Powered by TypePad

« My Temples Are Pounding | Main | Wind Power And The Power Grid »

August 27, 2008

Comments

ParseThis

Don't they also accuse McCain of making the restoration of diplomatic relations contingent upon sealing documentation that could confirm McCain's behavior in captivity? How do we know McCain didn't exchange some pleasantries with the godless Communists? Release the files!

PaulL

Yaaaawwwwwwwwn. Tom, you've got to stop posting these Sullivan threads. Nobody cares what Sullivan writes.

Danube of Thought

Tried to send Sullivan an e-mail but couldn't find any way to do it.

Sempley is a fraud and a mountebank, and the grief he has brought to a number of MIA families is utterly shameful. He was preceded in this kind of thing by the equally contemptible Col. Bo Gritz.

Who are "they," Parse? And to answer your question, you don't know that he didn't indeed exchange such pleasantries, unless you conclude that he didn't because not a single one of his fellow captives has ever suggested that he did. But in any event I suggest you vote for Obama--he's your kind of guy.

kim

Hey, did McCain's cousin make a billion dollar port construction deal with the Vietnamese?
==============================

bad

Tried to read it Tom but my finger wouldn't stop scrolling.

vinman

Remember when Kerry went to Paris in 1971 to placate the North Vietnamese while McCain was stuck in prison?

That was great.

BumperStickerist

Nobody cares what Sullivan writes

Judging from the record, *Sullivan* doesn't care what Sullivan has written either.

He's turned web-logging into web-palimpsesting

-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palimpsest

Foo Bar

So, let's see:

1) This relatively minor error on the part of Sullivan is worth a whole post. Note that the substance of Sullivan's point appears to be correct, i.e., Fox News was happy to have Sampley on when he was bashing Kerry but has not (as far as I can tell) had him on to bash McCain.

2) When you make a comparable error, erroneously referring to Annenberg Challenge grant recipient Mike Klonsky as a Weatherman, it goes unacknowledged other than in the comments. The main posts that had contained the errors get edited without any correction, crossout, or any other evidence that they were ever wrong.

kim

So, you're going to accentuate that Mike Klonsky was a leading theoretician leading his branch of Communism from a split with Ayer's branch of what, may I ask?
=======================================

sbw

Don't be foo-lish. Weighing the difference, Foo, and Klonsky remains a bad egg with close associations to the weather dudes and a subversive impact on the quality of education augmented by Ayers. With Sampley, on the other hand, it seems worth knowing he's not immediately credible as a source of illumination.

anduril

Call ME a Cap'n Ahab if you want, but does anyone in the real world give a rat's ass about "Sully?"

MayBee

i.e., Fox News was happy to have Sampley on when he was bashing Kerry but has not (as far as I can tell) had him on to bash McCain.

Yeah, but that kind of argument can get silly fast. I haven't seen CNN devote countless hours to Cindy Sheehan's current wisdom at the DNC convention. She was a media darling once, you know. Had Absolute Moral Authority.

Captain Hate

Note that the substance of Sullivan's point appears to be correct, i.e., Fox News was happy to have Sampley on when he was bashing Kerry but has not (as far as I can tell) had him on to bash McCain.

Are you just flitting from site to site making a fool of yourself? Because I noticed that your troll droppings at Patterico were answered as far as nobody that watches Fox can remember this nutjob appearing on them. So until you can refute them, the substance of your hero Sully's point hasn't been shown to be correct.

Enlightened

Why do certain commenters always arrive to bash TM's Sullivan posts? Funny that.

Enlightened

Hmmmmm. Sully seems to have a mini-me, kinda similar to Glenn's Brazilian cabana boy....

Foo Bar

Are you just flitting from site to site making a fool of yourself? Because I noticed that your troll droppings at Patterico were answered as far as nobody that watches Fox can remember this nutjob appearing on them. So until you can refute them, the substance of your hero Sully's point hasn't been shown to be correct.

Try clicking on the link corresponding to the word "correct" in my previous post. Or, if you'd rather not scroll up, here it is again for you.

Captain Hate

In the interest of owning up to things, FooBar is apparently correct in his statement about Fox having had Sampley on in February 2004. That doesn't mean that in the 4+ years since then that Sampley hasn't been identified as a liar lacking in credibility a la Sheehan.

Foo Bar

That doesn't mean that in the 4+ years since then that Sampley hasn't been identified as a liar lacking in credibility a la Sheehan.

