Fri 2 Sep 2005
Yesterday in Eric Minamyer’s blog:
Memo to COAST
You helped create the Hackett scenario by depressing turnout. Nice move.
Fri 2 Sep 2005
Yesterday in Eric Minamyer’s blog:
Memo to COAST
You helped create the Hackett scenario by depressing turnout. Nice move.
OH2:
I am already aware that you are claiming credit for your deceipt about my being an advisor to Schmidt and using my questions as a claim of “swiftboating” Hackett to help raise money. Some even believed there was more communication than just my blog. Untrue claims but they worked. Now that’s something to brag about.
Hackett still does not explain that his primary duty is as a lawyer; that wouldn’t sound as macho. We know that he handled building contracts and had some responsibilty for ID cards for Iraqis. This duty is important, so why is he so coy?
I retracted my statement about “combat” based upon one story by Hackett. On one particular day he had someone direct two IEDs at a group of vehicles he was the senior officer in. He and his fellow marines were intended to be victims, but thankfully no one was injured. The Marine Corps only gives a Combat Action Ribbon for small arms fire. Shooting back is usually involved.
Now he appears to be about to ignore his duty to stay with his unit and return to Iraq. He is an important part of that unit’s mission, which is rebuilding Iraqi infrastructure and schools. Lawyers are needed to administer the contracts.
Fun fact that I don’t think I’ve revealed until now because I considered the thing over.
Jean Schmidt was citing Eric Minamyer on Iraq when being interviewed by a reporter on tape after the second debate… long after the whole thing blew up. Something about talking to him concerning Iraq and he knows more about and yadayadayada… She was sure talking about getting information on Iraq from Minamyer even though at the same time as she was giving the interview her campaign manager was completely distancing himself from Mr. Minamyer.
I was talking to the reporter afterwards with people and he was asking me “who’s Eric Minamyer” and we all laughed. We asked why and he said that Jean Schmidt mentioned this Eric Minamyer guy about 15 times.
Hmmm… very interesting.
I’ve mentioned Eric Minamyer at least 15 times in various conversations and I’ve even cited his expertise on Iraq a time or two. It might be very hmmm… interesting, and there would be nothing wrong with you asking me if he were my “advisor,” but none of that would make it so.
PS: I don’t like Jean Schmidt and I can’t stand the sight of her. But I wouldn’t mind giving her some… advice.
Jean Schmidt and I shared podiums for weeks and we had one private 2-3 minute conversation in which I briefed her on the training of Iraqis. She paid attention to my comments on the war and respected them enough to quote me. We were rivals but not enemies. I have spoken to many people about this issue and writen about the war many times.
Joe Braun did not distance himself from me but rather chided the editor for claiming I was something I was not. Joe and I remain friends.
The editor knows very well that I criticized the Schmidt campaign about the issue of Hackett being the first Iraqi Freedom veteran to be elected should he win. Had I been an advisor as alleged they never would have made the statements they did about it.
OH2 just wanted to mislead people so he did and now he brags about it. Rather than admit he was wrong he continues to cite this quoting of me by Schmidt as meaning I was an advisor and that I was acting at her direction in writing my blog.
The lie of that is manifest, but yet he still refuses to admit it. The lie was used to generate donations.
It is not the only example of this type of misinformation being put forth by OH2, which I find disappointing because I can see the real potential for truthfulness and insight in this blogsite. I agree with the editor on many issues and I find the discourse intellectually challenging most of the time.
Destined to be crazy cat woman was the first to complain about my questions about Hackett’s claimed expertise on the war. She and I exchanged postings and we agreed to disagree about Hackett. She knew I was speaking only for myself. OH2 picked up on it from her postings, added the lie about my being an advisor, called it “swiftboating” and made people believe it.
Except for successfully misleading thousands of people this is nothing to brag about. It did not take cleverness, it only required being willing to lie.
Eric–
Your analogy about Munchausen is utterly erroneus, completely irrelevant, and totally inapplicable to soldiers, veterans, Republicans, Democrats, Iraq, or Paul Hackett.
If you want to make rational, coherent, or constructive contributions to the dialog or to your fellow veterans, spend more time reading your dictionary accurately or get help in interpeting it correctly.
I am a psychiatrist. I know of Baron von Munchausen. Are yoy try to be an ideological Baron von Munchausen? The accuracy of your commentary is consistent with the accuracy of Munchausen’s medical complaints.
Drdem: Your comment above has nothing to do with this thread. It is about a posting on my blogsite. Nonetheless I will respond here.
Baron Von Munchausen was known for telling tall tales especially about his military and diplomatic adventures. There are some tall tales involving injury or even the Baron’s death, as told by him of course. The satire being that some war veterans exaggerate; even back then.
Munchausen is both a true character of history and a fictional character. Reading a history book or literature wouldn’t hurt. You may be too focused on your psychiatry textbooks.
See:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096764/
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Munchhausen
The doctor who nicknamed factitious disorder after “Munchausen” did so because of the fantastic nature of the complaints of those with the disorder. He remembered Munchausen’s fantastic stories about his “adventures” and applied the name.
By the way, why comment here about the post at my blog? What name did you use when you visited my site? I did not see “drdem” on my registry.
The analogy is that Munchausen made false claims about his war record (Russian cavalry). Some believed him and some did not. His stories were false, but those who believed him sometimes refused to see that the claims were lies and attacked those who questioned the Baron. This is very much like claims of “swiftboating.”
My posting did not mention any living person. Your comment does. Why?
