Revealing stories about Matthew Lewinsky?

Did Kurtz state that CNN would cover whatever crap they came up with 24/7?

He solicited an undercover officer at a rest station, asked to IM his underaged pages, intervened in Terri Shaivo's death, politicized the Justice Department, did voter caging, opposed the 9/11 Commission, opposed the Baker/Hamilton Commission, fired any military brass who opposed him, crippled FEMA, and appointed Supreme Court Justices who believe the way to overcome racism is to ignore it.

Well, hey, they've had Rove's Oppo researcher digging through the U. S. Attorney's files for the past year, I'm sure he come up with something.

I call BS.

They will wait until after she gets the Dem nod.

Why waste ammo on taking her out, only to have to face down Obama? Obama's got some really strong mojo going with his rhetoric. He's outflanking Bush on the Right with his "I'd attack Pakistan" comment, and he's outflanking Clinton on the left with his no-PAC-money policy. The center is afraid of him, and his message of change, and is going for Hillary. If Hillary is taken out - then they'll have to choose between Rudy or Obama. (and I believe that Obama's going to wisely pick a VP like Clark who will be a slam-dunk on the "security" question).

They'll let Hillary take Obama out first, before they unleash the dogs on her.

Post-presidential adultery, that's what.

Any intelligence officer can come up with crap on Clinton. If those officers had superior skills, they would be able to find something good about Fred Thompson. That would be impressive.

I vote for post-pres adultery too. People in the press have been pushing this meme in a big way. Chris Matthews was attacking a Hillary's spokesman a few months ago asking over and over whether Bill would "behave" if Hillary won. Then, the other night, Tucker Carlson was bemoaning the coverage of Jeri Thompson and Judi Guiliani saying, "Well, if the press is going to cover their old boyfriends, it will have to go after what Bill is doing right now."

I don't know and I don't care what Bill is doing, but there are a lot of slimy folks who would like to catch him at it.

This will be sooo boring. Can we just nominate Obama or Edwards instead so at least the mud slinging will be new (and infuriating) instead of recycled like bad 1990s TV?

I think it's obvious that they will try to dig up some old "Clinton was asleep at the wheel why the TERRORISTS(!) were planning 9/11!!!!!!!" crap.

Similar to the Regency Press book that came out in 2002 called "Dereliction of Duty," I presume the smears will be about how Clinton had all these chances to get saddam/osama/al-qaeda/zarkawi....take your pick. Hold your nose, and get ready...it's coming.

I call BS. They will wait until after she gets the Dem nod.

Moldea makes no mention of when the hit will be executed.

I think that would play right into their hands. Bubba loves a fight.

They bragged to Adam Nagourney that come August, when they were done with Kerry you "wouldn't know which side of the war he was on." Then, pretended the Swift Boat Vets were unconnected to the Bush campaign.

So, bookmark this one, folks, for when the "journalists" play dumb and run with it.

Can we not get over this guy?

You know, the right wing can throw their shit against the wall if Bill Clinton has been up to his usual stupid dick tricks, but I don't see how it's going to stick against Hillary.

The public couldn't take it seriously when Bill, who was President, behaved like this, and even lied about it. I don't see Bill's bad impulse control having much of an effect on Hillary.

Dunno what's coming down...had assumed that Bill and Hillary were thoroughly vetted by now, too.

It must give Cheney and Bush nightmares tho that it could be who Hillary would next take the reins of the security state that they have so ingeniously assembled over the last 6 years...

Can we not get over this guy?

The Clinton years of relative peace and real prosperity has left this nation with a wound which will never heal.

You forgot about them kids he murdered on the railroad track back in Little Rock because they found about his South American cocaine smuggling operation.

I don't see Bill's bad impulse control having much of an effect on Hillary.

The purpose of a 21st century "WJC is a sleeze" scandal would not be to smear HRC by association, but to reinvigorate Clinton-fatigue, which would be disastrous for HRC.