Since then? How about in 1994, i.e., 10 years before his Fox News appearance attacking Kerry? From TM's post:

Her book "Prisoners of Hope: Exploiting the POW-MIA Myth in America," published in 1994 by Random House, exposes how Sampley and his allies abused the hopes of grieving families for fun and profit.
Enlightened

Heh heh. Sully and his mini-me are wet-dreaming about a lying nutbag that might be the key to McCain's military demise, if only he could go on Fox News.

Priceless. Keep it up boys - I'm PMS'ing and need some good laughs.

Captain Hate

Well, since you insist on challenging everything I say, Foo, what is your ultimate point? That Sully didn't screw up in associating him with the Swift Vets that signed the letter against Kerry (which apparently he wasn't one of per Patterico) instead of somebody that appeared on Fox before the Swift Vets group was formed? That TM should let you approve everything he posts?

Foo Bar

That Sully didn't screw up in associating him with the Swift Vets that signed the letter against Kerry (which apparently he wasn't one of per Patterico) instead of somebody that appeared on Fox before the Swift Vets group was formed?

I acknowledged in my first comment that Sullivan had made a relatively minor error.

My point is that TM found this worthy of a whole post, in which he linked approvingly to Patterico asking Sullivan for a retraction, but when TM made a comparable error he erased all evidence of the error other than in the comments section. It's not a super big deal, but that hardly seems consistent.

MayBee

I acknowledged in my first comment that Sullivan had made a relatively minor error.

No, you *asserted* in your first comment that it was a "relatively minor" error. It was a two-sentence post, of which his swiftboat claim is a big chunk. If we really want to dissect it, do we know if Fox was "eager" to have him on?
The "now" targeting is incorrect as well. He's been long targeting McCain.

Enlightened

Naw, Foobie is just exhibiting typical Sully outrage that McCain has only been excoriated by this dick Sampley since the 1980's which has been widely documented, but he hasn't been invited by FOX NEWS to re-iterate his apparent McCain Derangement Sydrome, in violation of the defunct Fairness Doctrine which indicates he SHOULD be invited because Fox invited him to bash poor wittle John Kerry.

It's merely pretzel logic in lala lib-land.

Because of course the idiot couldn't get his message accross on MSNBC since O'Donnell already outed him as a McCain Nutjobber in 2004.

MayBee

Foo Bar- do you know what Sullivan has written about Cindy Sheehan?

Danube of Thought

Foo Bar, in your 02:14 post you acknowledge that as far back as 1994 it was established that the man Sullivan is relying on is a fraud. What do you take to be more important about Sullivan's post: that Sullivan is relying on a fraud in parrotting his attack on McCain; that in the course of doing so he incorrectly identifies him as a SwiftVet; or that Fox News had him on once four years ago and hasn't had him on since?

Rick Ballard

DoT,

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules."

There's only one real rulebook. The only thing interesting about them is watching someone use them as if they were new.

Foo Bar

Foo Bar, in your 02:14 post you acknowledge that as far back as 1994 it was established that the man Sullivan is relying on is a fraud

Please. You're smarter than this. Sullivan's point (and I am not a big fan of his in general, but he has a decent point here) is regarding the inconsistency in Fox News' standards.

This the entirety of Sullivan's post:


Two-tour Green Beret Ted Sampley of the 2004 “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” is now targeting the Republican nominee with the group “Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain.” For some reason, Fox News is less eager to have him on the air than they were four years ago.

Does Sullivan claim that Sampley is some sort of impeccable source? No. His point is that Sampley was good enough for Fox News back then but not now, apparently.

daleyrocks

Foo doesn't really give a shit about Sampley, what he really wants to have happen is to get the Klonsky information corrected. Foo cannot stand the idea of any "misinformation" related to Obama being allowed to stand in the public realm. Stampley is just misdirection.

Captain Hate

Much ado about zero; I'm sorry I commented.

Foo Bar

Foo cannot stand the idea of any "misinformation" related to Obama being allowed to stand in the public realm. Stampley is just misdirection.

To be fair, TM did correct the Klonsky mistake, but with near-maximum stealth, i.e., he simply replaced what he wrote (in multiple places) calling Klonsky a Weatherman with "Maoist". That's fine, I guess, if he wants to correct things that way, but then it seems a bit much to devote a whole post to this Sullivan error.

Also, to be fair, there are times when TM is quite good about clear corrections that don't erase the traces of the error. Just not this time.

Danube of Thought

"Sullivan's point (and I am not a big fan of his in general, but he has a decent point here) is regarding the inconsistency in Fox News' standards."

