 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
wvobiwan
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 09 Aug 2004
Posts: 79
Location: Harpers Ferry, WV
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 9:07 pm Post subject: My response |
 |
|
Sorry, my response is a bit too angry. Whoever suggested waiting a day before replying is clever, although I'm afraid they'd ignore any replies after a day...
Dear Mr. Eldridge,
Following is my response to your paper's unbelievable editorial regarding the Swift Boat Veteran controversy. Completely false and unsubstantiated Kerry Talking Points can no longer be masqueraded as an editorial - the Blogosphere will ensure that old media such as yourself can no longer shove a bias down our throats, consequence-free.
I understand that Randy replied that a pro-Swifty story is in the works in your paper. I applaud any effort to tell the truth. But a subsequent pro-Swifty article is NO EXCUSE for the patently false, biased, and libelous drivel in Mr. Patrick's editorial. This man did no work whatsoever to fact check his story, he ought to be fired for incompetence.
How about just telling the truth and let the events decide which side they are on? Or is that too honorable these days in your business?
Regards,
Doug Hillgren
Harpers Ferry, WV
Response to news@jessaminejournal.com
Mr. Patrick,
I don't read your paper, but found your 'editorial' linked on the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth Web Site. I've seen some of the other responses sent to you, they are posted there as well, so I'll keep my comments short and to the point:
Your anti-Swifty editorial has all the veracity and responsibility of a Michael Moore movie. If you don't know what you're talking about, FIND OUT before you put pen to paper. You obviously did no research whatever and are only repeating Kerry Campaign talking points - you have publically embarrased yourself, you newspaper, and your profession.
My questions to you are: Who in the Kerry Campaign are you working for? Who from Kerry's camp contacted you, gave you your article's talking points, and coached you on word choice (I've seen suspiciously similar phrasings in several other news outlets)? Have you even read the book Unfit for Command?
Doug
Harpers Ferry, WV
_________________
Doug
"Proud of my Dad, 2-tour veteran of VN."
Kerry/Edwards Foreign Policy Slogan: Accept our surrender or we'll sue! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RocketFett
PO3
Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 292
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:23 pm Post subject: Response from randy |
|
|
This is the response I got from HIM to my initial letter. This guy is clueless. ALL the things I sent him, all the evidence of kerry lies, and the only thing he could comment on is the fact I called kerry a traitor. I put my response underneath his reply to my first e-mail to him. I hope this guy goes out and rents a cheap clue. I know my response isn't very diplomatic. But the glibness of his reply really p****d me off!  Being called a traitor is the absolute least of things that kerry has coming to him!
His reply to my first e-mail:
Traitor? That's a pretty strong thing to call a man for opposing a war,
especially if he fought in it. This is a democracy after all? What are
we about if not the right to dissent? Isn't that what you guys are
doing?
My response:
If he had just opposed the war, that would be okay. If he had come back and just protested, smoked some pot, had sex with a few nameless girls in some trailer, than protested again the next day, that would have been okay. But he didn't do that. And you know it. Dissent is so far from what he actually did those years after Jan 69 that to call what he did dissent is a pure bastardizatin of the meaning of the word.
He flew to Paris and met with the NVA Communists negotiating the end to a war that he didn't have the authority to negotiate on.
He flew to Hanoi and worked with them to protest the war, appearing on video with them and in audio and in pictures working with the North Vietnamese Communists, and his words were used in the torture of our many hundreds of POWs, making their years long captivity even worse.
He came back to the U.S. and perjured himself under oath, testifying to all the numerous war crimes to which he had no evidence to support, later claiming on the talk show circuit that he committed those self same atrocities, then in 95 and two weeks ago, saying that he didn't mean the "SWIFTIES" did those crimes, he meant the "other" Vietnam Vets did them, even though he never served with anyone BUT the Swift Boat Vets, so there's no WAY he could have seen any war crimes, much less committed any, but he still said he did under oath.
And the only reason he can't be tried for treason under Article 3, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment is because of a stupid piddly technicality because he was saying all those wicked evil things as the leader member of an organization, and not as the individual former Lt. J.G. john f. kerry. Had the congress in the 1870s of known what would happen 100 years later, they would have fixed that hole in that Amendment, so that you couldn't violate your oath as a military officer, and violate the 14th Amendment, and then get away with it over such a ridiculous technicality.
