« President Shrimp | Main | A shameful musical confession »

Kerry Grills Swift Boat Contributor, Obama is Unsatisfied

I saw this story linked at Lucianne and decided to click on over and read a bit about John Kerry's questioning of a nominee for ambassador about his contribution to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. When I did I saw yet another example of the media reporting conventional wisdom as fact.

A Senate hearing that began with glowing tributes to a St. Louis businessman and his qualifications to become ambassador to Belgium turned bitterly divisive Tuesday after he was criticized for supporting a controversial conservative group.


Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., grilled nominee Sam Fox about why he donated $50,000 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 presidential race. The group of Vietnam veterans made unsubstantiated allegations against Kerry -- then the Democratic presidential nominee -- and charged that Kerry did not deserve the medals he won in the Vietnam War.

"Might I ask you what your opinion is with respect to the state of American politics as regards the politics of personal destruction?" Kerry asked near the end of the hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Fox, one of the nation's most generous contributors to Republican candidates and causes, said he shared Kerry's concerns that politics "has become mean and destructive."
...
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a presidential hopeful and chairman of Tuesday's hearing, said he found Fox's responses "unsatisfying." He said he would have preferred if Fox admitted it was a mistake to contribute to the Swift Boat group.

Okay, first I will address the "unsubstantiated" allegations line. I guess in the strictest "it depends on what the meaning of is is" way that is technically true, but it is misleading. Some of the allegations made by the Swifties were not able to be substantiated. Many more of the allegations made by the Swifties, however, were substantiated. So, it would be just as (if not even more) accurate to say "the group of Vietnam veterans made substantiated allegations against Kerry."


Now for the Obama line. I find it "unsatisfying" that so many of the Democrats' highest office holders will not say it was a "mistake" to accuse President Bush of "lying us into war," and to make statements that give comfort to and embolden our enemies, and to threaten to "slow bleed" our troops. Quite unsatisfying indeed.


Comments (87)

Wow, big bad band-aid man g... (Below threshold)
robert the original:

Wow, big bad band-aid man grills a guy trying to get confirmed. Woof, just like a war hero.

Like this guy can give him the answer he deserves:

"And what about those military records and form 180 that you promised to Russert two years ago?"

"What is covered up there John, a section eight, a dishonorable discharge? What?"

Call in Ollie North stud, and bring that shit with him.

On the bright side, the JR... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

On the bright side, the JR Senator from the Peoples republic of Massachusetts finally showed up to work.

Didnt they promise a 5 day work week?

Lorrie:Why would a... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Lorrie:

Why would anyone have to apologize for speaking the truth about Mr. Bush?

I find it "unsatisfying" that you and your fellow right wingers so freely and easily call those who disagree with you cowards and traitors (for after all one who gives comfort to the enemy is certainly a traitor). I find it "unsatisfying" that it is your kind of cheap rhetoric that flies in the face of what this country is supposed to be all about. I find it "unsatisfying" that tossing those kinds of accusations about demonstrates your moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

I find it "unsatisfying"... (Below threshold)
John Irving:

I find it "unsatisfying" that tossing those kinds of accusations about demonstrates your moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

That's the pot calling the silverware black, sure enough.

How remarkable. Hugh says w... (Below threshold)

How remarkable. Hugh says we call people "traitors," but then has to qualify it and say that he's parsing the term.

Here's a little hint, Hugh: Michael Savage doesn't post here. And speaking strictly for myself, I think the only time I've tossed around the term "treason" was in relation to Sandy Berger.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone ever construct a straw man and then set fire to it in the same comment before. A remarkable achievement, Hugh. One for the record books.

J.

Posted by: Hugh at February... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Posted by: Hugh at February 28, 2007 08:12 AM

"I find it "unsatisfying" that you and your fellow right wingers so freely and easily call those who disagree with you cowards and traitors (for after all one who gives comfort to the enemy is certainly a traitor). I find it "unsatisfying" that it is your kind of cheap rhetoric that flies in the face of what this country is supposed to be all about. I find it "unsatisfying" that tossing those kinds of accusations about demonstrates your moral and intellectual bankruptcy."

Oh man! I'm confused again. When I'm "unsatisfied" I do things like walk out of the movie, play, concert, restaurant (but I pay for what I've consumed on that one). I don't demand that they do things my way, I assume they are doing what they feel they do best and that I just don't like it. So I leave.

So explain to us Hugh, what are you doing here?

SO what exactly were those ... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

SO what exactly were those Swift Vet lies?

Christmas in Cambodia a lie, another Kerry lie proven by a eulogy in the Congressional Record, the medals being tossed, Winter Soldier, aiding enemy, etc etc.


Im surprised Kerry didnt put video up on youtube of his daily activities in nam.

Jay:There you go aga... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Jay:
There you go again. Sticking your foot in your mouth. Pressure getting to you lately? You've become very knee-jerk (no pun intended) lately.

it would be helpful to you were to to read a post and even try to understand the meaning of words and their intended usage before offering your critique to a comment. LORIE'S words Jay were: "...comfort to and embolden our enemies..." Do a little legal research Jay, "giving aid and comfort" to an enemy is treason per the Supreme Court.


Old Guy:

I'm here to bring truth to folks like you.

A leftist bring truth, you... (Below threshold)
Gianni:

A leftist bring truth, you mean like Dan Rathergate?

Or the energy conservation a la algore?

Hugh, old chump,Th... (Below threshold)

Hugh, old chump,

Thanks SO much for the Constitutional lesson. If you would, please continue. In particular, I'm curious how Lorie's "giving comfort" morphed into "giving aid and comfort," and how that ties in to the court rulings that the Constitutional definition that treason also requires a material act. Sounds to me like you're trying to put words in her mouth, then condemn her for what she never actually said.

You're trying to put out that fire you started when you torched your own straw-man argument, Hugh, but instead you're just fanning the flames.

J.

Listen to the precious mann... (Below threshold)
kim:

Listen to the precious manner in which Kerry phrased his question.

Fox should have replied, "Release the 180", but I guess he's looking forward to Belgium.

