NationStates Jolt Archive

Besides being the guy that broke the story to burn an active CIA agent as part of the vendetta tactics that this administration uses (what the hell were you thinking Robert), Bob has been one of the most ardent supporters of the Swift Boat Vets on the news. Calls them "real patriots"... as opposed to all of the Democrat fake ones I guess... :rolleyes:


Interesting thing he forgot to mention to his viewing public: He has his own family ties that are directly dependant on the success of these liars.

Turns out that his son, Alex Novak, is the director of marketing for its publisher, the conservative publishing house Regnery. Gee - do you think the director of marketing's renumeration might just be based on sales? Or that constant mention and support in the media might just help that out?

In a telephone interview, Robert Novak said he saw no need to disclose the link.

"I don't think it's relevant," he said.




Sure Bob. Not relevant at all.................. douchebag.


Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/30/business/media/30novak.html

Swiftboat Vet ads are running here in Florida now....these are actually factual in that they deal with what Kerry said AFTER he returned. POW's who were tortured in Hanoi are on these ads and they are saying that they were beaten because they refused to admit to committing war crimes....and there was Kerry, saying that war crimes were sanctioned by the high command. :rolleyes:

Novak is a douchebag though.....

Swiftboat Vet ads are running here in Florida now....these are actually factual in that they deal with what Kerry said AFTER he returned. POW's who were tortured in Hanoi are on these ads and they are saying that they were beaten because they refused to admit to committing war crimes....and there was Kerry, saying that war crimes were sanctioned by the high command. :rolleyes:

Novak is a douchebag though.....


I have seen that ad, and while closer to the truth it still is rather unfairly presented. It ties together clips of testimony that Kerry was repeating from other vets and makes it look like those were his own words when they were not.


Still, his political positions are fair game and are worth discussing. Taking quotes out of context is a time-honoured tradition in campaign politics, but one that I am not too fussy on from either side.

I have seen that ad, and while closer to the truth it still is rather unfairly presented. It ties together clips of testimony that Kerry was repeating from other vets and makes it look like those were his own words when they were not.


Still, his political positions are fair game and are worth discussing. Taking quotes out of context is a time-honoured tradition in campaign politics, but one that I am not too fussy on from either side.

Well....had I been tortured in an attempt to get me to admit to committing war crimes I would be highly pissed at seeing Kerry testify in front of Congress that war crimes were a daily and sanctioned practice.

Well....had I been tortured in an attempt to get me to admit to committing war crimes I would be highly pissed at seeing Kerry testify in front of Congress that war crimes were a daily and sanctioned practice.

To be fair, he did describe the actions that he considered to be in contravention of the Geneva and Hague Conventions that were sanctioned in the free-fire zones - including targetting of civillians, destruction of villages, food sources, and water sources. In that regard, he was correct that these contravened the laws of war - hence were war crimes.

People try to extrapolate that to some idea that he felt that things like My Lia, and other such atrocities were sanctioned, however he was generally pretty clear on that matter.

By the time Kerry testified the war had been running for 7 years with no end in sight (it DID go on for another four after all), and was being run with a failed military policy guaranteed to simply extend the misery with no hope of victory. Many people saw that and were calling for it's end. Even most vets who hate him for having spoken about it will admit that they felt they were fighting a war that they were not allowed to win. I've even heard a few of the Swift Vets for BS state that very same viewpoint in interviews.

So most of the anger seems to be simply a feeling that he should not have spoken it - even though most of those same detractors agree with the bulk of the substance of what he said. The feeling that a soldier should simply shut up and let the misery go on indefinitely - putting loyalty above conscience.

That is a very interesting position to try and wrap ones head around - that he should not have spoken his conscience in favour of simply allowing the cluster-fuck that was 'Nam to continue indefinitely.

I do - of course- grant them their right to feel that way. They fought for that right. I just don't agree with it.