The 1st Amendment has NOTHING to do with it, and the constant abuse of the real spirt of the 1st Amendment to excuse dispicable behavior is really old and extremely repulsive! When you take that oath, whic he took, to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America, from enemies foreign and domestic, you LOSE your right to free speech! And if you don't like that then you need to keep your butt home and NOT put on that uniform! THAT is what the UCMJ is and he was NOT released from that oath until 1972, three years after he started lying about the U.S. military and all it's service men fighting and dying in Vietnam. Freedom of speech stopped applying to what he was doing as soon as he started blatantly giving aid and comfort to the communits North Vietnamese invaders of the South in Paris and North Vietnam, helping them in all ways short only of using physical weapons against our own troops. What he did was more devastating, and the POWs REMEMBER THAT!
He won't ever by convicted of treason I am certain of that. There is too much liberal influence and inherited Heinze money to guarantee that won't happen. But john f. kerry is as guilty of treason as was benedict arnold, and he deserves the same punishment. The fact that now 30 years later, he suddenly puts on the armor of the great military soldier, bragging about the same medals he threw over the White House fence decades ago just makes it all the more repulsive. When it suited him, he was a protestor calling the military a bunch of baby killers. Now it suits him to be one of those military baby killers to try and become President! Unacceptable. UNACCEPTABLE!!!
It's easy for you to say it's "a pretty strong thing to say". YOU haven't been spit on in an airport and called a murdering baby killer when all you did was do your duty, serve your country, and fight to give the democratic free people of South Vietnam what we have here, what they DESERVED, what they HAD, and what they didn't ASK to have TAKEN from them by FORCE by the same NORTH VIETNAMESE that john kerry allied himself with to end the war! Thanks in large part to him, the South Vietnamese have lived in horrible Communist oppression and no small number of them were tortured and murdered because they were formerly part of the Democratic south. Really something for johnny boy to be proud of. Funny how you don't find THAT little tidbit in his memoirs!
Until you have come home and received that kind of hideous treatment by people too cowardly to actually wear the uniform, or serve a REAL FULL YEAR LONG TOUR, don't tell me how harsh it is calling him a traitor. Those things didn't grab hold and happen to our military as they came home until john kerry made his impact in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, after he started perjuring himself in front of the Senate. Read his book, "The New Soldier" http://johnkerrythenewsoldier.blogspot.com if you haven't already. If he was convicted of treason and executed he'd still be getting off easy compared to all the harm he has caused. He certainly doesn't deserve to be President as a reward. Not considering the blood of the 10,000 additional soldiers who died the last few years of the war are squarely on his hands. One of the Generals of North Vietnam went on the record years ago stating that he is convinced that it is because of the efforts of John Kerry and the others with him that they beat the "Imperialistic invading Americans". If not for that, the North would have been defeated. And to hell with the formerly free people of South Vietnam, even though they deserve the same freedom we have enjoyed for over 200 years. PRETTY STRONG!!! You have no clue Mister. No clue at all. Go get one!
BTW. john kerry didn't FIGHT in that war. He made an appearance to get some movies, manipulate some medals, and plan a political career. MY FATHER fought in that war. FOUR FULL tours. FULL YEAR LONG TOURS!!! What kerry did is a warm cup of piss compared to that. Three months in a unit which he joined with the expectations of not being sent into combat. Joining a costal PCF squadron figuring "coastal" was safe since the North Vietnamese have no real Navy. He was just too stupid to realize that PCFs would be going up and down all the rivers, many of which run North and South. I'd appreciate if you didn't insult the real service my father nad over 3 million other men did in that country, by calling what john kerry did "serving". Going, and serving, are two very different things my friend. john kerry "went". My father SERVED![
Last edited by RocketFett on Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:30 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom Poole
Vice Admiral
Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 914
Location: America
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:29 pm Post subject: Re: Randy Patrick |
|
|
The posting by baldeagl Aug 31 @ 11:24 meant to say this:
| Randy Patrick wrote: | | I didn't know that. Thanks for informing me. I tend to question "alternative" forms of media, whether of the left or the right. They don't have the same commitment to truth and fairness that we in the mainstream media have. |
| baldeagl wrote: | | Like the committment he has for the truth? He didn't know who Michael Kranish was, for god's sake. That's kindergarten stuff in this saga. |
_________________
'58 Airedale HMR(L)-261 VMO-2
Last edited by Tom Poole on Thu Sep 02, 2004 2:38 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RocketFett
PO3
Joined: 05 Aug 2004
Posts: 292
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 01, 2004 10:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| YEAH REALLY! How could this guy NOT know who michael kranish is for God's sake! He only wrote kerry's biography and the kerry/edwards official campaign book! I mean, come on! And HE'S supposedly a msm professional! Whatever. He certainly shares thelr credability that's for sure. Less than none. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrsdad
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
I have gone back and forth a bit with Mr. Patrick regarding his article:
| Quote: | Randy Patrick’s response to my critique of his opinion piece:
I thought I did demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that most of these accusations were deliberate distortions of the truth. The evidence is overwhelming that most of these accusations are false or distorted, and that this is deliberate because the sole purpose of this group is to achieve a partisan electoral objective. |
Jrsdad’s Response:
In other words, you cannot defend your article. You simply parrot what the Democratic party puts out there - ad hominem attacks, silly distortions and false claims.
