Freepers Starting to Swift Boat General Kerr

In another stunning case of hypocrisy, the freepers have a thread entitled "Freeper Help Needed, Anyone Know Service Background of Brigadier General Kerr?"  They are going to Swift Boat this General, a  man who served for 40 years, because he had the audacity to be gay and ask about it.

http://www.freerepublic.com/...

More below:

Here are some of the information the patriotic Freepers are asking:

Did he serve in combat?

When he revealed his sexual orientation?

Was his promotion to Brigadier General honorary?

and more.

So - it is a mortal sin to question the veracity of General Petraeus, yet fine to question the entire career of a General who is gay. How can these people not see their hypocrisy?? This is terrible - just because a retired gay General asked a question about gays in the military, the right wig is revving up to smear the  man's entire service.

I hope this General Kerr is tougher than Kerry. He is going to need to be.

•  Michelle Malkin is on the attack too

  How dare those supporters of Democrats sneak a video in and ask a question of our Republican overlords?? Treasonous, I tell you, treason.

  http://michellemalkin.com/

  by adigal on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:16:02 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, I'd laugh at the freepers now...

    If I didn't know that they were serious about seeking to "swiftboat" Brig. Gen. Kerr. Already, I'm seeing on the messageboard how they're trashing him as a "Hillary Plant" and a "f****t" and other nasty derogatory remarks. It sickens me how little respect these CReeps have for our veterans, especially since they supposedly "support the troops".

    by atdnext on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:22:08 AM PDT

    •  It's interesting to me that the VFW and

      by daliscar on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:25:36 AM PDT

      •  [2nd try] It's interesting to me that the VFW

        and American Legion didn't defend Kerry because the attacks on his medals received from combat cheapened all the combat medals soldiers & sailors were awarded. If this general comes under attack from the yammerers, what will these so-called advocates for veterans do?

        by daliscar on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:28:15 AM PDT

        •  I'd hope that...

          They will have grown by a spine by now and that they wouldn't allow on of their own to be slandered by a bunch of Freeperville Cowards. It was a shame that VFW and AL wouldn't defend Kerry in 2004, and I just hope that they won't make that same mistake now. They need to stand up for their own, and that includes Brig. Gen. Kerr.

          by atdnext on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:34:11 AM PDT

        •  Don't know about the VFW, but the AL is and...

          ...has been since inception a Political organization devoted to the RW, not Veterans.

          It is unsurprising, their silence on this issue.

          by dj angst on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:47:13 AM PDT

    •  "Support the troops" only applies

      In a theoretical sense. Like a College Republican "Support the troops" kegger, it's just something they say to make themselves feel good about themselves while they live their shallow, self-absorbed lives.

      by Hannibal on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:27:34 AM PDT

  •  The issue may blow up in HIllary's face

    Apparently, you're referring to reports I've heard that Kerr is on some sort of committee that suports Clinton. This development will put the gays in the military question front and center again. Hilllary is going to be asked her opinion, and given her triangulating tendencies, this will cause her problems.

    This issue got Bill's Administration off on a really bad foot. It turned off a lot his more conservative-minded supporters, and really energized the opposition. I'd hate for tthis history to repeat itself in the next Clinton Administration -- however, I fear it will be a problem now for Hillary that she will have to contend with during the campaign. Not the idea of a "plant" at the debate, but the real possibilty that she will give an answer that Gen. Kerr won't like very much, either. She's going to be asked the question soon -- it's now unavoidable. And, I suspect her answer won't be substantively different than the answers at the debate last night.

    by FischFry on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:26:13 AM PDT

    •  She's said multiple times that she supports

      repealing DADT.

      by tigercourse on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:27:23 AM PDT

      •  Really? OK, then I'm worng

        Except that taking that stand might cost a few votes in the general.

        by FischFry on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:30:16 AM PDT

        •  She strongly supports the repeal.

          by masslib on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:32:16 AM PDT

    •  Sounds like lots of declared

      Dem supporters asked questions:

      http://balloon-juice.com/...

      by masslib on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:28:07 AM PDT

      •  But the bigger story is still hillary's

        since she's known to have a green thumb.

        by voltayre on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:31:38 AM PDT

        •  Your particanship speaks volumes about

          your character.

          by masslib on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:32:42 AM PDT

          •  I want a more juicy personal attack next time

            that one bores me.

            by voltayre on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:50:30 AM PDT

            •  It's an observation, not an attack.

              by masslib on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 11:37:33 AM PDT

              •  Ah, well, that's alright then

                since observations tend to be of the stale variety.