Robert Novak is more than a douchebag, he is a traitor. Because that is exactly what you are when you blow the cover of a covert operative in time of war. He should be in front of a jury, not TV cameras, and it's CNN's ongoing shame that they continue to give a bully pulpit to that slimeball.

This is quite apart from the fact that he clearly has the ethics of a stoat.

Robert Novak is more than a douchebag, he is a traitor. Because that is exactly what you are when you blow the cover of a covert operative in time of war. He should be in front of a jury, not TV cameras, and it's CNN's ongoing shame that they continue to give a bully pulpit to that slimeball.

This is quite apart from the fact that he clearly has the ethics of a stoat.

Covert? Since this story broke it has been determined that she was NOT some "secret" agent. Her name and number were plainly listed in the CIA directory. What kind of secret is that when such information is public?

To be fair, he did describe the actions that he considered to be in contravention of the Geneva and Hague Conventions that were sanctioned in the free-fire zones - including targetting of civillians, destruction of villages, food sources, and water sources. In that regard, he was correct that these contravened the laws of war - hence were war crimes.

People try to extrapolate that to some idea that he felt that things like My Lia, and other such atrocities were sanctioned, however he was generally pretty clear on that matter.

By the time Kerry testified the war had been running for 7 years with no end in sight (it DID go on for another four after all), and was being run with a failed military policy guaranteed to simply extend the misery with no hope of victory. Many people saw that and were calling for it's end. Even most vets who hate him for having spoken about it will admit that they felt they were fighting a war that they were not allowed to win. I've even heard a few of the Swift Vets for BS state that very same viewpoint in interviews.

So most of the anger seems to be simply a feeling that he should not have spoken it - even though most of those same detractors agree with the bulk of the substance of what he said. The feeling that a soldier should simply shut up and let the misery go on indefinitely - putting loyalty above conscience.

That is a very interesting position to try and wrap ones head around - that he should not have spoken his conscience in favour of simply allowing the cluster-fuck that was 'Nam to continue indefinitely.

I do - of course- grant them their right to feel that way. They fought for that right. I just don't agree with it.

It is a tough call and I think Kerry is going to pay a heavy price for this with veterans. He certainly does not have much support among the active duty military, but thats a given since Democrats tend to hold the military at arms length for some reason. Here in Florida we have a HUGE number of veterans. There must be a law somewhere that says once you turn 60 you have to move to Florida or something. I voted in the local primary this morning and I was by far the youngest person there. Yet even the simple "complete the arrow" ballots were too much for some of those old folks. :confused:

It is a tough call and I think Kerry is going to pay a heavy price for this with veterans. He certainly does not have much support among the active duty military, but thats a given since Democrats tend to hold the military at arms length for some reason. Here in Florida we have a HUGE number of veterans. There must be a law somewhere that says once you turn 60 you have to move to Florida or something. I voted in the local primary this morning and I was by far the youngest person there. Yet even the simple "complete the arrow" ballots were too much for some of those old folks. :confused:

Yeah, that is the advantage of having spent that period in an alcoholic stupor... GW doesn't have the associated public record for us to dissect.

For those who actually read Kerry's testimony of 71 though, I think it is pretty clear that he WAS trying to support the troops who he felt were dying in an untenable war and that the best way to support them was to get them the hell out of an unwinnable war. Some of his rhetoric did get a bit hot at the time, but let us also remember that he was young, he was just returned from that shithole, and it WAS the mood of the time. Compared to much of the anti-war movement of the day he was pretty restrained in his rhetoric.

Anyway - the testimony IS still all availaible:
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200404231047.asp

Yeah, that is the advantage of having spent that period in an alcoholic stupor... GW doesn't have the associated public record for us to dissect.

For those who actually read Kerry's testimony of 71 though, I think it is pretty clear that he WAS trying to support the troops who he felt were dying in an untenable war and that the best way to support them was to get them the hell out of an unwinnable war. Some of his rhetoric did get a bit hot at the time, but let us also remember that he was young, he was just returned from that shithole, and it WAS the mood of the time. Compared to much of the anti-war movement of the day he was pretty restrained in his rhetoric.

