Tuesday, August 31, 2004

Arnold Schwarzeneggers Speech to the Republican National Convention

Governor Schwarzenegger's speech was the highlight of the evening and was on par with Rudy Guiliani's performance from night one of the convention. It was optimistic and funny and has the ability to connect with many segments of teh population. His, "Don't be economic girly men!" line will get a lot of play on TV and on the radio and it deserves to, but the speech had more substance to it than is protrayed in that line. Governor Scharzenegger is a conservative and his appeal to voters who may not agree with every plank of teh Republican platform was very effective. He has a genuine love and appreciation for the vcountry and for this President and it showed in his speech tonight.

First Lady Bush delivered a fine speech that will connect with the voters more than Teresa Heinz Kerry's speech from he DNC. That will be the comparison people make, and in a head to head comparison far more women will relate to Laura Bush than to Teresa Heinz Kerry.

The Bush daughter's were not polished and their comic timing was not honed, but they aren't politicians, they are 22 year old college graduates who's father is running for President. Their performance has to be compared with the Kerry daughters performances at the DNC. Again advantage Bush.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Thune Leads Daschle In Senate Race

The latest polls show John Thune charging ahead of Tom Daschle in teh race for Senate in South Dakota. Contribute to John Thune here, and refer to Daschle v. Thune for the latest on the race.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Kerry Campaign In Crises, Reaches For Straws

The AP spins the truth in Kerry's favor and distorts the truth in an attempt to damage the President everyday. (Examples here and here) Today's bit of distortion comes from the President's Today Show interview with Matt Lauer. The Democrats and their media allies are trying to convince the public that George Bush does not believe we can win the war on terror. This is based on this exchange between Lauer and the President:

Lauer: “You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?”
President Bush: “I have never said we can win it in four years.”
Lauer: “So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?”
President Bush: “I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world –- let's put it that way. I have a two pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that's necessary. I’m telling you it's necessary. The country must never yield, must never show weakness [and] must continue to lead. To find al-Qaida affiliates who are hiding around the world and … harm us and bring ‘em to justice –- we're doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the al-Qaida as we knew it. The long-term strategy is to spread freedom and liberty, and that's really kind of an interesting debate. You know there's some who say well, ‘You know certain people can't self govern and accept, you know, a former democracy.’ I just strongly disagree with that. I believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the world that are now non-democratic and I think it's necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work. After all, Japan is our close ally and my dad fought against the Japanese. Prime Minister Koizumi, is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place.”
Lauer: “Your daughters are how old now?”
President Bush: “Twenty-two.”
Lauer: “Twenty-two years old. They’re approaching the age, President Bush, [when] they're going to have their own children. And when their kids are teenagers are they going to those kids – your grandchildren – be reading about al-Qaida in the newspaper every day?”
President Bush: “I know if steadfast, strong and resolute — and I say those words very seriously — it's less likely that your kids are going to live under the threat of al-Qaida for a long period of time. I can't tell you. I don't have any … definite end. But I tell you this, when we succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's the beginning of the end for these extremists. Because freedom is going to have a powerful influence to make sure your kids can grow up in a peaceful world. If we believe, for example, that you can't win, and the alternative is to retreat … I think that would be a disaster for your children. I'll tell you why. If al-Qaida and their ideologues were able to secure a nuclear arsenal, then your children would grow up under the threat of nuclear blackmail. I think you would look back and say, ‘Why did George Bush not hold the line?’ We cannot show weakness in this world today, because the enemy will exploit that weakness. It will embolden them and make the world a more dangerous place.”

Notice that Matt Lauer did not think that the President had declared defeat, as John Edwards said today. Lauer never flinched because he understood the answer based on the context of the question.

Immediately after the conclusion of the speeches tonight the station was accidentally flipped to NBC. Before the TV could be turned off, Tom Brokaw managed to say that despite the speeches tonight, Iraq is in tough shape and, in fact, the President admitted that it was possible we might not win. That is incredible. The speeches had not been over for more than 10 seconds when Brokaw made that statement to Tim Russert. No one trusts NBC and that is why.

