 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ASPB
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1680
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2004 3:05 pm Post subject: The Big Lie Campaign |
 |
|
Our scream ought to be They're Lying and We'll be dying.
| Quote: | The Big Lie Campaign
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 18, 2004
As wars go, the conflict in Iraq was (and is) as good as it gets. A three week military campaign with minimal casualties, 25 million people liberated from one of the most sadistic tyrants of modern times, the establishment of a military and intelligence base in the heart of the terrorist world. What well-meaning person could oppose this? In fact there is none. It was one thing to worry about the war before the fact, as Brent Scowcroft and others did, that a military conflict could lead to eruptions in the Muslim world and a conflagration out of control. This was opposition based on honorable intentions, which events have effectively answered.
But the current opposition to the war after the fact has no such justification in real world events. The war has had enormous beneficial effects with minimal negative consequences. A terrible tyrant was taken down. The filling of mass graves with 300,000 corpses were stopped. Plastic shredders for human beings were deactivated. Prisons for four to twelve year olds were closed. A democratic constitution has been drafted. Two-thirds of al-Qaeda’s leadership is gone. There hasn’t been a terrorist attack in America in more than two and a half years, something no one would have predicted after 9/11. By any objective standard, the Bush war on terror is a triumph.
These real world considerations are why the campaign waged by the Democratic Party and a Democratic press against the Bush war policy is based not on any analysis of the war itself, but on maliciously concocted claims about the prewar justification for military action. For purely political agendas, the Democrats hope to attempt to convict the Administration of “misleading the American public” and wasting American lives through deception and fraud, and thus to defeat the President at the polls in November. |
For the balance of the article go to: http://frontpagemagazine.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13824
in summation Horowitz say:
| Quote: | | In either case – and in both cases – what we are confronting in this spectacle is an unprecedented event in American political life. In the midst of a good war and a noble enterprise, a major American party is engaged in an effort to stab its own country in the back for short term political gain, and is willing to do to so by the most underhanded and unscrupulous means. |
Fight Back! Boycott the Mainsewer Media!
_________________
 On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB
Last edited by ASPB on Fri Jun 18, 2004 11:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NoDonkey
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 02 Jun 2004
Posts: 78
Location: Arlington, VA
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2004 3:49 pm Post subject: Re: The Big Lie Campaign |
|
|
Great article. Horowitz skewers the left so well because he used to be one of them and knows their tactics. The Democratic Party is playing a very dangerous game, and I have no patience with people who even consider them to be capable or even willing to defend this nation.
I just read this on the Power Line Blog - good companion reading:
>>Two questions
First, assume the following: al Qaeda had contacts with Saddam's regime during the late 1990s. We have no credible evidence that they ever collaborated in a terrorist venture, but we don't have a thorough record of what happened when the two entities were in contact. We know that one of the world's most dangerous terrorists was in Iraq and received medical treatment there. This terrorist ran his own operation, but was also associated with al Qaeda. Saddam Hussein produced biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. Our best intelligence was that he had such weapons at the time we attacked him. That intelligence is now subject to doubt, but there is little question that he once had such weapons and was capable of producing them again.
Under these circumstances, is the United States safer with Saddam and his regime gone?
Second, assume all of the above. Assume also that President Clinton spoke often about the dangers of Iraq's WMD program and seriously considered going to war with Saddam in 1998. Assume that President Bush received approval from Congress, with strong support from Democrats, to go to war with Saddam but didn't do so (or assume that Bush never considered going to war). Finally, assume that the U.S. is attacked by terrorists who use biological or chemical weapons that Saddam at one time possessed and had the capacity to produce.
Under these circumstances, would Democrats (and bi-partisan commissions) be outraged at President Bush for not overthrowing Saddam's regime?<<
_________________
"Liberalism is totalitarianism with a human face." - Thomas Sowell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
War Dog
Captain
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 517
Location: Below Birmingham Alabama
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 18, 2004 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NoDonkey, I do believe the answers to both questions should be YES!
Woof!
_________________
"When people are in trouble, they call the cops.
When cops need help, they call the K-9 unit." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fortdixlover
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 12 May 2004
Posts: 1476
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 12:00 am Post subject: Re: The Big Lie Campaign |
|
|
| ASPB wrote: | | Fight Back! Boycott the Mainsewer Media! |
I really, really, really wish there were a way to organize a mass boycott of the "mainstream" media and its advertisers on a very large scale.
I really, really do. For those guys are sensitive to one issue, and one issue alone: money.
FDL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ASPB
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 01 Jun 2004
Posts: 1680
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 12:19 am Post subject: Re: The Big Lie Campaign |
|
|
| fortdixlover wrote: | | ASPB wrote: | | Fight Back! Boycott the Mainsewer Media! |
I really, really, really wish there were a way to organize a mass boycott of the "mainstream" media and its advertisers on a very large scale.
I really, really do. For those guys are sensitive to one issue, and one issue alone: money.
FDL |
Ya know FDL,
Movements get started in small ways.
