For the Foreign Minister to suggest that is was the left that started using dirty ad tactics is revisionist in the extreme and unworthy of a response. McCain’s complaint about the Swiftboat ads is that Bush did the same thing to him during the 2000 primaries. To compare Bush’s ad tactics to MoveOn.org or Misleader.com is equally ludicrous.

Incidentally, it was Bush who boastfully claimed to be the “War President” (ah, remember Bush in the flight suit?), so the war experience of his cabinet is a legitimate issue. How else to explain how badly they’ve bungled the one war they’re responsible for starting? And while the Minister of Propaganda did not support Dole for President, he also never attacked the man’s military record nor tried to suggest he hadn’t earned his honors. Nor, in fact, did Clinton. The Bush use of such a tactic is shameless and without precedent.

The Minister of Propaganda will admit to a certain amount of glee in pulling the Foreign Minister’s chain directly and is not opposed to the Foreign Minister’s equally inflammatory replies, as long as no actual brandishing of weaponry is involved.

One presumes that the Air Marshal, meanwhile, is preparing another deadly barrage of Redskins nostalgia.

Your Minister of Propaganda is writing in the third person in case he has to take over for the questionably-missing Maximum Leader, permanently. It’s also a lot harder to insult someone directly, so he thinks he needs the practice.

Expect a cabinet shuffle soon…

Believe.

from the American Heritage Dictionary:

Liberal: Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behaviors of others; broad-minded

Believe.

Did you know that Kerry was a decorated war hero? I must have missed them mentioning that. Oh, no wait. Kerry is running his campaign on 4 months of service in Vietnam.

So now we have had another group of veterans that “know” Kerry and want to get their message out. The funny thing is, McCain (and Kerry for that matter) are not saying that the Swiftboat vets are lying, just that it is a dirty tactic.

“Hoffmann said none of the 13 veterans in the commercial served on Kerry’s boat but rather were in other swiftboats within 50 yards of Kerry’s. The group claims that there was no gunfire on the day Kerry pulled Rassmann from a muddy river in the Mekong Delta and that Kerry’s arm was not wounded, as he has claimed.”

Those on the left havepioneered these cheap shot tactics. When its “their adds” (or websites) they label them the “truth” (Moveon..org misleader..org etc). So we stole your playbook and are running some plays.

“McCain said that’s all in the past to him, but he’s speaking out against the anti-Kerry ad because “it reopens all the old wounds of the Vietnam War, which I spent the last 35 years trying to heal.”

I am glad you agree with McCain on this issue (as I am sure you are a HUGE McCain supporter) . But I can’t really imagine that the Minister of Propaganda gives a rat’s ass about reopening old wounds.

And when did your fetish for War Heroes start? Do you still have your Dole for president button or is this fascination a recent development?

It must be. Because it used to be that it was not the war hero that we supported, but the guy who leaves our country and goes to the UK to protest the war.

You have to understand how hard it is for the regular voter to keep up with West Coast voting fashions.

on another note
I too wonder where the ML is. I hope he sees that except for the occasional Redskins advertisement, that this blog is turning into a mouthpiece for the left. I only post because I get sick of seeing the same pro-Kerry blog every time I check out Nakedvilliany.
Save us o Maximum Leader!

PS
I will stop my delusional rantings when you do!

Back to the trenches….

Swiftboat vets? The Minister of Propaganda is going to agree with Senator McCain, former POW, on this one.

Hmm, are there any actual combat veterans in this administration? Oh, your Minister of Propaganda almost forgot Colin Powell, Secretary of State, just like Bush always does.

Your Minister of Propaganda wonders why the Maximum Leader and the Minister of Agriculture aren’t weighing in on this debate. His 7/30 post (”And while we’re on the subject of ‘non-truths’”), which apparently instigated the current artillery exchange with the Foreign Minister, was written in response to the Maximum Leader’s post on 7/10 (”Rising to the challenge”). The Minister of Propaganda did not intend to awake the Foreign Minister from his Weizen-induced slumber.

They didn’t sneak off together on another cuddly “road trip,” did they? Perhaps a quick trip up to Massachusetts this time? That might explain why Maximum Leader is backing away from his challenge, instead of prostesting the Bush-whacking.

Maximum Leader, your minions clamor for your input (although the Foreign Minister’s delusional ranting is awfully cute).

Believe.

Ummm there is that 20*+ year senate record that we have with Kerry. So its a little more than just “character assasination”.
I am not a Liberal Democrat so his record doesn’t convince me to vote for him.

I do not think that anyone but those on the extreme left are really exited about voting for Kerry. That, imo won’t get the moderate Dems and the Regan Dems out to vote.

It will be interesting though.

Hey how bout those SWIFTBOAT Vets!

Back to the Trenches….