This is a non-controversy being spurred by a Kerry Campaign in crises. The Kerry Campaign is looking at all options in an attempt to stop the plummet. RealClearpolitics has a round up of articles (and this commentary) that point to the Kerry Campaign's demise. Hastening that demise are things like the flyer linked by Perry On Politics and this post by Beldar that focuses on the new Swift Boat Veterans ad. (via Instapundit) The Kerry Campaign is in trouble, and like an injured animal they are becoming more and more vicious. If the Kerry Campaign and John Edwards believe they will be able to convince America that George W. Bush does not believe we can win the war, they are also delusional. Their attempt to capitalize on the distortion of the President's statement will look petty and will turn undecided voters away from the Democratic ticket, especially in light of tonight's speeches by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Laura Bush.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

General Tommy Franks Endorses President Bush For re-Election

General Tommy Franks announced on the Hannity radio show that he endorses President Bush for re-election, and has been added to the speakers list for Thursday night.


Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

First Lady Laura Bush and Gov. Schwarznegger Set to Take the Stage

Two of the most anticipated speeches of the convention will be heard tonight as First Lady Laura Bush and Governor Schwarzenegger take the stage in New York City.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Update:

First Lady Bush will tout the President as a warrior.

Governor Schwarzenegger to praise the presidents leadership and character,

Islamic Terrorists Strike In Israel and Moscow

Terror across the world, with homicide bombings in Israel and Moscow.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

President Bush On Rush Limbaugh

Clarity and steadfastness, unwavering on the war on terror, confident of victory and mindful of the fact that this will not be a quick war, all in one interview.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

The Kerry Campaign: What Is The Point?

Tod Lindberg has a piece in the Washington Times that asks a very pertinant question: What is the point of the Kerry Campaign? This is a question that more and more people have asked themsleves the past month, and fewer and fewer of them seem to have an answer. Kerry's many flip-flops and inconsistancies make it impossible for his campaign to have a theme, much less a core. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have had an effect on Kerry not because eveyone who sees their ads believes what they say, but because they have brought Kerry to the attention of people who had not paid attention to the race or the candidates. The more attention Kerry gets the worse he does. Kerry knows this which is why it has been a full month since he did any sort of serious media interview.

Kerry has been unable to outline a plan in any meaningful way. his attempts at policy are not memorable, his foreign policy is weak, as illustrated by John Edwards admission that A Kerry/Edwards administration would allow Iran to keep its nuclear reactors and make sure it is supplied with nuclear fuel.

The only point to the Kerry Campaign is to be the not Bush of this election. If the Democrats had nominated a cardboard cut-out it is likely that to this point the race would have been just as tight. Being "not Bush" will only take him so far, at some point Kerry will have to run on his record, and that will be the beginning of the end of his candidacy.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Comments on the Rudy Guiliani Speech

Two articles this morning that comment on Rudy Guiliani's speech from last night. The first by John Podhoretz in the NY Post and the second by Richard Brookhiser at NRO, which is more a review of the man than it is of the speech.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Monday, August 30, 2004

Text of Rudy Guiliani's Speech at the RNC

It is possible that there has never been a more clear contrast between the two parties in an election than there is between the Democrats and the Republicans this year. Voters have a clear choice this November and the first day of the RNC clearly illustrated the most important difference between the parties. The first day of the RNC saw two brilliant, optimistic speeches by Rudy Guiliani and John McCain. Both men praised the Presidents leadership in the War on Terror, both paid tribute to those who have been lost at home and abroad, and both men gave forward looking optimistic speeches that left listeners with a feeling of pride. There was none of the bitter, boiling just beneath the surface anger and hatred so present at the DNC. That difference in tone is the most important distinction between the two parties. It is more important than specific policy differences, more important than particular "nuances" of any legislation. The tone of the RNC was one of strength, pride, compassion and optimism. The type of optimism that led us through the wars of the past and will lead us through he current struggle. Rudy Guiliani's speech captured that tone perfectly. It was the best speech given tonight (John McCain's speech was a close second) and it was better than any speech given at the DNC. If the Republican's can continue to highlight this difference through the convention with the President's speech serving as the crescendo, it will be a very successful convention.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Fred Barnes: Shades of Roosevelt in 2004 GOP Convention

Fred barnes has a piece in the Wall Street Journal in which he states that the 2004 GOP convention will be modeled after the 1944 Democratic Convention, with a "natural majority" of Republicans waiting to be gathered together:

Amazingly enough, the 2004 convention aims to achieve what the 1944 Democratic convention did. At the time, President Franklin Roosevelt was a commander in chief whose popularity had been worn down by nine years of economic downturn and three of world war. He was politically vulnerable. But he rallied the natural Democratic majority in the country with a convention speech vigorously defending his war record and presenting an attractive vision of a new term. He won going away, 54% to 46%.