                I still stand by my original contention, that on this issue it's going to stick with her because of prior history.  And that's one hole she dug herself.

                by voltayre on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 11:44:17 AM PDT

    •  Ummm, NO.

      Hillary already said she will put an end to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". When she was asked about it at the HRC Debate in August, Hillary said she will finally do what Bill tried to do, but couldn't. She knows that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" isn't working, and that it's not a permanent solution to a bad problem.

      So please, don't try to turn this into some "black eye" on Hillary. She already gave a clear answer. The GOPers have not.

      by atdnext on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:30:09 AM PDT

      •  As I responded already, I'm wrong.

        by FischFry on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:30:44 AM PDT

        •  I'm sorry.

          Please accept my sincere apology. I posted that before I saw your "I'm wrong" comment. Thanks.

          by atdnext on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:38:53 AM PDT

    •  Well

      Hilllary is going to be asked her opinion, and given her triangulating tendencies, this will cause her problems.

      It seems your saying it's not the ISSUE, it's HRC and the way you presume she's going to handle it.

      by Inland on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:30:32 AM PDT

      •  She strongly advocates repealing DADT.

        She's said so over and over again.

        by masslib on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:33:43 AM PDT

        •  If she actually strongly advocates ANY position

          she won't have a problem.

          by Inland on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:36:02 AM PDT

          •  She strongly advocates several issues

            actually.

            by masslib on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:38:05 AM PDT

            •  I'm sure she does.

              Somewhere.

              by Inland on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:52:12 AM PDT

              •  It's called reality-land

                Visit it sometime, you'd be surprised.

                by SaneSoutherner on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:55:37 AM PDT

                •  I'm continually surprised by HRC.

                  Just not in a good way.  

                  by Inland on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:57:04 AM PDT

    •  Oops...I thought you went this guy

      asking a question.  She already firmly support repeal of DADT.

      by masslib on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:31:49 AM PDT

    •  This is such bs

      I cannot believe someone hear is still playing the spin game.

      She answered the question.  And the right doesn't like her answer because she had already said she would work to repeal "Don't ask, don't tell."

      What a crock.

      by Jjc2006 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:34:18 AM PDT

      •  You don't read very well

        How many posts do I have to put up to say that I was wrong about hter stance on the policy?

        Your post is such bs. I can't believe after posting TWO different comments saying I was wrong (in the subject line) that "someone hear" (sic) is still playing the attack me game.

        What a crock

        by FischFry on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 03:07:23 PM PDT

    •  There are no concerns about that whatsoever.

      Hillary opposes Bill's previous policy, and has said so openly, which is one reason she has broad support in the GLBT community.

      Sorry to disillusion you, but she is one of the staunchest defenders of the gay community that the Democrats have.

      Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton told the nation's leading gay rights group in an unpublicized speech that she wants a partnership with gays if elected president.

      Clinton also said she opposes the "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays in the military that was instituted during her husband's presidency.

      "I am proud to stand by your side," Clinton said

      Sen. Clinton said it would be safer for the nation if openly gay soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen could wear the uniform.

      "This policy doesn't just hurt gays and lesbians, it hurts all our troops and this to me is a matter of national security and we're going to fix it," Clinton said.

      http://archive.newsmax.com/...

      by SaneSoutherner on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:35:28 AM PDT

      •  Last summer, while playing NYC tourist,

        I saw Hillary proudly march in the Gay Pride parade. I don't recal any repug politicians in the march.

        by pamelabrown on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:41:50 AM PDT

    •  BS, This is totally

      unrelated to the plant question and it's disingenuous to try to connect the two.

      by pamelabrown on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:38:33 AM PDT

      •  What do you mean?