Kerry isn't running next year because focus groups still can't get him past running down river with injured sailors in the water.
===================================

"Do a little legal research... (Below threshold)
Mike:

"Do a little legal research Jay, "giving aid and comfort" to an enemy is treason per the Supreme Court." - Hugh

It seems to me that this could apply to what the congressional democrats are doing right now. On that point I would agree with Hugh.


I wish I had time to make s... (Below threshold)
epador:

I wish I had time to make some popcorn and sit back and watch the show, but I gotta go to work.

Go J GO. However, for the record, I have called reason once or twice, and I'm not gonna retract my calls.

He gets a medal for foolish... (Below threshold)
kim:

He gets a medal for foolishly grounding his boat. He gets another for running from his comrades under fire. Both phony. So after he skates his good buddy grounds his boat while his comrades run off. I'd have bad dreams, too.
==================================

And McCain has to get strai... (Below threshold)
kim:

And McCain has to get straight with the Swifties before he has a chance. He took Kerry's side in that skirmish(decisive strategic battle) precipitously and without bothering with discovering the facts. He, too, is 'Unfit for Command'.
========================

Jay:One writes wor... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Jay:

One writes words, one lives with the meaning and intent of those words. Like you so easily tossing around accusations of cowardice Jay. A

But just for arguments sake Jay how would you interpret her words?

Here's the strawman argumen... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Here's the strawman argument, Jay.

Lorie: ..."and to make statements that give comfort to and embolden our enemies, and to threaten to "slow bleed" our troops"

Show me the "180" (or whatever proof you can muster) that supports the contention that any statements made Obama have brought comfort to and emboldened our enemies.

After you flail about, avoiding the question, show me where Obama has threatened to slowly bleed our troops.

These kind of statements, which are repeated daily by conservatives 'round here with respect to any Democrat who dares disagree with the the throne, don't have an ounce of truth behind them. Lorie imagines it to be so, but show us proof - any proof - that these theories have any validity, and aren't just made of straw.

About time you got here Lee... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

About time you got here Lee. Fending off this rabid horde alone is never easy.

Jay:One write... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
Jay:

One writes words, one lives with the meaning and intent of those words. Like you so easily tossing around accusations of cowardice Jay. A

But just for arguments sake Jay how would you interpret her words?


Hugh, it would appear to me that you answered your own question. What Lorie wrote is quite different from what you claimed that she wrote.

Why not simply take her at the words that she wrote rather than manufacturing something that she didn't say?

However, if you still need clarification, why are you asking Jay? They are LORIE'S words.

Ask her.

The lie is/was that politic... (Below threshold)
civilbehavior:

The lie is/was that political operatives funded by the likes of Sam Fox and supporting the most despicable of chickenhawk nominees blatantly and hypocritcally had the gall to smear the oppposition nominees who actually went and fought in battles however few or described and did not hide behind mama's skirt stateside.

When speaking of those who promote war but don't fight it and those who DO fight in war and oppose its reasons for being there I suggest that the armchair commandoes who think it is so necessary stop what they are doing and go take up some position endangering their lives somewhere near the front lines. (let's say for the local right wing crowd here as journalists). Go for the duration with several re-ups (since that's what the present "war" M.O. seems to be )and then we'll talk about the practices of right wing smear operatives. How they try to win "campaigns" (politcal, military or otherwise) by using the tactics of cheating, lying or stealing and how that is to be applauded or somehow rewarded.

Foolish American, Lorie Byrd.

Lee, a quick note before I ... (Below threshold)

Lee, a quick note before I head off to The Day Job.

Give the FULL QUOTE, why don't you?

Now for the Obama line. I find it "unsatisfying" that so many of the Democrats' highest office holders will not say it was a mistake to accuse President Bush of "lying us into war," and to make statements that give comfort to and embolden our enemies, and to threaten to "slow bleed" our troops. Quite unsatisfying indeed.

Lorie did NOT say Obama said those things, merely used his turn of phrase against the Democrats' highest office holders. Murtha, for one. Pelosi, for another.

It's a rhetorical device, and a damned good one.

Now off to the work that actually pays the bills...

J.

These kind of stat... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
These kind of statements, which are repeated daily by conservatives 'round here with respect to any Democrat who dares disagree with the the throne, don't have an ounce of truth behind them.

Ummmm, Lee .....

Lorie wrote an opinion.

Just because you believe that your opinions are the same as fact doesn't mean everyone else thinks that theirs are. (Or, for that matter, that your opinions are "facts" either. LOL!)

Not to worry, Hugh, always ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Not to worry, Hugh, always happy to help out a fellow patriot.

And Jay -- nice flailing and dodging. You ducked the question (and ducked out the door) so if there is anyone else -- feel free to jump in.

With respect to the statements made by Democratic office holders show us any proof that the statements made give comfort and embolden the enemy. Show where anyone has threatened to slowly bleed our troops.

If these are not factual statements, if there isn't an ounce of verifiable truth behind these statements, then they are made of straw drawn from Lorie's imagination.

The only "contribution" the... (Below threshold)
BC:

The only "contribution" the not-so Swifties ever made to society was the term "Swiftboating" -- to smear via viral marketing and using gullible, deceptive and/or utterly lying-ass spokespeople as proxies. The whole lot are a disgrace to their service and uniform, and any all members, current and former, should be held accountable for their malicious, GOP-toadying behavior during the 2004 Presidential election when their turn comes up.

Way to go there Jay... you... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Way to go there Jay... you say Lorie did not describe Obama as treasonous....just other dems. Talk about straws? LOL, you're grasping at them now which of course would be a natural thing for a person who likes to label folks as cowards.

cb, I have only ever found ... (Below threshold)
kim:

cb, I have only ever found one person using the chickenhawk argument who wasn't themselves a chicken.

BC: I think you will find that the verb 'to Swiftboat' varies in meaning according to the political persuasion of the speaker. It is a fascinating phenomenon. Also, are you aware that you haven't a hope of proving your allegations against the Swifties without the information contained in Kerry's 180? So why don't you prove your allegations?
=============================

Show where anyone has th... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

Show where anyone has threatened to slowly bleed our troops.

Lee, are you seriously going to claim ignorance of the term "slow bleeding of our troops" with respect to Murtha's plan that was discussed at lenght last week?

And it is unfortunate that you don't think statements about ending our presence in Iraq don't embolden our enemy. Knowing that your foe doesn't have the will to finish the conflict is a great motivator, in my opinion.