It’s pathetic that the best argument for Kerry is that Bush isa lousy President and the best argument for Bush is that Kerry will probably be a lousy president.

They both suck. The Bush administration is dishonest, shrouded in secrecy, and extremist. Kerry doesn’t exactly project confidence, and has yet to really define a platform beyond “I’m not Bush.” Granted, I think the “I’m not Bush” gets him half the way there in my book.

Still, the case against Kerry is mostly a vague smattering of inuendo and character assasination. The case against Dubya is 4 years of pathetic extremist leadership, an avoidable war, and an occupation in a terrorist infested nation with absolutely no exit strategy.

With the terror alert raised, we are hearing the gripping start again that the release of this information is being timed to give a political advantage to the Bush campaign.

*yawn*

I am really sorry that you guys picked a sorry presidential candidate. But where your mistake was, was in being so focused on “hating” Bush, and “anybody but Bush”, that you nominated a poor candidate.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Are you one of the anti-war candidates?”
KERRY: “I am — Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)

You can’t really say he is the Anti war candidate since he voted FOR the war in Iraq. In September of 2002, Kerry goes into this long speech about War as a last resort [1] . Since he voted for the war, I guess that means he felt the case had been made.
But if you mean he is the Anti War Candidate because he voted against the Gulf War, you know the one that the entire planet was behind, then I guess he is [2].

He is for the troops in Iraq, he is just against funding them [3]. But if elected, he promises that he will fully fund the troops in Iraq.

He is against violating our civil liberties with dangerous legislation like the Patriot Act. Kerry says….
“We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night…. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. ” [4 ]

Yet he voted for the patriot act. Interesting enough, you used to be able to get the quote above from the Kerry site itself… now it is a “broken” link hmmmmmm….

And this is a guy who, at the same time he is running his campaign on the fact that he is a Vietnam war hero, is trying to play a semantics game over whether he THREW AWAY his medals or his ribbons!

PLUS

The guy is a war criminal! He self admittedly committed atrocities in Vietnam. And he admitted to it when it was politically expedient for him to do so [4]. Now, when he is beating the “Bush” about possible war crimes in Iraq, he seems to have soften his admission as the words of a young man.

1 http://www.cfr.org/campaign2004/pub5596/kerry/we_still_have_a_choice_on_iraq.php
2 http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/31/214732.shtml
3 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Politics/tapper_kerry_040319-1.html
4 http://hnn.us/articles/3552.html

from www.misleader.org, 8/4

Earlier this week, President Bush claimed “we all thought we would find stockpiles of weapons”[1] in Iraq, and claimed that he had no inkling that his pre-war claims about the Iraqi threat were weak. But as a major new story released today shows, the President and other top administration officials were repeatedly warned before the invasion that its case for war was weak.

The cover story for this month’s In These Times analyzes declassified government documents and intelligence reports given to the White House before the war. These documents either warned the administration about its WMD and Iraq-al Qaeda claims, or totally debunked them. In some cases, intelligence experts explicitly warned top officials not to make the claims they were making, and yet they were ignored. The story wholly refutes assertions by the White House and Republicans that it was the intelligence community to blame. In fact, as the data shows, the White House deliberately ignored intelligence to mislead America.

Read the full article, with direct links to all source material, at www.inthesetimes.com.

Sources:

1. Presidential Remarks, Whitehouse.gov, 8/02/2004.

Couldn’t find a jpg/mpeg. If MaxLead can find one, feel free to insert it here.

from MaximOnline, here’s the story

Joe Theisman

The Game: Nov. 18, 1985, Washington vs. N.Y. Giants.

The Play: In the Titanic of all gridiron gross-outs, 36-year-old QB Theisman handed the ball off to John Riggins, who flipped it back to Thiesman on the flea flicker. The play didn‚ÄövÑv¥t fool the Giants. Lawrence Taylor sacked Theisman; then Gary Reasons fell on top of both players. Theisman‚ÄövÑv¥s leg folded backward like a cheap card table. While lying on the field with his tibia and fibula clearly poking out of his leg, he told coach Joe Gibbs, ‚ÄövÑv Hey, I‚ÄövÑv¥m sorry.‚ÄövÑvp At least he didn‚ÄövÑv¥t have to watch 35 replays in super slo-mo.

The Aftermath: Theisman never played again and is now a remarkably annoying analyst with ESPN.

Hail to the Redskins

Oink Oink. Enuf said.

Sure, if you like such arbitrary stats as wins, TDs, Yards, and Championships, others may rank higher. But who else could hight the ball behind a hefty beer gut facilitating amazing play action. My vote goes to Sonny Jurgensen

In my entirely biased opinion, the best RB ever has to be John Riggins.

Never mind the impressive stats, the 4th and 1 game winning run in Super Bowl 17, the Hall of Fame career, the following vignette illustrates why he was one of a kind.