        Apparently, based on what others have written, Hillary is promising to revisit the policy -- I have written that I am wrong about whether this might be used against her to split off liberla and gay support, assuiming that the responders are correct about her current position. HOwever, if they are overstating the case, then what I have written isn't bullshit. It will be a question she will be asked, both becuase her husband put in the policy and because the question fo this "plant" will raise reporters' interest in the substance of the issue. The fact that the General is for HRC means it's quite likely she wil be publicly asked to clearly state her position on the issue.

        I don't see how that's "disingeuous" of me to predict that. I wasn't connecting it to the question of whether the cmapaign planted someon to ask a question. I was noting my belief -- possibly wrong -- that the substantive issue will be addressed to her, and could present a problem, depending on her answer. That's not BS.

        An example? THis story from CNN last March:
        Sen. Clinton dodges question on gays, immorality

        Since the post, I've seen tha CLinton has stated that she believes gays should be able to serve openly. If she stays consistent with that, she won't have a problem giveing answers that will satisfy Kerr. Whch would mean I was wrong -- not disingenuous.

        by FischFry on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 03:02:51 PM PDT

    •  Nice revisionism.

      Bill Clinton didn't put this issue front and center--the fundies did. They stoked the fires and made it their cause celebre. Bill intended to address it in due course, but they saw this as a way to divert attention from his major policy agenda at the beginning of his administration. And they did a damn good job.

      by homogenius on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 11:11:30 AM PDT

      •  That's revisionism

        In the first couple of weeks of the Administration, Cninton was actively considering an executive order that would completely rescind the military's anti-homosexual rules. It wasn't the fundies that put it front-and-center. It was Clinton, and most people thought he was crazy to make that his first big public action.

        by FischFry on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 02:49:59 PM PDT

    •  She should be honest - I know, it won't happen

      by adigal on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 11:29:24 AM PDT

  •  Background on Brigadier General Kerr...

    Kerr, BG Keith H., CSMR (Ret.)
    Brigadier General Keith H. Kerr entered the U. S. Army as a Private at Fort Ord, California, on 21 September 1953. After completing basic and advanced training, he served with the 513th Military Intelligence Group in Germany during the Cold War. Upon release from active duty, he continued to serve in the U. S. Army Reserve and was commissioned a First Lieutenant in June 1960. His principal assignments were with the 228th Military Intelligence Detachment (Division), Company B, 12th Special Forces, the 91st Maneuver Training Command, the 351st Civil Affairs Command, the 419th Military Intelligence Detachment (Strategic), and the 221st Military Police Brigade. He also was on the staff and faculty of the Sixth US Army Intelligence School (6A ITAAS).

    General Kerr is a graduate of the Intelligence Orientation Course, the Imagery Interpretation Course, the Army Intelligence Advance Course, the Special Forces Officer Course, the Civil Affairs Advance Course, the Inspector General Course, the Command and General Staff College, and the U. S. Army War College.

    Much more on the General at this Link.

    by Mr SeeMore on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:42:08 AM PDT

•  Obviously a phony general

  Our streets are cluttered with 'em.

  by Tracker on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:17:01 AM PDT

•  MYDD posters attacked him as a Clinton plant.

  by tigercourse on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:21:42 AM PDT

  •  Isn't it disgusting. Primary partisanship

    run amok.

    by masslib on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:24:05 AM PDT

  •  As though a gay general wouldn't want

    to ask this question on his own, without any prompting.

    by lysias on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:25:26 AM PDT

    •  Correction: A gay republican general. He supports

      Hillary's stance on gay rights, but is a republican, member of the Log Cabin Republicans, and a donor to republican candidates.

      by PJ Jefferson on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:46:58 AM PDT

  •  Oh gawd, NO!

    Don't tell me that supposed "progressives" are falling for this Freeperland bullshit. I can't believe it. When did it become "wrong" for a veteran to speak truth to power? Brig. Gen. Kerr already said he was not doing this for Hillary, and Hillary's campaign already said they had nothing to do with what he decided to do himself. Jeez, when it become "wrong" for someone to act on his own to ask the CReeps about a real issue that they'd rather avoid?

    by atdnext on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:25:27 AM PDT

  •  Well, tiger

    another reason I no longer go to MyDD.  On topic, all I hear from the republicans is nauseating hate speech against anyone who isn't either white or straight.  Oh, it's also important to take a PLEDGE to shrink the government until it can be drowned in a bathtub.  (He-Grover- got to ask his question, didn't he?)

    by pamelabrown on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:27:53 AM PDT

  •  That doesn't make any sense.