If these are not factual statements

Of course they are not. They are opinion, just as you have yours. You may disagree, but that doesn't mean you are any more correct than Lorie.

Please meditate on why the ... (Below threshold)
kim:

Please meditate on why the founders gave the legislature the power to 'declare' war, and the executive the power to 'make' war.
=====================================

Simple, Cuz. It's easier t... (Below threshold)
kim:

Simple, Cuz. It's easier to get into a quagmire than out of one.
=====================================

The only "contribution" the... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

The only "contribution" the not-so Swifties ever made to society was the term "Swiftboating" -- to smear via viral marketing and using gullible, deceptive and/or utterly lying-ass spokespeople as proxies. The whole lot are a disgrace to their service and uniform, and any all members, current and former, should be held accountable for their malicious, GOP-toadying behavior during the 2004 Presidential election when their turn comes up.

Posted by: BC at February 28, 2007 09:49 AM

Well, since BC has admitted that the Swiftboat group are indeed comprised of veterans of the Vietnam War, perhaps he could now explain why he thinks that ONLY THOSE VETERANS WITH WHOM HE AGREES (ie, John Kerry) should be permitted to express their opinion and why he believes the rest should NOT be permitted to speak freely.

ALL other veterans are "utterly lying-ass spokespeople" and "a disgrace to their service and uniform". Also, they made no other contribution whatsoever to their country. (Per the first line of his post.)

Also, perhaps he could explain if the they also are "disgraces" to the medals that they recieved - including at least one Congressional Medal of Honor.

Here's an irony for you. F... (Below threshold)
kim:

Here's an irony for you. For the Democrats to ever retain any national defense credibility, we have to be lucky enough for this administration's efforts against radical Islam to be successful. If Bush and Company fail, and al Qaeda resurges, the Dems are finished.
===============================

Kerry is the gift that keep... (Below threshold)
sammy small:

Kerry is the gift that keeps on giving. He is a permanent lightening rod for the absolute disgust of Vietnam era veterans (along with many more real men). Nothing can be said that will change that. It can only get worse. He should go away and keep absolutely quiet until he releases his 180. But he won't and thus we have to rehash his disgraceful performance once again.

If you think that the Swift... (Below threshold)
BarneyG2000:

If you think that the Swifties provided substantial evidence, than you must admit that the Rather Gate evidence was substantiated as well.

We all known that Bush got his post through connections, he rarely showed up, and he lost his flying status. All of those were substantiated by witness testimony or documentation.

On the other hand, Kerry's accounts are backed by witness testimony of persons that were actually at the battles, and documentation does support his accounts as well as the fact that Kerry was patrolling near the boarder at that time of year.

If it is completely plausible that Scooter can forget (within a couple of months) from whom he learned the identity of V. Plame (Cheney), and that he revealed her identity to a half dozen reporters. Than it is plausible that Kerry would not know his exact location (within jungle river system without the aid of GPS) on which exact day a few years later.

If the efforts expended by ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

If the efforts expended by the Bush administration in the GWOT are proven to be not successful in eliminating the threat from al Qaeda the Dems are finished? Why would the Democrats be fininshed as a result of the failure of the Republican administration?

ss, one of the more importa... (Below threshold)
kim:

ss, one of the more important rituals in small town VFWs and American Legions is to critique the war stories of the Newbies. Kerry, not being military, didn't understand that this action is drilled over and over and over again. He didn't stand a chance. The lizards were crying in their beers and the bargirls were sending tips to the Swifties.

Only Kerry was narcist enough to believe he could pull off being both a geniune Anti-War Hero and a genuine War Hero. It is possible to do so, look at Webb try. The trouble is you really have to be a genuine war hero to do so, and Kerry is only a hero in his mind.

Oh yes, and in his pix. Let's see those pix. Lots of pix. Even better than the 180. That came out in a focus group. His obsession to film himself. That's fatal daffodil taffy.
==================================

BG2, you don't know enough ... (Below threshold)
kim:

BG2, you don't know enough to make those allegations. The difference of opinions between Kerry and the Swifties can not all be settled perfectly but it is clear to all that the information in his 180 would go a long ways toward settling the matters. In the meantime, what about the first Purple Heart, what about Christmas in Cambodia, and what about the flight down the Bay Hap. In all these the Swifties are pretty much proven right and Kerry wrong. That's three strikes, all right down the middle, and Kerry hasn't lifted his bat off his shoulder. Nor did he in August of '04. Why not?
=================================

Lee, think about it for awh... (Below threshold)
kim:

Lee, think about it for awhile. Do you really think another attack like 9/11 is going to have everyone stampeding to the Democrats' pup tent? Don't you remember how 80% of the nation thought that Saddam was dangerous and that we ought to remove him, no doubt including a number of your heroes.
===========================

The lie is/was tha... (Below threshold)
The lie is/was that political operatives funded by the likes of Sam Fox and supporting the most despicable of chickenhawk nominees blatantly and hypocritcally had the gall to smear the oppposition nominees who actually went and fought in battles however few or described and did not hide behind mama's skirt stateside.

So in other words, there weren't any actual lies. They just said things that you don't like.

He gets a medal fo... (Below threshold)
He gets a medal for foolishly grounding his boat. He gets another for running from his comrades under fire.

I thought he got one of his medals for shooting an enemy combatant in the back.

Actually it was for foolish... (Below threshold)
kim:

Actually it was for foolishly grounding his boat. The grenadier he shot in the back did not have his hands in the air, and probably still had malice in his heart though there were wings on his feet. I don't fault Kerry for shooting him.
==========================

2004 called, they want thei... (Below threshold)
mantis:

2004 called, they want their pointless thread back.

I'd say Kerry has personal ... (Below threshold)
kim:

I'd say Kerry has personal destruction seared in his brain. He's even talking about it on the floor of the Senate.
=====================================

lol @ mantis' comment - goo... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

lol @ mantis' comment - good one.

Sadly, Kerry is not yet ready to give up his 15 minutes of fame.

If only Kerry and Gore would do the right think like Mondale and Dukakis did...

