DOMS is a l3!tch

I'm in love with this rest day.

The word of the day is OUCH :)

So, I'm jealous of my 16 month old daughter. She is just starting to walk and gets up and down in the most beautiful squat that it has me jealous. I can barely break parallel when I squat and she's scraping diaper on the floor at the bottom position. I always tell her, "Nice technique..." and she looks at me like "what..." Good times.

There article is strange. It reads like a chapter in a history text, yet uses never-defined double-speak such as "new media" and "old media". In any case it is an interesting discussion about a strange time: lies told about one man via legitimate media, truth told about another man via forged documents. I suspect these types of things will pale in comparison to the insane mudfest that is about to start.

RE: the article for today -
Moral - Don't take anything at face value. Even if it looks real, it could be a fake. Always do your due diligence and ask some hard questions to get to the truth. As President Reagan would say, "Trust, but verify."

To #3 - bkedelen - "truth told about another man via forged documents." What exactly are you saying here? That President Bush dodged his duties as a young Air Force lieutenant? I think not.

This article doesn't seem to be very timely or relevant. Perhaps the discussion should be focused on the Bush Administration's failure to understand the complexities of nation building...or its inability to draw upon W's vast military experience as a pilot for the Texas Air National Guard.

#5 - Turbo - I would agree that the administration failed to understand nation-building. There were many mistakes made, in my opinion, going into Iraq; however, I think the train wreck cleanup is going pretty well right now. A great read about the many missteps of the Administration going into Iraq are laid out in "Fiasco" by Tom Ricks.

As my foregoing relates to the article, well, I'd have to say that perhaps the President and his most trusted advisors were swayed to heavily by too little in the way of documented proof to support our Iraq invasion. Much like the documents produced by CBS to support the bs about the President's military service.

Just in case anyone is planning on taking a trip in the near future, make sure you do at least a few exercises here and there while you're gone. 3 weeks laziness and gluttony will reintroduce you to that burning soreness you met on your first week of painfit.

sigh.

Another crossfit certification seminar at CrossFit Charlotte on the same weekend I have drill. First this month and now in March. If I wasn't prep'ing for a mob maybe I'd think about getting excused from drill.

Merry Christmas!

Steve, leaving your thoughts aside, lets examine the facts:
Bush was accepted into the Texas Air National Guard with only a 25% on the pilot's aptitude test, the lowest grade acceptable. He was then trained and flew interceptor aircraft, but did so out of Ellington Air Force Base, which is in Texas, not in Vietnam, where is country was at war. No proof has ever been presented that he did not dodge the duties to which he was assigned, so we have no grounds to determine either way if he dodged his assigned duties. However, it can be conclusively demonstrated by his test scores and subsequent insubstantial value to the united states armed forces that he is in no way representative or associated with the spirit or legacy of those forces. The false documentation presented by CBS revealed this, but did so dishonestly.

Maybe the forum would be a better place to discuss this question, but i'll pose it here: For all of you who have went to the endurance sport certification, is it a cert for running, swimming, biking and rowing or only a portion of those? Are there any write-ups like there were for the CrossFit Certs covering briefly the seminars of the day and major lessons learned? I'm interested in getting some feedback from people who have gone.

bkedelen,
So the terrorists planned the attack on 9/11 in Pakistan/SA/Syria. Not here, but there. So you can't prove they didn't actually make the attack or carry it through. Yeah, right, tell the people in the towers and planes. Go smoke a little more and stick to your conspiracy theories.
Not to slam you because I assume you're liberal, I don't agree with GWB on social issues, but national defense is our existence.
Dan Rather can go live on his ranch and shut his yap. What about objective journalism? Mainstream media doesn't know what it's about.

Interesting and fun read... although I wish the pajama bloggers would pursue more relevant/substantial topics. I really do not care what Bush's service record is/was...I would however like to know more about Abu Ghraib, Negroponte, Libby's commutation, WRAMC, Hurricane Katrina, Halliburton, Exec Order 13233, Pat Tillman, US attornies, and many many more. Lets pursue the truth behind these stories with as much vigor as debunking some forged documents.

#9 - bdkedelen

I disagree.

I take a back seat to no one is my disdain for President Bush. He is a small man in a big job who mistakes a reflexive prejudice for the simple-minded for "moral clarity." President Bush values loyalty over competence, a character defect that has done great harm. And it is indisputable that family connections got the young George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard.

All that said, the CBS report was indefensible. What you call "false documentation" cannot "reveal" anything. The "fake but true" argument cannot withstand scrutiny. Journalists must not rely on falsified documents to prove a larger truth. They have only two honorable options:
- exclude false documents and rely on other evidence for use in a modified version of the story
- broadcast nothing

CBS failed miserably to authenticate the documents.
But it broadcast a story, relying heavily on the documents, anyway. That was the error.

CBS could have had an accurate, but less sensational, story about Bush's service without using the documents. But the CBS fiasco brought all journalistic scrutiny of Bush's service to a halt.

More importantly, in the firestorm that followed CBS
felt obliged to postpone a much more important "60 minutes" story that questioned the basis of the decision to go to war in Iraq.

Talk about irony....

#9-bkedelen

You talk of facts but say,
"However, it can be conclusively demonstrated by his test scores and subsequent insubstantial value to the united states armed forces that he is in no way representative or associated with the spirit or legacy of those forces."

Sounds more like an editorial than an examination of facts. It should be known that President Nixon and Johnson decided not to call up the National Guard from '68-'74. Bush, while in the National Guard, did not have the opportunity to deploy.

STOKER: Are you talking about the POSE Running and Endurance Sport Training Cert? If so, it's just being introduced. I'm going on the 26th so I'll you know what I think. I need all the help I can get with my running and endurance training. They're going to teach the POSE method of running. Very interesting. Click on the cert link where it says Running and Endurance Sports Training Cert and it will give you some information.

I was a swimmer and could do laps for hours. Before starting CrossFit I couldn't run half a block. The only running I did was for the bus and I felt like I was going to die. That means to me that endurance doesn't always transfer over to different sports. So maybe they'll address the differences in endurance training for all sports.
I could be wrong. Any swimmer/runners out there have the same experience?

I can't wait to go and learn. .. and meet EVA.

That dog is money!

Who knows the direct connection to this rest day article and CrossFit??

Just finished my lunges. Did it in my house so I did 400. Time:16 minutes. I don't think I will be able to snowboard this week as planned, just hoping I'll be able to walk.

Gnat

enough with the politics already.
remember 118% of all statistics are made up.

Good points Daniel. I agree that the false documentation reveals nothing about Bush, and cannot be used to indict him in any way. Of course it was also indefensible for CBS to use the documents in any way. Nevertheless some important conclusions which were drawn from the contents of the documents are still true, because they can be easily proven using other factual sources such as his terrible test scores and privileged posting. In addition, the admittedly loathsome act committed by CBS in attempting to pass off false documentation as news pales in comparison to the Swift Boaters, who knowingly and falsely decried an honest to god american war hero for political gain. I understand that the gentlemen associated with the Swift Boat campaign were not bound by journalistic integrity like CBS, but what they did will long be remembered as one of the most cowardly and indefensible acts of deceit ever perpetrated during an presidential election.

I, for one, would love to know this article's connection to crossfit. It must be a strong one to supersede current issues such as the fact that I live in a country that tortures secret prisoners and my buddies are being shot to pad Cheney's stock portfolio.

I just saw a little bit of TNA wrestling and I gotta know...is Greg A. related to Kurt Angle?

For myself this article delivers a more introspective response. I grew up in a different sort of dogmatic system known as the Church. What I have learned since leaving that path, is that it is always best to assume that regardless of how much the actions of the person at issue seem to reveal a conspiratorial intent they are probably acting out of a sincere belief. Whether that belief is rightly or wrongly held is a very different issue.

I think that the most interesting point that this article brings to light is the fact that Mr. Rather and others continued to defend the documents long after there was overwhelming evidence that they were forged. Though I don't care for Mr. Rather's politics, I have to assume that he isn't making himself out to look like an idiot out of stubornness or political dogma, but rather that he remained convinced that the documents were legitimate (and perhaps still does). To me the lesson here is be VERY careful about what you believe and always strive against your bias. I'm fairly competitive by nature and am terrible at really examining the facts that oppose my thinking when I am out to make a point. For Dan Rather that turned out to be a career ending flaw. I'm just thankful that I don't have nation full of people ready to pounce on my mistakes and make mince meat out of me, especially because the consequences would probably be justified as I believe they were here.

Joey,

I'd say......CrossFit Atlanta, and that MacDougal character. The one with the sharp eye, keen wit, and great sense of humor.

bedelen,

'Nevertheless some important conclusions which were drawn from the contents of the documents are still true, because they can be easily proven using other factual sources such as his terrible test scores and privileged posting.'

Some important conclusions come from lies because they can be easily proven by speculation and innuendo.

*nods knowingly*

Bummer, my post was caught by the spam filter. I know the answer Joey, I had the good fortune of meeting the gentleman at CFSC early last year and discussing the event, and his new affiliation. Great character.

J roCk,
Is it still possible to get in on the insanity that is going to ensue this weekend at Primal Fitness? This workout sounds like it's gonna be awesome. I'm up in Baltimore and am always down for a good CrossFit A%@ kicking. A couple friends may come out as well if there's room. Thanks.

John

As Rx'd; not scaled ;-)

I'm waiting for the smear campaigns to begin for the next election. These two parties are an sorry joke... if only it didn't effect us so much.

You have to understand that people who get into politics are pretty much slimey weasels to begin with and only get worse the longer they are involved in it. Regardless of sherked duties while in the ANG, it is well known that people went into the NG as a legitimate way to keep from going to Vietnam. The truth is more fun than fiction.

So many conspiracies, so little time.

#15 AllisonNYC

I always thought and observed that if you can run it doesn't mean you can swim and if you can swim you can definately run. I think if you keep your legs somewhat active then the endurance should carry over with the lungs. If you never move around on your legs then the breathing you develop from swimming is wasted. I got one of my buddies into swimming and after 2 months his 2 mile run time was 30 seconds shorter.

In AUG I swam 112 miles in one month when I finally ran again my 2 mile was great, but I was hurting if I went past 3 miles.

400 meters as Rx'd 419 lunges 18:32. It was 23o at 23:45 when we finished. Then we had a house fire. I think I might try ice baths today.

#13 Daniel Freeman
All great points, you spoke my mind.

Interestingly, the way many of the news channels now seem to be getting around the need for rigor in their stories is by claiming that their main anchors are “News personalities” rather than reporters. Apparently this means they aren’t as responsible for content anymore. I think we all lost more than we gained from this fiasco and the blame falls squarely on the shoulders of Rather. You can’t always expect news shows like 60 minutes to be completely unbiased, but you have to count on them to be honest and to only present information from sources of the highest calibre.

I found it a bit amusing that this article puts such emphasis on the high quality investigation of the blogosphere here. Their immediate questions were along the lines of “How can we show this isn’t true?” without really asking the question “Could this be true?”. That seems to be pretty much the going strategy for these guys, as well as their mirrors on the left. Right and left bloggers have attacked every single comment made by every journalist, politician, and TV personality that has ever said anything about anything since Bush was first elected. Occasionally they are going to get one right. It reminds me of the old saying that “If you give a monkey a typewriter, eventually he’s going to type a word”.

More scandalous to me is the hypocrisy of these bloggers. The same bloggers accusing Rather of using dubious documents to support his liberal bias, were simultaneously applauding the Swift Boat group who, by my understanding, provided no documents or evidence for peddling their trash.

I really loved the rest day article.

Dan McD....is Harry your brother????? I never put the two together until now!

You must be very proud of him. I know I would be. Glad to know those tenacious traits run in the family.

CCT Joey, RossB

The connections and relevance to CrossFit are at least these:

CrossFit's astounding growth & Dan Rather's downfall are both directly attributable to the amazing power internet to give truth a fighting chance against the power of moneyed BS.

The reluctant hero of that story, the one who started the whirlwind, is a CrossFit guy, and has been an occasional commenter on rest days for several years.

Finally, as happened when it became obvious that the CBS memos were forgeries, we can probably expect someone to claim that posting this link proves that Coach Glassman is part of a Karl Rove conspiracy to discredit liberals.

What does the term DOMS refer too? I read it on here and don t have a clue what it means. I m guessin its an acronym for something

CCTJoey-I see the link between the rest day reading and CrossFit as follows.
Dan Rather and 60 Minutes were old school and set in their ways. Just like globo gym and the "triathletes are the fittest/bodybuilders are the strongest" schools of thought.
The memos Rather reported on were taken apart like wildfire via the web, relying on knowledgable bloggers all over the world. Just like CrossFit, which is spreading like wildfire via the web, relying on Coach & staff's incredible knowledge which they're freely sharing with anyone who can read. Add to that a community like this one, and the Rather's of the fitness world don't stand a chance.

#32 Roy-DOMS=Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness

Storms: Thanks

Roy: DOMS Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness..
means it hurts a day or two after exercise. Or in my case, it hurts like HECK and cripples you so you can't freakin walk without saying OUCH.
No seriously people I can't remember the last time my legs and butt felt like this. I took asprin and had a friend come over to rub my legs and it didn't help. I'm thinking about booking a massage for today but I'm not sure I could take it.

OK I'll stop complaining before I get sprayed with the YBF (Roy thats You'll Be Fine spray. Water in a bottle labled YBF which is sprayed on sissys and complainers) Does anyone else have that in their gym or is it just the twisted guys at the Black Box?

Thanx Allison. My butt hurts too!! I ve only been crossfitting for about 4 months so the acronyms and slang I m still catchin up on. Thanks again.

Here's my morning's WOD in Rochester,NY:
21, 15, 9 reps for time of:
135 lbs (of snow) Shovel thrusters
95 lbs rock salt bucket swings
400 Meter sprint after the snow plow when he buries your driveway.