Anyway - the testimony IS still all availaible:
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/kerry200404231047.asp

He may have been trying to help, but on the one hand you cannot come out and play up your war years when you have such a record of anti-war activities.

Imagine an all-star pitcher, after winning the world series and retiring, coming out and decrying baseball as a form of indentured servitude. How much credibility would he have if he tried to come back to the league?

THATS what Kerry is facing and I think he made a SERIOUS mistake in doing so. Then again he has nothing in his Senate record to brag about....I just don't see him winning.

He may have been trying to help, but on the one hand you cannot come out and play up your war years when you have such a record of anti-war activities.

Imagine an all-star pitcher, after winning the world series and retiring, coming out and decrying baseball as a form of indentured servitude. How much credibility would he have if he tried to come back to the league?

THATS what Kerry is facing and I think he made a SERIOUS mistake in doing so. Then again he has nothing in his Senate record to brag about....I just don't see him winning.


Well, if you were to asume that Kerry spoke out against ALL wars you would have a point. To make a closer analogy, your allstar pitcher is pitching for a team that keeps trading away good players to make it impossible to win the world series. He retires, and then in an exclusive interview comes out and blasts the management one day. Some of the remaining players are pissed off because all of a sudden they are under the microscope with managers who wonder if they are feeling the same way....

Should all of the rest of the players hate him forever for speaking his conscience? Or just the management?

Well, if you were to asume that Kerry spoke out against ALL wars you would have a point. To make a closer analogy, your allstar pitcher is pitching for a team that keeps trading away good players to make it impossible to win the world series. He retires, and then in an exclusive interview comes out and blasts the management one day. Some of the remaining players are pissed off because all of a sudden they are under the microscope with managers who wonder if they are feeling the same way....

Should all of the rest of the players hate him forever for speaking his conscience? Or just the management?

Thats why you hate the game and not the player. ;) Had this pitcher come out and named names of players who used steroids and claimed that the management condoned such a thing then that would be more akin to the Kerry situation.

Kerry came across as a player hater and thats what he has been labeled. Veterans don't much like the guy and the active duty folks, well, lets just say that it has been a LONG time since they supported a Democrat.

bump

Kerry came across as a player hater and thats what he has been labeled. Veterans don't much like the guy and the active duty folks, well, lets just say that it has been a LONG time since they supported a Democrat.You know, that's a claim that's made a lot, but there's surprisingly little evidence to back it up. I'm not saying it's not true--just saying that the claim seems to be largely based on anecdotal evidence rather than on polling, both opinion and exit. I'd be interested in seeing some long-term polling that argues the point, just for my own edification.

You know, that's a claim that's made a lot, but there's surprisingly little evidence to back it up. I'm not saying it's not true--just saying that the claim seems to be largely based on anecdotal evidence rather than on polling, both opinion and exit. I'd be interested in seeing some long-term polling that argues the point, just for my own edification.

Well, when I was on active duty I met one...yes ONE guy who voted for the Democrat. We all knew that if we wanted a pay raise to vote for the Republican. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Well, when I was on active duty I met one...yes ONE guy who voted for the Democrat. We all knew that if we wanted a pay raise to vote for the Republican. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
It's still just anecdotal evidence, though.

I have no doubt that in certain parts of the country--say South Carolina, for instance, a state that's already heavily conservative--that the people in the military are strongly Republican. But that's no real surprise--the people in the area are largely Republican and even the Democrats are conservative, and the people in the military in that area are generally pulled from the local population, especially in the case of the Guard and the Reserves.