Oops! "think"="thing"... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Oops! "think"="thing"

I can only hope a billion d... (Below threshold)
kim:

I can only hope a billion dollars will keep zombie johnny erect. Don't you remember the fear and trembling among the Democrats the week before the election when Kerry insulted all the troops. You can't create this sort of foe. It has to be given.
================================

A technical point to those ... (Below threshold)
Dave A.:

A technical point to those who "want to know what's in Kerry's SF 180": An SF 180 will have no information of interest to either side. It is merely a 3 page form that can authorize the release of information from an individual's service record.

Dave, you have an excellent... (Below threshold)
kim:

Dave, you have an excellent point, and technically Kerry has released his 180. He has even authorized the release of his military records, but so far, those to whom he has authorized that access have not further shared.

The point remains. The contents of his military records, which might settle a lot of the Swifties' allegations, remain occult. Why?
==========================================

Kim: Did Kerry actually si... (Below threshold)
Dave A.:

Kim: Did Kerry actually sign the SF 180 authorizing the release of his service record? I thought he hadn't.

Way off the post topic, but what would be of interest to me is what Kerry's official status was during his VVAW years. He obviously wasn't active duty. But his DD 214 (discharge papers) weren't signed until the Carter administration. Some 'splainin' is in order.

Yes, he has signed it and a... (Below threshold)
kim:

Yes, he has signed it and authorized release of parts of his record only to certain newspapers. It they've reviewed it, they certainly haven't demonstrated evidence of complete disclosure. It took him almost a year, but he figured out a way to answer the taunt, "Sign the 180", without actually releasing his records. So we don't know what is in them, but they probably don't refute the Swifties.

Yes, about the DD 214. It is only his massive ego and the distaff's massive treasury that keeps him going. But he has become a caricature and a charade, much like his erstwhile acolyte, Joe Wilson.
=====================

The fleeing grenadier was c... (Below threshold)
kim:

The fleeing grenadier was carrying an empty, unarmed grenade launcher; his arm was unloaded. So was he armed or unarmed?
====================

So <a href="http://bobgeige... (Below threshold)
mantis:

So here's a transcript of the hearing, the Kerry portion anyway. Have fun. Here's the weird part:

Fox: When 527s came along, I had the very same thing to say about them. So that's the way I feel and, Senator, let me just say this: I'm against 527s, I've always been against 527s. I think, again, they're mean and destructive, I think they've hurt a lot of good, decent people.

And, Senator Kerry, I very much respect your dedicated service to this country. I know that you were not drafted -- you volunteered. You went to Vietnam. You were wounded. Highly decorated. Senator, you're a hero. And there isn't anybody or anything that's going to take that away from you.

But yet 527s tried to.

Sounds like the nominee wou... (Below threshold)
Rance:

Sounds like the nominee would be a good friend to have. Says he gave the $50K to to do , simply because he was asked for the money.

OhioVoter wrote:<i... (Below threshold)
BC:

OhioVoter wrote:

"The only "contribution" the not-so Swifties ever made to society was the term "Swiftboating" -- to smear via viral marketing and using gullible, deceptive and/or utterly lying-ass spokespeople as proxies. The whole lot are a disgrace to their service and uniform, and any all members, current and former, should be held accountable for their malicious, GOP-toadying behavior during the 2004 Presidential election when their turn comes up."

Well, since BC has admitted that the Swiftboat group are indeed comprised of veterans of the Vietnam War, perhaps he could now explain why he thinks that ONLY THOSE VETERANS WITH WHOM HE AGREES (ie, John Kerry) should be permitted to express their opinion and why he believes the rest should NOT be permitted to speak freely.

So when did being a veteran give you a free pass to smear a political opponent and and in general lie your ass off? We're not talking about "speaking freely" -- we're talking about a group of individuals who misrepresented their relationship to Kerry, regurgitated BS rumors & talking points, and just plain lied repeatedly and boldly (aka a Nixonian "Big Lie). If my first two links weren't enough, here's another that features the Swiftboaters founder, John O'Neill

ALL other veterans are "utterly lying-ass spokespeople" and "a disgrace to their service and uniform". Also, they made no other contribution whatsoever to their country. (Per the first line of his post.)

Also, perhaps he could explain if the they also are "disgraces" to the medals that they recieved - including at least one Congressional Medal of Honor.

We're talking about the "Swifties" aka The Swift Boat Liars, the organization whose sole purpose was to use the Vietnam War credentials of its members to maliciously smear Kerry. I cannot fault their original service in Vietnam, but by allowing the GOP to use them in such a coldly insidious manner, they indeed disgrace their past service, medal of honor awardee or not.

And you fools out there who still believe in "Rathergate" might perchance want to click my "BC" id link.

We're talking about the ... (Below threshold)

We're talking about the "Swifties" aka The Swift Boat Liars, the organization whose sole purpose was to use the Vietnam War credentials of its members to maliciously smear Kerry.

Kerry claimed that he spent Christmas 1968 stationed in Cambodia and listened to President Nixon on the radio saying there were no troops in Cambodia.

Kerry said it was "seared" into his memory.

Record checks proved he wasn't where he said he was; the Swifties proved that. But they also pointed out the obvious: Nixon wasn't president until a month later!

Ooops.

Who gives a fly'in what Ker... (Below threshold)
hansel2:

Who gives a fly'in what Kerry does, thinks or did.

He has no power and it is a pointless argument. We've got a moron in office trying to start a war with Iran. That's dangerous. That's worth discussing.

Kerry is yesterdays news, no matter what he says today.

If you people find this subject worthy of discussion, you may as well be arguing about something as unimportant as boxers or briefs. It has as much validity in today's discussions as John Kerry does.

And you fools out there ... (Below threshold)
J.R.:

And you fools out there who still believe in "Rathergate" might perchance want to click my "BC" id link.

Done. Now I know to disregard your opinions matter of factly when I see your comments. Thanks for helping point that out.

Hey if anyone wants to beli... (Below threshold)
PC14:

Hey if anyone wants to believe that doofus Kerry deserved 5 medals in 3 1/2 months of war on the river, then they'll probably believe Obama's suit isn't empty.

Hugh:One... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Hugh:

One writes words, one lives with the meaning and intent of those words.

hmmm. If I go through the archives here at WB, I wonder what your thoughts on the Dixie Chick's frontlady and Amanada Marcotte were. Would it be a goose/gander moment, or more of a "for thee but me" sentiment?

