Author: VD

I don’t have any evidence for this, it’s just a feeling I have as the Vietnam evidence against him snowballs. Krazy John wasn’t able to respond effectively to the first Swiftvet charges, and that’s turned out to be just an opening jab that prepared the public for what will likely be a knockout punch, his baseless testimony on war atrocities that was used against US POWS by the North Vietnamese. As more and more people discover the particulars of his meeting with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong in 1970 as part of his protest effort, even die-hard Democrats will abandon him.

Democrats, more than most, love front-runners. Once Kerry starts to visibly slip, they will turn on him with all the ferocity of the unthinking rodents that they are at heart. They don’t actually like Kerry, and remember, another Massachusetts liberal was leading another Bush by 17 points prior to the Republican coronation. By November, he was absolutely destroyed in a historic rout. And Willie Horton and the infamous tank-driving episode don’t pack one-tenth the punch that Kerry’s cumulative Vietnam debacle will.

Remember, too, that Whackjob is an exceptionally and unusually proud man. He doesn’t fall, he assures us even as we see him getting up from the snow. He doesn’t fail. He is too proud to be willing to get crushed – crushed – by a mediocrity such as George W. Bush, and too self-centered to give a damn about what his late pull-out will do to his party. The only way that Kerry can salvage his bizarre view of himself is to declare himself too noble for the dirtiness of modern politics and end his campaign. He won’t have failed, it was the system, the vets, the Republican attack dogs, etc, anyone but him.

Edwards would cheerfully leap in and play sacrificial lamb, in order to give himself a leg up for the nomination in 2008. But as one veteran trader, who was the first to suggest this possibility to me, has pointed out, Kerry will have to quit in mid-September for Edwards to participate in the first debate. Interestingly enough, the POW documentary starts in two weeks….

It’s just speculation at this point, but there is a certain compelling logic to the concept.

Linda sees some eerie parallels:

It’s clear that you’re not concerned with anybody’s opinion but yours. All too typical of an arrogant, self-absorbed, immature person who thinks he/she knows more than he/she actually knows.

Just be careful of the words you write and say. Watch carefully what’s happening to Kerry. He was an arrogant, self-absorbed, immature, opportunist thirty years ago, just like yourself, and now his words and actions are coming back to haunt him.

Erm… what’s that you were saying? I was just filming the recreation of my epic smackdown of Me So Michelle.

Steve barks on command:

I think that the point that the marine was trying to make is that the troops and the mission are united. You cannot support one and not the other. The “folks back home” should understand this and have the courage to face up to all its implications. If you want our troops to win then you are on their side and are supporting them. If you want the enemy to win (it doesn’t matter if you want the enemy to win by killing all of our troops or just win becase we quit the field and bring all our guys home, the end result is the same)then you are on their side and are the enemy of our troops.

This is the most specious reasoning in defense of unquestioning obedience I’ve ever heard. First, it is very easy to oppose the mission and support the troops. Only someone without friends or family in the military could possibly fail to understand the concept.

Would one argue that Saddam would win if US troops were pulled out today? Wasn’t that who we were fighting? Wasn’t the war fought to ensure that Iraq had no WMD? Then by Steve’s reasoning either the mission has been accomplished, the war has already been won and the troops can come home, or Saddam, sitting under the guard of US troops, has won the most Phyrric of Phyrric victories.

Not only is this a foolish and illogical argument, but it is a stupid one. Calling people traitors is hardly a good way to convince them to come around to your way of thinking, it is instead a very good way of convincing them that you have a complete lack of confidence in your case. Steve apparently thinks we should cheer unchecked mission creep until American troops occupy every single country in the world. Anything less would be unpatriotic!

The New York Times quotes a Marine Major:

When critics of the war say their advocacy is on behalf of those of us risking our lives here, it’s a type of false patriotism. I believe that when Americans say they “support our troops,” it should include supporting our mission, not just sending us care packages. They don’t have to believe in the cause as I do; but they should not denigrate it. That only aids the enemy in defeating us strategically.

So, if the President decides to aid the Sudanese government in committing genocide, the American public should simply keep its collective mouth shut and support the mission? That’s ridiculous. Remember, most of the great atrocities committed by dozens of governments around the world have been committed by the militaries of those countries in obedience to their legitimate leaders.

One of the most common failings of the military mind is to believe that because unquestioning obedience is a military virtue, it is a civic virtue as well. Quite the opposite is true. And to argue that one is aiding the enemy simply by exercising one’s Constitutional rights to criticize one’s government is not only incorrect it is downright shameful. In fact, this is why it is unwise for the President to make use of our armed forces without first ensuring that he has gained the consent of the people by a Congressional declaration of war.

I am sure there are those who will be aghast that I should dare to criticize the words of a Marine risking his life in service to the country. To them, I must point out that the mere fact that one is fighting for one’s country does not automatically make one’s opinions correct, nor render them above all criticism.

I need – soon – five to ten quality demonstrations of vintage O’Reilly being O’Reilly. Apparently there’s enough interest in Media Whores that they want to look at it next week, so I want to wrap up Brave Sir Bill’s chapter for the submission. I don’t want stupid nitpicky stuff, I want egregious government bootlicking or direct backing down from previous assertions like he did with the Patriot Act.

I can look up the transcripts, so just a brief description will do, although if you have more, that would be great.