You took from him quite a different point from the one I took. Sullivan is not stupid enough to suggest that the fact that the man appeared once four years ago and has not yet appeared regarding McCain tells us anything significant about Fox's standards.

I understand him to be suggesting that there is a fellow out there with an interesting story to tell us about McCain. Why else would he tout him as "two-tour Green Beret" Ted Sampley, unless he was seeking to establish his credibility? And of course he doesn't suggest that the man is "some sort of impeccable source"--no writer ever does. What he does instead, having identified him as a Green Beret, is maintain complete silence about his known fraudulence. His clear intent was to leave the reader with the impression that Sampley had a point worth exploring.

I read the dig at Fox News as a parenthetical, and a not very interesting one at that.

And I won't suggest that you're "smarter than this"--I think you're operating right about at your level.

Danube of Thought

I should add (it shouldn't be necessary, but apparently in some quarters it is) that if a SwiftVet were trashing McCain it would be news. When a known nutball does it, it isn't.

Cecil Turner

I acknowledged in my first comment that Sullivan had made a relatively minor error.

The title of the post is: "Swift-Boaters Against ... McCain." That's not a "relatively minor" error . . . it's the main event.

Bingo
McCain himself disowned the Swift Boat nutters in 2004 as "dishonest and dishonorable." I find both attempts to smear the war records of people who volunteered to fight for their country to be repellent. But the far right is too invested in the politics of Vietnam to take the high road.

Andrew Sullivan - 30 Jun 2008 02:29 pm

Apparently Mr. Sullivan's "high road" can sidetrack through an occasional valley or two.

Was it his intent to traffic in Sampley's McCain hatred or was Sampley's McCain hatred a means by which to toss a snark-bomb at FOX News...or both?

Whatever the case, his identification of Sampley as a member of the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" is factually wrong and warrants a retraction on his part.

Danube of Thought

When was the last time he retracted anything?

bgates

FB, I'm willing to shout it from the rooftops: The records of the project led by Obama which wasted over a hundred million dollars in a failed attempt to reform Chicago's schools clearly show that he did not only establish a long-term relationship with an unrepentant domestic terrorist who hoped for the violent overthrow of the American government in the 60s, but he also funneled a six-figure to a Maoist cab driver.

I don't think you can say "Maoist" enough.

You can't spell "Obama" without "M-A-O".

bad

You can't spell "Obama" with out M-O-B.

Danube of Thought

Don't bother ol' Foobs, folks--he's feeling a little bit ill right now.

Foo Bar

I understand him to be suggesting that there is a fellow out there with an interesting story to tell us about McCain.

OK, he entitled this post "Swift Boaters Against... McCain". He entitled another recent post "Swiftboating McCain" and here's what he had to say:

This kind of personal attack was repulsive coming against Kerry from the far right. And it's repulsive the other way round. Both Kerry and McCain served their country honorably; and their records should be revered, period.

But this time, he's trying to establish the guy's credibility by titling his post "Swift Boaters against... McCain"?


Why else would he tout him as "two-tour Green Beret" Ted Sampley, unless he was seeking to establish his credibility?

Probably to suggest that there are others who might find him credible based on his military credentials, and that therefore this attack might unfortunately have a bit of effect.

Rick Ballard

"but he also funneled a six-figure to a Maoist cab driver."

Now wait just a minute, bgates. The Obama campaign has made it crystal clear that Obama was still perfecting his Arabic (in order to recite the muslim call to prayer) at the time that the Maoist, Klonsky, split with the terrorist, Ayers (possibly over a minor Marxist doctrinal point). I believe that a more correct interpretation of the process by which the Maoist (Klonsky) was designated as a "cabdriver for education" and became a $170,000 grant recipient is that Ayers, the terrorist, made a gesture of reconciliation towards Klonsky, the Maoist, with the consent and full approval of his (Ayers) puppet president/chairman, Obama.

IOW - Puppet Obama approved a substantial grant of money, designated to be used to benefit Chicago's children, in order to heal a decades old rift between a terrorist and a Maoist. Puppet Obama wouldn't have known the Maoist Klonsky from Adam - remember he was still learning to recite the Koran at the time of the rift between the bomber and the Maoist.

bgates

their records should be revered, period
unless Sullivan can use a Daily Kos post about a nonexistent Solzhenitsyn story to claim McCain plagiarized to ingratiate himself with Christian audiences.

None of this should distract us from the main point that Obama allied himself with both domestic terrorists and a Maoist while wasting over a hundred million dollars that was supposed to be used to improve Chicago schools. For the children.