Look at your statements. Were all the living members of his crews on stage with him? No. Is this what you consider a piece of evidence? Being wrong? Are you even aware you are wrong? Do you even know who Steve Gardner is? Ignorance.
Did you bother to read what the requirements for a Purple Heart are? Nope. But you feel free to write about it. That is called "ignorance." It is appalling in a "journalist". Do you know who recommended Kerry for his first PH? No? Then how can you state "he did not give them to himself." See, for all you know, he did. Ignorance.
You say Kerry changed his mind about the war, when his biography (which you have obviously not read - why bother, when Lanny Davis will tell you what to write?) clearly states he was anti-war as an undergraduate. Again, you are flat wrong. Ignorance.
You have made absolutely no substantive statements about the GOP in any way advising or controlling SBVFT, yet you say this is a GOP plot. This is a lie. In my opinion you are a liar, sir. Easily demonstrated, on the face of your statements. Your failure to acknowledge these things eliminates the possibility of you claiming you did not know... because I have told you, and given you the cites and facts. But you are too blinded to see your own cupidity. Ignorance.
I dare you to dispute any statement I have made, not with opinion but with facts. Come on, be a real man! Try to act like a real journalist, not a pompous, insular regurgitator of party lines! Live a little. Gain some self respect. Rise out of ignorance. Naw, that would involve real work, real thought, and possibly lead to the admission of error. We can't have that... can we?
You are a joke, sir. A hypocritical liar who is apparently not being held accountable by your editorial board for besmirching the integrity of your publication.
I believe in accountability. I think your piece deserves national attention, as do you. Let's see what I can manage, OK?
[Note: I was a little pissed off when I wrote the above.]
| Quote: | Randy Patrick’s response:
I'm not a Democrat, and I spent many hours reading objective journalistic sources, not biased conservative alternative media, although I did study the Swiftvets site and listened to interviews with John O' Neill and others. Don't call me biased when you're whole operation is entirely biased, yet has an Orwellian name that includes the word Truth with a capital T.
I don't think you care about the Truth. I do. I'm a journalist. It's the only thing I care about. |
The utter fatuousness of the man! The truth is the only thing he cares about?
JrsDad’s response:
Randy --
Here's a clue - don't just read "objective journalistic sources", read actual sources. Don't base your opinion on the opinions of others, base them upon original research, or at least *inform* your reading of the opinions of others with research checking those opinions. If you want to put a dog in this fight, read "Tour of Duty." Read Kranish's "JFK". Read the military requirements for awards like the Silver Star and the Purple Heart. Read the copies of documentation on JohnKerry.com. Read the statements of the eyewitnesses - all of them, on both sides, and work these into the other facts you have. Read how Kerry's story has changed over the years by going back over his statements recorded in your "objective journalism." Read how the Kerry campaign has now admitted that three claims Kerry has made repeatedly over the past 20 years were false regarding his service.
Your definition of a journalist seems to be "someone who reads other journalists and then forms his opinions and writes them." That's not journalism, that's letting others do your thinking for you. Journalism means finding the heart of the story, doing interviews, challenging the status quo, seeking the facts behind the rhetoric. You claim I am not interested in "the truth", while refusing to admit the clear errors in your own opinion piece.
Tell me - is it true that Steve Gardner was not on PCF-44 under Kerry? If he was not, then you have written the truth. If he was, then I have written the truth.