At the 39th annual Washington Press Club “Salute to Congress” Dinner in 1985, Washington Redskins running back John Riggins was seated at a table with Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. As usual, he had not missed attitude adjustment hour. Sometime before he passed out under the table, he managed to respond to what he considered boring dinner conversation by giving some advice to Mrs. Justice O’C. “Lighten up, Sandy baby,” he said.

(Some accounts of the event allege he actually said, “loosen up,” but the difference may have been unable to detect, given the quality of his diction at the moment, and it’s a cinch Riggo himself doesn’t remember.)

link to article not about Riggins, it just opens with the story)

So walking around downtown Silver Spring today, I was stopped by Kerry Supporters.

“Would you like to help support John Kerry for President?” they asked.

I thought for a minute.

“No thanks.” I said, and walked on.

I abhor Bush as president. I think he’s an attrocious president, and I think his administration is as corrupt as any we’ve seen in a log time. I think Cheney is one of the most offensive individuals we’ve had in any administration. I feel that time will tell that Bush was a misguided, simplistic, yet honest individual who was a pawn of the Cheney’s and Wolfowitz’s of the world. I also believe that in time the depths of the corruption of this administration will be brought to light. It smells like a duck, quacks like a duck, leaves duck droppings, and has webbed feet. All we’re missing is a polaroid of the duck. Everything from policy in fields like Energy, and Taxation stinks. The lack of disclosure stinks. The handling of contracts in occupied Iraq stinks of pork. Probably another reason the Muslims resent the US occupation is we’re introducing pork into a culture that eats Kosher.

Still, I can’t bring myself to think that Kerry would be much better. Different, yes. Better? Ultimately, I can’t bring myself to believe that Kerry will be a good president. Yes, I’m gonna vote for him, but I’m treating my vote as a “No” vote on the Bush presidency rather than a “Yes” vote on Kerry . Anyway, living in the Peoples Republic of Maryland, I’m fairly confident that Kerry will take this state hands down.

Ultimately it will come down to the wire, and I feel that because the Dems chose a real loser, Bush will win again by a whopping couple hundred thousand votes. Maybe one state making the difference electorially. Either way, we’re screwed for the next four years. And unfortunately I feel we’ll be screwed far beyond in terms of the quality of leadership we’re given to pick from.

Still, I’d rather be here than anywhere else.

Hail to the Redskins
Hail Victory
Braves on the Warpath
Fight for all DC!

Run or pass or score we want a lot more
Beat ‘em, Swamp ‘em, Touchdown, let the points soar.

Fight on, Fight on, ’til you have won
Sons of Washington

God Bless Joe Gibbs

from www.misleader.org, 7/29

Vice President Dick Cheney claimed yesterday that under the President’s leadership we “closed down the training camps [in Afghanistan] where terrorists trained to kill Americans.”[1] His comments are not only bold, but a look at the record shows they are deliberately misleading. Just two weeks ago the Bush administration essentially contradicted the claim, warning Americans of an imminent attack on the U.S. homeland from terrorists operating in Afghanistan. As CNN reported on July 8, Bush administration officials are warning that “a plot to carry out a large-scale terror attack against the United States in the near future is being directed by Osama bin Laden and other top al Qaeda members.” According to the administration, these terrorists are operating in the Afghan-Pakistan border region.[2]

Unfortunately, in 2002, the Bush administration shifted key special forces out of Afghanistan, effectively removing them from the hunt for al Qaeda. These troops were sent to prepare for an Iraq invasion.[3] That leaves the U.S. with only about 15,000 troops in Afghanistan hunting down al Qaeda, whom they now say are plotting an imminent attack against the country.[4] Meanwhile, the Pentagon has designed plans to add troops to the 140,000 already stationed in Iraq[5] - a country that never had any collaborative relationship with al Qaeda[6] or connection to the 9/11 terrorist attacks[7] (even though the Bush administration has claimed both).[8]

Sources:
1. The Vice President Delivers Remarks at a Reception for Senatorial Candidate Bill Jones, WhiteHouse.Gov, 7/27/04.
2. “Officials: Bin Laden guiding plots against U.S”, CNN.com 7/08/04.
3. “Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions ,” USA Today, 3/28/04.
4. “Afghanistan: ‘Unrelenting Battle’,” CBSNews.com, 5/26/04.
5. “U.S. force in Iraq to grow as Marine deployment pushed up,” USA Today, 6/08/04.
6. “Administration Moves to Regain Initiative on 9/11 “, New York Times, 8/27/04.
7. “Bush rejects Saddam 9/11 link”, BBC News, 9/18/03.
8. “Cheney Link of Iraq, 9/11 Challenged”,The Boston Globe, 9/16/03.