I'm just wondering if the same holds true for traditionally Democratic parts of the country, like say, Minnesota, you know, the kinds of places where organized labor is powerful and the Democrats have been strong for decades. A lot of this kind of stuff--party affiliation--is almost hereditary. I can't tell you how many people I've known who are Republicans or Democrats, not because they have any real affiliation with the party as a whole, but because their families have been of that party for generations and dammit, that's what they are too.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans have an advantage among military families. Military people tend to be more conservative as a whole, and the Republicans took advantage of the hole opened by the anti-war part of the Democratic party in the late 60s to paint the Democrats as weak on defense. But while I wouldn't be surprised by it, I'd still like to see something more than anecdotal evidence to back it up. My guess is that you'd be surprised at just how large a percentage of the vote that Democrats pull from the military.

It's still just anecdotal evidence, though.

I have no doubt that in certain parts of the country--say South Carolina, for instance, a state that's already heavily conservative--that the people in the military are strongly Republican. But that's no real surprise--the people in the area are largely Republican and even the Democrats are conservative, and the people in the military in that area are generally pulled from the local population, especially in the case of the Guard and the Reserves.

I'm just wondering if the same holds true for traditionally Democratic parts of the country, like say, Minnesota, you know, the kinds of places where organized labor is powerful and the Democrats have been strong for decades. A lot of this kind of stuff--party affiliation--is almost hereditary. I can't tell you how many people I've known who are Republicans or Democrats, not because they have any real affiliation with the party as a whole, but because their families have been of that party for generations and dammit, that's what they are too.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Republicans have an advantage among military families. Military people tend to be more conservative as a whole, and the Republicans took advantage of the hole opened by the anti-war part of the Democratic party in the late 60s to paint the Democrats as weak on defense. But while I wouldn't be surprised by it, I'd still like to see something more than anecdotal evidence to back it up. My guess is that you'd be surprised at just how large a percentage of the vote that Democrats pull from the military.


I see where you are coming from. However, when one realizes that their pay raises (Clinton vetoed every payraise for the military for 7 years) are directly tied to who is in office, that vote becomes more important. As for the Democrats being weak on defense.....they are. Carter let the military rot and decay. Reagan had to build it back up. He started with an immediate 15% payraise. After the cold war was over (something I dispute) the "peace dividend" resulted in massive cuts that saw so many people bail out that many units became "combat ineffective" for several months. Clinton and his "feel good political correctness" did a LOT of damage to the military and now some Democrats are calling for a return of the draft. Thats right....some Democrats are calling for a return of the draft. How do you think that will go over? It is true that those in the military tend to be conservative. You have to be when your pay does not go up for 7 years. Thank you Bill Clinton.....

The call for a return to the draft is a publicity stunt by Charlie Rangel and nothing more. He did it to make the point that if we're going to be led into unnecessary wars, then we ought to do it with the knowledge that everyone's kids are going to be affected by it, instead of just those people who are looking to the military because there are so few other options for a career available.

One other thing--and I'm glad we're being so amiable here because we've been a bit testy with each other in the past. Do you have any backup for the Clinton accusation about refusing any pay raises for the 8 years he was in office? I've heard the accusation in the past from a lot of people, but I've never seen it backed up. Also, if it's correct, doesn't the Republican led Congress--especially the House, where all spending bills start--deserve much of the responsibility for that happening? I mean, the Republicans were in charge of the House from 1994 onward, and still are.

He may have been trying to help, but on the one hand you cannot come out and play up your war years when you have such a record of anti-war activities.

Imagine an all-star pitcher, after winning the world series and retiring, coming out and decrying baseball as a form of indentured servitude. How much credibility would he have if he tried to come back to the league?

THATS what Kerry is facing and I think he made a SERIOUS mistake in doing so. Then again he has nothing in his Senate record to brag about....I just don't see him winning.


Actually if you go back in time before the giant pay packages; it was a form of indentured servitude. Remember the Black Sox.....

Kerry is not out as easy as you think. Too many polls place Lurch and the shrub neck and neck.

I don't think holding hands and singing 9/11 is going to help the shrub much.

It's probably going to go down to the wire.