George Bush would like to do the same. His political adviser, Karl Rove, an admirer of FDR's 1944 speech, believes there's a natural Republican majority waiting to be gathered together. An appealing convention with a strong message climaxed by an engaging speech by Mr. Bush could set the stage for his re-election this fall--and more. The creation of a stable Republican majority is a potential side-effect.


A good article and the best convention and campaign comparison to date.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Zell Miller To Concentrate on Kerry’s Time In the Senate

Senator Zell Miller, the Democrat from Georgia who is set to deliver a keynote address at the RNC, will concentrate on 20 years of Kerry’s life that he has attempted to hide – his time in the Senate. Many people still have not heard John Kerry’s record in the Senate for a couple of reasons. The first is that many people simply aren’t paying attention to the race to the point needed to understand that Kerry’s record is an extension of his 1971 testimony to the Senate. The second reason is that John Kerry has not talked about his record in the Senate. He spoke of his 19 years in Senate for a total of 26 seconds in his acceptance speech at the RNC.

If Zell Miller manages to expose Kerry’s record in the Senate it will be a huge negative for Kerry. Kerry will be forced to acknowledge his voting record at some point, and when he does the American people will realize that John Kerry earned the label of the liberal Senator honestly.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Blatant Bias At Reuters

For anyone still operating under the delusion that the wire services are less biased than the networks this story will change your mind.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Daschle Uses President Bush in TV Ad

Tom Daschle may very well lose to John Thune this Fall. The race is basically a dead heat and the president will win the state by at least 15 points. With his political career in jeopordy and a close race heading into the last two months of the campaign does Daschle look to John Kerry to boost his chances? No. He has turned to using images of he and the president in an embrace. Drudge is reporting that the Senator from South Dakota has purchased a one minute ad that the Democrats are refering to as the "Bush Hug" ad to boost his chances in the Fall. It sounds like a great opportunity for Thune to run an ad that replays many of the inane statements Dsachle has made about the president an d his leadership. Such as:

"I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war, saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country,"


It is time for Daschle to go. John Thune has wiped the floor with him in debates, the state is trending Republican, and Daschle resides on the far left of an already out of the mainstream party. Donate at JohnThune.com and get rid of an obstructionist Democrat.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

FCC Chief Criticizes Networks For RNC Blackout

The chairman of the FCC, a Democrat, is criticizing the networks for their blackout of the RNC. If you tune into one of the major networks tonight you will see comedies and relity shows, but no RNC. Read the article here.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Kerry/Edwards To Give Iran Nuclear Fuel

Today's Washington Post has an interview in which John Edwards outlines the Kerry Edwards plan for dealing with Iran. It amounts to a giveaway much like the 1994 Clinton Administration agreement with North Korea which led to North Korea's development of nuclear weapons. John Edwards lays out in the interview a very "nuanced" plan involving european nations and "heavy sanctions" but the end result is the same, Iran gets to keep its nuclear reactors and is supplied nuclear fuel. The plan would be funny if it weren't so dangerous.

Presently the only people endangered by the plan are John Kerry and John Edwards, because the American people will see this as a repeat of the 1994 North Korea mistake and will see Kerry and Edwards as softer on terror than George Bush. Americans, including typically Democratic voting DFL'ers already see Kerry as soft. Case in point, this article that appeared last week. The reporter, Nick Carter of the Star Tribune, interviews men in a cafe in the heart of DFL country. Of the 26 men in the cafe, 24 have decided to vote for Bush, one for Kerry and one is undecided. These are union guys that almost always pull the "D" lever in the booth. Why have they decided to vote for Bush? A variety of reasons, but the main reason seems to be that people believe kerry would be soft on terror:

I asked Kellas what he would do if Kerry actually came into the restaurant.

"Everybody would be polite," he said, finishing a grilled-cheese sandwich. "But Kerry's got no votes here. I don't like the idea of having to get every other country in the world to agree with us before we go after the terrorists. I like the way we're going after it and rooting it out before it gets here."

"Right," Hartinger said. "Three years and they'd be banging on our door if we don't go after 'em."

"We should just go in there [Iraq] and get it over with rather than just playing around," said the bartender, Lana DiPilato, a single mom whose two boys recently turned 18 and registered with Selective Service. "I don't have a lot of respect for Kerry and I don't like the way his wife influences him. But I don't mind Bush. We've had worse."