That being said, I betting on a "WJC personally profited by selling weapons to AQ" type of scandal, that would indeed directly hit HRC.

Secret meetings with Osama on 9/10? I thought that was George HW Bush? It didn't seem to hurt his son much.

Look, we all knew this would happen. I cannot imagine that Bill and Hil are unaware of the possibility.

If I were them, I'd already have private detectives going after files, videotapes, resumes, and anything else I could dig up on what would be the usual suspects.

It could actually backfire. If they try the usual swill, and the Clintons come back and come back hard, it will show Hillary as a fighter and the smear merchants as smear merchants.

But the swiftboaters have no other choice. They can't run on Bush or his record, they can't run on the war or the economy. The general election is going to be all about racism, sexism, lies, and general bullying fascism.

If Hillary isn't aware of this, and they're able to take her down, then she deserves to lose.

They don't have to sling any mud based on actual wrongdoing - they'll just pull stuff out of their fat fascist asses. It works every time with the compliant and complicit media in this country - who at this point have as much credibility as the Chinese News Agency.

This is obviously not sexual. They've lined up intelligence agents who are going to say Clinton didn't take out Bin Laden when he had a chance, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Bill Clinton remains very popular despite the scandals that were established, such as his pardons, the womanizing, his testimony in the Paula Jones trial that led to giving up his law license, his partnership with Jim and Susan McDougal, who went to prison for their roles in Whitewater. The public either didn't care or they forgave him. They felt he was doing a good job as President.

So, it's hard to see how another Bill Clinton scandal would affect his popularity, let alone Hillary's.

Secret meetings with Osama on 9/10?

you know, that sounds about right.

Secret meetings with Osama on 9/10?
What? Was Clinton at the Bush family ranch on 9/10? That's where the Bin Laden family was that day.

They will say that Bill Clinton, using an inverted crucifix, performed late term abortions on both partners in a lesbian marriage after they became pregnant by snorting stem cells.

You know what it will be: sex, sex, and more sex.

The Clintons had to know their campaigning would reopen and keep open the same wounds that haven't ever healed in the whole of Bush's presidency.

They had to know that sandwiching the Bush administration between two Clintons is not the recommended course of action. It is just too easy for Bush and Co to sling blame in both directions.

They have to know that the Clinton name is spit out venomously by a great many people and they have to know the vile unrest, the hatered their name generates is not going to help this country work back toward some semblence of national cohesiveness and nor let us get past either the Clinton or the Bush years.

I would not vote for Hillary. I would like to see one candidate that places the least bit of emphasis on reuniting us as a people, that feels we need to regather our strength as a nation and to stand as one (or as close as Rush will let us, God bless his black heart). It has always appeared to me that the Clinton era is over and needs to RIP (may I say at this point that I am still crazy over Bill to this day?)

I would have rather seen Hillary not choosing to run. But she has. To me that says that her personal journey is more important to her than the welfare of the nation that she wants to lead.

Hillary is the standard-bearer by which the most ugly political divisions gleefully continue, and it is to destroy her name, and her husbands, that the hateful dirt-digging and smearing more filth across already filthy national media carries on. Being so targeted should speak to Hillary on levels other than her competative one. That she ignores it and continues on in her quest should say much about her reasons for going for POTUS.

I can't see any good coming from another 4 years of this country being caught in the on-going cat-fight between Republicans and the Clintons. It will take the focus off, again, of the important issues, like cleaning up the cess pool Bush will leave this country in when he proudly departs with full honors and anthems from the Out House.

He had a four year affair with boy named Buddy and the tapes exist to prove it.

"Roll over. Oh you like it there, Buddy? You want it harder?"

Bill and Hilary are really brother and sister.

the worst thing they could possibly say: bill voted for bush in 2004. good luck making that stick.

I can't see any good coming from another 4 years of this country being caught in the on-going cat-fight between Republicans and the Clintons.

Well, now, that would be true no matter which Dem is POTUS.