The Article -

Just another example of how the media is so left they can't see straight. Oh I know all the lefties say that the media is straighter than an arrow. Sure thing.

All aside, in the end we'll have justice for all on this earth

jg

Holy DOMS Batman!

#30 - RJ
As a recovering news director, let me offer some
thoughts about opinionated "news personalities." I have fewer objections than you do. All I ask is for more truth in advertising in how these programs are promoted. I happen to find Lou Dobbs's politics loathsome. But he does a provocative program that gives plenty of airtime to opponents. What I don't like is the way he drags "real" CNN reporters into the proceedings. At the end of stories, they are left twisting in the wind across the anchor desk as Lou fulminates. They are in agony, and I feel sorry for them. So I'd feel better if Lou developed his own stable of reporters. He should also provide viewers with a few more visual cues that what they are watching isn't a newscast. (O'Reilly and Olberman do better in making clear that viewers are watching an opinion show.)

Point of view documentaries also have their place. They present the film maker's opinion. There is nothing wrong with that.

All of which leads to a basic rule of journalistic ethics:
Things should be what they appear to be.

The whole idea of journalistic objectivity is relatively recent. Nineteenth century American newspapers were openly partisan. Many European papers still are.

Objectivity can even be thought of as a marketing gimmick -- something wire services came up with at the end of the 19th century when they wanted to sell their services to papers of all political stripes.

With the advent of the blogosphere and opinionated TV programs. we are seeing a return to the open partisanship of an earlier era. It's not at all clear to me that this is a bad thing. The public is often well served
by many loud and competing voices who fact check each other.

bkedelen - and other subscribers to the fake but accurate line.

The documents are fake and the story is a lie.

1. Staudt and Hodges, the people who actually knew directly told the producer, Mary Mapes, (a) that no political pressure was used to gain his admittance and (b) there were open slots for pilots at the time. See Thornburg-Boccardi Report, ("Report") (http://wwwimage.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/complete_report/CBS_Report.pdf) p. 131, n. 73-74. There is conflicting information about this, but you would never hear that from CBS.

2. He went to Alabama with everyone's blessing and would take the physical when he returned. - so said Col. Hodges. Report, p. 103. According to Hodges, Killian was never upset that Bush went to Alabama. They were winding down because the war was winding down. Killian's widow said he loved Bush and would have campaigned for him if he were still alive. Mapes told folks at CBS that Hodges had authenticated the documents and the essentials of the story - both flagrant lies.

3. Mapes was told flat out by two of her document examiners that the documents were bogus, James, Report, p. 85, 193, 108, and Will, Report. p. 84-85, 106-107. She responded to James "F*ck the th!" (Report, p. 108) and told CBS management that all the experts had authenticated the documents. Matley only authenticated the signatures, not the documents. She told management he had authenticated the documents, and that the other experts deferred to him - but they didn't. Report, p. 85, 108. Hodges repudiated the story and the terminology of the documents. Report, p. 103.

4. The catalog of lies in the broadcast is incredible. See Report, pp. 123-132.

It is upon this foundation that The Flat Earth Society has built the Fake But Accurate wing of their headquarters.

Yep the DOMS are certainly here!! Although 2nd days DOMS is always worse!! lol

Has anyone noticed how the acronym for DOMS is very simliar to WODS!!! Maybe it's just me but they seem to be a bit close for comfort!!! Comfort?? Whats that then?? A distant memory?!?!? ;-)

AllisonNYC if you have access to a plunge pool at your gym try the hot and cold treatment after training. I find 5-10 minutes of hot and 2-3 minutes of cold cycled 3-4 times helps with the amount of soreness I feel the next day.
But it has to be cold water!! ;-)

Richie

RJ

The SBV assertions were copiously supported by the accounts of the men who served with Kerry. The most inflammatory information was obtained by quoting John Kerry's testimony to Congress on the so-called "Winter Soldier" investigation. In that effort John Kerry gave a great propaganda victory for the North Vietnamese communists. John O'Neill wrote a book on the subject called Unfit for Command to which you may want to refer. Their website is still up. http://www.swiftvets.com/index.php and has much information to substantiate their assertions - if you are interested.

Regards,

#38 Daniel
An interesting history lesson about the media, I had never heard that and it helps put things in perspective. And I know exactly what you mean about the Lou Dobbs/CNN reporter interaction, it is uncomfortable to watch to say the least.

My concern is usually that loud voices from either side that completely lack objectivity leads to two groups that simple try to talk over each other rather than discuss. When things are presented in purely partisan terms, everything seems to be a black and white issue, which of course is rarely the case. But I suppose that I could be comfortable with partisan media outlets, providing that they are honest about their agenda. On that note I must humbly request that Fox change it’s slogan from “Fair and balanced” to something a little less ironic.

Perhaps you are right and we’re better served by a media that spans the ideological spectrum and forces people to actually think for themselves. However, I’ve always had the impression that few people seek a “balanced diet” of media, and most tend to stick to almost exclusively to the sources that confirm their prejudices. Confirming this for me is the fact that many people still stand by the validity of the stories presented in the "60 Minutes/Bush" and the "Swift boat/Kerry" debacles, despite a lack of any hard evidence.

My a$$ is quite sore from yesterday. I was looking forward to a day off but one of our comrades threw down this gauntlet.

"Run 800m, 30 tire flips, run 800m, 20 tire flips, run 800m, 10 tire flips

Tire flips are done with the heavy a$$ JERRV tires."

We didn't have a JERRV tire so we used a larger forklift tire.

Nick - 14:44
Dan - 17:45
Tyler - 18:39

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y257/nickoi/DSC04124Large.jpg

Allison,

I checked out the link(before posting) and it looked like just POSE but I was looking for some more info. In the life before CrossFit, I was an endurance athlete of sorts, swimming and running and some mediocre triathlons. With all the CF Journal articles about swimming and running I had hoped it the endurance sports cert would be a proverbial meeting of the minds: the POSEtech-ers with the Total Immersion swimmers and maybe the Sprint Salo swimmers. Let me know how it goes. Anybody else attended and want to comment?

Made up WOD from a few days ago..

shoulder press 55-60-65(f)-60-65(f)-60-60
push press 55-55-60-60-65
push jerk 55-60-65-65-70

An old English proverb, which was somewhat too difficult for GWB to repeat, says "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me".
So much about those 50% of American voters who voted TWICE for that guy.

#43 Harry
I'm generally familiar with the sources you're talking about, but I'm only generally informed about the situation. As I recall, Kerry also dragged out a contingent of other people who served with him and they said the opposite of the SBV. There's also plenty of info available via an internet where investigations have brought into question the validity of many of the claims made by the swift boat people.

But I don't really care to defend Kerry beyond that, it's old news. It was just one example off the top of my head of blogger hypocrisy. I'm sure there are many more examples.

#48

I'm sure if a larger segment of the population actually showed up to vote the result would have been different, not to mention the issues in Ohio.

Seems that a lot of people are so disenchanted due to (at least at some level) the "fair and balanced" reporting on the commercial net works. It wouldn't be so bad if they were openly partisan and didn't feel the need to smear each side rather than present the issues that matter to that segment of the population. What you end up with are extemists just trying to dig up the worst possible information (and even making it up or distorting it) on the other side. One could make a great comedy film based on this stuff. It reminds me of some video I came across on youtube where someone put a laugh track on segments of Fox News. The really funny part is that if you didn't know any better, you'd think you actually were watching a comedy show. It was done that well.

Whoa!!!
Politics? What's next- religion?

Does anyone else agree that the only thing honest these days is the seven colors of agony- after 400m lunges?

This CF business...It calls EVERYONE out on the carpet. No hiding in the light. No lies. Just the overwhelming desire to smile while tackling creative new pain strategies.

Keep up the good work people.

As for politicians and jounalists- they are job security for each other.

RJ:

It's not hypocrisy if the SBVT are telling the truth.

You are promoting the line that the CBS/TANG story is equally as false as the SBVT claims.

That is simply not correct.

#22 ahward:

very solid post

Now for a really serious topic -- does Nicole have a calendar in the works???

I think media bias is a great thing. However, they just need to admit they are being such. It is the passing it off as non-biased that gets under my skin. That was what Rather did. He is/was a leftist and socialist apologist who for years was held up a legitimate objective reporter. For decades we new this was crap, but they did not want to own up to it. This is what conservatives and libertarians are talking about with the media as well as college campuses.

If the bias would just be admitted to, then there isn't this issue. However, there is a concerted effort to hide that agenda. The ratings show that the media has drifted to far. However, the answer for most of the TV news and cable news is to go even farther left without admitting it, and they lose more and more percentage every cycle.

Katie Couric? Really? Keith Oberman? Really? They are trying to honestly pass these guys off as objective?

I don't think that #22's post is at all solid, since he clearly states he left the "Church"...adding to his own bias.

What is Metcon? I see the terms thrown around now and then... thx

I love Mr.Rippetoe!

"gotta tighten up that C-O-R-E....."

#54 charles: MetCon = Metabolic Conditioning

http://crossfitboston.squarespace.com/

Check it out! Me and EC :)

Allyson and Stoker

I was introduced to the Pose method about 12 years ago as a junior triathlete. I gotta admit I was skeptical then, and I'd be skeptical now.

I was involved in a junior development program, and Dr. Romanov was one the the coaches/mentors. He went on and on about the mechanics of Pose, and argued why it should work. Being a teenager enamored by physics, and a decent runner, I didn't buy it. I remember saying again and again how important the push phase of running is. Without friction, no movement is possible (without friction nothing is possible!).

Since then, I spent 2 years as a pro triathlete, 5 years as a sponsored runner, and countless years as a bike racer. Only now have I seen his name pop up again.

The status quo is a dangerous bully, but no one has won anything using his techniques, per se. In fact, no top runners use the method. Just look at the Kenyans. They run like they are on skis. They push at the end of every stride.

That said, the drills he taught were of value. They are the same types of things sprinters do to improve their leg turnover (speed = stride length X stride rate, or more appropriately, speed would be the solution to a differential whereby stride length and stride rate are both dependent on an optimum for your leg length/flexibility/body weight/et al.).

So, it can help in some ways. But, as Dan Rather might agree, ignore the BS and dig down to the useful stuff. And don't pay too much for it.

Alex

Here are some more bogus claims like the ones CBS made:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/140133_bushiraq18.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6190720

How can all you righties vote for the guy that stayed home vs. the guy that actually went to Vietnam regardless of whether he deserved some medals or not? I'll give you a hint, he was an officer, he probably didn't deserve 'em.

#44 - RJ writes:

"My concern is usually that loud voices from either side that completely lack objectivity leads to two groups that simple try to talk over each other rather than discuss. ...I’ve always had the impression that few people seek a “balanced diet” of media, and most tend to stick to almost exclusively to the sources that confirm their prejudice."

True enough. But how about a little personal responsibility from news consumers? The citizen who wants to be well informed needs to seek out a diversity of sources and voices.

Few working reporters at mainstream media outlets are the idealogues critics imagine them to be. Most are professionals trying to do their best with limited time and resources. And most stories have no obvious partisan tinge. So the idea that reporters sit around all day trying to skew coverage in favor of their preferred politics is silly. (But that's exactly what many think tankers do -- and then project their own failings onto reporters.)

Media bias tends to come from the selection and placement of stories. I also thinks it's fair to say that
journalism tends to attract a certain type of person. Few are satisfied with the status quo. Many see shortcomings in society and want to write about how to make things better. That often translates into exploring some form of government action. Conservatives and libertarians see the world very differently. Fair enough.

While there is some evidence of liberal bias in the media, there is also a great deal of evidence that points in the opposite direction. The right dominates talk radio. The US media has always been far too deferential to the US President. (Canadian and British media are much ruder and better in questioning their leaders.) In the run up to the Iraq war, the US media was so scared of being seen as unpatriotic that in barely covered dissenting voices in the military and intelligence communities.

But mainstream reporters as extreme liberal partisans? Nah. I think many are closer to petit bourgeois reformers.

This upcoming election season I'll be turning my TV off and sticking to personal research on the Internet. Lesson learned from watching the previous unfold, and look at the results? Debacle all the way around.

#56 Allison

Great pic. Can't wait to get the group pic of all of us before the PRIMAL WOD and after the WOD! Good times to come! Wish I could travel all over kingdom come WODing...I am so jealous!
See ya SAturday!

~J~

Rory, let us look at your slight of hand for a second, since you do not want to talk about the subject of liberal bias.

President Clinton said on February 17th, 1998, while he was president, and this is from his address to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Pentagon staff. He said, "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We have to defend our future from these predators of the twenty-first century. They'll be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein.

From the New York Daily News, April 16th, 2003. "'Saddam is gone, and good riddance,' former President Clinton said yesterday. 'I don't think you can criticize the president for trying to act on the belief that they have a substantial amount of chemical and biological stock. That is what I was always told.'"

May 18th, 2003, at Tougaloo College in Jackson, Mississippi, during commencement address. "I supported the president when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

From TIME Magazine, Bill Clinton, June 28th, 2004. "So you're sitting there as president, you're reeling in the aftermath of 9/11, so, yeah, you want to go get Bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that, but you also have to say, well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I gotta do that. That's why I supported the Iraq thing."

So I ask you, why are you not you pointing your fingers at the President before this one??

I can tell you. Would you like to know?

Daniel, the point is that the Talk Radio types ADMIT they are biased. That is the difference. Integrity. Quit apologizing. The polls are in and over and over reporters admit they are overwhelmingly liberals and when they are registered to vote, they are Democrats

This is so sad to see people try to defend this.

I think the more pressing issue to CFers is the buildup of waistlines and the Rise of the Pauladeen.