BC...
How many times are you going to pull that BS out?
David Healey? Assoc. English prof that teaches technical writing. AKA, computer manuals and procedures. He's not a forensic document expert.
But real experts in the field like Bill Flynn have labled the 60 Minutes' memo a fraud.
Take off the tin-foil suit. Your body needs some exposure to process vitamin d, at the very least.

Well SCI you go asearching.... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Well SCI you go asearching...let me know what you find. LOL. Any other insights to offer?

John Kerry(D) has still NOT... (Below threshold)

John Kerry(D) has still NOT released his military records and has still NOT explained why he needed President Jimmy Carter(D) to issue him an honorable discharge... if he already had one.

This was an issue because John Kerry(D) made it an issue with his well documented lies about his service, his 'special effects' enhanced home-movies shown at his 'reporting for duty' speech at the (D)emocrat nominating convention and...

This was especially offensive given John Kerry(D)'s attacks on Bush's well documented, and honorable, service.

Remember the 'October Surprise' of the John Kerry (D) campaign, Dan Rather's fake documents, Kitty Kelly's smears on Katie Courics show and Lt.Gov Barnes (yes... the one in the Hooker's trick book), exposed again for lying about helping Bush into a National Guard that had 25% open slots 18 months prior to when Lt.Gov Barnes became Lt. Governor.

It sure would be nice if we had a free press that would report the news.

Dane:I suppose you... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Dane:

I suppose you could call Bush's service "honoarble" (in a sense) in that he stayed away from it so much he couldn't muck anything up. For that I suppose we should be grateful.

In particular, I'm curio... (Below threshold)
Brian:

In particular, I'm curious how Lorie's "giving comfort" morphed into "giving aid and comfort,"

You're really going to claim that Lorie's use of the phrase "give comfort... to the enemy" owes no derivation credit to the phrase "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"? Really? You're going to claim that with a straight face?

JohnAnnArbor ooopsed:... (Below threshold)
BC:

JohnAnnArbor ooopsed:

Kerry claimed that he spent Christmas 1968 stationed in Cambodia and listened to President Nixon on the radio saying there were no troops in Cambodia.

Kerry said it was "seared" into his memory.

Record checks proved he wasn't where he said he was; the Swifties proved that.

The Swifties proved squat since they are proven liars with zilch credibility (to those of us, that it, who aren't gullible, Google-challenged dummies). Kerry was apparently dropping off Special Forces units, which would make it a covert operation and not exactly on the books. While technically illegal, it would be and was a common US operation -- the US had been operating covertly in Cambodia since 1965 at the least, despite denials to the contrary. See this and then this. For the latter link, do a page search on "Cambodia" and note the dates -- all "illegal" ops that were denied at the time of ever happening. See also this wiki entry that gives some indication about the number of incursions.

But they also pointed out the obvious: Nixon wasn't president until a month later!

Ooops.

What, you and they are saying Nixon wasn't elected President in November 1968? Who was then? Ooops that, moron(s).


And J.R. drooled:

Done. Now I know to disregard your opinions matter of factly when I see your comments. Thanks for helping point that out.

Good -- one less clickless, Googleless, factless, logicless, thinkless cretin to deal with. Thank you.

I suppose you could call... (Below threshold)

I suppose you could call Bush's service "honoarble" (in a sense) in that he stayed away from it so much he couldn't muck anything up. For that I suppose we should be grateful.

He volunteered, twice, to be part of the limited F-102 force in Vietnam. That little tidbit is not well known. Nor is the death rate in the 102, a plane that killed its pilots with astonishing regularity (it had been rushed into production). I can think of easier ways of avoiding the war than volunteering for a flying deathtrap. Say, going to Oxford?

What, you and they are s... (Below threshold)

What, you and they are saying Nixon wasn't elected President in November 1968?

Um, there's a difference between "elected" and "inaugurated." Kerry was hoping the dimmer amongst us, such as you, would not notice.

As for the rest, over 200 v... (Below threshold)

As for the rest, over 200 vets, including POWs and at least one Medal of Honor winner, vs. Kerry who won't release his records and whose honorable discharge is oddly dated well after he finished his service. And who took the three-Purple Heart excuse to get out after four months. (Many avoided being written up for the third PH so they could stay with their men. Kerry? He got one for a Band-Aid injury.)

Gee, who to believe. Think, think.....

JohnAnnArbor, note BC's use... (Below threshold)
marc:

JohnAnnArbor, note BC's use of Wikipedia as something that should be relied upon as a reference.

It has become so unreliable it's being dropped by some universities as a resource and "and even some high schools are" dropping it.

Middlebury College in Vermont, has decided that Wikipedia cannot be cited in papers or exams."

"The ban came about when Japanese history professor Neil Waters discovered that half a dozen students made the same erroneous contention in their research papers and found out that Wikipedia was the source of the error."

It's amazing Wikipedia is u... (Below threshold)

It's amazing Wikipedia is used for that purpose at all. I can totally see using it to get an idea for the subject at hand or for pointers to other sources, but as a research cite in and of itself? Only for non-controversial stuff, and even then check the original source!

I'm still waiting for BC to... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

I'm still waiting for BC to explain why assoc prof Healey being a document expert where Flynn is not to be believed.

I can't believe that univer... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I can't believe that university instructors allow Wikipedia cites. I know students try it all the time, but every professor I've talked to about it forbids Wikipedia references at the beginning of each semester. That said, university-wide policies are not a bad idea.

A few more details about th... (Below threshold)
robert the original:

A few more details about the big bad band-aid man.

Remember, he was in Vietnam just 4 months until he could get his 3rd purple heart. His third came in from the first injury that was so minor his commanding officer and treating physician denied him a begged for purple heart. They said they had seen far worse trimming a rose bush, and treated him with a band-aid.

Kerry's superior officer knew right from the start that Band-aid man was trying to work the 3 purple hearts and out plan to get out of Vietnam. and he did, after that officer left.

War hero? That is a complete joke.

Big bad baid-aid man made many speeches recounting his exploits in Cambodia so he could describe the effects of the Nixon bombing in Cambodia on that Christmas day. It was "seared, seared in his memory" he repeated often.