There are reasons to oppose HRC's candidacy, but concern about the rightwing noise machine preferentially targeting her isn't one of them.

Bill meeting with Osama? No way. It is much more likely that he slept with
Osama's niece.

I used to think that Hillary would invite too much vitriol and it was time to get past that, yada, yada. But the right wing/Republicans will relentlessly attack any Democrat in the White House.

There was a vast right wing conspiracy ready to go that is just waiting for Democrats to fill in the blank for 2008.

If Hillary is the nominee, vote for her.

*-*

paul nails it. (so to speak.)

Bill Clinton can handle these smears better than anyone out there.This is one sharp knife the repugs are dealing with.
His rebuttles will help Hillary more than hurt her.

Bill Clinton can handle these smears better than anyone out there.This is one sharp knife the repugs are dealing with.
His rebuttles will help Hillary more than hurt her.

A group of former intelligence officers, he says, is "going to try to cripple Hillary through Bill."

Seems kind of dumb, even if true; is there much of evidence of a particular correlation between people's opinion of Bill and their opinion of Hillary? I mean, beyond the fact that people who support either tend to be more likely Democrats that people chosen at random from the general public?

Bill actually has had one marriage annulled and one divorce, and his third wife Hillary Clinton, who had flings with all and sundry in DC as well as in Oshkosh, wears a face mask to hide her Bimbo-like looks, and they are estranged from their children who, being supporters of Obama, never enlisted.

If it is Bill's extra-martial affairs, it is likely to create some sympathy for Hillary. Unless the purpsoe is just to remind people of what they will have to hear for the next 9 years if she is the nominee (and eleced).

C'mon, folks: Can't the Monthly assign somebody to follow Bill around, looking for the babelicious Republican operative who discreetly hands him her hotel card?

I mean, is there a BETTER assignment in journalism? What's the matter with the current crop of j-school interns, anyway?

Kevin, you forgot about that book that came out a few years ago that said Bill raped Hillary, and that was when Chelsea was conceived.

There is no place these sleazeballs won't go.

I think that given the way Bill Clinton hung on through the Monica Lewinsky scandal, it's ridiculous to believe that new sexual revelations about him will sink Hillary.

I've always thought it interesting that Americans, who say the prize personal freedom so much, are so conservative in many ways about sex. The right to live your sex life the way you want (as long as you only do so with other consenting adults) seems to me to be as important as freedom of speech and religion. It just doesn't make sense. And yet very few people have (as far as I'm aware) noticed this contradiction.

"but to reinvigorate Clinton-fatigue,"

Was there ever such a thing as "Clinton fatigue" or was it a GOP/MSM production?

At the height of the so called "Clinton fatigue", in 1999 and 2000 Clinton approval ratings were in the 60.

Also notice the MSM does not use the term "Bush fatigue", at least not with the same frequency and gusto they used the word "Clinton fatigue" even though Bush approval has been stuck in the 30s for several years now. Why is that?

My theory is that there never was a Clinton fatigue. It was a Broderville invention and the same people in Broderville are still deeply invested in Bush as a "wildly popular wartime president" and therefore hesitant to use the term "Bush fatigue".

Re; Clinton swiftboating

My guess is of all the Dem candidates Hillary is the best prepared for a swiftboat campaign. Kerry didn't know what hit him in 2004. Obama has never been a target of the Right Wing Noise Machine and has never been tested. The GOP would eat him alive. Edwards is probably better prepared due to his 2004 experience but still not as prepared as Hillary.

Why would Republicans want to "swift boat" the only major Democratic contender that loses to leading Republicans in polls during the primary season, unless it was a deliberate farce designed to provoke a backlash among committed primary voters that would strengthen that candidates support in the primary?

"Kerry didn't know what hit him in 2004."

How could he have been so stupid? John O'Neill, a leading Swift Boater, had been a personal enemy of Kerry since the Nixon years. How could Kerry not have foreseen that O'Neill and company would attack him, and that the Republicans would enlist their support?

