Perhaps like this....
Posted on 02/23/2005 10:15:52 PM PST by neverdem
How did this infantile obscenity get in here without a ten-bucket barf alert?
And, Maureen Dowd, their chief critic: she's done what for who? and at what risk to her life, liberty, or property?
Hell, it's like a whore calling a virgin bride "indecent". Enough said.
SFS
Swiftees and slime doesn't mix unless it's MoDo. That's enough. No warning was necessary.
Hah -- I always thought you were smarter than me -- and Right there's the proof!
<]:^)~<
She's bonkers. A complete, total "fruit loop".
Regards, Ivan
Hey Dowd, I only have one question for you....how many years have you been a member of the AAAP?
MoDo calling someone else slime, how rich, how Frank Rich.
Oh no, Mo. It's not the Swiftees who are/were dishonest.
It's you.
Yeah, I've oftened wondered about that.
Seems like the day after my birthday, I started receiving their crap.
It continued until I stuffed it all in one their postage-paid envelopes, along with a real nasty note and sent it all back to them.
Haven't heard from them for nearly 3 years, now.
Good.
Do not post their articles, do not use their website.
&&
I couldn't agree more. If enough people ignore them they will go away.
I hated it.
But AARP doesn't deserve this treatment from the "Swift Boat" political demolition team.
Yes. Yes they do. And has Maureen Dowd checked out Discover the Network website? Talk about linked groups working against a political party.
So once again, after a cursory glance through the article, I will dismiss Mz. Dowd.
How does this wench face herself in the mirror every day???
Novak called Swift Vets' ads "honest" and "exactly correct"
Syndicated columnist and CNN host Robert D. Novak found yet another opportunity to heap praise on the discredited anti-Kerry group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (now called Swift Vets and POWs for Truth): a February 20 New York Times report that conservative lobbying organization USA Next has hired consultants who previously worked with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to "orchestrate attacks" on one of the chief opponents of President Bush's plan to privatize Social Security, AARP.
On the February 21 edition of CNN's Crossfire, Novak announced: "USA Next has hired the same consultant who mobilized the brilliantly effective and honest Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads." Novak also referred to the group's ads as "exactly correct" and called the book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (Regnery, August 2004), by Jerome R. Corsi and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth co-founder John E. O'Neill, "accurate" and "meticulously researched."
But official Navy records and other evidence refute the discredited group's accusations, as Media Matters for America repeatedly documented (see here and here for examples), and the Navy's chief investigator concluded that all of the decorations Kerry received for his service in Vietnam were "properly approved."
Novak's praise of the group continues, despite his multiple conflicts of interest (which Media Matters has previously noted here and here) in writing and speaking about Unfit for Command. His son, Alex Novak, is director of marketing for the book's publisher, Regnery Publishing, Inc.; in addition, Robert Novak is a trustee of the conservative Phillips Foundation, along with Thomas L. Phillips and Alfred S. Regnery. Phillips is chairman of Eagle Publishing, Inc., of which Regnery is a subsidiary. Alfred Regnery is a director of Eagle Publishing and, according to Eagle's website, is "president of Regnery Publishing, Inc." Eagle publishes the Evans-Novak Political Report, which Robert Novak edits.
Novak disclosed that his son works for Regnery in his September 6, 2004, syndicated column, but also noted: "I plan to continue to pursue this story as developments warrant." Novak has made no such disclosure in his TV appearances.
You need to provide your source for this crap, ceoinva, and explain why you posted it without a "barf" alert - and really why you posted it at all.
That was the official U.S. Navy response. It just means that the proper signatures were in the correct order on at least one of the three different recommendation versions. It doesn't mean the Navy investigated whether Kerry deserved the medals. It also doesn't mean he didn't receive a less than honorable discharge thereby losing his medals. It also doesn’t mean he wasn’t pardoned, reinstated, and had the medals reissued later under Ford or Carter. The Navy sidestepped the issue.
Perhaps like this....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.