/got nothing
//rest day = leisurely 5k run

M/22/6'1"/185

Serious DOMS but c'mon, I gotta get some work in otherwise I'll go bonkers at work.
Yesterday post WOD as RXed. I was bored and it was in between sessions at a swim meet that I was coaching, so I took a walk with my stop watch to the bball court and did a half GI Jane. 5:33. Ouch, ouch and more ouch, jumping to the rim was every bit as tough as it needed to be. Awesome
Today: Jeremy as RXed = 5:24. OHS the day after Lunges is an awful idea, absolutely awful.
Maybe my adult league hockey practice will be easy tonight, maybe, i hope?

#62 CCTJOEY,

The only consistent defense is to try and dodge the issue and change the subject. There is no such thing as unbiased news. That's why Jesus invented the brain - and anyone who uses theirs can notice that overwhelmingly TV media (notice I didn't say radio #59, we're not talking about radio either) is left of center.

But that's just an underlying assumption and not important - because that's not why the article was posted. If I really wanted to find a the bias and agenda that the rest article was pushing, I would say that it was posted to sway me in favor of the overwhelming power of the individual blogger compared to conventional think thanks. And you know what? - it's working, and I'm letting it work. Why? Because I have a brain, and unlike the mindless talking heads on either side of the spectrum (I’ll knock the right, too, because the lunatic fringe on both sides can be guilty of this), I use mine, and it tells me that just this whole board, right here, and the forums on the main site, are a perfect example where you get ripped a new one if you disregard logic and try to spin something.

Hooray bias.

It is important to question, but not be jaded - so how does one do that?
My high school history teacher told us that apathetic voters are the worst kind -- it is hard not to be apathetic and to do the research and to actually understand who or what we are voting for.
I say try and do that on the local level, understand the politics of your city and state - the rest will come with that knowledge.
CCTJOEY - the article relates because it is about seeking truth - pushing the limits - it also relates because it is getting us prepared for a year of this bs --- I'm glad I'll be deployed and won't have to watch it all unfold.

Had to take the weekend off from the WOD because I was in Tahoe.
This a.m. did:
12 Rounds
6 One arm snatch (15# dumbbell)
10 dumbbell swings (30# dumbbell)
15 walking lunges
Good times! Need to up the weight next time.

The point of the story was to showcase at least one blatant, unambiguous effort by a liberal producer at a top rated show-- working in direct collusion with Kerry's campaign--to abuse the power of media to influence an election. It's abundantly clear that the entire substance of their case was a lie, and only those incapable of mustering the humility to admit error would continue arguing that even if it wasn't true, it ought to have been true.

And how do they do this? They compare the supposed "lies" told about Kerry to the proven lies they told. Yet, the facts favor the Swift Boat Veterans. Look at this link: http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=Keys

Notable quotes: "Asked for a recommendation about possible courses of action for Congress to pursue, Kerry stated that he had talked with representatives from Hanoi and from the PRG (Viet Cong) at the Paris peace talks, and mentioned his support for "Madam Binh's points." Madam Nguyen Thi Binh was at that time the Foreign Minister for the PRG. These meetings took place in the spring of 1970, before Kerry ever joined the VVAW."

Kerry was literally coordinating his anti-war effort with representatives of North Vietnam and the Vietcong, which in my view is little, if any, short of treason. Men were fighting and dying while he was trying to engineer our surrender.

"The VVAW [Kerry's group]was at the heart of the propaganda effort that so effectively smeared American servicemen in Vietnam as murderous, drug-addled psychotics that returning veterans were cursed and spat upon in the streets. In fact, as shown in B.G. Burkett's book "Stolen Valor," Vietnam veterans are more psychologically stable and successful than their civilian counterparts."

There is no he said/she said here. Bush is vindicated, and Kerry is guilty as charged. Maybe it ought to be otherwise, since there are always two sides to every issue--we are told--but that is not the case here, with respect to this issue, and we have proven at least one clear case of leftist media bias.

I am listening to a series on "Great Presidents", and even though the lecturer has a mild liberal bias, it is interesting to me how he points out the many contradictions of some of our Presidents.

One fact is that Washington was deeply afraid of and suspicious of the development of political parties, and fought against them. Thomas Jefferson decided to develop one anyway, to run against John Adams, and to counter the ideas of Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson invented the partisan press in America, invented overt partisanship, and when it was turned against him during his own tenure tried to get states to enact censorship laws against the newspapers that were attacking him. They used his own weapon against him.

He was also, for those counting, the first President to wage a war without getting an authorization from Congress, against the Barbary Pirates.

I think Washington was quite right to fear the formation of parties, for reasons like what we are discussing today. We wind up making decisions for the wrong reasons.

I don't mean defending the article. I mean defending Rather's actions.

That's what I meant too, I was probably too vauge in my description. I meant, generalizing Rather's actions as part of the general left leaning media, the only way to defend that position is to not defend it and change the subject and focus. Sorry for not stating that outright.

Also, I'm never above stating the obvious: "Buckhead" is posting on this here thread. Well done, Mr. Free Republic Blogger of the Year (or whatever it was).

41yo/f/160#
swam 2300yds
CFWU x2 + pushups, good mornings
400m walking lunges 10min

Wow I had forgotten about that whole document forging thing.

It just goes to show one thing: Those on the left will blatantly lie and present it as truth in order to get their way. They believe the same thing Karl Marx believed, namely "The ends justify the means". Nevermind that in both situations, the "ends" are a terrible idea (liberalism/socialism/communism).

If you don't remember, think back to the Vietnam war when all the "former troops" came back and said how they "personally witnessed" all these evil things when in fact, the vast majority of them either were never troops, or were heard secondhand (not "personally witnessed"), and when we trace it back to the source, the person was simply another 70's anti-war protestor who never was a soldier in the fist place, but rather was simply LYING to get their way (the ends justify the means again in their mind).

this whole discussion is one of the reasons i'm a reluctant voter. I feel like I could spend weeks and months trying to read everything I could find on our current crop of candidates and not feel any more confident that i was picking the right future leader for our country than i do now. I did the research bit some last time around and it didn't help me out that much.

I'll admit - i'm probably a slacker where that comes in since politics as a whole makes me sick, but voting is still exercising force to a degree and needs to be done with forethought. My problem is still with where to find information on all sides that i can actually believe.

mark L

CCTJOEY

Excellent post. I was ready to make the same points before I read yours and I could not have said it better than that. So all I'll say "yeah what he said".

Hello to everyone,

Cherry crossfitter here. I first learned of Crossfit in '04 while in Iraq, but I never executed any of the programs, only some of the exercises. But I have since gotten bored of my normal run/lift routine, so here I am.

After two weeks, I can honestly say that this is the best overall program I have tried in 17 years. The site and the community are wonderful, and I look forward to the challenges lying ahead.

Yesterdays WOD

385 steps in 23:58

I don't think I have ever done that many lunges in my entire life.

M/56/205/70"

picked up yesterdays w.o. 400 lunges 13:40

Interesting topic, as Matt said win at any cost, the ends justify the means. I remember Kerry and his congressional testimony. A lot of people who heard it believed it and lots of us got painted with the same brush.

I agree that the media should admit the stance they take; however, that includes Fox News and the "no spin zone" of Bill O'Reilly.

Pretty much given up reading the comments on rest days, because, let's face it, the bias is very one-sided. But just because I did read this, 2 points: John Kerry served and the men who served with him say he deserved his medals. Not the SBV who didn't serve with him and weren't even on the same boat! The guys who were there said he deserved them.

2) Bush was AWOL. How do I know? Easy. His commanding officer said so. Said he had no idea where Bush was during his time in Alabama. The UCMC defines AWOL as being absent for 72 hours without your commanding officer knowing where you are. Bush's commanding officer stated pretty emphatically that he had no idea where Bush was or what he was doing. Hence, AWOL.

Made up the walking lung workout. No track, so estimated 380 steps based on measuring one lunge distance.

16:35

Ow. my. legs. I'm walking like I just got back from a prison shower room.

Bush volunteered for vietnam. it says it in the article. Kerry has been called out by the Swift boat vetarns for truth to prove to them (Swift) that he (kerry) is telling the truth. Kerry to this date has not proven anything to anyone about his heroic claims.
Also Liberals love to smear, They are in it for themselves. They do waht is best for them and not for their country. Why is the Military filled with a huge majority of conservatives? Because "We" are not in it for ourselves. Selfless service is something liberals fear, or do not truly understand.
Now those are blanket statements, I realise there are some liberals in the military and other civil service departments where selfless service is required, No disrespect was meant.

This servicemember is what some may define as a liberal. I thank God that my military career has enabled me to be a caregiver, as a medic in the Air Force. I believe we've made a mockery of Jesus Christ's basic principle of "love your neighbor as yourself" by judging people who are poor and have difficulty supporting themselves or their families. We don't forgive one another for our mistakes, and we don't often go out of our way to help others in need. Instead, we hide behind religious doctrine and used bits and pieces of it to support political aims. This "liberal" is not "in it for herself" and I believe many of the people that the right criticizes as being that way have not considered the possibility that some people want a world like the one Christ proposed.

This whole series of quotes, the article and the whole US election campaign process make me glad that I live in Canada, with a very different system. My biggest beefs are with how long the presidential campaign drags on for, and how often candidates resort to smear tactics.
I feel they go hand in hand as the campaign lasts so long (about 18 months from when the first candidates start getting organised for the primaries till the actual vote in November) that the only way to maintain interest is to go negative. People have limited attention spans, and if a candidate has already fully presented their policy proposals in the primaries, what new stuff can they bring to the actual presidential campaign? Usually not a lot, so they have to resort to the negative, digging up old history on peripheral issues and totally ignoring who has the better plan for running the nation. To me the Swift Boat and MemoGate stories are the same in this regard.
Both focus on events that happened 20 to 30 years ago when Bush and Kerry were very different people. Sure they may represent key aspects in their development but don’t necessarily define who they are now. Look at my basic training reports and my recent annual evaluation, there is a big difference between the two and they’re only separated by five years. Personal attacks like these (as highly entertaining as they may be) serve only to muddy the campaign and distract the voting public from the issues and how the candidates will tackle them.
If you must attack a politician’s record attack what is relevant, how they’ve performed in office and even then don’t.

IMO, the US should either ditch the primary process, make it less public or make it happen closer to November so the campaign can be shortened and candidates can stick to the issues, actually debate policy and maintain public interest without smear tactics.

Any slags against the Parliamentary system and how it chooses the government welcomed, cause it isn’t perfect either.

How about a Crossfit primary and debate system?

You don't know where it will take place until the morning of the event. And you don't have any idea about the questions in advance. But maybe you'll get lucky and it will focus on some issues that you've aced before.

And everyone in the audience can have a puke bucket. Which they already need right now, anyway.

It's amazing that there is a good part of this discussion focusing on Bush's presidency when the article's focus is on a case of bogus journalism.

I take the news for what it is - someone's presentation of the facts as they see them. I think most newscasters attempt to be objective, but this is ultimately an impossible task. Each individual has a perspective which is going to flavor his/her interpretation of events. The same thing is found in reading history. That's why it behooves individuals to read multiple sources for a more accurate picture. Oh yeah, and use the brain.

Kudos to "Buckhead" for calling a spade a spade -no, for proving that a spade was a spade. The CBS team's actions are indefensible. As news professionals, they had a responsibility to meet standards of credibility before presenting a story - they failed. Period.

CCTJOEY,

What slight of hand? I was talking about Bush. I never voted for Clinton, nor did I ever defend him. He is not "my president". I am not a democrat or a republican. What I think is sad is when people are so blinded by partisan politics that they can't call a spade a spade if it's in their party.

Being a first timer for the 400m walking lunge, I'm dreading getting out of bed tomorrow and even more so reading the WOD... Oh well, gotta get some... 3,2,1 GO!!!

My legs are killing me as a first timer for the 400m walking lunge. I'm dreading getting out of bed and even more so reading the WOD. But what are you going to do, but get some. 3,2,1 GO!

Rory, seriously, WMDs? Your attempt to paint Bush as lying is refuted. Now you slight of hand again, talking about yourself. Stay on topic, for once, and answer the refutations of your posts. What was the point of your post #61 then?

KCN, The difference between the to men and their records is one had a history of lying about American Servicemen and conspiring with the enemy through propaganda. I find that very relevant.

I believe some people need to understand the difference between a network news program (i.e. the evening news) vs a talk show host (i.e. Hannity).

The network news is suppose to be unbiased reporting of news while the talk show host is a biased commentator.

The problem arises when people assume the network news orgainzation is the full truth but in reality there is a hidden bias that is showcased during their reporting.

Someone suggested in earlier comments that the credebility of the memos was torn apart by right-wing zealots looking for anything wrong to parry the attack. Yes, it just so happened that a conservative blog was the beginning discussion ground, but what they were talking about was wanting a closer look at the memos because something seemed screwy to a few of them.

I think the greater point of this article isn't about media bias, but about not accepting things at face value when something seems wrong. The guys who were secretaries in the Air National Guard at the supposed time of the memos looked at it and saw the inconsistencies with what they remembered. Other people with other specialties would probably have noticed some of the other inconsistencies. I know my older brother did. He was a graphic designer for a pre-press company for 10 or so years and could look at a piece of type and tell you font, size, and a whole host of other items. When this came out he looked at a reproduction of the memo and started going on about how it is impossible for a modern type-face with modern features to have been used in the early 70s. To him, something was wrong.

I guess what I take from this is if something seems wrong with information or news that you are getting (not just that you don't like it or it doesn't fit your own bias), then look into it and search out the facts for yourself.

Cheers everyone, it's my 2 year Crossfit birthday today! Just a few of my favorite things: the community, the website, the journal, me in the back corner of the gym with a loaded barbell feeling like I'm gonna hurl but picking up the bar anyway.

