Dicksmith Strikes Again!

You might remember Dicksmith from this post of Jonn’s, wherein VoteVets had their scented panties in a bunch over the comments of a golf analyst. This is the standard operating procedure for VoteVets, to hold entertainers feet to the fire for their faux pas, while giving actual politicians etc a pass. For instance, VoteVets decided that Rush Limbaugh should be excoriated for talking about phony soldiers like MacBeth, yet comments regarding wantonly slaying innocents via carpet bombing, or prejudicing the public against the Haditha Marines are perfectly acceptable. Lest you miss the importance of the former event, VoteVets has now been caught on two occasions using phony veterans in their TV commercials (Josh Lansdale and our own favorite VoteVets blogger “Rick Duncan”) and has used commercials exclusively against GOP candidates that stretches the truth well beyond the breaking point.

So, it was with little surprise that I read this post of Dicksmith’s that Mr Wolf sent me late last night.

Vets for Freedom was founded a few months after the progressive Veterans’ organization I work with (not for, since I volunteer), VoteVets.org. You’d have to ask Pete [Hegseth] and his cronies to confirm this, but as best I can tell Vets for Freedom has served no other purpose than to be a GOP front group countering the work of VoteVets.

Now, I’m not saying that Dicksmith likes to bugger young boys, to drink the blood of young virgins from a rugby boot, to drink and then drive home to beat his girlfriend and dog, I mean, you’d have to ask his cronies about that, but what I can tell you is that master of the intertubes he is not. Rather than just using SourceWatch as a one stop shop, he might have been able to find that one of VFF’s first endorsements was for Jim Marshall, Democrat from Georgia. It would be hard to figure out why VFF’s masters in the GOP would stand for VFF endorsing their House Target #1.

….said Vets for Freedom Chairman, Pete Hegseth. “Jim has stood with us on Capitol Hill, and it’s time for us to stand with him. During his tenure in Congress, Jim has proved time and time again that politics always takes a back seat to doing what’s right when it comes to fighting our enemies and supporting those who wear the uniform. Our country needs more people like Jim in Washington.”

Well, how about the endorsement for Joe Lieberman? Not a Republican, no matter how much hyperventilating Kos does. From the VFF website:

Vets For Freedom has emerged as one of the most influential and authoritative voices in the debate over the war in Iraq. As soldiers, the members of VFF answered the call to duty to serve our nation. Now they stand among our nation’s leaders to remind us to do our duty.

– United States Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)

And how does one explain the comments of Brian Baird with regard to VFF?

Vets for Freedom speaks with unique authority and is an essential non-partisan voice supporting those who are committed to success in Iraq.

– United States Congressman Brian Baird (D-WA)

Wait a minute? How the hell can that be? Isn’t Baird a Democrat? Isn’t that what the “D” means? And, holy hell, isn’t he a liberal? The American Conservative Union gave the guy a 4 out of a possible 100 in 2008. That means he’s to the LEFT of Baghdad Jim McDermott.

Well, possibly it has more to do with his position on Iraq than any partisan angle. This is from Baird’s piece from August 24, 2007 in the Seattle Times.

As a Democrat who voted against the war from the outset and who has been frankly critical of the administration and the post-invasion strategy, I am convinced by the evidence that the situation has at long last begun to change substantially for the better. I believe Iraq could have a positive future. Our diplomatic and military leaders in Iraq, their current strategy, and most importantly, our troops and the Iraqi people themselves, deserve our continued support and more time to succeed.

For this little piece of heresy, Baird had to weather a shit storm in his district. Don’t go against the orthodoxy, or your friends in MoveOn will get pissed. Just ask John Bruhns, you know, one of the guys who worked with VoteVets.

Anyway, back to Dicksmith.

I’m not going to go into some lengthy defense of Pete, who can ably do so himself, but a few things about Dicksmith and his post. He goes on some rant about Pete apparently now writing at the Weekly Standard. Not sure why this is even relevant, but good for Pete, he got a paying gig. And thanks for all of us it isn’t as an accountant, because Pete refers to 8+ years without an attack, when it is 7+ years without an attack. Seemingly Pete saying this is far worse for veterans than say (hypothetically) a guy who stole a car in Nevada, and was in mental health counseling during the Battle of Fallujah that he claimed to have been injured in despite never having served in the military at all. Or, worse (again, hypothetically) than saying that Viet Nam-issued vests were being distributed to our troops in Iraq, when in fact no such thing was taking place. Pete’s inability to differentiate 7 from 8 is clearly one of the biggest problems faced by returning veterans, and I am on board for jacking him up over it. VFF should do what VoteVets does and just take all his shit down, issue only a press release to a media outlet without putting anything on this blog about it, and then just go along pretending that VFF never knew the mathematically challenged Mr. Hegseth. (Here is where I would link to the many comments of Dicksmith located on “Rick Duncan’s” various VoteVets postings, but alas, they are preserved for posterity only on Jonn’s computer.)

And to close out, Dicksmith cites to Matthew Yglesias. I know the name, but know nothing about the guy and don’t care to, but Dicksmith uses this quote to characterize his belief on the fallibility of Pete’s argument that we were safer post 9/11 for our actions:

The overwhelming majority of Americans to ever be killed by foreign terrorists were killed during Bush’s presidency. And even if you give him a pass on 9/11 itself it’s still the case that his conduct of the “war on terror” led to the deaths of thousands more Americans.

Well, let me take that quote and change it a bit, and you tell me if there are any inaccuracies.

Option A:

The overwhelming majority of Terrorists to ever be killed by American Military Forces were killed during Bush’s presidency. And even if you give them a pass on 9/11 itself it’s still the case that the conduct of the “war on terror” led to the deaths of thousands more Terrorists than Americans.

Option B:

The overwhelming majority of Americans to ever be killed by a foreign government were killed during Roosevelt’s presidency. And even if you give him a pass on Pearl Harbor itself it’s still the case that his conduct of the “war on the Axis powers” led to the deaths of thousands more Americans.

So, here we go again, a VoteVets guy who doesn’t do any research, throws in some ad hominem attacks under the guise of “go look for yourself at Source Watch” whose primary concern is with Pete’s ability to count, who closes with an argument from another liberal blogger than has no bearing on the argument at hand. It’s almost becoming cliché at this point, no?

ADDENDUM:  For a bit of added idiocy, or to get a 2404 if you need one, go read Jon Stolz’s piece over at VoteVets today on why Petraeus could never be the 2012 GOP Nominee because he thinks we shouldn’t torture people and we should close Gitmo.

His article makes perfect sense right up until you remember that those are the same positions of the 2008 GOP candidate.

The Stupid is strong in this one, better check the midi-chlorine levels, we may have ourselves a new Jedi of the left.

JUST BECAUSE ADDENDUM:  VoteVets is to Veterans as Darkon (below) is to history buffs. 

Although, I am totally buying this movie.

Category: Liberals suck, Usual Suspects