However Nixon did not swear in until 1969, well after Christmas, Kerry's only such holiday there.

After pictures and witnesses, even his boatmates remember him at the base on that day, Kerry then admitted that it must have been another time.

His superior officers, all, confirm that Kerry's unit only got as close as about 50 miles from Cambodia, and never, at any time were any boats from Kerry's unit sent to Cambodiia.

The system of rivers that Kerry's unit operated in do not have an outlet to Cambodia.

2004 called, they ... (Below threshold)
2004 called, they want their pointless thread back.

I don't care who you are, that's teh funnee™ right there!­

Oh, God, some moron still t... (Below threshold)
kim:

Oh, God, some moron still thinks Nixon was President during Christmas 1968. BC, look at a calendar. Election in November, 1968; inauguration January, 1969,
===============================

JohnAnnArbor tried to wease... (Below threshold)
BC:

JohnAnnArbor tried to weasel out:

"What, you and they are saying Nixon wasn't elected President in November 1968?"

Um, there's a difference between "elected" and "inaugurated." Kerry was hoping the dimmer amongst us, such as you, would not notice.

Ohh, I see -- you're saying that Kerry should have used a term something like, say, "pre-inaugurated Nixon" or "post-elected Nixon" or "not-yet-sworn-in Nixon" or "almost President" Nixon instead of just plain "President Nixon," and by not doing so, this makes Kerry a liar. Is that what you're really saying?

Of course, when Kerry originally made his Cambodia comment, it was in 1979, and by that time Nixon was an ex-President. But we don't formally refer to ex-Presidents as "ex-Presidents" do we? It's President Clinton or President Carter. So in 1979, Kerry used the proper term, "President Nixon," when referring to then ex-President Nixon.

The charge that Kerry lied about his Christmas in Cambodia comment originated with Swiftboaters' John O'Neill and Jerome "Jerry" Corsi in their book "Unfit for Command". The pertinent excerpt goes:

Despite the dramatic memories of his Christmas in Cambodia, Kerry's statements are complete lies. Kerry was never in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, or at all during the Vietnam War. In reality, during Christmas 1968, he was more than fifty miles away from Cambodia. Kerry was never ordered into Cambodia by anyone and would have been court-martialed had he gone there.

But it's has been already well-documented that US Special Forces were operating in Cambodia since at least 1965. Indeed, there's one Special Forces soldier, Roy Benavidez, who was awarded the Medal of Honor for rescuing 12 Special Forces soldiers doing reconnaissance in Cambodia in May of 1968.

Due to the pretense that no U.S. personnel engaged in ground combat in Cambodia in 1968, the citation for his medal shifted the location across the border into South Vietnam.

Which makes the Swiftie's claim that "Kerry was never ordered into Cambodia by anyone and would have been court-martialed had he gone there" utter BS just like eveything else they've been claiming. The US was running all the while they were denying it covert ops in Cambodia. This was very old news when "Unfit for Command" was written, again making the Swiftboaters deliberate liars and the people believing them utter fools.

So, because someone else wa... (Below threshold)

So, because someone else was in Cambodia sometime, Kerry was?

Weak.

And, Nixon would not have been speaking in an official capacity in Dec. 1968. Only President Johnson would have had anything relevant to say about the war then. But that doesn't fit Kerry's narrative that Vietnam was "Nixon's war."

JohnAnnArbor weakly replied... (Below threshold)
BC:

JohnAnnArbor weakly replied:

So, because someone else was in Cambodia sometime, Kerry was?

Um, the extensive Special Forces ops going on at the time completely undercuts O'Neill and Corsi's basic contention that Kerry would have been court martialed if he or any other soldier had gone into Cambodia. And it supports Kerry's assertion that he was helping out with a Special Forces operation.

Weak.

Try exercise and eating right

And, Nixon would not have been speaking in an official capacity in Dec. 1968. Only President Johnson would have had anything relevant to say about the war then. But that doesn't fit Kerry's narrative that Vietnam was "Nixon's war."

Speaking is speaking, and again you are going back to what Kerry said several years after Nixon had already been President and had resigned. And after it had come out that Nixon had lied about Vietnam and Cambodia. Go look up "Operation Menu".

I should comment on the use... (Below threshold)
BC:

I should comment on the use of citing Wikipedia in Blogger and Usenet context. While I personally prefer to use original source cites as much as possible, since Wikipedia usually sources and footnotes its articles, it makes for a perfectly good cite for both a summary article and a source of links to source material in an informal debate setting. While the accuracy of the main article is sometimes not perfect, Science Magazine one time compared Wikipedia to the Encyclopedia Britannica and found them to be roughly comparable in accuracy. If you compare this to the accuracy of your average newspaper and magazine article, and even government reports, this is not exactly a bad thing.

BC,And as recently a... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

BC,
And as recently as Feb 2007 and October 2006, Science Mag has ran articles that focus on Wiki's inherent un-reliability. Alot has changed about Wiki's perception since 2005.

BTW, still waiting on your explanation about Healey vs Flynn.

Will you put up, or shut up?

Big bad band-aid man has AD... (Below threshold)
Robert the original:

Big bad band-aid man has ADMITTED that he could not have been in Cambodia at Christmas, 1968.

The problem is that he had made a SERIES of speeches all claiming to have been a witness and a participant ro US operations and bombing in Cambodia ON CHIRSTMAS DAY. IT WAS SEARED, SEARED in his memory to boot.

YOU ARE DEFENDING BIG BAD BAND-AID MAN WHEN HE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THESE STATEMENTS WERE FALSE!

SCSIwuzzy wuzzied:... (Below threshold)
BC:

SCSIwuzzy wuzzied:

BC...
How many times are you going to pull that BS out?
David Healey? Assoc. English prof that teaches technical writing. AKA, computer manuals and procedures. He's not a forensic document expert.But real experts in the field like Bill Flynn have labled the 60 Minutes' memo a fraud.
Take off the tin-foil suit. Your body needs some exposure to process vitamin d, at the very least.

