Carol Platt Liebau: No "Borking" Here

Monday, June 12, 2006

No "Borking" Here

Last week, I noted that reporter Thomas Lipscomb had taken the time to look at all the Swift Boat allegations leveled against John Kerry.

We all know that the Democrats have been eager to turn "swift boating" into a verb (a la "borking"), but as this piece from Thomas Lipscomb highlights, they're going to have a hard time doing it.

Because the Swift Boat accounts are, in fact, largely true.

18 Comments:

Blogger Duke-Stir said...

Yawn.

I still prefer the Vietnam vet with the (possibly) exaggerated service record over the rich punk who (possibly) snorted coke all summer in Alabama and (probably) woke up every morning in a pool of his own vodka puke.

4:40 PM  
Blogger JillMartin said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

6:18 PM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

OK, Bush volunteered for Nam, but his aircraft was not being used. Many of us will never forgive the liar who sat in congress and called us criminals, and then, while still in the Navy, met with a North Vietnamese delegation.

There is documented proof that Kerry, Fonda et al prolonged the wart by about two years.

And Yes, I am a Vietnam Vet.

7:29 PM  
Blogger One Salient Oversight said...

Flomberg,

Kerry met some North Vietnamese in Paris. What is the problem with that?

At the same time Kissenger was meeting with them. It was a conference trying to work out peace in Vietnam.

And are you really saying that American soldiers didn't commit crimes in Vietnam? Are you saying that My Lai didn't happen? Are you saying that crimes of this magnitude should NOT be investigated and that those who do mention it (ie Kerry) are somehow traitors?

And are you saying that Vietnam was a good thing for America to be involved in... despite the turnaround in public opinion at the time?

12:01 AM  
Blogger JillMartin said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:42 AM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

OK, the old misleading charges again. Lets review them:

1. Kerry met some North Vietnamese in Paris. What is the problem with that

Kerry was a junior officer- An LTJG if I recall. The constitution and the Uniform code of Military Justice clearly differentiate between the military and civilian areas of concern. He had no in depth knowledge of the situation and served no purpose, except perhaps his own. He also lied to congress while under oath.

2. And are you really saying that American soldiers didn't commit crimes in Vietnam? Are you saying that My Lai didn't happen? Are you saying that crimes of this magnitude should NOT be investigated and that those who do mention it (ie Kerry) are somehow traitors?

Not at all. I do not see how Kerry fits into this? But to bring it up to date -- is it responsible for the press to condemn marines BEFORE the investigation is complete? If they are guilty, I hope they get the maximum. However if they are innocent - it will be relegated to the back page.

3. I don't buy your claim that Kerry or Fonda prolonged the war. Niether Johnson or Nixon wanted to be a president who lost the war.

Actually this has been documented. The NVA was all set to meet and sign a, peace treaty, when the actions of the American peace movement, and perhaps a secret visit from representatives of the Republican Candidate,convinced them that if they hung on, they would get a better deal from Nixon, given the attitude of the American people.

4. Jane Fonda wanted to stop the killing and get the troops home. She was young and naive. No one knew if by going over there, she might be killed or held as a hostage

Jane Fonda was a traitor. She aided and abbetted the enemy in a time of war. Oh yes - Vietnam was not a declared war? Read the Gulf of Tomkin Resolution. It was a defacto declaration of war issued by congress.


5. I think it was admirable that Kerry had the integrity to take on the government and all the terrible consequences of doing so. He has stated he regrets some of the things he said.

Kerry received the same training that I did, More in fact because he was an officer. He knew that he was violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

In my opinion. Everything the man has done was in his own self-serving interest.



One final point. After signing a peace treaty, the North Vietnamese broke the treaty by invading South vietman. The treaty specifically said that the US would intervene in such a case. However the Congress of the United States refused to fund the defense of South Vietnam. We didn't lose the war, Congress threw it.

7:31 AM  
Blogger JillMartin said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:09 AM  
Blogger wrabkin said...

With all due respect to the man who actually fought in Vietnam, this conspiracy-mongering about how were were really going to win except for those nasty peaceniks has been ireefutably denied and now must be finally put to rest.