The plan outlined by Edwards for Iran will do nothing but strengthen the nothion that the Democratic candidates will not do what it takes to secure the country.

No matter the nuances of the plan, a quick comparison of the Kerry/Edwards plan to the Clinton deal with North Korea will cast it in an unfavorable light with the public, a public that already has doubts about Kerry's ability to defend the country.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Thomas Lipscomb On the Case

The guys at Powerline have recieved an email from Thomas Lipscomb, the reporter that broke the story about the discrepencies in Kerry's records. In the email Mr. Lipscomb states that the Swift Boat Veterans war against John Kerry has just entered a new phase... the US Navy vs John Kerry.

This seems to be getting very serious. It make one wonder when B.G. Burkett, the man who has spent much of his post military life investigating soldiers for fraudulent medals, will get into the fray by investigating John Kerry. He seems to be the person best qualified to lead the charge considering he has investigated hundreds of other cases. Mr. Burkett is quoted in this Thomas Lipscomb article last week. The article states:

B.G. Burkett, a Vietnam veteran himself, received the highest award the Army gives to a civilian, the Distinguished Civilian Service Award, for his book Stolen Valor. Burkett pored through thousands of military service records, uncovering phony claims of awards and fake claims of military service. "I've run across several claims for Silver Stars with combat V's, but they were all in fake records," he said.
Burkett recently filed a complaint that led last month to the sentencing of Navy Capt. Roger D. Edwards to 115 days in the brig for falsification of his records.
Kerry's Web site also lists two different citations for the Silver Star. One was issued by the commander in chief of the Pacific Command (CINCPAC), Adm. John Hyland. The other, issued by Secretary of the Navy John Lehman during the Reagan administration, contained some revisions and additional language. "By his brave actions, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to duty, Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself... ."


And:

Burkett, who has spent years working with the FBI, Department of Justice and all of the military services uncovering fraudulent files in the official records, is less charitable: "The multiple citations and variations in the official record are reason for suspicion in itself, even disregarding the current swift boat veterans' controversy."


Lipscomb has promised the guys at Powerline that he will continue the case even if it takes all summer. He also reiterates that no matter what the kerry Campaign has told the press, John Kerry has not signed the 180 form that would release all of his military records.

The RNC is not going to overshadow the Swift Boat Controversy. If what Thomas Lipscomb says is true, the most serious parts of the story are yet to come, and if B.G. Burkett gets on the case, it will be concluded one way or another.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Kerry Daughters Booed At MTV Awards

You would think that the daughters of the man most musicians have made their choice for president would be hard pressed to find a friendlier atmosphere than the MTV music awards. You would be wrong. When the Kerry daughters got on stage to speak the boos outweighed the cheers so significantly that one of the daughters actually tried to "shhhh" the crowd. Apparently the boos were the loudest when the daughters appealed to the crowd to vote for their father. The musicians may be friendly to the Kerry's, but the average person attending the show apparently isn't. It is possible that this can be chalked up to a crowd not wanting politics injected into their show, but it may also be a troubling sign for the Kerry Campaign. This story coupled with this one from last week seem to point to the fact that the average American hasn't bought Kerry's sell of himself - and it doesn't seem to matter what age group or what part of the country.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Sunday, August 29, 2004

Bush Tax Cuts Benefit Everyone

Despite what the media and the Democrats tell you, the tax cuts signed by President Bush have not shifted the burden of taxes to the middle class. When John Kerry and the Democrats say that the tax cuts were only for the wealthy they are either lying or they are ignorant of the facts, take your pick. The Detroit News ran an op-ed, complete with graphs, that shows just how misleading the statements by the Democrats and John Kerry are. The graphs shows and the op-ed states that the tax burden shifted upward toward the very wealthy after the Bush tax cuts:

The report proves that what President Bush said about his tax cuts is true: “Tax relief is for everyone who pays income taxes.”

It’s true for the rich, and it’s true for the not-so-rich. Across 109.4 million tax-paying households — from the wealthiest 1 percent with incomes averaging over $1 million to the lowest-earning 20 percent of people with incomes averaging $14,900 — the report shows that all income classes have seen their income tax rates lowered thanks to Bush’s cuts in 2001, 2002 and 2003.

The CBO report shows how 2004 income tax rates have dropped for everyone compared with tax laws in force in 2000.