Thanks to Coach and all of you for constantly reminding me that there's always another challenge awaiting me!

TripMN,
I agree with not taking things at face value, but more importantly, we have to educate ourselves so we can make informed decisions regarding what the media presents to us as fact. There is manipulation coming from all angles, and unfortunately, such manipulations are often directed at those who are either unwilling or unable to discern between fact and fiction. We will not get responsible reporting until we absolutely demand it. Ratings are what drives this stuff.

My legs hurt, but not as bad as they should. I sat in a cold bath within five minutes of finishing yesterday. I am so glad that I did.

I figured out a trick. Instead of sitting in a full cold bath - which would be impossible to let yourself ease into...I sat in the tub and let the water fill around me. My legs were on such fire at the time that it did not feel cold at the time.

Just a tip from someone who can walk today.

#83: Big Brother.

Read this link: http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp

It discusses Bush's service. What is quite certain is that he was not a member of an anti-war group dedicated to smearing service members, demonizing American efforts to avoid a Communist take-over of South Vietnam, or an associate of and recipient of money from, Jane Fonda.

I drive stick and my legs are so sore that I almost got in an accident.

keep'em coming!

Patrick,
I hear you! I have a stick also, and after the WOD yesterday it was tough to drive. I couldn't coordinate my legs enough to keep from stalling out once or twice.

KCN #87
My evals now are far different than when I enlisted 19 years ago also. I am a different, I believe improved, person. It may well be for Sen Kerry and President Bush. I believe it is, on both counts. However, the accusations on the table for them treason and desertion are serious impugnments of character particularly for a CinC and have to be explored fairly and thoroughly regardless of the time between.

Kerry was mouthing what everyone in the streets was saying. He was also apparently eyeing a political career even as early as his service in Vietnam.

These are serious accusations, but what do you call someone who sits in front of Congress as in effect a self-appointed representative of our military, and says things which were not true, and which he can have had no compelling reason to believe were true, other than that they were commonplaces among those with whom he chose to associate himself?

Have we forgotten the devastating effect our decision to fail in Vietnam created among our military, and the effect it had on our political life? Why did Nixon get impeached? Because he wanted leaks like the Pentagon Papers to stop, and he (wrongly) abused his authority of office to do it.

I will add more later.

x24696,
I would say that the anti war movement sabotaged the efforts of the US to the point that they were no longer able to prosecute a war that we would've won followed by a free united VN. We most likely would've staved off the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia and helped the VN economy rather than causing them to wait 25 years to open a more freemarket economy. That's not even talking about the effect of the VN war on the American psyche which is evident today in the public's expectation of quick painless wins or else the effort becomes a "quagmire"

CCT JOEY:

You want me to stay on point and not go off on a tangent like, Bill Clinton (hmm). I guess the refutation of my post is that there WAS a link between 9/11 and Iraq, and we did find nukes, right? Alright, you got me. There was a stock pile of nukes under the kitchen sink. I'm a damn fool.

Wonderful segway, x24696, to the underlying fact that as a military member, you have the right to defend your country and yourself. You have the right to question unlawful orders. You have the right to shut up and color while disagreeing vehemently with whatever legislature or policy is being passed down the pipe. It's every serviceman's right to bitch, but when it comes down to it, we've got to do what we're ordered to. Sometimes that includes being silent on the forum amongst civilians or upholding national policies of whichever Commander in Chief is in power.

Rory, The refutation is that you are not being intellectually honest and got called on it. What you are implying is dishonest appears to have ben common knowledge and readily agreed upon long before the 2003 invasion. However, as per your reference to yourself at the end of your own post, I believe you have a fighting chance at seeing the obvious.

However, my argument is that you point to articles that are not accurate, as if to make a point. A point either misguided out of ignorance or your assumption that we are. Thus reinforcing your last sentence.

Please try again.

Weighted pullups today, 5x10,3x25,1x50,75,100(f),90,100(pr), 5x50,50,50. I started out using a backpack, but at 100# it was too cumbersome on my back and I switched to the dip belt and got me a clean chin over the bar pr at 100#. I then went for 105# and the bloody dip belt broke! It might make sense to use both the back back and dumbells between my feet. And kudos to John Rippon's 50kg and Dave's 145#. You guys are awesome! BW:170 Y/A:59

Barry,
Yes Kerry was mouthing what everyone in the streets was saying..in effect I think he aknowledges this fact in his first sentence or two to Congress..that he is purely symbolic and a voice for many. And yes I believe he was eyeing a career in politics. I think after his third qualifying wound when giving the option to leave Vietnam he choice a position as a high ranking aide in order to position himself better.

The military was represented in front of Congress, but not be Kerry. He sat in front of Congress as a representative of the VVAW which he made apparent, although it needed no mention.

I do not think neither your nor I can say he mentioned things that were not true. He does relate unhonorable acts soldiers related in the Winter report that they were forced to undertake. These acts are not far from the acts performed in My Lai with Talley. So their truthfulness or validity I cannot support or refute. But his main point was true the US did not belong in Vietnam and Southeast Asia posed no threat to the US. These facts have been proven true throughout the years, and even upheld, by individuals such as McNamara who were influential in the decision for war.

The thing is it was not our decision to fail in Vietnam. We had no chance of winning. Everyyear, 500,000 North Vietnamese boys turned the age of 18. Every sinlge one of these boys who could were forced to fight the Americans. We killed on average 300,000 North Vietnamese a year. You can do the math as well as I can, at that rate we could not win through killing alone. Ho chi minh knew the fickleness of the Americans, knew we were not committed and that they purely needed to outlast us. It was not our decision to fail.

The impact it had on the military was due to the politicians and government. The military does not govern itself.

Our political life? Cannot answer that one. I do know that Nixon was not only impeached because he was trying to only prevent leaks like the Pentagon Papers. I do believe there was something to do with campaign fraud, political espionage, a fund of money in Mexico used to pay individuals who conducted these acts, break-ins and tax audits, plus who knows what else never got mentioned.

thanks Allison,
I was confused I guess because I read the odd post in the comments stating the WOD was a Metcon workout. I think every WOD hits one of the 3 metabolic pathways so in essence every WOD is Metcon... true?

#108 john:

I've been using some webbing and a carabiner for about 3 years (for weighted pullups/dips) and it has been the most versatile and simplest setup I've tried. The whole setup is a few ounces and about $10. Much less obtrusive than a belt, but it does tend to dig into your skin. YMMV.

Wow sorry for the typos

Joey - salient and on point.

x24696 - let's not confuse intestinal fortitude and personal courage when acting valiantly to that required when conspiring with our enemies to satisfy personal political ambition.

off topic: I wish we'd get a rest topic on the FED, and the dire potential outcomes from the collapse of the housing bubble - (I did a housing blog from 2/06 to 4/07). My wife asked me the other day, how & why it happened. My short answer: massive fraud and collusion at every level. As much as i disagree w/ RonPaul's foreign policy views, his domestic financial views are SPOT ON.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4kxTkhwR_Q

Whatever bro. You live in your world and I'll live in mine and we can keep believing the other has their eyes wide shut. We'll have to agree to disagree because I need to actually work some today. I'll be looking forward to your post tomorrow with loads/times.

I'm tired of the belly aching in regards to past elections.

Let me get this straight. You have Kerry who was a decorated purple heart recipient. He comes back to the US and starts maligning the war effort. And in the 2004 Prez election he is deemed a war hero. That is not going to fly even without the swift boats.

Now go back to the 2000 Prez election. Gore acted like an egoistical boob in the debates. Hell, he did not even win his own state. If so he would have won.

That's the problem with this country lately. No one takes responsibility. It's someone else's fault.

ps...I live in Calif so our default presidential pick is always the same party's candidate anyway.

You can find my loads and times on my blog, if you actually care.

Tracy,
Why does being a war hero mean that you have to agree with the government's stance? I know many individuals believe the military should be bipartisan (and some have even called for removing the service member's right to vote), but your insinuation that because he protested the war he is no longer a war hero is absurd.

You imply that you cannot be a war hero if you do not support the war effort. I do not think that anyone is going to support your argument that Kerry is not a war hero. He is, face it. By not agreeing with your opinions and enacting his First Amendment rights does not preclude his previous accomplishments. It may tar them a little, but you cannot change what has already happened.

CCTJoey said integrity in the same paragraph as talk radio reporters. That is pretty funny. Yeah, Rush is a bastion of integrity...

We(conservatives) need you liberals to help keep us in check.
You liberals need us conservatives for your survival.

32/F/125

Made up yesterdays lunges:

380 steps, 12:20

The discussion today brings to mind that word coined by Colbert, "truthiness". I have a hard time listening to any commentator, left or right, because of it. Anymore, the only "news" programs I watch are on Comedy Central. At least they make me laugh and I don't have to guess at the political leanings of the host. Some favorite segments, are "Cluster---- to the White House" and "You Don't Know Dick" referring to VP Cheney. John Stewart on the Daily Show may be left of center but at least he makes fun of ALL politicians. Perhaps the President gives him a little more to work with...

You can all go back to duking it out now.

I hate rest days...

No rest for the wicked!

Saturday & sunday no WODs, so today did weighted pullups and walking lunges.

Weighted pullups(bodyweight 193lb):
44x5

66x1
71.5x1
77x1
82.5x1
88x1
82.5x1
77x1

+

200m Walking Lunges, time 7:47.

- OlliS

Maybe a little clarification will help explain my point. I believe Kerry would have been better off if he (his advisors) had not declared "Reporting to Duty" comment and promoting his heroics in Vietnam during the election. The voting public was not going to buy the notion due to his anti-war comments in between those two. That's just the way it is.

And regarding his First Amendment rights. Many get confused with that right. It prevents the government from preventing free speech. But does not prevent the public from reacting to someone's comments. In this case the voting public did not vote for him. That's the way it is part 2.

About those surveys that show most reporters are liberals:

Many of the surveys cited ad nauseum are over 20 years old, apply only to a handful of elite media outlets, and had low response rates in the first place.

That said, I won't argue that big newsrooms are packed with conservatives. But it doesn't follow that the many slightly left-of-center reporters deliberately skew coverage in the way their detractors imagine.

Most reporters are professional enough to separate their personal beliefs from their professional responsibilities. (So do most soldiers, doctors and lawyers.) Good reporters try to be aware of their biases and look for ways to counter them. So do their bosses.

Comment #60...
Not only do I understand your frustration, but the way you were introduced to this method. At the time it was really in its infancy and Dr. Romanov is sometimes hard to understand or deal with.

I am not the smartest cat out there, but I do know that when something works it works. hundreds of athletes and clients later! My physics and math is usually off, but I offer this.

Friction is part of ground reaction in running, and how your foot reacts to the ground is where the friction is created. If you push this is friction, if your foot elastically reacts to the ground this too creates friction. If your foot strike lands in front of your GCM then the friction you need to create will be greater then that if your foot were to land directly underneath your GCM. If you were to pull up any video files on Hailie Gabrsellasie and play them in slow motion you would get a better understanding of what I am talking about. His foot lands as close to under his GCM as any human being I've seen... although he is not Kenyan he is Ethiopian, and I am sure you are aware that he is the current world record holder of the Marathon. You will also understand from watching this or any video where someone lands under the GCM that they do not push off. Ever! In fact knee extension is indicative of a push. We know this from a Squat, Deadlift, and basic bio-mechanics. Not once will you see Mr. Gabrsellasie's knee extend... Why? Because he is pulling it up! A movement of the hamstring. If you were to watch Ryan Hall (he won the Olympic trials in the marathon for the U.S. this year in New York), you would see the same thing. Although he is an American, there are plenty of Kenyans that run this very way as well. No they are not students of Dr. Romanov's or POSE as they do not need to be. Nor was Jesse Owens, or Michael Johnson, and I do believe all of these athletes have a couple things in common... None of them push off, and most are current or deceased record holders??? They all run POSE too!

They just don't know it. All POSE is saying is that it is perfect running, and injury rates are too high to not take a look at this. No one offered this prior to POSE, yet everyone is an expert. I am not a professional athlete (congratulations on such a gift). I am a trainer and a coach, and rarely have I seen a career athlete be able to coach or train. I have seen people come out of orthodics, and what they thought were career ending injuries because of this method.

You mentioned you were a junior athlete at the time as well... This might have been a bit of a problem as well, as most kids know everything.

All the best in your career and I mean that with the greatest sincerity!

Well, after a 2 1/2 week (from 11/27 when I took on "Murph" along the West Side Highway to 12/15) battle with a severe adenovirus infection where I had a 100-102F fever for 10 straight days I am finally back! I've got a lot of catching up to do, but after a 500 meter row on Fri before attempting Fran on 12/15 I noticed a serious degradation in my endurance since coming back (I decided not to try Fran after all). So I've decided to focus on metcon WODs rather than the lift WODs for the time being. Here's what I've done this weekend:

Death by Pullup (Continuously running clock)
WU
500 meter row - 1:27.2
CFWU excl Pull-ups
15 minutes plus 11 Pull-ups

"Christine" as RX'd
WU
CFWU
Christine - 10:58

"Elizabeth" as RX'd
WU
500 meter row - 1:25.7 (PR! w/ photo!)
CFWU excl Dips and OHS
12:19
Cooldown
Cleans 95#/10 2x
Ring Dips 10 2x

The PR on the row was a real confidence booster, but I'm still getting gassed a bit easier than before the infection. Today will be another big step towards recovery, and it's gonna be one hell of a challenge:

6pm Run 5k
7pm "Lynne" as RX'd
8pm "Michael" as RX'd
9pm 400 meter Walking lunges (possibly)

Tomorrow will bring me closer to catching up. All I keep thinking is GET IT DONE!