Can you answer that question? Should I be concerned that you, a journalist, is publishing untruths and refuse to retract them? This is not an issue where there can be equivocation, it is not a matter of conflicting testimony. Want evidence? Try Kerry's campaign biography, "Tour of Duty":
Radarman James Wasser, Engineman William Zaldonis, Gunner's Mate Stephen Gardner... took pride in PCF-44 and easily accepted young Kerry as their officer in charge. (Brinkley, ToD, p. 188.)
Now, consider the SBVFT ad "Gunner":
[Picture of Gardner from "Gunner" - I can't figure how to include images here...]
Do you begin to understand what "research" and second-sourcing mean? Second-sourcing is not reading a Washington Post article and then finding the NYT article it was based upon.
You are not a child, from your picture, but your concept of "objective news sources" is touching. You only quote two "journalistic" sources by name - Oliphant and Greider. Do you consider them "objective journalists"? Why, when they write partisan rants? Does an "objective journalist" fail to call the President by name but rather "Little Caesar"? Is *that* your definition of "objective"? Does "objective" mean "I agree with it?"
I had my first regular column in a paper about the size of the Jessamine Journal some 38 years ago. I still recall my first foray into "opinion" where I injected some pro-civil rights statements into what was supposed to be straight news. My mind's eye still brings up the sea of red markup on the copy handed back to me. It was my first - and worst - editorial smackdown. I learned my lesson well, and always separate reporting from opinion, and make sure my opinion is supported by facts. I have since learned that the best way to deal with error is to admit it and rob your critics of their ammo. These are lessons you have apparently not learned yet.
Do you consider the Washington Times an "objective journalistic source"? What does this tell you about "objective journalism?"
The three networks devoted 75 stories on Democrats' accusations that Mr. Bush had been "AWOL" during his service in the Alabama Air National Guard, but featured only nine stories on Mr. Kerry's "embellished war record" and gave "no respect to Swift Boat vets for truth," noted the MRC's Richard Noyes yesterday. http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/inpolitics.htm
Is The Wall Street Journal an "objective journalistic source?"?
There's also little doubt that he has exaggerated some of his exploits--especially that Christmas in Cambodia sojourn we now know never happened--even to the strange extent of restaging events while in Vietnam so he could film them for political posterity. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005519)
Is there such a thing as an "objective journalist"? Many main-stream journalism sources do not think so.
Journalists at national and local news organizations are notably different from the general public in their ideology and attitudes toward political and social issues. Most national and local journalists, as well as a plurality of Americans (41%), describe themselves as political moderates. But news people - especially national journalists - are more liberal, and far less conservative, than the general public.
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/journalist_survey_prc4.asp
The Committee for Concerned Journalists in 1997 issued a statement of concern which said, among other things:
There is even doubt about the meaning of news, doubt evident when serious journalistic organizations drift toward opinion, infotainment and sensation out of balance with the news. Journalists share responsibility for the uncertainty. Our values and professional standards are often vaguely expressed and inconsistently honored. http://www.journalism.org/resources/guidelines/principles/concern.asp
Is Newsweek an "objective journalistic source?"
"There's one other base [supporting Kerry] here, the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points." Evan Thomas, as you are undoubtedly aware, is assistant managing editor of Newsweek, and hardly a Bush partisan. http://www.wusatv9.com/insidewashington/insidewashington_article.aspx?storyid=31231
Is the Washington Post an "objective journalistic source?"
"Mr. Kerry's conflicting statements about where and when he was in Cambodia remain troubling. He has backed away from repeated claims that he spent Christmas Eve 1968 in Cambodia, a memory that, he said in a 1986 Senate speech, is "seared -- seared -- in me." This does not undermine Mr. Kerry's military bravery, but it does raise an issue of candor. It's fair to ask whether this is an episode of foggy memory, routine political embroidery or something more. Indeed, the Kerry campaign ought to arrange for the full release of all relevant records from the time." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27343-2004Aug23.html
Did your research of "objective journalistic sources" disclose this graphic of Kerry's PCF-94 boat fleeing the scene of the damaged PCF-3 on 13 March 1969, contradicting the "No man left behind" closing speech at the Democratic Convention and Rassmann's repeated story that all the boats left and only Kerry returned? This is another claim by the Swift veterans, initially denounced by the Kerry campaign, then later grudgingly affirmed. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/graphics/swiftboat_082104.html
Is the Chicago Sun-Times an "objective journalistic source?"