This is a little OT for this thread, but I can say with some assuredness that the fundamental problem with pretty much all of the so-called experts opinionating about the memos is that their expertise is way too limited, especially in regards to the capabilities and extent of the word processing equipment that was around in those days. Even I was surprised to find that there were full-page video-based word processors being sold in 1972 (the Lexitron Videotype), and that the word processors that were common in the mid-70's had far more capabilities for proportional printing and typeset-quality output than the Wang and IBM units that came later (and which people only vaguely remember now), when offices apparently wanted more simplicity. Also since the "Times Roman" font used in Word was based on the Times and Times-like fonts used in those early word processors, it would follow then that a document created on a daisywheel using a Times printwheel and would proportional spacing turned on, would resemble one created in Word to some extent. But not perfectly, as is the true case.

These so-called experts also ignored some pretty obvious issues with the created-by-Word theory: the centering of the letterhead that some of the memos have does not match up with a Word recreation; none of the "st's" that follow a number, as in "1st," are superscripted in any of the memos, although most of the "th's" are, which is something you never see in a modern word processor. This was a common issue, though, with both old word processors (and typewriters) because of the print wheels having only a couple of extra spokes for special characters; while Charles Johnson was able to overlay the "CYA memo" to a Word recreation fairly well (to the untrained eye), this doesn't work too well with a longer memo and most of all, the matchup in the content of the memos to the official DoD records is so extensive and subtle that it's both ludicrous and virtually impossible for any forger to have done it without making some mistake along the way.

Actually the memo that really gives the forgery theory a difficult time is not one of Killian memos that CBS used, but one of the two "extras" that USA Today had, specifically the very short one dated Feb 2nd, 1972 and which simply goes (to Harris), "Update me as soon as possible on flight certifications. Specifically - Bath and Bush."

"Bath" refers to James Bath, another pilot verbally suspended from flying by Killian exactly one month after Bush was, and for the exact same reason, and who later becomes an important business partner to Bush. Bath's name is redacted from the current DoD records, but a researcher, Marty Heldt, had a non-redacted copy from an earlier FOIA request and he discovered the discrepency. A bigger issue is the question about flight certifications. While the DoD site has Bush's flight records, they are not in order and the copy is bad, so it's very hard to tell that much from them as is. However, if one takes the time time to input their info into a spreadsheet and put them in order, and then aggregate them by month and by type of craft "flown" (the listed "flights" included simulators and trainers), and then finally graph the net result -- well.


As far as Bill Flynn versus David Hailey goes in expert versus expert, Flynn has only made casual observations obviously without any detailed analysis -- quote" "These sure look like forgeries" -- whereas Hailey is a document archivist evidently a bit more familiar with how old documents look, and he also got hi-rez copies of the Killian memos from Mary Mapes to study. I know, though, that Hailey, like the others, is pretty unaware of capabilites of 70's office technology. Flynn I'm a lot less familiar with, but a quick Googke shows that he knows less than Hailey does about 70's tech: From a Washington Post article (I'd link, but I might be at my limit before Wizbang flags it: "While IBM had introduced an electric typewriter that used proportional spacing by the early 1970s, it was not widely used in government. In addition, Flynn said, the CBS documents appear to use proportional spacing both across and down the page, a relatively recent innovation. Other anomalies in the documents include the use of the superscripted letters "th" in phrases such as 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron, Bush's unit.

"It would be nearly impossible for all this technology to have existed at that time," said Flynn, who runs a document-authentication company in Phoenix.

Which I happen to know and have shown to be a factually nonsensical statement.

There, satisfied?

The only "contribution" ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

The only "contribution" the not-so Swifties ever made to society was the term "Swiftboating" -- to smear via viral marketing and using gullible

Given the left views smearing as simply repeating, factually, what was said (ala the Marcotte affair), you've just said the SBVT were being accurate.
-=Mike

MikeSC randomly stuck in: <... (Below threshold)
BC:

MikeSC randomly stuck in:

"The only "contribution" the not-so Swifties ever made to society was the term "Swiftboating" -- to smear via viral marketing and using gullible"

Given the left views smearing as simply repeating, factually, what was said (ala the Marcotte affair), you've just said the SBVT were being accurate.

Well, well -- aren't we the accidental helper. Amanda Marcotte was smeared by taking choice, juicy snippets of what she wrote so utterly out of context that the point(s) of the larger pieces they appeared in were completely lost. This is a pretty standard right wing technique. I already experienced it first hand recently courtesy of "OhioVoter," who snipped out little bits of my postings, including ones with obvious typos, and tried to "prove" that not only I lied, but that I admitted to lying. I tried to dutifully correct him on that, but I'm dubious of my success.

In your case, not only did you take a snippet of an earlier post out of context, but you also ended it pretty randomly.

Why do right wingers hate context so much? Or is it more a case of genuinely not understanding what "context" actually means?

Well, well -- aren't we ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Well, well -- aren't we the accidental helper. Amanda Marcotte was smeared by taking choice, juicy snippets of what she wrote so utterly out of context that the point(s) of the larger pieces they appeared in were completely lost.

Actually, no they were not. She has CONTINUED making the same uneducated comments on the Duke rape case (if she's reading this --- the "racist" email, Amanda, that proves that the boys wanted to rape her didn't come from any of the accused but somebody else). She made some insanely offensive comments about Christians that she wouldn't make about ANY other group (outside of white males).

And you, as usual, defend her.
-=Mike

MikeSC wrote:"W... (Below threshold)
BC:

MikeSC wrote:

"Well, well -- aren't we the accidental helper. Amanda Marcotte was smeared by taking choice, juicy snippets of what she wrote so utterly out of context that the point(s) of the larger pieces they appeared in were completely lost."

Actually, no they were not. She has CONTINUED making the same uneducated comments on the Duke rape case (if she's reading this --- the "racist" email, Amanda, that proves that the boys wanted to rape her didn't come from any of the accused but somebody else). She made some insanely offensive comments about Christians that she wouldn't make about ANY other group (outside of white males).

To be honest, I don't really pay much attention to the leftist/liberal blog sites and I only pay attention to the right wing ones when they infect the general news. So I only took note of Marcotte when the "Edwards' Bloggers" thing starting showing up in Google News. When I saw who was attacking her -- the right wing blogosphere -- I knew automatically before doing a lick of research that it was extremely likely that: A) she was being swiftboated; B) whatever "evidence" against here being circulated was taken completely out of context at best or utter, unmitigated BS at worst; and C) worth defending out of principle even if I didn't end up personally agreeing with her opinions and writings.