As I read this article I was thinking of the problem we have with communications in Iraq, specifically with regard to Multi National Forces Iraq, and strategic communications. In the article the media manipulates events to support their agenda, and the pajamahadeen counters with facts. In Iraq, Al Qaeda manipulates reporting on events to support their agenda and MNFI struggles to accurately depict events.
The cardinal rule in strategic communication is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, and to tell it quickly. Sometimes we aren't so successful in that endeavor, whether in completeness, accuracy or timeliness, and the fallout is disastrous (Al Gharib, Haditha). In a free and open society the agendas of Mr. Rather, CBS, the media writ large and indeed, the United States government will be challenged whenever they fail to obey the cardinal rule. Al Qaeda however, is not held to the same standard or scrutiny. They do not have to check their facts, so they are the first ones to press. Moreover, they operate in an environment of popular discontent where their message of extreme ideology trumps facts and is readily received by an oppressed, disaffected population. It's a tough problem.
Someone commented earlier that objective reporting is a relatively new phenomenon, and that partisan press was prevalent around 1900. I remember from earlier studies a story about Winston Churchill and the press. Sometime around the turn of the last century Winston ran for a public office, Exchequer, I think. When he couldn't beat the pundits in the editorials of the opposition press, he bought the newspaper and wrote his own editorials. Right on. I thanks God every day I live in a society of free markets and free press. Long live the pajamahadeen.

26 yom 6'2" 155#

Back from 1 1/2 weeks off due to food poisoning and illness

WOD from a few days ago..
Press: 95-105-115-115-115
Push Press: 115x3x5
Push Jerk: 115x5x5

Thank coach Rip for suggestibg the squat workout. This is my 4th week and I have improved immensely!

Today:270# x 21

Then just because I'm an idiot, 3 rounds: 4009 run, 21 kb swings in 7:56.

31 yom, 175#, 5'10"

28 yom, 180 lbs

19:09 did 500m

I figured my stride for lunges was about a meter (3.3 feet), but I measured it after the WOD and mine was a little over 4 feet

#100 & #101

That is some funny stuff...I actually drive a different vehicle to these workouts for fear of crashing my stick-shifted truck on the way home.

AllisonNYC: Your a hottie! If you ever travel to Southern Cal for anything and want someone to run you through a workout or two, let me know! It would be a pleasure.

Brian MacKenzie,

Recent studys:
http://www.newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/media/americans_see_liberal_media_bias_on_tv_news

Donations:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19113485/

No rest today. Had to play a little catch-up.

5 Rounds:
400m run
75# SDHP
75# Thrusters

33:58

That's a pain I haven't felt in a while. This was probably among the hardest WOD's I've ever done and the lunges from yesterday didn't make it any easier.

49m/5'7"/170
5 X 1km repeats 2-3 min recovery between

#110: you state: "Ho chi minh knew the fickleness of the Americans, knew we were not committed and that they purely needed to outlast us. It was not our decision to fail."

Do you not see the problem here?

Have we forgotten how leftists hijacked our streets and our political life back in the 70's? Can we ignore the role of the Left in the election of Jimmy Carter, and our subsequent failure to support the Shah, with whom we could likely compare in the present moment Musharraf in Pakistan? Do people not remember how politically impossible Leftists made supporting our allies, and how impossible to respond appropriately when they committed de jure acts of war against us?

Why are we worried about Iran today? Because back then we were willing to surrender a repressive regime to an even more oppressive regime, one which over some timeframe is quite likely to develop and use nuclear weapons. They may be waiting Bush out, but if we put Clinton in, then the production of enriched fuel and denial of same goes back into high gear.

The simple fact of the matter is that Bush is quite capable--given a decent pretext--of bombing Iran, and even limited ground personnel insertions in areas of strategic interest. And they know it.

With respect to Vietnam, this is a good read: http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/96winter/record.htm

Relevant quotes: "The communists may not have won the war in 1973, but they certainly did in 1975, and they did so in part because they correctly gauged the depth of American public and congressional aversion to jumping back into the war. All of this points to the conclusion that the Paris agreement may have been intended as simply a face-saving device to provide a "decent interval" (Kissinger's choice of words at various symposia on the war in 1967 and 1968[10]) between the departure from Saigon of MACV and the arrival of the NVA. Westmoreland himself has declared that "the so-called Paris Peace Agreement . . . had practically little if any chance of success."[11] The late Dean Rusk went even further: the accords "were in effect a surrender. Any agreement that left North Vietnamese troops in South Vietnam meant the eventual takeover of South Vietnam."[12]

and "The United States, to repeat, was not militarily beaten in Vietnam. Indeed, by 1973 the United States and its South Vietnamese ally had stalemated the North Vietnamese conventional military threat and were decisively defeating the indigenous southern insurgent component of the communist threat."

We need to remember that we surrendered. There was no peace with honor. In part, Nixon's impeachment ensured that nobody could focus on the war, which is what the anti-war left, and their NVA co-conspirators wanted. They wanted a clear path to a victory the North Vietnamese never could otherwise have attained.

To repeat as well: John Kerry was literally and knowingly discussing our surrender with our enemies while we were still fighting. He met with both North Vietnamese and Vietcong representatives, and brought back to his anti-war group and to his lobbying activities fundamentally the same points and agenda that the Communists--our enemies with whom we were fighting a shooting war--wanted.

#131 wtp: You're too kind. Anyway, I've been to Cali about 5 times since I started CrossFit. I'll be in Newport Beach next month. Let me know if that's near you. I'm down for a CrossFit workout anytime anywhere.

The funniest part of the forged document scandal was the "fake but true" comment. Fake can't be true, folks. Lefties had a narrative in mind, and they stuck with it despite all evidence to the contrary.

M/23/6.4/210

clean & jerk new pr: 210 lbs.
overhead squat: 4 reps @ 133 lb. no problem
bench press: 4 reps up to 185 lb.

3 rounds:

5 handstand push-ups
10 pull-ups
15 air squats
20 dumbbell swings (52.5 lb.)
25 glute-ham sit-ups

7:30

I just reread that. It's been a while. It amounts to "we could not have won the war within the limits of what the public was willing to support."

In reading it, though, you sense this back and forth motion in him between seeing what could have been, and what we were ultimately forced to accept.

Who now wants to say that if we had instituted something along the lines of what Petraeus is doing now in Iraq that we could have won? Who wants to admit that? For most, it hurts too much.

But anybody who noticed how the Left started calling Iraq "Vietnam" within a month after we landed (Afghanistan having been quite disappointing) has to admit that one thing we lost in that failure was a collective committment to support victory unambiguously.

It is either Go or No Go. The halfhearted efforts of the Johnson Administration worked for the worst of all worlds.

It is to Bush's credit that he has withstood, unlike Johnson, considerable pressure to choose defeat, and has stuck to his guns in many if not all areas.

Something I've never understood about the liberal bias in journalism is why this professions is outside the bounds of a free market economy. If there is a liberal bias, and if it is evident, and if this is a bad thing (or at least most people don't like it), wouldn't people stop buying/reading/watching/listening to such biased sources? Couldn't neutral or conservative biased sources replace them? Do liberals have an enforceable monopoloy?

If folks are complianing about a liberal bias, I can only assume that either 1) it doen'nt really exist, 2) it exists but most people don't care, or 3) people, in general, are idiots (or too lazy to change their choices). Have I missed anything?

For what it's worth, being on the front lines and getting to see 'the media' coverage of it, I can honestly tell you all that 99% of what you see and read about the war and I can guess most things is completely swung in whatever direction the media wants it to go or is more like 100% garbage. Lately I think its the second.

kmarston, you are not missing anything, you are just late to the party. The discussion revolves around 'new' vs. 'old' media. The old is losing ratings because of their inability to be honest about their bias, which is what created the new.

"That's why Jesus invented the brain..."

Wow.

kmartson,

You are correct. That is why Fox news and Talk Radio has prospered the past few years. The free market chose other options. More neutral and right instead of more left leaning nightly news, NY Times, LA Times, etc. Those outlets are losing readership and viwership.

Wow econ 101 is pretty simple.

5k Run tomorrow is my guess...and current worst fear LOL

Barry,
Your thought process is very tangential and difficult to follow, and honestly I do not know how to respond.

I just now see your second post and am slightly more confused, but I get the sense you are also.

You cover a motley group of issues, mostly supported by speculation that again I cannot support or refute

I will however respond to a point you have made twice - Kerry was "literally and knowingly discussing our surrender with our enemies while we were still fighting. He met with both North Vietnamese and Vietcong representatives, and brought back to his anti-war group and to his lobbying activities fundamentally the same points and agenda that the Communists--our enemies with whom we were fighting a shooting war--wanted".

You and I both know that a single citizen, especially a recently retired LT headlining the VVAW, cannot negotiate the surrender of the US. Again, he discusses and openly comments on his meetings with the N Vietnamese in his statement to Congress. Stan Karnow actually states that American peace activists, elected officials, and diplomats frequently went to Paris in the 70s and met with the N Vietnamese. He's quoted as saying you'd eat dinner with them, listen to a bunch of propaganda, and learn relatively little. Was he their puppet? No one can say, again, I cannot support or refute.

But herein lies the issue. Just as Rather went forward with his report on Bush and used what have been proven to be falsified documents, the Swift Boat group has done the same with Kerry and this statement you have made twice. They base as support two documents discovered (curiously around the 2004 election time)in the Texas Tech Vietnam Archive that they try to dovetail to Kerry's actions around the same time period. The hearsay is compelling, but is just that hearsay and unfounded. But the SBV march on with their agenda and push out this damning report, just as Rather did, seriously damaging this candidates election campaign.

Point being, I wouldn't quote the SBV's hearsay as fact, or else you are no better than Mr. Rather

So...for being one who never comments I have commented probably too much today.

What better way to unite individuals with disagreements than to find a common enemy.

Some of you all probably have seen this, but I could not believe my eyes or ears when an extremely intelligent coworker described and then argued the validity of this contraption. Not only that, he requested that the Gym purchase a couple, which they replied good idea....I can't even get them to hang the rope I purchased!

Tell me what ya think.
http://www.fastexercise.com

"kmartson,

You are correct. That is why Fox news and Talk Radio has prospered the past few years. The free market chose other options. More neutral and right instead of more left leaning nightly news, NY Times, LA Times, etc. Those outlets are losing readership and viwership.

Wow econ 101 is pretty simple."

Unfortunately, popularity does not make one correct or best (disregarding whether or not fox news, et al. are actually the most popular). Following your logic, before fox news and talk radio "prospered", or gained more of an audience, that would have made the preceding news outlets 'correct' because of their earlier dominance in the free market.

Newspapers and news shows are only in the business of selling a product. In any news organization, the news isn't the most important aspect, at least to the 'higher-ups'. It's getting the viewers to watch the advertising - the money is in the advertising that is intertwined with the news. The papers and news channels are only acting on, and adjusting to, the attitudes of the consumers with regard to the types of stories and their slant, not some ideological bias within the organization.

#132, CCTJoey re: recent studies alleging liberal bias:

The UCLA study has been thoroughly discredited. Fair minded people will want to disregard it. See
http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2005/12/the_problems_wi.html

The Rasmussen study is also unconvincing. It show that just 33% of Americans think CNN has a liberal bias. 27% of Americans think NPR has a liberal bias. And -- my personal favorite -- 15% of Americans think Fox has a liberal bias!

#147 - money and viewership:
If you're measuring commercial success, do not make the usual mistake of assuming that a larger audience always translates into greater profitability. Demographics are everything. Fox's audience is relatively poor and old. It is much less attractive to most advertisers than CNN's.

Catching the end of the conversation again, but I owe a couple responses...
#52 Harry
The information provided by the sbv seems dubious to me, perhaps to a large extent because it is admittedly a partisan group who derives all it's funding from conservatives. I find it hard to trust anything coming from such groups. Much of their 'proof' seems fairly open to interpretation, as evidenced by the conflicting posts above. However, I will at least concede that the SBV have always been clear on where they stand. Rather in contrast portrayed himself as an objective reporter then pushed a biased agenda (based on false information no less). So perhaps equating the two was a bit excessive.

#62 D. Freedman
Your appeal for the public to take responsibility for getting informed from a balance of viewpoints is a fair point. If people do that more, I think we will see some pretty significant changes in the way that people discuss issues and the way politicians have to address the people.

400m Walking Lunge: 14:40sec

5 Rounds:
5x Wt Pull-ups @ 45lbs
5x Wt Pull-ups @ 35lbs
20X Wt Dips @ 45lbs
30X Back Extensions

5 Rounds:
10X Pull-ups (no wt.)

38M/168 Made up yesterdays WOD

Baby sitting my son, so I did these in my basement and tried to take advantage of the room. I had approximately 43 feet of usable space to go out and back and managed to crank out 266 in 14 minutes before I finally fell over on the last one. Did my calculations and found that I only covered about .72% of the required 1/4 mile. I have new respect for lunges and the pain that they create.

My five year, who set up a train set as he watched, kept asking why I was walking like a weirdo. Go figure. Looking forward to this one next time and doing it outside in the elements.

Clovis you weren't kidding. I guess I'll be the one walking a little sideways around the station tomorrow.

Just wanted to say thanks to whoever posted up the ring the other day from the navy seals site. I went online and bought mine and just got them in today. Just when I thought I was starting to get strong, I find myself completely humbled by a new style of working out. My goal is of course to get a muscle up, but right now I find my arms flopping all over the place just trying to get a couple dips in. I can't wait to train with these from here on out. Have a great day everyone, I'm off to play with my new toys.

m/33/204x6'

my backside and the rest of my legs are WRECKED!
I have to fall into a sitting position, onto whatever I'm trying to sit on.

outstanding!

Anyone else still sore from doing lunges yesterday? I can barely walk.