But the official records on Kerry's Web site only add to the confusion. The DD214 form, an official Defense Department document summarizing Kerry's military career posted on johnkerry.com, includes a "Silver Star with combat V."
But according to a U.S. Navy spokesman, "Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star." http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-lips27.html
Of course you should not form your opinions from partisan sites. That would be foolish, too. Read those sites, see the issues they raise, then do your job as a journalist to dig into the statements. What supports it? How does it fit with the other facts? This party says one thing, this says the opposite. How do we determine which to believe - partisan politics or looking to other sources? Do we talk to the main parties, or do we depend upon their statements as filtered through other editorial boards?
You fail to acknowledge several flat-out falsehoods in your piece. If you deliberately write (or write and fail to retract when you learn differently) something that is false, is this part of your journalistic ethic?
Because the media is so rarely held to account publicly (by whom? Themselves?), they get away with absurd contradictory statements. In your piece you claim (repeating the NYT's opinion) that the latest CBO report (which I doubt you have read, while I as a partisan hack who only reads partisan sites, by your reckoning, have) makes the case that Bush's tax reform has "shifted the burden onto the middle class."
Fair enough statement?
Now, consider this from the Washington Post, what I assume you accept as an "objective journalistic source":
"... Congress passed a 10-year, $350 billion tax cut last year." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62851-2004Jul19_2.html )
Next, consider this statement:
"Bush's tax cuts are responsible in great part for the burgeoning deficit." (c.f., http://money.cnn.com/2004/01/14/news/economy/election_taxes/, http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_32/b3845029_mz007.htm)
Next (please stay with me here, I know it is a bit complicated):
"The final 2004 gap is widely expected to set a new record topping $400 billion." (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?storyID=5942184)
Finally:
"[A] Census Bureau report show[s] that Bush's tax cuts shifted the burden even more from the wealthy to the middle class and from investment income to wages.”
Follow the facts and analysis:
There was a $350 billion tax cut spaced out over 10 years.
This tax cut was responsible, in large part, for the deficit.
All taxpayers got a cut in their taxes under the Bush tax relief.
The deficit is projected as $400 billion.
Therefore, since the deficit is greater than the tax cut, the tax cut represents deficit spending. Deficit expenditures are paid out of credit, and are not being paid by anyone currently.
Thus, since everyone is paying less, and debt is growing, it is false to say the tax burden has "shifted." This implies that a greater percentage is being paid out by some group, when all groups are paying less and the actual deficits represent future debt not currently being paid by anyone. The burden, as it is, has been shifted to the deficit, not some segment of the society.
Sometimes, as a journalist, you have to look beyond words of analysis that you agree with philosophically (in pertinent part here, your opposition to the Swift boat veterans) to see whether that analysis makes any sense. You make a stronger case if you can acknowledge where your opponents are right, then demonstrate that in the final analysis you are correct notwithstanding their accuracy on a few points.
I suggest some soul searching. You can believe in all your heart that Kerry should be the next President, and that George Bush is dangerous. That is an honorable position, and there are many reasons supporting just such a position. As a journalist you can present that position fairly and honestly, supported by facts. You can believe that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are liars, but you need to show exactly where they lied and why their evidence is overwhelmed by contradictory evidence, not simply contradicted. Simply stating that others have shown this is not proof, any more than claiming many authors believe Elvis is alive is "evidence." If you wish to cite some journalistic sources as authoritative, you must show *why* they are.
When you say "the official reports back Kerry", as a journalist you have a duty to explore the ramifications of the charge that Kerry wrote the reports. If I am an historian and write a controversial book, I cannot simply point to my own book as evidence of the truth of my version of history. When you make flat statements of fact, and they are contradicted, as an "objective journalist" you need to either defend your statement or retract it - that is simply the only way to act with integrity.
I have taken a great deal of time to rebut you, and you fail to defend yourself or admit your demonstrable errors. Perhaps in a small-town paper, you felt as the Emperor your nakedness would go unremarked. Welcome to the internet age, Randy.
Please, statements like "you're whole operation is entirely biased" are embarrassing. First, it's "your" (possessive, not contraction). And I am not a member of any operation. I assume you are referring to SBVFT. While I have posted there, I have no affiliation (although I'm sure you have all kinds of conspiracy theories as to who I am - try Googling my name). I am not a real joiner. The only associations I belong to are professional and legal groups which are completely unrelated to politics (I avoid them). John Edwards thinks I am a member of his group, in that he just sent me a nice letter soliciting funds to fight SBVFT, but he, too, is mistaken.
