even if he were, that in and of itself doesn't really explain why he would choose to ignore one particular question and answer the rest, does it?
- What exactly do you think I'm trying to do?
"these men have a right to be heard, and the white house understands that..."
- When did the White House say ANY of this? Are you reading their minds, or can you support this assertion with facts?
"i said that legal pundits have said it would illegal for the bush team to tell them to STOP RUNNING the ads"
- Yes you've SAID that many times. You have yet to provide a single link, to a single quote, by a single one. Is that so much to ask?
"not that condemning ALL the 527 ads is illegal."
- Oh, thanks for clearing that up. But why are we still talking about the generalized idea of 527's? Isn't this discussion about the fact that you said "the White House has condemned the ad", not "the white house ignored a direct question and made a broad condemnation of all 527 groups."
"again, you cant read- lending credence to the theory that youre just not the brightest bulb in the pack"
- What have I done that's made you so upset? All I did was politely ask you to clarify your argument. I would have been happy to oblige if you had asked the same of me. I find it a little difficult to understand how you could get so upset over a simple request.. maybe there's something else about this discussion that's bothering you?
"I thought that as a freedom loving American, you would welcome a different opinion. If I was wrong, just let me know."
-Josh lives in the free America where everyone must conform to his opinions or else they are branded as hating the country and a threat to "freedom"..
You know...kind of like Stalins Russia...
Lowdown.......
Stop getting your information from MOVEON! That is your whole problem. If you bothered to check urbanlegends.com or Snopes.com you would discover nearly every little statement they make is a lie. Just like their story stating Bush said Feces instead of Fetus......that was a complete fabrication. If they want to tell lies at least check your timelines so you can atleast have it said when the President was there- not when he was not even in the area! You must have been one of those fools who also thinks that throwing eggs at a presidential motorcade is cool too. Grow up- when you behave in that fashion and FORCE your view on others instead of respecting other people's views- you are a radical. Go join the terrorists bvecause that is what you amount to when you take things in your own hands because you do not know how to repsect others. Guess you failed kindergarten......
Posted by: Kat at September 7, 2004 01:09 PM