Because I care.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=278808786575124

400m Walking Lunge
10 Pull-ups
10 Dips

5 Rounds:
Wt. Pull-ups: 5X @ 45lbs/5X @ 35lbs
Wt. Dips: 20X @ 45lbs
30X Back Extensions

5 Rounds:
10 Pull-ups

400m Walking Lunge
10 Pull-ups
10 Dips

5 Rounds:
Wt. Pull-ups: 5X @ 45lbs/5X @ 35lbs
Wt. Dips: 20X @ 45lbs
30X Back Extensions

5 Rounds:
10 Pull-ups

To be clear, number person: you are comparing a story in which an editor of a popular national TV program knowingly misrepresented the facts presented to her--in order, almost certainly, to better position the candidate with whose campaign she coordinated the propaganda piece--to a group of veterans who found compelling and thus far unrefuted evidence of conduct Kerry himself admits?

On the link I posted--which is not precisely the SBV folks, but likely allied to them--they listed quite a few charges, including that Kerry's testimony was used to demoralize American POW's, and that his group was an important part of the PR campaign that led to popular public misconceptions about Vietnam Vets.

What part of their case, specifically, do you reject, other than that since two opinions exist, they must be somehow equal?

Rather's "case" has been thoroughly discredited, on a documentable, factual basis. Upon what basis do you reject the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans? Do you want to claim they didn't serve with him? That they lied? Upon what basis?

Most of what I posted is public record. It is undeniable. Should it be deniable? Would it be more convenient for true believers if it weren't true? If it were questionable somehow? Of course.

But only in some worldviews does the thought process that wishing makes it so carry any weight. And it isn't the conservative worldview.

Most of what I believe I wish weren't so. But it is what it is, and such will be my view until someone can give me reasons to believe otherwise.

haha,

Don't exactly understand your logic in your post but I was attempting to explain how the free market works which debunked kmartson post. And in regard to your logic how do you explain the US car companies. They are in the business of making money but they continue to do business as usual (better than before) but refuse to copy Japanese auto companies. Same goes for the major media. So if 40% are left leaning and 40% are right leaning (20% neutral) don't you think there is a market for all?

#153, CCTJOEY - another reference to a study alleging liberal media bias

Investors Business Daily misrepresents the study by ignoring key findings and omitting details inconvenient to its own bias.

The study was about early coverage of the current presidential campaign. It found that 39% of the coverage was neutral, 35% favored Democrats, and 26% favored Republicans. Much of the disparity can be explained by timing. The Democratic campaign got underway first and there was an early wave of Obama hoopla.

So grand conclusions about huge liberal bias are premature. In its own press release, the study authors chose to highlight an excessive media focus on strategy (as opposed to policy substance.)
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/presspol/

Barry,
Exactly..except you are still wearing your blinders. I did not read your reference, maybe I should have, but probably not.

I do see it the same. SBV is a 527 group, their main objective at that time was to enhance Bush's campaign and now the Republican party, we do not need to go into the evidence uncovered that ties the two.

Compelling and unrefuted evidence? I ask what the evidence is? That Kerry met with the NVA, big deal so did a lot of others. That Kerry did not support the war, again who cares. Show me when, since 1971 till now, that Kerry's actions, his voting trends, his secret trips to Communist countries show that he is aligned with the Communist party. Show me that he is an agent/puppet of the Vietnamese. You can't. Just the same as you cannot take away his war hero status, such as Tracy proposed.

Kerry was an influential person in an ANTI-WAR group, of course his group was an important part of the PR campaign that led to public discontent with the war.

I reject the claims of the swift boat veterans, for the same reason I reject the claims against Bush, based upon their lack of documentable factual evidence.

But, and this could be rather long and in depth but I won't, you can say only 1 member of SBV served in Kerry's boat crew and not during the times of question. How do you explain that all other member's of his boat crew supported him? You would think these men had the closest interaction with Kerry. Moreover, SBV allegations have been refuted by SBV members themselves, offical navy records, and first hand observers of the disputed incidents.

What publlic record did you post? Opinions, hearsay, yes you posted that.

The last three paragraphs describing your personal philosophy and life outlook require no answer.

#158- Dan-

Don't tell me IBD has a libertarian/conservative bias? Great source for the "unbiased media" argument.

F/33/145/5'5

I can barely walk from 300m lunges yesterday - but did a workout with the Tempe group today - it was horrible --- and I doubt I'll walk again --- seriously...

x24696 - I happen to be a rather serious student of the Vietnam war - when I was coming into the military, it was the one we were looking back at. My guess is that you are in your 20's or simply so indoctrinated that you refuse to even take a casual look at the late 60's and 70's from a historical perspective. John Kerry called his fellow servicemembers "war criminals" before Congress. He wasn't "heroic" - he was a jacka$$. He threw his medals onto the White House lawn during a protest - maybe if you were to read "Unfit for Command" you would have an inkling why he felt so lightly about them.

John McCain can talk about why we shouldn't waterboard people - he rates. John Kerry is a complete and utter fake - a fraud that liberals continue to hope is true, just like the memos Rather refused to repudiate. This is because they want so badly for someone like Kerry to be a war hero, so they can play to a larger demographic, and say "See? See? Liberals go to war and win medals, too."

The reality is that we have some great servicemembers who don't agree with this war, who have earned their medals, who have paid with their blood, but they will never be John Kerry. And amen for that.

x24696: How can you in good conscience admit that you didn't even take the trouble to look at my links, and then claim no evidence has been offered? Surely you understand that this is what I consistently accuse leftist apologists of, and what you are helping me to document in public, for the umpteenth time, here.

Leftists don't study facts. They base their beliefs on what ought to be true, not what is documentable. It ought to be true that the SBV case and the Rather case are equal. That way they balance out. But they aren't and they don't. This is why leftists are wrong, and moderates and conservatives are right.

Dale: no BS assessment: do you think that we could have won the war in Vietnam as late as the early 70's--when anti-war protests made serious continuing prosecution of the war impossible--using a different strategy?

It seems clear to me abundant, uncorrected errors were made, but from what I read it appears most of the South Vietnamese understandably did not want to be taken over by the Communists, and that the NVA was no match for us. They appear to have been surprised that they won, in fact, according to a number of accounts I have read based on released Soviet documents.

Dale,
Just as you are, I also happen to be a rather serious student of the Vietnam war. We are talking about Kerry though, and you are right, he did call individuals who "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape(d) wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country" as war criminals. I believe this is called, as you guys say, calling a spade a spade. As mentioned before, we know that these events occurred, they have been documented I have read 'Unfit for Command', and it is an example of publishing lies in itself, written by the SBV group (so it also has just a slight bias). I believe the book states, and this is off of memory that Kerry lied to get his bronze star and third purple heart, which has been discredited by Navy records, again you help to substantiate my argument that SBV and its actions are no different than Rather's and 60 minutes. I believe John McCain's views about the SBV ads were expressed immediately after he was notified of them, (remember he rates), and he states "I condemn the [SBVT] ad. It is dishonest and dishonorable. I think it is very, very wrong" and follows "I hope that the president will also condemn it", which we all know he did not.

We have discussed the issue of Kerry as a war hero, he is.

Barry- I did not read your reference because it is not factual. It is not a reference, it is someone else's argument that you have taken up as your own. Examine the actual evidence for yourself and then decide. The problem is you believe that because another individual has written their opinions down, that it is evidence. It is not. I especially do not want to read your link, because as you say it is linked with the SBV, the same as your buddy Dale's reference to "Unfit for command".

I think your second paragraph actually should read "Barry Cooper" instead of Leftists - because that is the only insinuation we can make from this discussion so far.

You are refusing to look at evidence based on the possibility it might be "tainted", and having been tainted entirely and completely untrue?

Let me help you out. I will cut and paste the first few paragraphs of the Home page. Please let me know upon what factual basis you disagree with their assessment and please--like I have--provide supporting evidence:

http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php

"On January 31, 1971, members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) met in a Detroit hotel to document war crimes they claimed to have participated in or witnessed during their combat tours in Vietnam. During the next three days, more than 100 Vietnam veterans and 16 civilians gave anguished, emotional testimony describing hundreds of atrocities against innocent civilians in South Vietnam, including rape, arson, torture, murder, and the shelling or napalming of entire villages. The witnesses stated that these acts were being committed casually and routinely, under orders, as a matter of policy.

In April, the VVAW stormed Washington in a week-long protest. At its height, spokesman John Kerry went before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to accuse the United States military of committing massive numbers of war crimes in Vietnam. The appearance launched Kerry's political career. The charges he made shocked and sickened a nation, changed the course of a war and stained the reputation of the American military for decades.

But the mass murder of civilians was never American policy in Vietnam. War crimes were the exception, not the rule. And the Winter Soldier tribunal itself -- which John Kerry had helped moderate -- turned out to be "packed with pretenders and liars."

----------

Recently discovered enemy documents from 1971 show that Vietnamese communists guided the American antiwar movement via meetings between the communist delegations to the Paris Peace talks and American antiwar activists. John Kerry and the VVAW were working toward the exact goals set forth in the communist directives."

Got one in the hopper. In the meantime, explain for me how you can so confidently conclude that evidence which you have not even bothered to look at is counterfactual? Does it feel that way? Do you have unusually keen instincts? Do you know, based on my view, that I must be wrong? Please explain that process for me.

Has your extensive research included the book "Stolen Valor"?

While I await WD-40's devastating riposte, and the appearance of my own post--which would, I suppose, amount to a repost as well--I would like to make one comment that occurred to me some time ago, which is in my view fairly deep.

If it is a truism that we always fight new wars using the tactics of the old war, then it can reliably be assumed that in the fighting of a new war, the tactics and strategies themselves are likewise being invented.

In my view, what we are doing now in Iraq is not very different than what we ought to have done in Vietnam. Fundamentally, we needed all of the villagers on our side, a stable So. Vietnamese government, and the containment of what amounted to an invasion by Communist forces supported directly by aspiring global hegemons--the Soviet Union and China. Ultimately, it appears neither the Soviets nor the Chinese really wanted to risk a war with us, but we would have had to risk a war with them, ultimately, to deal with the NVA invasion. And it was an invasion, not a civil war.

Be that as it may, inventing new tactics takes time and space. Where we stumbled our first few years, we now appear to be on increasingly stable footing. Large scale changes in the cultural mores of the Iraqis are likely still some years away, but the bulk of the violence, and the bulk of the growth in the violence, seems to have ceased, in all likelihood as a result of the intelligent application of force.

I just defined on another thread work effectiveness as a combination of physical ability, information (defined as active and latent knowledge, coupled with perceptual capacity), and motivation.

Effort alone is not enough. It doesn't matter how hard we try, if we are doing the wrong things. The form, the structure--the strategy and tactics--of our efforts are always critically important. Intelligence is first in war, as Sun Tzu wrote, not compassion.

If our military has until recently been fighting a conventional war against an unconventional enemy, likewise anti-war protesters have been fighting their last big war--enabling American submission in the Vietnam war--using fundamentally the rhetoric and images of Vietnam. They have seized on every shred of evidence of American malfeasance with glee, and work relentlessly to portray us solely as oil-hungry imperialists without whom any nation--including Iraq--would be better off.

Yet this is not Vietnam. There is a correllation--a clear numerical correllation--between claims of progress and what can be measured. American and Iraqi deaths are down. Polled faith in the new government is increasing--and keep in mind there an awful lot of Americans who don't like our government.

Barry,
I read your article. Well written. Have no real arguments with his statements, some speculation, but he admits it. Your interpretation of his statements is the disconnect. I do not see how this article supports your side of the argument or refutes mine.

There are a multitude of arguments that have surfaced, but the initial opinion I gave, that you and others disagreed with, was that Kerry's actions at that time were incredible. His analysis of the war at that time is the same as the author of your article, Mr. Record's, in 1996 and the US government's in the mid 70s. Again, it was an incredible display of courage, integrity, and spirit. Personal feelings need to be put aside in a debate. I understand you disagree with anyone who does not follow your party line, but come on.

Another argument that surfaced, and I entertained briefly, is that both sides in the Republican/Democrat battles spin information or use knowingly false information to smear the other side. I do not see how you can argue that this is not true, and it is only the liberals who do, especially after I gave you an example related to your favorite book 'Unfit for Duty'

I do think it is funny that you try to insinuate that the Army War College is closely linked to SBV. I wish I had opened your article after you had made that implication and saw it was from Parameters. I wish for you to write them and have them support your assertation of their beliefs. I am sure the response would be quite interesting.

Caught in spam filter, but I will leave you with this. Debate is not like a WOD. Pure determination, stick-to-it-iveness, charging straight forward without thought in order to win or finish at all cost are actually contraindicated. So at least 1 day out of every 4, step back, assess your biases, and then comment.

Show me where I am wrong. Don't claim it. That is the point. I have made claims which appear to me well documented. You have not examined the documentation, and yet insist I am wrong. That is hypocritical.

I'll check later and see what pops up.

Geologist Prof. Steve Dutch, U. Wisconsin-Green Bay, observed that getting information off the Internet was “not so much surfing as Dumpster-Diving.”

This rest day's commentary is more about venting feelings than it is about argument from facts. I learned from this day's comments that Nixon was impeached! We're scraping bottom.

Once an issue has been through the mill of the media and the Internet, we all form beliefs. These are tenets in a religion, and resistance is futile. What I observed about Kerry was his attempt make himself into the Second Coming of JFK, mimicking his hair, his speech, his hand gestures, paralleling Jack's political career, and even going so far as to manufacture a heroic war record in patrol boats, at no small personal risk. What he gained, though, was a coat of tarnish on his character. But then, when he returned from Vietnam, he went far over the edge. In my book, he will always be a turn-coat.