Hindrocket makes the Star & Sickle’s Jim Boyd his bitch:

To sum up: Jim Boyd does not even attempt to deny any of the significant points we made. He simply assumes as true John Kerry’s revised version of his Cambodian fable, without acknowledging the contradictions among the various versions of Kerry’s story, and without noting that there is no support for the proposition that Kerry was ever in Cambodia, except for his own ever-shifting word. And where he challenges us on specific facts, Boyd is flatly wrong.

That’s a mighty weak basis on which to call us frauds, liars, and smear merchants. The hysterical tone of Boyd’s tirade shows, I guess, the desperation that has seized the Kerry campaign as the truth about their candidate finally begins to come out.

ONE MORE THING: If you think that the Star Tribune should run our response to Jim Boyd’s vicious, mean-spirited attack on us next Sunday, you can send a polite email to the editor of the Star Tribune’s editorial section, Eric Ringham, at eringham@startribune.com. If you would like to encourage Jim Boyd to act like a man and debate us face to face at the Minnesota State Fair next Saturday, you could make that polite suggestion to Mr. Boyd at boyd@startribune.com. Just a thought.

I happened to send Mr. Boyd the following email yesterday evening, entitled “Are you going to show?”

Dear Mr. Boyd,

I look forward to hearing your defense of Senator John Kerry’s account of his military service in Cambodia on the Northern Alliance Radio Show.

Best regards,

Vox Day

Universal Press Syndicate

Let’s just say I’m not holding my breath. Paperboys are hothouse flowers, with lousy educations consisting mostly of journalism classes in the place of actual subjects, accustomed to one-way debates where the only microphone is in their possession.

Kody puts on white armor and rides to the rescue of his helpless lady-love:

Who the hell do you people think you are. I don’t know much about politics, nor do I. I just wanted to write you and let you know I don’t get you people. What does everybody have against

Janeane Garofalo? Why is she such a bad person? So what if you don’t agree with her or think she’s wrong. You all say the same thing too, how you believe in free speech or whatever but then go on and on about how Ms. Garofalo is wrong. Leave her alone for fuck sakes! Voice your own opinion, do whatever the hell you want, nobody cares! Just stop bad mouthing celebrities because they want to speak their minds too. Sure it’s okay for all you shit heads with a website to talk smack about everyhting and anything, but when an intelligent woman who just happens to have television access tries to tell people what she thinks about a certain subject, you all of a sudden have a problem with her. I hate all you bastards who have nothing better to do than write all kinds of shit telling how some celebrity is wrong, or stupid, or fat. You’re a very un-christian asshole, you know that VoxDay? I’m sure that god character get’s a good laugh out of reading your stupid column too. Yup, he loves it when people treat other people like shit.

Yes, I understand that God was so upset with Jesus Christ for using physical violence on the temple moneychangers that He had him killed. And Jesus never called people names; sons of vipers is actually a compliment in the original Hebrew, is it not? Kody, darling, if no one cares about this, then why are you writing to me weeks after the fact?

The case against Janeane Garofalo is based on the grounds that she is a demonstrably clueless and ignorant individual who not only thinks she’s intelligent, but thinks she’s wiser and more intelligent than those she’s criticizing. Unlike you, she doesn’t realize that she knows nothing about politics, she fails to comprehend that she’s nothing more than another poorly educated celebrity who doesn’t know the first thing about the subjects she’s attempting to address. Furthermore, freedom of speech does not mean that one has the right to speak without expecting criticism, it simply means one has the right to speak. She does, so do I and so do you.

It seems that you feel Janeane can’t handle the heat, and indeed, if her pathetic and racist performance subsequent to her appearance on Larry Elder’s show was any indication, she can’t. As is the case with Krazy John Kerry, she can deal it out but she can’t take it. Run away, little girl, run away.

Anyone else have the feeling that all of this will fly completely over Kody’s empty little head?

… but I’m a little concerned about this Republican plan to get rid of the CIA and replace it with a national intelligence organization. I’m not saying that the Republican leadership is politically tone-deaf or anything, but I heard that Geheime Staatspolizei was one of the names they were considering.

If you just can’t get enough of the madness, stop by the Captain’s Quarters, as Captain Ed shows every sign of beating Krazy John like a Vice City hooker until he cries like a little girl, checks himself into Liars Anonymous and ends his campaign.

Which, judging from the Hero of the Mekong’s reaction to the two little Swift ads, should take about ten days.

Drudge drops some quotes from “Where the Right Went Wrong”:

“There is no conservative party left in Washington. Conservative thinkers and writers who were to be the watchdogs of orthodoxy have been as vigilant in policing party deviations from principle as was Cardinal Law in collaring the predator-priests of the Boston archdiocese.” (Page 9)

“The Beltway Right has entered into a civil union with Big Brother.” (176)

“Under the rubric of conservatism, the Republican party of Bush I and II has been reinventing itself into what conservatives would have once recognized as a Rockefeller party reciting Reaganite rhetoric.” (234)

“[A] civil war is going to break out inside the Republican Party along the old trench lines of the Goldwater-Rockefeller wars of the 1960s, a war for the heart and soul and future of the party for the new century.” (234)

On the Neoconservatives:

“Kristol’s warning that neoconservatives could go to Kerry was an admission of what many have long recognized. The neoconservatives are not really conservatives at all. They are impostors and opportunists.” (250)

“Nine days after an attack on the United States, this tiny clique of intellectuals was telling the President of the United States…that if he did not follow their war plans, he would be charged publicly with a ‘decisive surrender’ to terrorism.” (48)

The man knows what he’s talking about. I’m going to see if he’s amenable to an interview; it’s interesting to see him pointing out what I’ve been writing for the last two years as well. There is no conservative party in Washington.