    A "plant" is where a questioner is represented as random or of such and such character and is not.  Guckert as an independent journalist,the college student asking about her own concerns.

    It's not a general picked by CNN, unless they said, No democrats and no gays, and he lied.

    by Inland on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:34:36 AM PDT

    •  So do you recognize...

      That the Freepers are unfairly attacking Kerr as some "f****t Hillary plant" when he did this himself, without any urge from Hillary's campaign to do this? As a retired veteran and ex Log Cabin Republican, he wanted to ask the CReeps why they won't repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". And now, the Freepers are stirring up this shit not so much to just go after Hillary, but also discredit ALL OF US in the LGBT community and ALL LGBT patriots who choose to serve this country.

      If so, thanks for recognizing what's actually at stake here.

      by atdnext on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:45:45 AM PDT

      •  As long as CNN picked him, he's not a plant.

        CNN, I assume, knew that in their questioners they'd get democrats and gays and HRC supporters.  Unless there was some deception on the general's part, he's not a plant.  

        What he did was ask a question that the Rs stumbled on because they suck.  Not HIS fault.

        by Inland on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:55:18 AM PDT

      •  They don't want to talk about how terrible

        their candidates are, so they are questioning the right of any American to ask THEIR candidates questions.

        by adigal on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 11:38:48 AM PDT

•  What also appalled me last night

  was that some in the crowd booed him.  Didn't matter to them that he gave 40 years of his life for service to our country; they only judged him because of his orientation.  His microphone cut out at one point, but I'm not convinced that it was done intentionally.

  It was, IMO, one of the more shameful crowd moments of last night's debate.

  by Ellicatt on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:26:11 AM PDT

  •  This booing during debates

    has to cease.  I think we all need to contact our favorite candidate's campaign and urge them to stipulate that proper decorum be observed or no debate.

    by pamelabrown on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:31:05 AM PDT

    •  I'm of two minds about that.

      On the one hand, it can be an momentary indication of displeasure for what a candidate said, okay if it's short-lived and not disruptive or overpowering.  

      The problem is that it gets out of hand and drowns out the answers, and I'm not sure you can correct that without stopping it altogether.

      by SaneSoutherner on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:39:43 AM PDT

      •  I'm of one mind

        I think it's not only disruptive but turns the debate into infotainment.  Plus it can be prejudicial to the viewers at home.

        by pamelabrown on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:45:48 AM PDT

        •  I probably would agree at this point

          just because there is no way to keep it at a sane level.  

          by SaneSoutherner on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:51:29 AM PDT

        •  It's the moderator's fault.

          the first round of disruptive boos should be met with a loud and vocal reprimand by the moderator.

          Shaming has it's uses.

          by dj angst on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:52:30 AM PDT

        •  I agree. But all the debates suck and are

          infotainment, IMO.  There is no substantive discussion of issues.  I prefer some of the issues based forums I've caught on the net.  Most of time, the questions in the debates are just wedge questions.

          by masslib on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:03:35 AM PDT

          •  In 1988

             The League of Women Voters, which had sponsored every Presidential Debate since 1976, removed itself from the process in response to demands from the major parties which were tending to turn the debates into an infotainment circus.  The LWV said at the time:

            The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

            Things have not improved since.  I think the LWV should take charge again.

            by WIds on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:50:07 AM PDT

        •  Right. If they're going to turn it into this kind

          of thing, let Springer moderate. He's used to crowd control.

          by dallasdave on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 11:42:11 AM PDT

          •  Hilarious,

            Let's turn our debates over to a Springer type show and admit we've turned our democratic process over to "Dancing With the Stars"!

            by pamelabrown on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 11:47:38 AM PDT

          •  LOL!