Barry begins to take the conversation back to the point of the story. First, he emphasizes Rather's fabricated story. This is a horror story, designed by the leading spokesman at CBS -- once the number one public trust for information -- to destroy a war-time President during his bid for reelection. The parallel this month is the CIA's pro-Iranian National Intelligence Estimate. The first story tarnished the character of CBS, but it is the prime example so far of liberal bias in the media. These two stories show that the Dumpster is not limited to the Internet. Throw in Anthropogenic Global Warming, and you'll see the Dumpster contains peer-reviewed science publications, too.

And that gets back to the real two-pronged point of the article, “Rather's Ruin and the Rise of the Pajamahadeen”.

Bias is always hard to prove. Statistics and poles are method-dependent, and themselves often say more about the statisticians and the pole-takers than they do about the subject matter. To prove a bias along the liberal/conservative axis, we have to agree first on the definition of those terms, and as unlikely as that is, it is impossible in a dialog. Expecting newsmen, much less bloggers, to be unbiased is unrealistic. If you found one, he'd probably just be horribly dull. The best way to be unbiased is to encourage competing opinions, to counterpose hard-core views. Good examples are the Lehrer NewsHour, the several FoxNews programs with panels, and public forums like this.

Dumpster-Diving is a head first plunge, throwing trash here and there in search of a gem. As aficionados of the Net, we need to take a lesson from modern archaeology. We need to disassemble the trash, layer by layer, preserving its fine structure, for where it is affects what it is.

A surprise to me in this day's commentary was the widespread belief that the Swift Boaters had, at last, been discredited. To check that belief, I first went to the far left of the Internet, Media Matters, where I discovered several swift boat columns by Eric Boehlert. See especially his article, “Swift Boat 2004 vs. 'Swift Boat' 2008”, and follow his links to “here and here” to prior 2007 columns. Boehlert proudly claims to have discredited eight swift boaters: French, Elliott, Letson, Schachte, Londsdale, Thurlow, Hoffmann, and O'Neill (out of 80 plus in the ads).

I did an online fact check on his French and Elliott discrediting, and found in each case that Boehlert had severely misrepresented facts. With regard to French, Boehlert relies on three quasi legal actions taken against French, putting the actions in a false juxtaposition to tell a story, and disregarding that French was exonerated on each count. With regard to Elliott, Boehlert's scenario doesn't jibe with Elliott's two affidavits, which Boehlert attacks. For both vets, where the affidavits relate to events which were not personally witnessed, the affidavits dutifully supply a source for the personal information.

The research was too time consuming to complete, especially for commentary here. The two were enough , though, to show that at least this one lefty is neither credible nor trustworthy.

Boehlert's castigation of French relies on an article in the Oregonian. I discovered it was published on 8/27/04. I found the usual snippets of it on the Internet, but no full copy so that Boehlert's allegations could be read in context. Boehlert tried to make hay out of the fact that the Swift Boater's affidavits required personal knowledge but that the veteran's testimony was not all eye-witness testimony.

Boehlert targets the Power Line blog, and its owner, John Hinderaker for special treatment. Boehlert is nice enough to provide a link to Power Line's rebuttal. This link is worth a visit. It contains videos of four of the Swift Boat ads. One contains about 81 Vietnam veterans against Kerry; one contains two former POW wives hurt by Kerry's 1971 accusations; another contains a wounded veteran and two former POWs who refused under torture to say what Kerry volunteered to Congress; and one Kerry's former foregunner on his boat who denied Kerry's claim of having been in Cambodia. (Kerry later recanted that claim.)

Boehlert says that Hinderaker didn't lay a glove on Boehlert's eight personal attacks. Hinderaker says the Boehlert didn't rebut anything in the other Swift Boat ads. Both are correct. The Swift Boaters get a bit of a black eye -- Kerry is not so lucky.

On 4/23/07, Boehlert rationalized Kerry's infamous testimony before Congress this way: “In truth, during his 1971 testimony, Kerry was simply relaying -- summarizing -- the crimes that more than 100 Vietnam vets had publicly claimed they had personally committed. Kerry was not accusing anyone.” Kerry was no different than any man on the street who might have seen the vets protest. Could anyone buy this cowardice? Boehlert ignored carefully acknowledged second-hand claims in the veterans' affidavits. But that was because Boehlert wanted to interpret the requirement for “personal knowledge” to exclude anything but eye-witness accounts. What Kerry did was what Hillary's spokesman, Shaheen, did when he relayed just how the Republicans would attack Obama. Shaheen and Kerry hid behind straw men.

The Swift Boaters released seven ads. The first was about Kerry's medals. Boehlert's attacks on the eight men appear to have had an impact only on that first ad, and so Boehlert, of course, proclaims the first to be the only significant ad. Nevertheless, he seems to have made inroads against the first ad because Power Line did not defend it. This weakens the Swift Boaters story, but leaves the other ads unscathed.

In checking Boehlert's claims, I found FactCheck.org and SourceWatch.org helpful. FactCheck has links to supporting documents. Most of SourceWatch links have expired. John E. O'Neill helped Fox News vet the Swift Boat ads with a detailed letter with a resource of 27 attachments. http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/tonysnow_vetaffadavit.pdf.

Morals to the Rather vs. Internet story:

1. Kerry disgraced himself and the country, but more reprehensible than those, he disgraced his fellow soldiers and veterans. Neither his credentials as a war hero, self-sullied or not, nor the existence of My Lai, in any way confer a pass for Kerry's accusations of American troop atrocities.

2. For the Internet, the evening news, or peer-reviewed science papers, learn how to Dumpster Dive.

3. Pajamahajeens will rule.

P.S.

Barry #166 & Dale #165:

All we had to do to prevail in Vietnam was not cut off funds for South Vietnam.

Barry #169:

Wouldn't you say we go into the next war ready to the fight the prior, but that it never lasts?

It's not the surge that's working. Nor is it McCain's intuition or the defensive Counterinsurgency Manual. It's the fact that Petraeus has gone on offense. In just the first few months, his men killed or captured 31 al Qaeda leaders. He should have done it with fewer men -- special forces.

So basically, Kerry is a hero and not a douche bag for running down his fellow service men, lying and consorting with the enemy.

Also, there is no liberal bias in the major media outlets even though they admit it.

Welcome to Bizzaro World.

I would like to also add, since we are living in this land of pretend, that I just did a sub 3 minute Fran and ran sub 5 minute mile.

I've posted several links. The one from Carlisle has adequate quotes to support any case. The one point he can't help himself from making, though, is that we never lost on the battlefield, and indications at the time were that we were making progress when according to Dean Ruskin we essentially "surrendered". His word.

That link is not a fully partisan, Kool-Aid link, in the sense that he forces himself to draw the conclusion that we could not have won, at a cost the American public was, at that time, willing to pay.

What could have happened we will never know, but that our surrender had a lasting effect on our psyche, our military, and our standing in the international community, particularly during the rest of the cold war, is unambiguous. Personally, I think Iran is a problem now because of Vietnam, and the foreign policy failure its ghosts induced in Carter.

Never do leftists want to view their actions systemically, and admit that their actions lead to consequences they did not foresee and for which they self-evidently do not want to take responsibility.

In my view, when a woman is hauled off the streets of Tehran and tortured or beaten for being immodest, it is leftists who are to blame. We could have prevented that, and I believe we could have prevented the imprisonment and relocation of many millions in Vietnam as well.

I will add that you ignored the wintersoldier link. Here is the explicit reference to the Swift Boat veterans. They have a nice picture of Kerry, surrounded by his fellow soldiers. Click on the picture. It's fun: http://www.wintersoldier.com/index.php?topic=SwiftVets

Jeff,

Thanks for doing that research. I think you and I both know that the SBV were solid, but it never hurts to make explicit the fact that by and large conservative cases are the only ones which bear scrutiny.

Joey,

I just did 10 consecutive muscle ups, right after cleaning 300 lb. Make it 400. Hell: 500.

Jeff,

With respect to Petraeus, I think this link is well worth reading. Sent to me by a regular, but since he didn't post it here, I won't call him out: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/346ydlgo.asp

We are using Special Forces, certainly. I hear stories here and there I won't pass along, but I think by and large when they do their job well, nobody ever knows.

Barry #176-77,

Your articles by war college Professor Jeffrey Record, “Carlisle”, and the Weekly Standard article by Kimberly Kagan, share several features. Both are well-written, and quotable. But both only here and there pop up over the horizon of strategy.

The first rule of warfare is to take from the enemy the things he values most. To do that, one must first identify who the enemy is. That is, identify individuals by name, and don't just name their movement or some irresistible social tide of change. This ought to be War College 1A, but apparently it isn't.

In Vietnam, Record talks about the objectives of Hanoi and the massive commitment of resources by China and Russia. So who was the enemy there? Clearly the objective of the Communists was world domination as measured by map areas colored Red. These enemies never risked anything they were not willing to risk. The manpower was expendable. The dollars calculable and printable. So eventually we lost. We ran out of moral gas.

We're flirting with the same problem in the GWOT. Saddam and the Bathists were the enemy in Iraq, and we pretty well got 'em. The new enemy rose to compete for Saddam's place, both in country and out. And we let 'em. The enemy is again layered, and it goes back to the men leading Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, and a few hiding in Jordan and other places (e.g., Lebanon, extended Pakistan). Saddam paid his price, never realizing what was on the table. The new enemy is again risking nothing it isn't willing to risk. Patience will carry the day.

If we had decided to fight World War II without leaving the shores of England and Africa, the national language of France would be German and we'd be waiting now for Hitler to die of old age.

On the other hand, Vietnam was a holding action. It was a hot spot in the Cold War against Global Communism (denied by the left of the day, of course). As Record notes, we were unwilling to risk anything that conceivably could lead to direct, military confrontation with China or Russia. The enemy had all the advantage. Hanoi had the strategic objective to reunify Vietnam under its leadership. The President never provided even a minimal, counter balancing strategy.

With regard to special forces, of course we all know they are there. Kagan and the generals she cites recognize their contribution, which is good to see. The problem is that Petraeus's Counterinsurgency Manual has no role for them.

Nor does the Counterinsurgency Manual recognize the first rule of warfare.

In fact, the Counterinsurgency Manual only pays lip service to any offensive component.

When Petraeus gave his recent progress report, and using a lot fewer words than Record or Kagan, he featured the 31 al Qaeda leaders killed or captured then to date. This enemy decapitation is also mentioned by Kagan (with indirect credit to special forces). This loss of leadership and materializing risk to al Qaeda should account for the all the recent successes: the reorientation of the Sunnis, the lessening of violence, the pacification of regions, and the retreat of ragtag enemy forces.

Now we need to help the outside enemy score their material loses. They must pay dearly for waging Jihad, or we lose.

x2496 - You do what Barry talks about - you decide to lump everyone into the "partisan" bin, on one side or the other and then say that their stories/narratives are equivalent. They're not. Only in a world where there are no standards or objective truth do we arrive at the "they're all the same". "Unfit For Command" has citations and facts to back his claims. The author may have an agenda, but that doesn't mean it's false simply because he has an agenda. Virtually every witness I have ever put on the stand had SOME agenda - but that doesn't mean their narrative wasn't true. Some are right and some are demonstrably wrong. You seem to think FRE 608(c) makes everyone's "testimony" equal simply because they have a motive or bias. Ehhhh - incorrect. Rather's narrative was demonstrably false - "Unfit for Command" has a much greater claim to an accurate portrayal, excepting of course for his conclusions as to why Kerry did what he did, both then and now, than some of the revisionist history being re-written by those with short memories about Vietnam.

You do the same thing. You say about Kerry's actions in 1970 that "Again, it was an incredible display of courage, integrity, and spirit. Personal feelings need to be put aside in a debate." But you're the one who won't put this aside and who are rewriting history. Kerry's actions weren't courageous at all. At THAT time it wasn't courageous to call America's warriors "war criminals" - it was en vogue. You're viewing then through today's lens, when everyone loves the military. It was MUCH more courageous to say, at that time, that "we can win this war" because of the widespread discontent and protests here. You, and many leftists, have continue this rewrite of the record, claiming that Kerry somehow "stood up" for "what was right". But if he was wrong and simply parroting a communist party agenda, that wasn't courageous at all.

You continue your rewrite of history with this gem (right out of the 60's play book):

"he did call individuals who 'raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape(d) wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country' as war criminals. I believe this is called, as you guys say, calling a spade a spade. As mentioned before, we know that these events occurred, they have been documented."

NO THEY HAVEN'T. That's the point - you say this as if it is just plain fact. It's not. It's demonstrably false and Kerry knew it. he saw NONE OF THAT. he merely repeated the popular leftist line of the time and it became for people like you, "the truth", without any evidence to support it. There were a handful of incidents that were used by the media to inflame sentiment against the US, hey guess what, just like in Iraq today (I know, I defended one of those guys, by the way). My Lai was not official policy, neither were the handful of incidents involving troops and acts against innocents, but people like you, and Kerry, claim this as "reality" and "calling a spade a spade". Let me ask you this about your HERO - of he saw that stuff, why, as an officer, didn't he STOP IT or report it on the spot? Why does no one in his chain of command back up or verify such nonsense? Because it's false. The stuff he talks about is apocryphal to all but a handful of psychos who might have engaged in such renegade acts, and the left of the day. You show me where there was widespread abuse of Vietnamese by US soldiers as part of an ongoing strategy. I get so incensed when I read stuff like this because it is an ongoing insult to the honor of those who fought and died there. Men far more worthy of the title hero than Kerry.

And here's my 608(c) disclaimer - I received my mameluke officer's sword as a gift from the Vietnam Veteran's of South Boston, so I guess I must be lying to protect their honor.

Dale - as a lawyer you need to do more research on your facts. I do not have the time, and I doubt many others wish to read it, to fully discredit the multitude of misrepresentations in your argument.