Especially when they are already pulling stuff like Jeb is already accidentally removing legitimate voters and I hear the demos are getting army votes problems.....

The call for a return to the draft is a publicity stunt by Charlie Rangel and nothing more. He did it to make the point that if we're going to be led into unnecessary wars, then we ought to do it with the knowledge that everyone's kids are going to be affected by it, instead of just those people who are looking to the military because there are so few other options for a career available.


You sure about that? The draft office section received a boost in funding.

The fact it's not around is easily explained by the fact it would be a campaign killer for the shrub.

I have a feeling you just might see it after the elections. At least registering for it.....

Registration already happens--I registered half a lifetime ago when I turned 18. That part was reinstated duting Reagan's administration.

And you're correct that draft boards were quietly instructed almost a year ago to sort of shake out the dust and get ready in case there was a need for it, but everyone knows that, for now, it's all talk. No one--Republican or Democrat--is going to broach the subject of a draft in an election year with any sort of seriousness. It's a time bomb, especially in a year where Vietnam is rearing its ugly head again.

Hopefully, this will be the last time we have to deal with Vietnam service. If Kerry wins, he'll be running on his record in 2008 and if Bush wins, the likely Republicans, with the possible exception of McCain (who'll be getting a bit old for the job) will be largely outside the Vietnam window, as will the leading Democrats.

Besides being the guy that broke the story to burn an active CIA agent as part of the vendetta tactics that this administration uses (what the hell were you thinking Robert), Bob has been one of the most ardent supporters of the Swift Boat Vets on the news. Calls them "real patriots"... as opposed to all of the Democrat fake ones I guess... :rolleyes:


Interesting thing he forgot to mention to his viewing public: He has his own family ties that are directly dependant on the success of these liars.

Turns out that his son, Alex Novak, is the director of marketing for its publisher, the conservative publishing house Regnery. Gee - do you think the director of marketing's renumeration might just be based on sales? Or that constant mention and support in the media might just help that out?

In a telephone interview, Robert Novak said he saw no need to disclose the link.

"I don't think it's relevant," he said.




Sure Bob. Not relevant at all.................. douchebag.


Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/30/business/media/30novak.htmlBob Novak has a napoleonic complex--he even looks like Napoleon. Someone should just kill him with a flyswatter :D

You sure about that? The draft office section received a boost in funding.

The fact it's not around is easily explained by the fact it would be a campaign killer for the shrub.

I have a feeling you just might see it after the elections. At least registering for it.....


Yeah, I'm sure about it too. It was Rep. Charles Rangel for the reasons Incertonia stated.

But what people are just starting to catch on to is the administration is still getting around it. They are having themself a back door draft instead. ;)

The call for a return to the draft is a publicity stunt by Charlie Rangel and nothing more. He did it to make the point that if we're going to be led into unnecessary wars, then we ought to do it with the knowledge that everyone's kids are going to be affected by it, instead of just those people who are looking to the military because there are so few other options for a career available.

One other thing--and I'm glad we're being so amiable here because we've been a bit testy with each other in the past. Do you have any backup for the Clinton accusation about refusing any pay raises for the 8 years he was in office? I've heard the accusation in the past from a lot of people, but I've never seen it backed up. Also, if it's correct, doesn't the Republican led Congress--especially the House, where all spending bills start--deserve much of the responsibility for that happening? I mean, the Republicans were in charge of the House from 1994 onward, and still are.

Do I have any backup for my assertion that Clinton vetoed the payraises? Well, I am sure I could find it if I searched through all the nonsense that is gov't bills. However, I was in the USAF from 1981-2001 and know from personal experience that he did it. Congress put the bills forward and Clinton promptly vetoed them. Unfortunately there was never a big call to override the veto and that IS the fault of Congress. In 1993 my pay actually went down due to a realignment of housing allowance! In 2000, months before the election Clinton did allow the requested payraise to go through, a 3.1% raise across the board. He and Gore proclaimed they were "taking care of the military" and really played it up to the public. However, the resentment against Clinton in the military was already firmly implanted. He did a LOT of damage to the military and we are still feeling that today. Democrats are not known for being strong supporters of defense. Remember what Carter did?