            I think the Queer Eye guys  should do makeovers of all of them as well. If we are going for circus, go all the way.  

            by SaneSoutherner on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 12:50:03 PM PDT

    •  The clapping needs to cease, too.

      All crowd noise in these fora is stupid nonsense.  It reminds me of when bowling tried to updated its image, so they had the bowlers go simultaneously while the crowd cheered during their shots.  

      It just seemed forced, weird, and out of place, and I get the same feeling from the cheering during debates.

      by burrow owl on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:55:36 AM PDT

  •  I was ashamed that I used to be a republican

    when they booed him, even more that I usually am. Imagine - booing a general who served for 40 years because he is GAY!

    by adigal on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 11:39:52 AM PDT

•  CNN never promised no questions would be asked

  by anyone who might possibly vote Democratic and/or has possibly voted Democratic in the future.

  What CNN promised to do (for the republicans but not the democrats) was not pose any Democratic "gotcha" questions.

  Notice how Michelle Malkin and the rest of them do not delve at all into the questions themselves.  In typical Ann Coulter style, they ignore the substance and attack the individual.

  I'd like to see them call someone a Hillary plant, and then explain how the question was a gotcha that helps Hillary get elected.

  They're complaining that CNN broke a promise that CNN never even made.

  Also, I don't see any of them wondering if the King James Bible guy ever voted before in his life.  If so, isn't he a "plant" for the person he voted for in the past?  How about the gun ownership guy?  Has he ever voted or donated money?  If so, he's a plant.

  In fact, if one were to take Malkin's logic to its conclusion, CNN would only be allowed to take questions from teenagers who are not yet entitled to vote and have never contributed money or time to any kind of political campaign or issue.

  by PJ Jefferson on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:42:06 AM PDT

•  Here is a short

  bio of Brig. Gen. Kerr which the Freepers won't use, especially regarding his work in Intelligence and active service in his Church.

  by gchaucer2 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:44:24 AM PDT

  •  Hmmm, another annoying

    factoid

    The Rev. Dr. Alvin Gomer, Episcopal priest and licensed psychologist, was his partner of 26 years. Dr. Gomer died in 2000.

    what's with these long term relationships and gays?  Got to be something wrong with that it Freeperland.

    by gchaucer2 on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:47:50 AM PDT

    •  Long term relatonships,

      deep religious beliefs, gee, it's like these gay people have values and stuff. That can't possibly be right.

      by SaneSoutherner on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:54:03 AM PDT

      •  Epsicopalianism isn't REAL

        Christianity. To be a REAL Christian, you MUST hate gays and think stoning is the way to go. Leviticus says so.

        by irishwitch on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:20:40 AM PDT

  •  It also debunks the notion

    that his promotion to Brig. General was done as honorary title at his retirement when in reality he held that rank for 4 years.

    by irishwitch on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:19:44 AM PDT

  •  The fact that the man retired as Brig.

    General speaks volumes as to his service to the country, I think it PO's the freepers that a good number probably could not make it to E-5, let alone a commission.  And the the Special Forces Tab and Jump wings?  OOOOHH  a blow to the Freeper's  sense of what a man is! ;-)

    by Mr Stagger Lee on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 11:10:31 AM PDT

•  So if a Terrorist plot is uncovered...

  ...by a Special Forces trained Intelligence Officer who is gay, they'll ignore him?

  "Well Sir, we'd like to give you credit for stopping this plot, but since you're a homo, we'll just say we tortured a guy."

  by dj angst on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:56:29 AM PDT

•  It isn't a problem

  he's gay, so he has been putting up with this all of his life - I'm sure it isn't going to suddenly start bothering him

  by tiponeill on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 09:59:55 AM PDT

•  The US military...

  apparently needs homophobia more than it needs the extra troops in wartime.

  I wonder if the purpose of the anti-gay witchhunts in the military is to ensure groupthink and obedience and silence in other areas.

  I'll bet that if Kerr ever challenged his superiors on compliance with the Geneva Conventions or corporate war-profiteering or some such, he would have been drummed out of the military on a charge of being gay long before his promotion to General or his full retirement.

  by acquittal on Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 10:48:00 AM PDT