What is biased about pointing out three major issues which the Kerry campaign has reluctantly conceded to the SBVFT (no Christmas in Cambodia, only Kerry fleeing on 13 March 1969, the self-inflicted nature of Kerry's 2 December 1968 wound)? What is biased about men from different parties gathering because of their opposition to John Kerry? Are they biased against Kerry? Again, as a journalist you need to understand the words you employ. "Bias" is an outlook that is prejudicial in nature. "Prejudice" is a pre-conceived opinion without just grounds or sufficient knowledge. When people form their opinions based upon their personal experience with someone, they are not biased. They are not generalizing their experience with Kerry to Democrats, they are stating their opinions, based upon their personal experience matched with the personal experiences of many of their peers, to render a judgment against a single individual.
You employ the pejorative because you don't agree with their opinions. Yet they were there, and we were not. Do they not have a right to relate the facts as they see them? They are covered by the same constitutional free speech rights and slander laws protecting public figures as you are (NYT v. Sullivan notwithstanding). All Kerry need do, if they are lying, is file a legal action. His campaign has demonstrated a willingness to do so in threatening TV stations that aired the first ad with suit, in filing a request for injunctive relief to halt the publication of "Unfit for Command" (there's support for the First Amendment!) and they have filed with the FEC alleging without support illegal coordination between the Bush campaign and the SBVFT. Why not sue SBVFT if they are defaming Kerry? The Democrats are not simply above such tactics, as all of their legal suits at all levels of the judicial system have shown in the last 4 years; they are currently litigating a number of issues pending the November elections (but, as a journalist, you knew this).
I submit that in large part they are not responding to the "lies" and "defamation" because the truth of statements is an affirmative defense against libel. Kerry could be forced to release his records, which he has refused to do after calling on Bush to do so (boy, objective journalists have been all over this story, haven't they?).
Think it over. Are you a journalist or a partisan pundit like Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, William Safire and Robert Novak? If you choose to be a pundit, fine. But do not then refer to your dedication to the truth (which knows no affiliation) or talk about "objective journalism."
I eagerly await your retraction on the demonstrated untruths in your piece. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kurtsprincess
Seaman Apprentice
Joined: 15 Jun 2004
Posts: 80
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 7:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
jrsdad...........
W.O.W. 
Awesome rebuttal.
_________________
KP
A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both.
History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or the timid.
Dwight D. Eisenhower |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SooZQ
PO2
Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 369
Location: Central Kentucky
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 02, 2004 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If "AWESOMER" is not a word, it should be in relation to jrsdad's most recent piece! His point by point rebuttal at the top of the previous page was just AWESOME, this piece has to qualify as "AWESOMER"! 
_________________
Really support the troops, send them a letter and care package! Visit:http://www.anysoldier.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 24 May 2004
Posts: 1603
Location: Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 03, 2004 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jrsdad,
My hat is off to you.
That's gonna leave a mark!
_________________
Bye bye, Boston Straggler! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ml2517
Seaman Recruit
Joined: 03 Sep 2004
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 3:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
jrsdad,
Wow. You are my hero. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MJB
LCDR
Joined: 14 Aug 2004
Posts: 425
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
So...inquiring minds want to know - what's the latest, jrsdad?!?
Great reply to this guy - brilliant!
MJB
USAF '88-'92 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jrsdad
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 20 Aug 2004
Posts: 118
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 6:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nothing. Nada. Zip.
I get the feeling he thinks the independent emails he got were part of some coordinated effort by the vast right-wing conspiracy. Mr. Patrick, for whom truth is the most important thing, has no clue as to why real people would be offended enough to write without some conspiracy behind it.
I know it is overused, but he is the perfect example of the Pauline Kael school of journalism - "I don't know how Nixon could have won [in 1972] because no one I know voted for him." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
debewley
Ensign
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 69
Location: Florida Panhandle
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2004 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jrsdad,
An absolutely beautiful piece. I imagine that Mr. Patrick is sitting a little lower in his Journalistic chair than he did previously because a large chunk of his Journalistic butt was handed to him.
Please let us know if there is any response.
_________________
Served with US Army in Americal Division 2/69 to 9/70. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SooZQ
PO2
Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 369
Location: Central Kentucky
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 5:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This bump is for Brit Hume. 