"Can we just nominate Obama or Edwards instead so at least the mud slinging will be new (and infuriating) instead of recycled like bad 1990s TV?"

Right, because the Right Wing Noise Machine went after the Clintons because they were Clintons. They would never go after another Democrat. They certainly left Al Gore alone and treated war hero John Kerry with respect. They would never try to swiftboat Obama or Edwards or Richardson or Biden or...............

They will wait until after she gets the Dem nod.

I couldn't agree more. In case you haven't noticed, Republicans have been gushing with praise for Hillary Clinton lately. She's grown so much, she's such a strong candidate, she's so moderate. I'm talking about guys like Pat Buchanan (think 1992 in Houston), Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson and even Bill O'Reilly (who has a doormat with her picture on it), etc. They want Hillary and I don't think they find Obama very scary, either.

The one who draws the most vitriol from the right now is John Edwards. They want him out. When he's gone and Hillary dispatches the first-timer Obama, the smear will begin in earnest and the currently dispirited base will get fired up.

It will be unexpected, well-financed, mostly untrue and, because these guys are good, devastating. The media will be all over it, just like the Swift Boat campaign, because it's such a "great story".

Sounds paranoid? Just think back over the years.

"Why would Republicans want to "swift boat" the only major Democratic contender that loses to leading Republicans in polls during the primary season,"

Have you seen recent polls?

There are new polls out today showing Hillary doing better than Obama against the GOP in swing states.

I don't think the GOP cares who the Dems nominate. They have a swiftboat template in place to use against any Dem nominee. They will just change the accusations but stick to the same game plan.

"ex-liberal" wrote: Bill Clinton remains very popular despite the scandals that were established [emphasis added]

Translated "ex-liberal": Bill Clinton remains very popular despite the right wing's endless screaming about scandals.

And then there's "ex-liberal"'s boy Bush, whose incompetence, mendacity, corruption and tyranny has lead most americans to rightly conclude that he's one of the worst, if not the worst, Presidetns of all time, headed straight to the garbage bin of history along with neocon dead-ended jackasses like "ex-liberal."

How that must gall you, "ex-liberal," but it doesn't excuse your posting insultingly obvious bullshit in these forums.

If Hillary hadn't been sucking up so much of the money and political oxygen in her 2000 Senate campagn I believe that Al Gore would have been President. Trust her to do what is best for Hillary.

"Right, because the Right Wing Noise Machine went after the Clintons because they were Clintons."

Read the sentence you're responding to again. The claim isn't that no mudslinging would occur, but that the mudslinging would at least be fresh and new instead of recycled. I assume a bit of snark was involved.

Hillary Clinton is the candidate that the Republicans WANT to face. They can beat her with a simple attack.

"Clinton would not be able to be effective as President, because as a woman she could not go to the middle East and be taken seriously by the sexist male leaders there. She will weaken our power in the region, embolden our enemies, and we can't have that now."

That will cost her at least 5-10 points with less educated women, her base. And no dem will make it in the primary because the progressive female vote is hard-fought in the primary. It won't be in the general.

They won't swift-boat Hillary because they want to go after Hillary.

"I had never voted anything but Democrat"

Dear heart, whom do you think you're fooling with this silly, clumsy lie?

"So if Ms. Clinton is going to be Swift Boated it is just possible that what is communicated will be true."

Since what the SBVT said about Kerry was, in fact, nearly universally false, I'm afraid that the chances of a further "swiftboating" being true are virtually nil. That won't stop you from believing it, though.

This annoys me to no end. What is proposed against Hillary is just plain old mud flinging. A swiftboating requires getting a pile of your supposed brothers in arms or similar to come out publicly against you. Say, Hillary's classmates from college. If you don't have that, you've just got mud. Lots of nasty, cruel, undeserving mud. But just mud.

"They can beat her with a simple attack."

Oh, nonsense. She can counter that attack with two words: "Golda Meir"

"Lots of nasty, cruel, undeserving mud. But just mud."

I'm not so sure. I think the phrase has morphed to mean any massive dishonest smearing, not just one perpetrated by purported "colleagues" (the vast majority of whom had never met or worked with Kerry).

For years I kept a political cartoon of the 1992 campaign, when the Republicans tried to smear Bill Clinton. The country was in a recession and people were out of work. They wanted a change. The first panel of the cartoon was (I believe) a newspaper headline that said, “Clinton is a cannibal!� The second panel showed Clinton on TV apologizing and saying, “I am sorry I ate Eddie, my college roommate.� The third panel showed a guy in his undershirt watching his TV, while holding a newspaper with a headline about high unemployment, saying, “I don’t care. I am voting for him anyway.�

Nothing the Republicans do to smear Hillary, or any other Democratic candidate, is going to work in 2008. The American public is exhausted by the endless war and disgusted with the manipulative Bush administration. They are going to want to “clear the decks� and start fresh with a completely new administration.

I almost hope they try a smear campaign. It will be the end of the Republican Party.

I'm not so sure. I think the phrase has morphed to mean any massive dishonest smearing, not just one perpetrated by purported "colleagues" (the vast majority of whom had never met or worked with Kerry).

Yea, I'm probably peeing in a gale on this, but using it as a generic description of mud causes it to lose its power to discriminate between types of mud. And there are different types.

"Clinton would not be able to be effective as President, because as a woman she could not go to the middle East and be taken seriously by the sexist male leaders there. She will weaken our power in the region, embolden our enemies, and we can't have that now."

So, if we elect a man, then the terrorists have won.

I hate to say it because I'm not really a Hillary fan, but this just shows how obsessed the Radical Right is with Bill -- and they're going to get pantsed. Again.

If the Congressional Dems are Charlie Brown to Bush/Rove/Cheney's Lucy holding the football when it comes to stuff like FISA and the war budget, then Bill Clinton is the Road Runner to the Radical Right's Acme-anvil holding Wile E. Coyote just as he realizes the cliff has run out and there's only a grand canyon below him. They never win -- they NEVER do.

You know what I think would be funny?

They've got some transcripts of Bill, doing the phone sex thing, to some hotel, from, say South Korea.

And they're all "Clenis strikes again!111!!! Can't even keep his pants on when he's using the phone!"

And Bill's like "Um, that was Hill ..."

And they're like "Nuh-uh!!!"

And they do a voiceprint, and D'OH!!! it is the junior Senator from New York that Bill was doing the phone sex thing with.

And Bill says "So, why were you guys tapping my phone calls? Hmmm?"

And then Senator Clinton says "And why were you tapping MY phone calls? Hmmm?"

And Senator Leahy says "Mr. McConnell, why don't you come by and talk to my committee, like tomorrow at 7AM? M'Kay?"

And they do a voiceprint, and D'OH!!! it is the junior Senator from New York that Bill was doing the phone sex thing with.

Nah. Like HRC hires someone to open her mail for her, I'm quite certain she doesn't do her own phone sex....

And Senator Leahy says "Mr. McConnell, why don't you come by and talk to my committee, like tomorrow at 7AM? M'Kay?"

And George W. Bush says, "Uh, no, cuz, um, Executive Privilege, heh, heh" and no one shows up at the hearing.

The continuing infidelities of President Clinton, which mean nothing to me, will be used to smear Sen. Clinton. Would a parade of women talking about their affairs with the president prevent Hillary from being elected? Obviously, some Republicans think so. I hope not, and that hope is based on President Clinton's final approval rating. It will still be stressful, though.

Moldea also reported that GOP OR had prepared a campaign against Obama. It consists of a 10 second radio and TV spot:

"OBAMA. NIGGER."

I saw this bit over at Harpers by Scott Horton and thought it relevant to this thread:

"The failure to maintain the secrecy of grand jury materials was shocking. Recently I picked up an advance copy of a new biography of Hillary Clinton called Her Way and discovered that the leaks have continued, and that Starr was being openly cited as a source."

The rumours aside, I am very curious about weather America is beyond 'swift boat' politics.

Maybe I am overly optimistic but I get the feeling that the general public is a lot more tired and doubtful about unsubstatiated rumours about a candidate than they were in 2003.

It seems like the time is ripe for that kind of attack to backfire.

One more reason to not support Hillary - I said months ago on this blog that it would be another re-hash of the Vince Foster/Whitewater/Cattlegate blather from the right-wing noise machine.

These guys are a one-trick pony. All they have in their quivers are mud and they will sling it ferociously.

I say the Dems bring up George W. Bush's arrest record, cocaine abuse, desertion of the National Guard and reputed homosexual flings on prime-time TV and lets have a go at it......

Why the hell can't our side do that too, and even better?

Smear campaigns: it's what the Bush administrations is all about. It's why Libby want to jail, and Bush went to war, after telling Hans Blix a nasty thing or two, along with the French, the UN, the entire world.

The generals that didn't see eye to eye, they were replaced, and I bet back in Bush's distant youth, every time he got in trouble - it was because the teacher didn't like him and it was always, always the teacher's fault.

Bush IS the "blame it on somebody else" president.

Bush was a week late responding to Katrina - and it was Governor's Kathleen Blanco fault, Bush didn't listen to his August 6th briefing after 9 months of being in office -and it was Clinton's fault.

Bush and the GOP smear campaigns are on thin ice these days because its the same old poor excuse, and it is reflecting back on the Party, as smear campaigns should. It's all about how nasty the Republicans have gotten - that there isn't anything good or decent about the party anymore.

So gratulations to the GOP and Bush/Cheney – they finally made it to point were most Americans see the Party as one big ugly, nasty bunch of people.

Keep smearing GOP – because its all the Repug party has left. That GOP politicans MUST lie their way into office or do something illegal to get there. They campaign to radicals because no one else will listen.

Bill Clinton is the Road Runner to the Radical Right's Acme-anvil holding Wile E. Coyote just as he realizes the cliff has run out and there's only a grand canyon below him. They never win -- they NEVER do.

Oh pleeeeease, Brer Rabbit, pleeease don't swiftboat the Clintons!

Me_again makes some sense (among all the comments here). But he/she doesn't quite present an action plan.

Action is the operative term that moves from critique to change.

It's easy to point out shortcomings. Even trolls can do that. Not so easy to do something to correct.

Posters here are proficient on the former, and almost totally lacking on the latter.

I ask: What have you done TODAY to help regain democracy in our nation?

Yes, you. Please be specific.

Ranting and raving -- no matter how intellectually-clothed, doesn't count.

Anyone?

Whichever candidate gets more attention will lose the next election. If Hillary gets more attention than Mitt! or Giuliani or whatever nutball the GOP throws up, then she will lose. If the public really starts thinking about what a Giuliani Presidency will be like, the election will be won in a landslide.

The scandal angle is actually one of Hillary's greatest assets. Even assuming the GOP oppo people come up with something new instead of a tired rehash of all the old crap, it won't have any effect. Bill left office quite popular, more popular than the right's sainted Gipper. Nobody cared then about that shit, and no one will care now. "Clinton Fatigue" was an MSM fantasy, but Clinton scandalmongering fatigue is quite real, a fact the right will discover if they start once again pounding on this still very dead horse.

Why the hell can't our side do that too, and even better?

You may not have noticed, but their side spent several decades building a powerful machine for placing and amplifying this junk, not to mention that a whole generation of Washington press corps grew up thinking of the Democrats as the Dirty F***ing Hippie Party.

Smearing people is probably the one thing the modern GOP does well. That and destroying the government's fiscal position on behalf of the richest tenth of a percent of the population.

Can we not get over this guy?

The Clinton years of relative peace and real prosperity has left this nation with a wound which will never heal.