Robert McNamara, one of the primary architects of the Vietnam war, has stated publicly AND ON FILM that the Johnson administration KNEW that the war was unwinnable. They knew this in 1967. And yet they would not withdraw because Johnson was afraid of the political ramifications back home. So thousands more died... for a war everyone knew was a waste.

You may see Mr. McNamara explaining this in the film The Fog of War, which is a long interview with the man.

There simply are no questions anymore.

9:53 AM  
Blogger Pete said...

This string is too painful to debate with losers of the left. I served during the 60's and I remember who was a traitor and who was the self serving oportunist! Non of the pantywaist whining of the left will change that.

That said, let me correct one thing. The press, Jill, is to report the news - NOT speculate, and NOT give opinions. The talking heads can speculate all they want, they are not newscasters. Rather and Brokaw should not, however, throw their own twists in - NOT their job! You report, WE decide. MSM is working too hard to form public opinions to match their own, which is why they are losing credibility and respect. Or yes, and they are losing viewers as well. Oh, well, you reap what you sow - people don't want editorial comment passed off as news.

9:54 AM  
Blogger Duke-Stir said...

"...people don't want editorial comment passed off as news."

Have you bothered to tell that to Brit Hume?

10:00 AM  
Blogger JillMartin said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:06 AM  
Blogger Greg said...

I wasn't yet "potty trained" during the Civil War. Am I precluded from ever commenting on events of that era?

10:38 AM  
Blogger JillMartin said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:51 AM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

Jill said: Flomblog, some comments. Kerry was sworn in under oath to testify what he knew to congress. That trumps Uniform Miltary Code of Justice. With solders having told him of crimes, he was obligated to reveal them.

I totally agree. Then why did he lie? This NOT speculation, but documentable truth. The UCMJ comment was about his "visit" to the North vietnamese in PAris. Which was a flagrant violation of the UCMJ's as well as civil law.

John Kerry is a liar, and an oportunist. He will say anything to anybody or do anything he deems neccessary to gain more power.



Then Jill said:

Why do you defend Vietnam? We all know about agent orange, napalm, and carpet bombing campaigns. Agent orange is still killing the people. The land mines are still blowing off children's limbs, to this very day.

How about Vietnames women carrying children into bars where Americans hung out, reching under their skirts and pulling outy hand granades? The War sucked. All wars sucked. However, we left and Pol Pot had the ability to kill millions, unchecked by american presence in the area. How many boat people perished trying to get out of Vietnam? No doubt you wish that Saddam Hussein still haad the Rape Rooms working?

How about American Movie Stars being photographed behind aan enemy AA (Anti Aircraft)

How about us getting spit on and degraded by the people that we thought we were serving, when all we wanted to do was go home.

Macnamara said that he never brought that opinion up to the President. For that I hope he rots in hell.


And then this line:

The following never give opinions Fox, Limbaugh, Coulter, Liebrau, and Hannity.

These folks ADMIT that they are editorializing and giving opinion! Something the NY Times hasn't mastered yet.

12:13 PM  
Blogger JillMartin said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:34 PM  
Blogger Alan Kellogg said...

George W. Bush stopped drinking and taking drugs. John Kerry still bloviates. George W. Bush was in training for national defense. John Kerry was looking for a political boost. George W. Bush was made superfluous by the retirement of his aircraft. John Kerry made himself more of a liability than an asset. George W. Bush would have been an asset in the case of a general conflict. John Kerry would have done time in the stockade in those circumstances.

Following the able lead of Al Gore in 2000 the Democrats did all they could to get George W. Bush re-elected in 2004. If not for the MSM it's possible they could have produced a very convincing landslide for Bush. Come 2008 they will do an even better job for the Republican candidate, since the venality of the MSM is becoming more readily apparent as time goes by.

Paraphrasing the character Cutter from Elfquest I have this to say to the reactionary left, "Your rhetoric shall fall upon barren ground, and nourish nothing."

1:53 PM  
Blogger The Flomblog said...

Or as the Bard said
"Like a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"

2:24 PM  
Blogger JillMartin said...

Interesting how losers spend less time in the military than a woman does giving birth to children and then whine and cry about it they rest of their life.

No wonder the US lose wars, the men here prove they are a bunch of pussies with below normal IQs who are too lazy to accurately aim for the toilet bowl.

6:55 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Google