_________________
Really support the troops, send them a letter and care package! Visit:http://www.anysoldier.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stevie
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 1451
Location: Queen Creek, Arizona
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 11:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jrdad,
I'm speechless....me, who has trouble putting 1 whole sentence together.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SooZQ
PO2
Joined: 21 Aug 2004
Posts: 369
Location: Central Kentucky
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 08, 2004 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here is an update on the original letter to the editor.
I wrote to Randy Patrick last night and said that I was not going to resubmit a shortened letter. I suspected that he had already shortened it himself, and wanted to take the opportunity to send him a great editorial by an Australian journalist.
Randy Patrick wrote:
| Quote: | Since I didn't hear from you in time, I shortened your letter myself
by cutting out the references to the unfairness of the liberal media
(as if there were such a thing) and your complaint about having to stay
within the word limit, neither of which really had anything to do with
your argument about the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush. It still went
about 100 to 150 words over the limit, as I recall, but I didn't want
to leave out anything that was really pertinent to your argument. As
our letters policy states, we have the right to edit letters for
length, clarity, etc.
The editorial page for this week has been done since last Friday and
has probably gone to press. I stopped reading the Australian editorial when it got to the part
about Blair being a "socialist pantywaist." I've known some British
socialists. Socialists despise Blair for moving the Labor Party away
from socialism and pacifism. He's very conservative and an admirer of
Margaret Thatcher.
But then my point all along has been that the truth doesn't really
matter much to people on the extreme right who can't tell a moderate
conservative from a communist. They just like to deal in general
stereotypes: e.g., Democrats aren't patriotic, are anti-business, weak
on defense, etc., all of which are calumnies.
Randy Patrick
|
So after getting the smack down on the editorial, I conceded that in part it might be considered hyperbole suggested that he check out stolenhonor.com and let the men who were there speak for themselves.
He told me that he would check it out. But not content to stop there I began to send him cut and pasted sections of several informative sites, such as wintersoldier.com. Bring the water to the horse (er, jackass).
One of the pieces I sent him was this:
| Quote: | John Kerry stated on NBC's "Meet The Press" on 18 April 1971:
"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones."(According to Kerry: zones where all men, women and children, who were in that specific zone had to be shot) "I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."
John Kerry isn't hated, because he was against the war. Vietnam Veterans hate John Kerry, because he defamed them, insulted them, called them warcriminals, rapists and baby killers. They hate him, because he successfully managed to make Americans believe his lies and managed to make America ashamed of the servicemen, who fought in Vietnam.
Here is one picture, which John Kerry put in his book and one video clip which proves, what John Kerry really thought of his "Band of Brothers" fighting in Vietnam.
Read this leaflet, which John Kerry's VVAW were handing out here in the United States to dishonor American soldiers fighting in Vietnam.
John Kerry's infamous testimony before the senate in 1971 in which he stated that American soldiers in Vietnam were rapists and warcriminals can be read online too.
|
From: http://www.johnkerrythenewsoldier.blogspot.com.
I know that Patrick didn't check out the links within this piece, because he
responded too quickly. Here is that pathetic response:
| Quote: | Again, these things were true. Ask any Vietnam veteran who was on the
front lines. Most of them don't like to talk about the war because of
the things they saw. Others I've interviewed want to portray the war
more like John Wayne's "The Green Berets," while others I've talked to
depict it as "Apocalypse Now." I think the truth is somewhere in the
middle. But then in war, truth is very elusive. Read Paul Krugman's
column in the New York Times yesterday about how war turns citizens
into unthinking supporters.
A good case is Zell Miller's talking at the convention about how
soldiers, not reporters, fought to protect freedom of the press and the
right to dissent. Really? Has any country in the past 50 years been
powerful enough to come over here, conquer the United States, take over
our government and nullify freedom of information? Of course not, and
it's silly to think so, but people cheer these comments without even
thinking. ONLY reporters have fought for freedom of information in
wartime, because their own government tries to stifle it to control the
image, so that people get the sanitized picture of John Wayne and not
the true picture shown by reporters like David Halberstam, Neil
Sheehan, and dissident veterans like Daniel Ellsberg, John Paul Vann,
John Kerry, and others, including Vietnam veterans and reporters that
I've known personally.
Randy
|
_________________
Really support the troops, send them a letter and care package! Visit:http://www.anysoldier.com |
|
| 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