If one of our better writers were to draft a letter to media and another letter to advertisers and each of us sends them to all our friends and associates, post them on conservative blogs and other websites, and ask people to use the form letters to generate their own letters it might grow into something meaningful.
Without the internet it would be impossible but...... Watcha guys think?
Call the Effort: Citizens for Truth in Media 
_________________
On Sale! Order in lots of 100 now at velero@rcn.com Free for the cost of shipping All profits (if any, especially now) go to Swiftvets. The author of "Sink Kerry Swiftly" ---ASPB |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
Targeting advertisers can have a big impact since advertisers exert tremendous control over editorial content. Advertisers like Fortune 500 companies especially.
This is just one of many reasons that the mainstream media is just a way to keep the rabble and riffraff in line to carry out the whims of corporate elites. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rbshirley
Founder
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sparky wrote: | It says quite a bit about a man that during those years he *wasn't* in the
jungle, on a river, taking shrapnel and taking risks and making life-long
friends and is instead remembered by nobody for long stretches of time
with none coming forward
|
It says quite a bit about a man that during those years when others were
in the jungle, on a river, taking shrapnel and taking risks, that he instead
was in a meeting with the enemies of those soldiers, whose result was to
produce propaganda in the media and Congress that would deceive the
country into believing that hundreds of thousands would NOT perish if the
United States just walked away from its obligations in South East Asia.
But there was no shame for that man. Instead he is today revered in the
War Crimes Museum in HCM City for helping win the political war for the
Communists. That was terribly wrong then. He is terribly wrong today.
And there will be a majority of Americans at the polls this November rejecting
that wrongness with their votes based on truth rather than exaggerations
.
Last edited by rbshirley on Sat Jun 19, 2004 3:50 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Navy_Navy_Navy
Admin
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 5777
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 7:19 am Post subject: Re: The Big Lie Campaign |
|
|
| fortdixlover wrote: | I really, really, really wish there were a way to organize a mass boycott of the "mainstream" media and its advertisers on a very large scale.
I really, really do. For those guys are sensitive to one issue, and one issue alone: money. |
It's already happening, without any large, organized "boycotts."
Viewers are voting with their feet and their remote controls. Viewership is down for all the alphabet networks and msnbc, despite attempts to add shows like "Joe Scarborough."
Fox news, on the other hand, continues to gain viewers.
More people are turning to conservative talk radio for news and more people are turning to the internet for news.
I'd suspect that the partisan media is going to try to counter with the addition of a "conservative hour" here and there, but will go down fighting to their gasp with leftists bullsnit.
It might be money that they're sensitive to, but it's socialism and ABB that they're loyal to.
Leftists traditionally continue to push socialist agendas no matter how many times the agendas have been tried and failed and the same will be true with the leftist media. They won't give up on their message until the stockholders start screaming for reform and leaving en masse - but who are the stockholders?  I would rather imagine that the thinking goes something like this; "I'm willing to forgo dividends checks from a network that is promoting my leftist agenda."
Keep on freefalling - CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, FNBC.... Fox News and the internet are capably picking up the viewers that you have alienated.
_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2004 12:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Howard Kurtz addressed media credibility in a recent article, and, frankly, I was more taken by what he didn't say than what he did say.
An excerpt...and do not be misled by the title which is simply symptomatic of the point I hope to make. Unfortunately, however, I don't have the time to address it at the moment due to a busy Saturday schedule but would like to toss it out there for you folks to kick around a bit, as it seems to specifically address the issue(s) in this thread. It will be interesting (at least for me anyway  ) to see if any of you have the same "take" on the article as I do.
| Quote: | Fewer Republicans Trust the News, Survey Finds
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page C01
In a country increasingly divided into red and blue states, the media are taking on a more partisan coloration as well -- at least in the eyes of those who read and watch.
Republicans have come to distrust the media in greater numbers since President Bush took office, says a new poll released yesterday, while Democratic views are mostly unchanged.
Only about half as many Republicans as Democrats find the usual media suspects credible, says the Pew Research Center, including the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, U.S. News & World Report, CBS, ABC, NBC, National Public Radio and PBS's "NewsHour with Jim Lehrer."
"CNN's once-dominant credibility ratings have slumped in recent years, mostly among Republicans and independents," the survey says. "By comparison, the Fox News Channel's believability ratings have held steady -- both overall and within partisan groups."
While the percentage of people who rate CNN as highly credible has slid from 42 percent six years ago to 32 percent now, the study says, "more continue to say they can believe all or most of what they hear on CNN than say that about Fox News Channel," whose credibility rating is 25 percent. MSNBC clocks in at 22 percent. ("60 Minutes" edged the field with 33 percent.)
In a finding that surprised Andrew Kohut, the Pew center's director, 29 percent of Republicans say Fox News Channel is credible, only slightly more than the 26 percent of GOPers who feel that way about CNN. Among Democrats, though, 45 percent give CNN a thumbs up for credibility, compared with 24 percent for Fox News Channel.