Thomas Jackson

Ah someone who believes in Sullivan! What next Chicken Little? Its well established that the US abandoned Americans in Vietnam just as they did to the Russians in WWII. And if anyone has doubts about McCain just ask any of the MIA families who met with him were treated. As for Kerry and the recognition of Hanoi one only need ask exactly how much did Kerry profit from this recognition.


Try following the money trail.

bad

None of this should distract us from the main point that Obama allied himself with both domestic terrorists and a Maoist ...for the children.

I see a potential ad for Obama: Heroically ignoring grave danger to his political aspirations, Barack Obama infiltrated a terrorist enclave---FOR THE CHILDREN

MayBee

Poor Hillary.

I can't stand her, but they are really making her prostrate herself. All because she had the audacity to get too many votes.

bad

But they forget Maybee, a wounded animal is always the most dangerous.

Danube of Thought

"But this time, he's trying to establish the guy's credibility by titling his post 'Swift Boaters against... McCain'"?

No. He's trying to make it newsworthy by suggesting that one of the SwiftVets is trashing McCain, instead of saying that a nutball is trashing McCain. And whether or not he thinks the SwiftVets are nuts, he knows very well that most Americans do not.

"Probably to suggest that there are others who might find him credible based on his military credentials."

Precisely--and he gives so indication at all that there is any reason that he or anyone else should doubt the man's credibility. But in any event, what's that got to do with Fox News, whose double standard you initially said was the main point of the whole thing? You can contend till you're blue in the face that all Sullivan was doing was showing that Fox News once used a nut against Kerry but hasn't used him against McCain, but no one who can read is buying it.

MayBee

ha!

MayBee

Fox News once used a nut against Kerry but hasn't used him against McCain, but no one who can read is buying it.

The guy was on Hannity and Colmes. Not even Andrew Sullivan is going to pretend to be gobsmacked that Sean Hannity had a Democrat-skewering guest on.

Foo Bar

Precisely--and he gives so indication at all that there is any reason that he or anyone else should doubt the man's credibility.

Please. The bulk of his readers are reasonably regular readers who would know that being called a Swift Boater is no complement coming from Andrew Sullivan. In the link to the other Sullivan post I provided he makes that perfectly clear.

kim

Oh, Foo Bar, sometimes I wonder why you go on. Your 'relatively minor error' and that silly attempt at innuendo on Fox for using Sampley in one story, with news, and not using him in another, which wasn't news, should hallmark your sad rhetoric for what it is, disillusioned sophistry in the service of derelict ideology.
==============================

Danube of Thought

"In the link to the other Sullivan post I provided he makes that perfectly clear."

Right. Everybody reading Sullivan's latest piece of garbage remembers that he called the SwiftVets nuts, so they know that when he uses their name in his headline we are supposed to assume that everything they say is screwy and unreliable anyway. Then he goes on, for some unknown reason, to identify this screwball as a "two-tour Green Beret."

Please don't let us continue to think that you're no smarter than this. And by all means, stop digging.

daleyrocks

Sully FUBARed the post Foo Bar, no two ways about it.

Foo Bar

Please don't let us continue to think that you're no smarter than this. And by all means, stop digging.

Do you understand how much larger the audience for Hannity & Colmes is than Sullivan's readership? Yet somehow you think Fox News' inconsistency on when Sampley should get attention is this little throwaway point, whereas Sullivan's vast powers to influence the electorate are a much bigger deal.

sbw

Foo, I wish you could convey your perspective clearly. Does this help?

1. I trust you can recognize people you would not want to associate with.

2. So many of that sort of people people happen to have been convenient for Obama to know until it was inconvenient for him to know them.

3. Would you buy a used car from that man?

Cecil Turner

No. He's trying to make it newsworthy by suggesting that one of the SwiftVets is trashing McCain, instead of saying that a nutball is trashing McCain.

That's what I got out of it as well. When I think of Ted Sampley, I think of MIA memorabilia, and this takedown by a guy who actually worked at JTF-FA. Sampley is a nutjob with a long history of going after McCain over POW/MIA memorabilia. (Ironically, Kerry apparently got on his bad side by defending McCain.)

Fox should never have had him on to discuss Kerry, but the issue is far more cut-and-dried over McCain. Sampley has an ax to grind (he once did two days in jail for assaulting a McCain aide), and he ain't exactly right anyway. Not sure how "SwiftBoat" even enters the picture, but using this guy as an exemplar just demonstrates cluelessness.