> Joe Braun did not distance himself from me
> but rather chided the editor for claiming I
> was something I was not.
For the record, I stand by my original statement.
If Mr. Minamyer has a problem with being referred to as an advisor to Jean Schmidt his complaint should rest with Congresswoman Schmidt who cited him on numerous occasions as someone that she talked to get information on the situation in Iraq. That includes several mentions on tape.
No the complaint is with you. You are lying and you continue to do it. I did not advise her campaign at any time. Being quoted does not make me an “advisor.”
You knew that my blog comment was nothing unless you could connect it to Schmidt and the GOP so you just made that “advisor” part up from my being quoted.
It worked despite the lie that it was and is. You cannot give it up because you consider yourself so smart for having done it. You are simply dishonest not clever. To lie to your own supporters to get money is sad.
I’m afraid that the facts and the English dictionary are against you.
If you weren’t advising her why was she citing your opinions on Iraq as the basis for her own judgements?
You admit that you talked to her about Iraq. She cited you on the record when talking about Iraq. I’m not sure how much more open and shut one would need a case to be.
To be honest, I have no idea why you should be ashamed of this. There was nothing wrong with listening to your opinions about Iraq. What was wrong was that you questioned the service of someone who served.
You know very well that an advisor to a campaign implies an active role in the campaign. You also know that I was never that. You further know that your lies would have had no value without a connection to Schmidt so you invented one.
I did not “question” his service rather I asked for details. I asked questions about Hackett’s service because of his claims. He used his service to claim special knowledge. He still does. He is a lawyer. His duties ordinarily do not involve training Iraqis, which he said he did. A lawyer in a CAG would not ordinarily be a combat leader, which he implied he was. His “combat” experience was listed by him as on one day having two IEDs set off nearby a convoy he was senior in.
This whole thing is your fraud. It worked so you think you are being clever, but you are really just a liar. You can’t give it up though.
Why don’t you offer to give back the money to anyone who thought based upon your lies that Schmidt had anything to do with my blog?
You really do need to give it a rest.
Here’s a crazy idea: Post about how we can get our forces out of this mess. You are one of the people blogging in the area that has actual experience in the region. Your opinion is valuable.
Take advantage of your forum to promote positive change instead of playing petty semantic games. It’s beneath someone who wants to serve in public office.
BTW, when it came to Schmidt’s statements on Iraq, you were cited often during the general election. That sounds pretty active to me. The fact that a Reuters reporter would comment on it out of the blue when he’d never heard of you before would seem a pretty huge indicator.
Is there not a difference between being an advisor -one who offers advise- to an individual (Schmidt, in this case), and advisor to a campaign?
I did not even offer advice to Schmidt. I met with her one time and gave her 2-3 minutes of data on Iraq.
To say I was a Schmidt advisor implied I was her operative. OH2 wanted people to believe that Schmidt had something to do with my blog, which she did not.
He knew this and thus is guilty of fraud on his own party members. He tricked them into giving money to Hackett by a false claim.
So, you “briefed” her but you didn’t advise her. Hmm… sounds like we’re playing Clintonesque semantic games here.
OK OK… I’m going to stop this. Mr. Minamyer can get in the last word about how much I suck and then I’ll close out the thread.
Throw your best punch.
Before you close out the thread, you ought to consider making a sincere apology to Mr. Minamyer. It would be very progressive and adult of you.
You wanted people to belief that Schmidt was responsible for my blog. 2-3 minutes on Iraq did not convert me to an “advisor” or anything else. You know very well that people believed that Schmidt and/or the GOP was attacking Hackett. You knew this tact was deceitful. It was a fraud through and through. To top it off you bragged about it. Bragging about being deceitful?
And to top it off – making an oblique accusation of playing “Clintonesque semantic games” when you are the very one playing those games. It wasn’t cute when Clinton did it and it isn’t cute here.
After an apology to Mr. Minamyer, you might consider making one to your readers.
I advised Paul Hackett on the Iraq War. On several occasions we talked for several minutes about our opinions of the war. To be fair, Paul Hackett also advised me on the war.
I’m not going to apologize for a damn thing. You piss on a candidate’s record by “questioning” his service in a district that I blog on and I will call you on it. Let every campaign and their supports be on notice that if they try the crap that Karl Rove tried on John Kerry they will pay for it. Minaymer tried it and it didn’t help one bit.
Jeff, I don’t remember Hackett citing your opinion in interviews. I do remember Schmidt citing Minamyer on many occasions.
Sorry, but no dice.
“I’m not going to apologize for a damn thing.”
And just who is it Democrats accuse of having that very attitude? Even if you’re determined to not climb out of the hole, why not at least stop digging?
The candidate claimed superior knowledge based on his marine corps service without explaining what his service was. Asking him to describe his duties is not “questioning his service”, it is asking questions.
Knowing his assigned duties are as a lawyer, his claims did not compute.
One comment that I made that was not 100% accurate was corrected in the same forum in which that statement was made by providing the candidate’s answer unedited. Most of my questions are still unanswered.
My correction was based solely on the say-so of the candidate. Why not correct your misstatements about me? I am not asking for an apology, just a correction.
I am quoted by many on issues about the war and on other issues. I am not an advisor to them either, just a source.
Image if your posting had said “man quoted by Schmidt ….” No one would have cared. You knew the lie of your assertion of my being an advisor was central to your fraud, so you used it.
Even if you aren’t going to correct this lie at least stop bragging about it. Your headline for this posting is taunting. Your comments on other sites about how clever you were are bragging. You threaten to do the same thing again.