Washington Post - "Media Matters"
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
carpro
Admin
Joined: 10 May 2004
Posts: 1176
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 3:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sparky wrote: | Targeting advertisers can have a big impact since advertisers exert tremendous control over editorial content. Advertisers like Fortune 500 companies especially.
This is just one of many reasons that the mainstream media is just a way to keep the rabble and riffraff in line to carry out the whims of corporate elites. |
Then this must mean that "corporate elites" have liberal agendas.
That doesn't square very well with liberal demonization of corporations.
Hmmmmm.
_________________
"If he believes his 1971 indictment of his country and his fellow veterans was true, then he couldn't possibly be proud of his Vietnam service." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
Carpo: "Then this must mean that "corporate elites" have liberal agendas.
That doesn't square very well with liberal demonization of corporations.
Hmmmmm."
Dow Jones, Knight Ridder, Rupert Murdoch, Gannett, Westinghouse, General Electric, Hearst Corp, Cox...
Liberal? Gimme a break. These are corporate interests and only by misrepresenting and redefining the "liberal agenda" can you conclude that the owners of the media have a liberal bias.
Seriously, when was the last time you read about the virtues of the minimum wage and not just a proposal to raise it? We stand now with a lower minimum wage since the day it was enacted and the "liberal media" hasn't spoken of it until John Kerry brought it up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rbshirley
Founder
Joined: 07 May 2004
Posts: 394
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| sparky wrote: | It says quite a bit about a man that during those years he *wasn't* in the
jungle, on a river, taking shrapnel and taking risks and making life-long
friends and is instead remembered by nobody for long stretches of time
with none coming forward
|
.............................. "life-long friends" ?????? ................................
....... 
.............................. "with none coming forward" .....................................
It says quite a bit about a man that during those years when others were
in the jungle, on a river, taking shrapnel and taking risks, that he instead
was in a meeting with the enemies of those soldiers, whose result was to
produce propaganda in the media and Congress that would deceive the
country into believing that hundreds of thousands would NOT perish if the
United States just walked away from its obligations in South East Asia.
But there was no shame for that man. Instead he is today revered in the
War Crimes Museum in HCM City for helping win the political war for the
Communists. That was terribly wrong then. He is terribly wrong today.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RBshirley, Kerry wasn't referring to that grouping of officers, a group he didn't have an indepth acquaintance with. Those who served *directly* with Kerry, or who you refer to as his "buddies," are unanimously in support of him except for one.
Not bad. There's at least one dittohead in every bunch. This one, Gardner, calls the Vietnamese "gooks."
So, yes, his band of brothers that were on the same boat with him -- at the same time -- are his "lifelong friends." They actually *served* with Kerry and know him well.
And yes, it says quite a bit about a man that during those years he *wasn't* in the jungle, on a river, taking shrapnel and taking risks and making life-long friends and is instead remembered by nobody for long stretches of time with none coming forward.
Especially when you consider how frequently pictures were being taken. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | who you refer to as his "buddies," are unanimously in support of him except for one. |
Then, it isn't UNANIMOUS, is it?
However, that 3 or 4 men who were there on the boat with him for the scant 4 month tour support him is not overall support from veterans.
| Quote: | | There's at least one dittohead in every bunch. This one, Gardner, calls the Vietnamese "gooks." |
I don't know of any who didn't refer to the Vietnamese as "gooks," "dinks," or other such derogatory names. I don't believe for a minute that even Kerry hasn't used the term himself.
| Quote: | | his band of brothers that were on the same boat with him -- at the same time -- are his "lifelong friends." |
And of course, you have documentation that they have remained in contact and friendly for the entire 35 years? You also have proof they aren't "paid" for their support? Are they also "lifelong friends" with Kerry's replacement after his abandoning them?
| Quote: | | Especially when you consider how frequently pictures were being taken. |
Yes, wasn't it "convenient" that a film crew just happened to be there filming Kerry alone walking out of a jungle area in full combat gear that even the infantry dudes didn't wear all of? I'm curious just how many takes that "candid" shot took. Mighty fine filming for an "amatuer" 8mm hand held movie camera, without all of his "lifelong friends" alongside of him.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sparky
Former Member
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 546
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 20, 2004 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
He still calls them Gooks. Haven't most Vietnam vets outgrown that by now?
As for unanimous, explaining the single exception immediately after using the word is sound grammar. So yes, except for one exception, the dittohead, those who served with him at the same time on the same boat are unanimous in their high regards for him, especially those on the campaign trail with him.
Documentation that they've remained in contact with him? You're kidding, right? Have you really missed this? You haven't seen any of the film footage?
Ok, I admit it, I don't have documentation that his band of brothers who have been campaigning with him in televised footage and news coverage are really the same ones and not paid imposters.
| Quote: | | "You also have proof they aren't "paid" for their support." |
Nope. Can't prove a negative. But as Keith Nolan said about lies and innuendo.....
Too bad Bush wasn't the camera buff that Kerry was. Then you wouldn't be in the awkward position of avoiding a discussion of what George was doing in Alabama when nobody remembers him showing up, even those who were looking for him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