I am not here to defend Kerry, destroy the Swift boat group, or even rewrite history. I rarely ever comment, and the reason is, well exactly this. The only individual who seems to have the ability to analyse information and present a sound argument is Jeff Glassman. Dale you're a stinkin' lawyer. Your arguing and writing skills should be much better.

Moreover, I wish I never entertained this discussion so I would not have to endure the impressions I received from the comments posted by Barry, CCTJoey, yourself and, even Jeff Glassman.

You gentleman have utter disdain for Kerry because he did not subscribe to the "old boys club". He turned on his fellow service men. I know at least two of you are servicemen, which bothers me even more. You should be, as I am, amazed by Kerry's integrity. As servicemembers we should glorify this, it only makes our profession stonger. It would help prevent things such as Abu Ghraib, waterboarding, or the multitude of other crimes being committed because we would be policing them ourselves. From your comments, I can deduce that you would not stand up for the harder right, because you hold other ideals closer to your hearts. You would rather turn a blind eye, than turn in a buddy.

It all comes down to integrity-choosing the harder right over the easier wrong. I do know that those great individuals do exist though in our military, to keep others, who value other ideals, in check.

To all the anti-water boarders:

Hypothetical scenario. Your kid is flying home from college. At the same time we captured a terrorist who has knowledge of a bombing of an airliner. Would you water board him to get the specifics? If you say no you are not telling the truth.

Tracy
For one, your comment assumes that torture ensures the information needed is obtained. Besides being morally reprehensible, testimony given under duress is notoriously unreliable (http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/06/2e76a343-98be-47aa-a840-30ca6d86e3b0.html).

Your scenario is highly unlikely and you present it as if deriving such testimony under those conditions justifies how torture is actually used. Last second intelligence is for the movies and "24". Moreover, using those techniques puts the US in a weak moral position to argue against the torture used by other countries. To me, the loss of US credibility on the issue is too much a price to pay.

Your scenario reminds me of the some questions I heard suggested for the republican debates "If you could save the country from a terrorist attack by having sex with a man, would you do it?"
or "If you could save the world from the next Hitler by aborting the fetus, would you do it?".
It comes down to a question of moral priorities. Is the payoff worth the cost?

x24696,

I can honestly say that I wear your post like a badge of honor. To know that I am in league with Jeff, Dale, and Barry is a quality many would not achieve.

That fact you hold up SEN Kerry as an example of either a great individual or one who stands up for the harder right let's me know you are out of synch with reality. You might as well have said SEN Kennedy for that matter.

You have no argument for Dale to squash. When faced with a coherent argument, you chose to question our integrity, instead of further discuss or comment on the issue. Yet, you attempt to come across as an arbiter of righteousness who is 'not here to defend Kerry, destroy the Swift boat group, or even rewrite history' while all the while doing just that, and poorly as well. Each post less about the topic and more about the poster, until finally you give up the argument altogether and leave us with how disappointed you are with us. Weak dick.

My disdain for Kerry goes much farther than an Old-Boy net work. When he affiliated himself with a group of liars and slackers for his own political expediency,it is he who joined the old boy network of radicals and leftists. Many of whom, had represented themselves as servicemen who had either seen or done atrocious things in combat, when in fact they were not servicemen at all.

Your agenda is clear.

Your leap to be with them and support Kerry's actions toward the NVA during a time of war, is all I need to know about you. Your integrity is stained by those you hold up as heros. The valor they stole for political gain will mark them forever and people like me will be making sure the whole world knows about it.

Post in the hopper

some people live in a dreamworld

Jeff Glassman,
I followed your links and find your reasoning compelling. Putting aside discussion of Kerry's motives, which i think are unknowable, the quality of evidence against the sbv claims has been exaggerated. In general, I have to be suspicious of anyone who can't command the respect and support of the majority of his collegues in the field. Moral: Never trust a politician.

x24696
You went a little off on Dale_Saran in your last post, but I think you generally add to these discussions. Frustrated and feeling a little isolated maybe. I was interested in seeing your rebuttle to the specific points. Still, I hope you continue to post, there is a lack of liberal perspective here and I like to hear both as I consider issues.

Not sure if #184 was addressed at me Tracy, but here's another interesting link where retired interrogators discuss your scenerio.

http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/?ID=20647

A fair assessment by people who are very qualified to comment on the subject.

We see this sort of thing here a lot. The difference between an argument in a bar, and on the internet, is you can do research, and take your time to understand both your own case, and that of the person with whom you are debating.

What X1234 is doing is pretending that no evidence has been offered, and that we are all just talking off the tops of our heads. If you just want to argue on impressions, feelings, and well rooted assumptions, then leftist views of the world make sense.

But when you examine them under the cold lens of the historical record, what you find is that in all likelihood the protests in the streets in the 60's and 70's increased (would be capitalized but the filter seems to look for lots of caps) the amount of violence and injustice in the world, not decreased them.

Surely, we hear, all those 100's of thousand of people could not have been entirely wrong? With respect to Vietnam, many mistakes were made, not admitted, and not corrected. However, never did our soldiers deserve to be spit on, and the way in which we left Vietnam was contemptibly cowardly. We did not insist that the NVA regulars--the invading force, to be perfectly clear--be withdrawn, and we knew this would lead to So. Vietnam's successful invasion and forcible conversion to Communism, by forces intent on the same for every nation in the world.

In our political spectrum, you often do not see as little difference between Republicans and Democrats as one would like, but I attribute much of this to the successful shift of our political life to the left made possible by persistent Leftists propaganda. In foreign policy, even strong leaders have to be careful what they do so as to avoid the screaming and histrionics of leftists.

We should have declared war on Iran when the hostage crisis broke out. Embassies are universally understood as sovereign ground that belongs to the nation whose embassy it is. In taking over our embassy, the Iranians literally, under law, invaded American soil. They invaded our country.

Our failure to respond, and the failure to support the right man before that--abandoning our best bulward against aggressive Islamic extremism, which of course developed into widespread Islamic terrorism--in effect created, in my view, the current need for a Global War on Terror.

Reasonable nations negotiate their differences. Part of Reason is an understandable desire to avoid violence.

However, many nations lack our distaste for violence, and are quite willing to risk violence to get what they want. Such nations appear irrational, but they are not. They merely have much higher risk tolerances--they have more balls--and find, observing America, that although we hold a Royal Flush, that we frequently fold on the first raise. (perhaps our current obsession with poker has to do with our otherwise abject failures in this regard, pre-Bush--who after all is from Texas)

You can't negotiate with some people, if they don't respect and fear you, and it is a fact that Bin Laden is on record as having thought that we would cut and run, essentially, from the Islamic world following his attacks. We ran from Somalia, we endured essentially without doing anything a dozen or more attacks, including major ones in Lebanon which we knew originated in Iran. And that was with a "strong" President.

There are so many things we could do better. If you look at the world, most of the violence could be halted, with in many cases very little--but very strong--application of force.

If we look at hotspots, a great many of them are former colonies, that were abandoned during the anti-colonial movement. You know what? They weren't ready. They had been at war with each other for millenia--the colonialists did not invent that, merely changed the form in which the conflicts took place.

More later.

Nominee for future Rest Day Essay:
"The Americanization of the Armed Forces"
http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1197959056.shtml

x2496 - wow - you simply gave up. Brother, that is, as Sage would say, "weak sauce". If I am so utterly bereft of reason and fact, then it ought to be quite easy to point out where I am factually or logically wrong. Instead, you simply fall to ad hominem and abandon the field. For a while, I had almost hoped you would add something to this, but then you simply fell back on the same old line - even quoting Kerry's testimony about "war criminals"! Read "Stolen Valor" for starters - it, like the "pajamahadeen" bloggers, questions the assumptions, the ones you take as fact, and shows them to be lies.

I can't believe you don't see the problem (that right off tells me you've never served). Brother, doesn't it occur to you that if Kerry is claiming he saw war atrocities by the volume (as he stated in his testimony before Congress), and he served only with the Swift Boats, that necessarily implicates his brothers-in-arms as war criminals. Are you with me? Unless he did some whirlwind tour of Vietnam as a reporter (and he didn't, 'cuz remember, he was doing real action-hero stuff) then he is saying that the guys he served with are thugs of the worst kind. can you understand NOW why they might come together to discredit the guy? How is it logically possible that he saw all of these atrocities as a swift boater unless they were by (drum roll) other swift boaters? He wasn't some spec ops guy or a straight leg infantry soldier with 3 different tours in different outfits. See, you non-serving guys don't seem to understand the details - the stubby pencil work. That's where these kinds of things fall apart and why many, many servicemembers feel betrayed because it is clear, just by what I said above, that he didn't see these things - he simply lied before Congress. Why can't you just admit that and come to grips with it? Why must you believe that Vietnam Vets were as a whole some group of murderous thugs and the war was "the rape of Nanking" reenacted in Saigon? And if you say My Lai, you're admitting again you don't know how to think. Remember how many guys were court-martialed there? Wouldn't that tend to show that it was NOT the norm? By the way, how many prosecutiuons for war crimes were there in Vietnam? If you know who Gary Solis is and why he is and was important to this question, you get an A+.

By the by, I am so hurt that you "expect better" of me as a lawyer. I'll tell you what, next time you get someone acquitted of murder (see story here: http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/07/21/news/top_stories/22_26_237_19_07.txt ) you can lecture me about my lawyering and writing abilities. And your disappointment about me as an Marine officer is also a blow. When you log some time in the suck, come talk to me.

Well written, Dale. I had more to say, but ran out of time. I evolve these things anyway. If I had to say the same thing every time, it would drive me nuts.

Dale and others,
I happen to be leaving for Christmas vacation this evening, but when I return I wish to respond to your request for reeducation. But first I ask you to go and actually read what Kerry testified to. He never states that he witnessed all these acts. He is merely a reporter for others. He did see crimes also though, in later interviews he admits to committing them. He also was deeply involved in covert operations as all the Swift Boaters were. One of their main jobs was to transport members of the Phoenix Program up the rivers for insertion. A key point he makes during his statement was he was not blaming his fellow servicemembers, but the government who was running the show. The minutes from those proceedings can be found easily with a google search. I think you won't need me to explain what he actually said and your misunderstanding of what occurred.

Seriously, the amount of inaccuracies in just the last 4 posts from you guys could take me at least 10 hours worth of work to track down sources, cite them, and write down coherently a lay explanation. Why put in that work? May I bill you for my time? You state I abandoned the argument, but I abandoned the effort. It is hard to educate someone who refuses to discuss an issue that they clearly do not wish to study openly.

Gary Solis, I know of only one Gary Solis associated with the military and he happened to be my instructor for a semester, my law of war instructor. If it is the same Gary Solis he wrote a book about Son Thang. Don't brag about your service and question mine. It's your job to be a good defense lawyer, I don't need to pat you on the back, same as I don't need you to pat mine.

How many war crimes have been prosecuted? Not nearly close to a percent of what were committed. If you are familiar with it you can try to research the "Vietnam War Crimes Working Group Files" but I think that they have been reclassified after being declassified in the late 90's. I know that it details 7 massacres (not including My Lai) that occurred from 67 to 71, plus a multitude of other investigations into torture, attacks on noncombatants, etc. I am sure its a great read!

Ha, it appears Gary Solis was also your trial judge. Small world

No, he wasn't my trial judge. You fail. He's a law professor, now. But he wrote one of the seminal works on JA's in Vietnam. He also wrote about Son Thang. Where people were, again, say it with me, prosecuted. So if the government was so corrupt, why did they even prosecute these crimes? Why was there a war crimes working group? And let me ask you to answer this simple question - give me your estimate of the percentage of atrocities committed out of all US troop/So. Vietnamese-N. Vietnamese interactions in that war. Count any meeting of whatever kind between US troops and the indigenous population and tell me what percentage of these were "atrocities". Now, tell me how many millions were killed/shipped off to reeducation camps when we abandoned South Vietnam. (You decide whether or not to include Cambodia in that number). Tell me then with a straight face that it was morally "better" that we left. 7 "massacres" in 4 years? Brother, you think a couple hundred dead is a "massacre"? I'm not being callous, but a couple hundred is a big firefight - maybe a "battle". Compare that to what the North Vietnamese did when they took Saigon. Now THAT'S a massacre.

Then please explain why there was a mass of refugees on our shores in the seventies from that country - I know, I remember when we got a bunch of kids into my inner city middle school.

Can you answer any of those things? Any one of the tons of questions I have posed rather than simply insulting me and telling me what I should know about being a lawyer. Do you even have a law degree? My god it must be nice in your world.

I'll bet you don't. I'll bet your next reply is something snarky about what a hack I am or how you don't have time to answer these kinds of questions, thus proving exactly Barry's points about you. By the way, I read Kerry's testimony. Did you?

How about this gem:
"So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America". See, x24696 - he used the term "murder". That's a legal term for an unlawful killing. A murder is committed by only one type of person - "a murderer" - and since it was our guys in the field doing that deed, the undeniable implication is that his brothers in arms are murderers. We kind of take that a little serious when one of our own says that.

How about this snippet:

"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." Did this full awareness include him? Why didn't he report this? If Calley was being prosecuted, why didn't Kerry report such violations?

The "Unfit for Command" shows that this "investigation" was a lie - it was composed of frauds and poseurs, but you simply refuse to face facts and continue to perpetuate this myth about Vietnam, stealing the honor from those who actually fought and served during that war. Kerry stole their honor, impugned their integrity, called them "murderers", but then tried to say that it wasn't their fault because on the fourth count of every push-up they were taught to yell "kill" at boot camp. OH-MY-GOD, no! He defamed men better than himself with his words before Congress for his own political purposes.

And I don't care about his party affiliation - I disdained Kerry for this back in 1988 while at college in Boston, when he was just some Senator from Mass. I don't care that he now ran for President. He was a lout long before he came onto the Republican radar screen.