Chris Thorne

Folks, do not underestimate the power of the persistently repeated smear.

There's a viral e-mail out there which accuses John McCain of having performed a reckless "wet start" of his jet which was, according to the mail, a proximate cause of the 1967 USS Forrestal deck fire which killed 134 Navy men.

This is, of course, entirely a Ted Sampley hallucination. And I have been at pains to slowly and carefully mount a factual refutation whenever it has come up. Which isn't all that difficult -- there's an entire book devoted to the disaster, for Pete's sake, which makes it clear that McCain could not possibly have anything to do with causing the fire.

But the hell of it is, with this sort of thing, it's like playing whack-a-mole. It keeps popping back up no matter how hard you work at it. And who knows what sort of quiet traction this particular bit of slander may be getting among people who don't know any better?

Danube of Thought

"...somehow you think Fox News' inconsistency on when Sampley should get attention is this little throwaway point..."

I think it's Sullivan's throwaway point, and I am certain that if it were not he would have written an entirely different bunch of nonsense and used a different headline. And I rest my case.

Danube of Thought

That viral e-mail, which I have not seen, is as vicious a slander as I know of if it is as Chris describes.

And it can readily and conclusively be refuted. There is a very clear video in existence showing exactly what happened: a Sidewinder missile was fired by accident from another aircraft, passed through McCain's fully fueled and armed A-4, and started the conflagration. You can watch the missile for yourself on the video. Wish I knew where to find it, but if this libelous bullshit gets any traction I'm sure it will come to light and put an end to it.

matt

the fire on the Forrestal was caused by a zuni rocket that fell from it's mounting on another plane on the deck of the carrier. That rocket then hit McCain's aircraft, detonating the fuel and armaments. McCain then escaped from the aircraft and was blown back @ 10'-20' by the detonation of ordnance from either his own or another aircraft.

Cecil Turner

That "wet start" thing is silly, anyhow. A "wet start" is when the igniters don't function as the gas is turned on (usually due to an igniter failure). An A-4 had igniters with a switch built in to the throttle quadrant. When you brought the throttle around the idle stop, it hit the switch that turned on the igniters automatically as it turned on the gas (you were supposed to hold the throttle outboard to ensure it hit the switch). The emergency procedure if it didn't light off was to turn off the throttle, being careful to avoid the igniters on the way back off, and then motor the starter (windmilling the engine) until the fuel blew out.

I suppose it's possible: you could turn on the gas while holding the throttle inboard, then wait a few seconds and bring the throttle back to cutoff to turn on the igniters--but that'd turn the gas back off--and then real quick bring it back on again. Dunno if it'd work or not. But I flew 'em for six years, and never even heard of anyone doing it. And I bet I would've, if it weren't a fairy tale.

Danube of Thought

I stand corrected on the Zuni vs. Sidewinder; they're both 5" as I recall. In any event the thing very clearly struck McCain's aircraft and started the fire, and in the video I have in mind you can see him climb out of the cockpit onto the starboard wing, dive to the flightdeck and roll away.

What scum.

Chris Thorne


But I flew 'em for six years, and never even heard of anyone doing it. And I bet I would've, if it weren't a fairy tale.

Cecil, you flew Heinemann's Hot Rod?

(doffs cap)

Yeah, this story is scummy. And it's Sampley. But I repeat myself.

There are Web versions of the e-mail out there. I'll see if I can dig one up. The book by Gregory Freeman is a tonic antidote to this dose of bull, but it's always easier for someone to tell a lie than it is to prove it false. Which is what the Sampleys of the world rely upon.

bgates

Yet somehow you think Fox News' inconsistency on when Sampley should get attention is this little throwaway point
I don't. It really bothers me that people are wasting so much time talking about foreign affairs, the economy, and the records of the two candidates, when clearly the paramount issue in this campaign is whether a crank who was on Fox News four years ago should be invited back.

bgates

This Sampley guy is even more of a blockbuster than differentiating Obama's close, unrepentant domestic terrorist associates from the Maoist cab driver Obama to whom Obama directed a six-figure grant, part of the nine-figure charity Obama's board wasted with no perceptible improvement in Chicago schools to show for it.

Susan Katz Keating

Re Sampley: He is a recreational troublemaker who has built a mini-career out of bashing McCain. I'm not sure Sampley believes his own ludicrous charges, but I'm certain he loves the publicity.

sophy

I do not know how to use the Cheap metin2 yang ; my friend tells me how to use.

The comments to this entry are closed.