Yeah, I'm sure about it too. It was Rep. Charles Rangel for the reasons Incertonia stated.

But what people are just starting to catch on to is the administration is still getting around it. They are having themself a back door draft instead. ;)


Back door draft? I keep hearing about this mysterious beast but have yet to figure out how anyone can be forced to join a VOLUNTEER force.

Back door draft? I keep hearing about this mysterious beast but have yet to figure out how anyone can be forced to join a VOLUNTEER force.
The stop-loss orders that prevent a person who has finished his/her term of service and is scheduled to either retire or just leave are what's being called a back-door draft. I'm sure you know what a stop-loss order is, so I won't explain it, but anything that keeps you in the service beyond the term you signed up for certainly qualifies as involuntary servitude in my eyes.

The stop-loss orders that prevent a person who has finished his/her term of service and is scheduled to either retire or just leave are what's being called a back-door draft. I'm sure you know what a stop-loss order is, so I won't explain it, but anything that keeps you in the service beyond the term you signed up for certainly qualifies as involuntary servitude in my eyes.


Thats not exactly what it is because a "stop-loss" is only used in times of national emergency. 9-11 caused a stop-loss that my last supervisor got caught up in. He was to retire in Nov 2001 but was kept until Aug 2002. I retired on 1 Jun 2001 so I missed it by a few months.

If you have ever read an enlistment contract you will see that such things are clearly stated on there so there is always a chance of such things happening. There is nothing "back door" about it. Those caught up in them certainly don't like it, but there is nothing untoward about it.

How thoroughly do recruiters explain about the post-discharge "ready reserve" before you sign up for that two-year hitch?

How thoroughly do recruiters explain about the post-discharge "ready reserve" before you sign up for that two-year hitch?

I don't know about the Army, but the Air Force does a great job of explaining all those things. I am sure the Army does too but even still it is PLAINLY written on the enlistment contract and no, there is no "fine print" on there. All the print is the same size.

Thats not exactly what it is because a "stop-loss" is only used in times of national emergency. 9-11 caused a stop-loss that my last supervisor got caught up in. He was to retire in Nov 2001 but was kept until Aug 2002. I retired on 1 Jun 2001 so I missed it by a few months.

If you have ever read an enlistment contract you will see that such things are clearly stated on there so there is always a chance of such things happening. There is nothing "back door" about it. Those caught up in them certainly don't like it, but there is nothing untoward about it.
It obviously doesn't have to be a national emergency because Rumsfeld initiated them during the war in Iraq, keeping servicepeople there long after their hitches were up.

I have no doubt that the stop-loss orders are legal, and that the people who are affected by them are bound by what they signed, but it doesn't change the fact on the ground that there are people who are extended beyond their term of duty against their wills because of what is essentially poor planning by the DoD.

It obviously doesn't have to be a national emergency because Rumsfeld initiated them during the war in Iraq, keeping servicepeople there long after their hitches were up.

I have no doubt that the stop-loss orders are legal, and that the people who are affected by them are bound by what they signed, but it doesn't change the fact on the ground that there are people who are extended beyond their term of duty against their wills because of what is essentially poor planning by the DoD.

Well, a war could be considered a national emergency.

Thanks to Clinton and his policies a LOT of people left the military. One must realize that no payraises for 7 years makes people go elsewhere. Therefore the numbers needed just are not there anymore and because of the war fewer people are volunteering now so something has to be done to keep the ranks filled.

I would go back in a heartbeat if they called me back, but thats just me. poor planning? How do you plan on the number of volunteers you are going to have? Enlistments are down and the demands are going up. The US is not what it used to be, people are too concerned with "ME" to see the bigger picture.