A perusal of the right wing charges, especially using Michelle Malkin's site as the clearing house for "info," and then comparing them to what was contained in Marcotte's postings at Pandagon confirmed my initial suspicions: Marcotte is no more than a well-educated, smart, liberal feminist with strong, passionate opinions about issues, especially ones that touch upon religion, philosphy and human rights, and she tends to be creatively and profanely descriptive in her expressions and terminology. In my area, within walking distance of Harvard, there are likely thousands of girls just like her and some are my friends (and, yes, I can get away with using the word "girl," but you have to do it in proper context.) If you regularly read any of the local "alternative" weekly newspapers, like the Boston Phoenix or the Weekly Dig, you regularly see opinions very much like those of Marcotte's and expressed in similar ways.

I was in a Usenet debate about her a little while back and I tried to find out if she was a fallen Catholic or not (I was under the impression she was). I couldn't, though, find anything about her religious background, but I did find a telling and thoughtful article involving religion she wrote in 1998 while she was still in college in Canada that foreshadowed her later writings .

The confused and messy Duke rape case business upset an awful lot of feminists who saw it both as a case of spoiled, arrogant jocks thinking they can get away with whatever they want with women, and as another example of the disturbing and continuing recent backwards trend of objectifying young women as being all potential "Girls Gone Wild," including pressuring college-age and even high school girls into thinking that acting slutty, especially for a camera, is cool and fun (as was very much the case with Katie Rees, the now ex-Miss Nevada.)

So when you put all of this in proper context (the right wing's boogeyperson), it's pretty clear who were the bad guys yet again involving "The Episode of the Edwards Bloggers."

I already experien... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:
I already experienced it first hand recently courtesy of "OhioVoter," who snipped out little bits of my postings, including ones with obvious typos, and tried to "prove" that not only I lied, but that I admitted to lying. I tried to dutifully correct him on that, but I'm dubious of my success.

WHAT A HOOT! I haven't participated in this thread in in over 2 days or the one that you are referencing in over 4 days, but you are still bothered by the fact I pointed out that you did not cite a source backing up your point as you claimed that you had done.

You do get unhinged when people disagree with you, don't you?

I see that you are still posting copious links. You might try this one. There you might learn the meaning of the words "typo" and "context".

Generally when "typos" include one of two things: (Example) Either a person types "there" as "tgyrw" or as "their".

In the paragraph of your that I responded to, how many words did you either mispell or use the wrong keys to type?

Zero. Zip. Zilch.

Now, let's move on to the definition of "context".

In same thread that you mentioned earlier, your claimed that our veterans will standing on stumps with paper cups begging for coins in front of 7-11 thanks to the cuts in the budget President George W. Bush will make in 2010-2012.

Context is pointing out that George W. Bush will not be president in 2010 - somebody else will.

Context is pointing out that Congress - not the president - approves the budget.

Context is pointing out that the budget for 2010-2012 does not exist yet and that the people who will approve that budget have not even been elected yet.

Context is pointing out that even the budget projection - the one that YOU posted over and over and over and over ... DOES NOT INCLUDE A BUDGET CUT IN 2010-2012.

Now, under pressure, you did admit the last one was true and that your earlier statement claiming that "the VA budget is being cut" was untrue.

I can understand WHY you hate "context" so much, however. Truth tends to get in the way of your conspiracy theory-based belief system.

When I saw who was attacking her -- the right wing blogosphere -- I knew automatically before doing a lick of research that ....

I always like to see someone with a bias admit that their mind is firmly closed to the facts. (And before you claim that you were 'taken out of context', your comments are just above and quite lengthy. No need to post them all again - people can scroll up and see them.

Love your link to Marcotte's article. Given that you have proven her capable of discussing religion without all the profanity, it pretty well proves that she either does it to make money from a specific market niche or to deliberately antogonize religous people.

Also, great link about the Duke rape case. Nothing proves your point - *NOT* - like posting an article that is nearly a year old and that has been virtually 100% refuted.

In my area, within walking distance of Harvard, there are likely thousands of girls just like her and some are my friends (and, yes, I can get away with using the word "girl," but you have to do it in proper context.)

So you can call women "girls" and get away with it ... because why?

I have to say though - I would pay good money to see you make that claim directly to Marcotte. LOL!

OhioVoter did it again:... (Below threshold)
BC:

OhioVoter did it again:

He posted this "quote" from me:

"When I saw who was attacking her -- the right wing blogosphere -- I knew automatically before doing a lick of research that ...."

And said this about that:

I always like to see someone with a bias admit that their mind is firmly closed to the facts. (And before you claim that you were 'taken out of context', your comments are just above and quite lengthy. No need to post them all again - people can scroll up and see them.

Very thoughtful of him to say there was "No need to post them all again" in regards to my comment, but just saying this and adding an ellipsis doesn't at all excuse that he again took a snippet of what I said completely out of context in order to make another dumbass claim regarding it. My full post is not too far up and had this following my snippet: A perusal of the right wing charges, especially using Michelle Malkin's site as the clearing house for "info," and then comparing them to what was contained in Marcotte's postings at Pandagon confirmed my initial suspicions:", and then I went into reasons why I thought this.

I actually had already posted a longer reply with cites from the original Wizbang thread demonstrating OhioVoter's little proclivity for barbering other people's comments, but it was flagged and held by Wizbang's automated system for, I'm guessing, having too many links (5). It might appear after review, so I won't repeat it. The above, I think, demonstrates well enough the now-standard right-wing tactic of: A) snipping comments completely out of context; B) ignoring the purpose and main points of the full, complete piece that the snips came from; C) creating a fake ass straw man supposedly representing the original author by characterizing the snippet(s) in a highly misleading or outright, utterly BS manner; and then D) attacking the straw man that they themselves had created out of essentially nothing.

Utterly dispicable behavior by any standard.

P.S.This is little... (Below threshold)
BC:

P.S.

This is little OT for this thread, but since an earlier thread (courtesy of OhioVoter) regarding the VA budget came up, I thought I ought to point out a new documentary coming out that shows how the sorry ass Walter Reed mess is not so unusual a situation for US veterans in general.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy