MoveOn.Org has apparently put out an ad calling General Petraeus, "General Betray-Us." I don't find it particularly useful or beneficial to the political discourse. While I've used the name a few times myself going back to his confirmation hearings (I thought the name was just too easy to mock), MoveOn's actions don't seem to be helpful to anything.

Sure, he's a political tool spouting talking points based upon the Pretzeldunce's wet dreams rather than reality, but he's still a general. Attach him for the idiocy of his positions, not the "Betray-Us" stuff.

But the subject of my post is the hypocrisy of the Republican Party. They're all up in arms over the ad and demanding that the Democratic leadership denounce the ads.

Well, as soon as BushCorp. and its GOP toadies denounce the lies and attacks on our soldiers committed by the Swiftboat Liars for BushCorp, we'll talk about addressing MoveOn. Until then, hypocrisy is lame.

Wolfen:

Well, as soon as BushCorp. and its GOP toadies denounce the lies and attacks on our soldiers committed by the Swiftboat Liars for BushCorp,

Attacks on the soldiers by the swiftboat liars?? Seems it was more like Swiftboat soldiers calling Kerry a lair.

Yes, the Swiftboat Liars called Kerry a liar. But what is behind that allegation? They denounce all of the other sailors that were along with Kerry. All of the other sailors that supported Kerry's version of events. [And let us remember that not a single eyewitness to the events stood against Kerry in even the tiniest way.] They denigrated the value of Purple Hearts for everyone by claiming that the three Kerry EARNED were somehow lesser.

It's silly for you to pretend you don't know what I meant, especially when I've argued this same thing to you before.

If criticizing Petraeus and his service in uniform is off-limits, then Kerry's should have been, too. It's hypocritical to demand some sort of cone of silence around the General, while criticizing the service of Kerry or Max Cleland.

Either does yours. Do you even realize why those veteran groups were againist Kerry in the first place? Why they have dogged him his entire career?

Yeah, I know all about the hatred that some vets have for Kerry. He opposed the war and spoke out against some of the atrocities that happened over there. A lot of vets took that personally.

Regardless, did that give those groups the license to lie about him and the medals he EARNED? Did it give them the right to denigrate the purple hearts of everyone that served?

On this subject, it is irrelevant what Kerry said in '69 or '72. The Swifties lied in their attacks on Kerry in 2004. Their hatred of him doesn't give them license to lie.

"They denigrated the value of Purple Hearts for everyone by claiming that the three Kerry EARNED were somehow lesser."

I read an account by a person who said he let Kerry file for a purple heart while he thought it was ridiculous, but all i can say to that is how convenient that became during election season. That says less about Kerry than the guy who "let" him get his PH despite feeling it wasn't proper.

As for MoveOn making stupid little word games to convey political "argument" I think it's irresponsible and distracts from the heart of the matter: the truth; the very thing they claim to care most about. It's petty and belittles their own cause.

You don't get to put yourself in for medals. Who was this person? One of the swiftboat bullshitters? I was hurt on my ship in a minor accident. I got a couple of stitches out of the deal. We were off the coast of VietNam and the medical officer asked if I wanted a purple heart. He could have put in for the medal for me, but I could not do it myself. I declined the PH for bumping my head, but only because I wasn't hurt as a result of enemy action. Kerry was.

Clearly the attack on Bush was how he used family connections to get into the guard and then failed to serve in Alabama. Quite different from attacking the service itself.

The contrast between the orchestrated efforts of O'Neill and a couple of others to diminish his combat experience to say that he wasn't there long enough or that he tried to kill a loincloth clad teenager is different than pointing out that "W" served in the champagne unit of the TANG.

It's pretty sad when you have to misstate what I wrote in order to argue against me. Demonstrates the emptiness of your argument. If you have to lie to support your position, perhaps your position isn't worth holding.

You can attack Kerry all you like for his service in 'Nam. It's just not right to lie about it. The Swifties were liars and fantasy writers. They made assumptions without facts and then pretended they were facts.

Attack him for taking the easy way out of 'Nam after his third Purple Heart. He wasn't too injured to fight, but he chose to leave. He had the technical right to leave after being wounded three times, but maybe he should have stuck it out. But to lie about the circumstances surrounding his injuries and medals is cowardly. And it denigrates every soldier that received the same medals for it creates doubt that they were truly earned.

Facts are what differentiate my attacks on Bush's days (note they were days, not years) in the Champagne Squadron, as opposed to the Swifties attacks on Kerry's service in 'Nam.

"...the medical officer asked if I wanted a purple heart. He could have put in for the medal for me, but I could not do it myself. I declined the PH for bumping my head, but only because I wasn't hurt as a result of enemy action. Kerry was."

I'm not sure who it was, but the guy described it as if Kerry requested the PH for a scratch. I'm quite sure he was one of the Swiftboat group.

If it drew blood then it was appropriate to get a PH. I know of noone in the military who got a medal they didn't deserve. The swift boat doc who claimed to have treated Kerry is not the one who signed the treatment forms. In short, either he lied about Kerry or he disobeyed orders and had someone else sign paperwork related to Kerry's treatment.

During the campaign of 2004, I met members of Kerry's crew. They would disagree with you and the swiftboat bullshitters. I heard John O'Neill say he was on Kerry's boat. He was clearly misleading people into thinking he was there when Kerry was. Why is that? Why couldn't he tell the truth about his service?

There were also veterans groups for kerry. So what? The fact is that the Swiftboat group was sued by people they claimed to have signed their letter to Kerry, because they hadn't signed it. They claimed to have served with Kerry, but it turns out that probably two of them had.