Sheer genious. Bravo!

I clap.

Bill meeting with Osama? No way. It is much more likely that he slept with
Osama's niece.

Oh hell, that wouldn't be a scandal, that would be deserving of a Medal of Freedom.

"Osama's niece"

Of course, if it had been before the visit to doctors in Copenhagen.............

We can guess where this is heading... it'll be the "Path to 9/11" 24/7.

I'll bet that the former intel officers will say that Bill was getting laid while they were waiting outside the Oval Office with precise location data on Bin Laden. If only he could keep it in his pants, they'll say, we could have avoided 9/11.

We've heard this story before in variation. And we know that the Howard Kurtzes of the world will dutifully repeat, amplify, and advance the right wing talking points. They just can't help themselves.

I don't love the Hillary candidacy, but I do know that she won't take an attack lying down. No more caving, no more nice.

Don't forget the rape of Juanita Broderick!

Oh, wait, that was a plausible charge...

Oh, wait, that was a plausible charge... Frank J. at 12:36 PM

....Starr was being openly cited as a source." Brojo at 7:26 PM

Oh, wait, that was a plausible charge...

Unfortunately, nothing can make alleged "humorist" Frank J funny, even when he's making himself a clown.

I doubt that anything significant is coming, basically for the reasons Kevin said -- all the shots already have been taken.

But I still get a kick of how democrats use "swiftboating" as a slur. The reason the swiftboat ads were effective was that they were from a group of respected people and there was significant truth in the charges. But I think democrats, with the help of the media, have been largely successful in making "swiftboating" into a term that means false charges. It is very nice political work by the democrats, although someday a dem will be hurt by a republican countering a "swiftboating" charge with indignation that the dem is smearing the reputations of 250 veterans who put their lives on the line for their country by calling them liars. It will make for a good moment in some debate.

Oh puuuuuhleeeze brian, given how many times the charges of the SBVfT were debunked as totally without merit, things like one of his Bronze Stars being improperly awarded because a fellow soldier claimed there was no combat despite that same officer's own BS citing the same incident and citing combat as one example for which each specific charge ended up having similarly extensive/complete refutation only the truly brainwashed and/or on the GOP payroll can believe that will ever happen. The SBVfT were a total fraud set up by Rove (he left a rare fingerprint on this dirty operation so it is not possible to claim no connection, when you share lawyers it is amazing what kind of communicable problems you get) and a complete smear operation and no amount of trying to whitewash that by the Right and it's mouthpieces like yourself is going to ever change that. Indeed, it is likely that the SBVfT campaigning will be cited as a classic example of just how evil and anti-thetical Bushco truly was to things like military honour especially given his own AWOL service that was excused because his family pulled strings given his lack of well over a year (more like 2) service as a pilot or even showing up for his minimal monthly commitments according to the regs of the day.

So you can take your wingnut Kool-Aid back home with you because no one is drinking it any more outside of the already totally saturated, which is far from the majority of Americans these days, not even close. So nice though to see the utter predictability of the Trolletariat for lying through its teeth still is as active as ever, even when the lies are so shoddy and easily seen through by all except the totally pre-programmed/brainwashed within the right wingnut base like yourself. Since it only further shows all but the totally deluded just how untrustworthy the GOP has been for a very long time now, especially where anything they say about their opposition is concerned.

scotian,

you have to do better than that to accuse 250 veterans of being liars.

you have to do better than that to accuse 250 veterans of being liars.

The 250 veterans who signed the open letter were simply offering their opinion that they thought Kerry shouldn't be president because of his post-war anti-war statements...not because of "lies" or because they had some different version of specific event than Kerry -- you fucking screwball.

And Scotian is exactly correct, the entire smear campaign was coordinated and financed by Rove and a PR company that did nothing but create false stories about Democratic candidates.

It's one thing to give away your integrity because you want something sooooo badly to be true, but at least learn to get the facts straight. You're heaping embarrassment upon your own humiliation.