The report also shows that Bush’s tax cuts have been “progressive” — that is, they have shifted the share of the overall federal income tax burden toward the wealthy and away from lower-income earners. Without the Bush tax cuts, the highest-earning 20 percent of households this year would have paid 78.4 percent of all federal income taxes. Now, after the Bush tax cuts, their share of the burden has risen to 82.1 percent. Every other group now pays a smaller share of the total income tax burden.

Another part of the CBO report shows how the income tax burden has shifted upward for the rich and downward for everyone else.


The op-ed takes the Wall Street Journal to task for an article they ran using numbers for which the paper gave the impression came from the CBO report. They did not. The Wall Street Journal actually used an analysis of the actual report by a Democratic Congressional group.

Read the whole thing and pass it to anyone you know who is stillscreaming that the tax cuts were for the wealthy.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Steyn: Bush Holds All the Aces

Mark Steyn has an excellent column in today's London Telegraph (via RealClearPolitics. In it he points out that despite how the media attempts to portray the President, he is a shrewd politician that campaigns the same way he plays poker: he allows his opponent to bet it all on a bad hand. In Kerry's case the bad hand was Vietnam. If the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth had not intervened, it seems unlikely that there would have been a limit to how high Kerry would have built his own Vietnam legend. But they did intervene and the president and his campaign had given him just enough rope to hang himself, and hang he did. He is now swinging by the noose waiting for his sidekick to shoot the rope and save him. The mainsstream media interviewed for the part of the sidekick, but despite their enormous volumn of fire, they could not sever the rope. At this point the only person capable of cutting the rope of Vietnam is Kerry himself. But his hands are tied by the inability to take a postion on any current issue and the fact that he has the most liberal, anti-defense voting record in the Senate. He will either hang by the rope of Vietnam or he will hang by the rope of his Senate record. John Kerry is Tuco, but unfortunately for him, there is no Blondie to shoot him down (If you dont get the reference you need to watch The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly to refresh your memory). To be fair, John Kerry did not need encouragement by the Bush Campaign to tout his record, and they could not have guessed that the Swift Boat Veterans would have provided such a tight noose, but a less shrewd campaigner may have enabled Kerry to walk off the gallows.

The question that keeps the the conspiaracy theorists on the left awake at night is whether or not the President will be able to pull the big ace, the ace in the hole, OBL, out of his sleeve before the election. Probably not, but isn't fun to think about?

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Friday, August 27, 2004

Bellweather Cafe?

Via Powerline. An amazing article from the Star Tribune that could be a good sign for the President.


Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Another Group John Kerry Doesn't Want You To Hear From

Voices from Kerry's past...

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Kerry Lets Foreign Policy Details Leak - Be Scared, Be Very Scared

John Kerry has worked tirelessly to be as vague as possible about his foreign policy. In the past few days several of his policy advisors have given interviews to foreign press agencies and have revealed a few details about what might happen under a Kerry presidency. It is scary. Two articles – the first focuses on Kerry’s plan to give nuclear fuel to Iran – yes that’s right, Iran, and the second focuses on his promise of “dramatic changes” to the Arab world, including the way he would handle the Israeli/Palestinian problem. Read these carefully. They may be the only insight into Kerry foreign policy that is revealed before the election.

Hat tip Little Green Footballs.



Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

The Democrats Get Taken To Task

Hugh Hewitt does a good job taking Peter Beinhart of the New Republic to task for his statements on Hugh’s show yesterday, and also dissects the root of John Kerry’s problems. Stanley Kurtz does the same, stating that John Kerry has coming problems that will make the Swift Boat controversy look like a month at the beach. Kurtz’ point is much the same as the point made on A Time For Choosing, in the post John Kerry, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Why It Matters.

Oliver North has a powerful open letter to John Kerry that the Kerry Campaign will ignore, but it nonetheless sends a powerful message. And it is a reminder that no matter how the press covers for Kerry, the public understands the true nature of the controversy.

RealClearPolitics has a round up of today’s articles, many of which refer to the Swift Boat Controversy. RealClearPolitics also have a run down of all the latest polling data, and it is looking good for the President right now (never be over confident, things will change, the election will be close).

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Discrepancies Revealed In Kerry War Record

It is beginning to look like John Kerry may have good reasons to do everything he can to keep his full military record from the public. In addition to Robert Novak’s damning column today (posted below) the Chicago Sun-Times has yet another article that details discrepancies in John Kerry’s military record and the difficulty of getting all of his files- even after filing a request through the Freedom of Information Act. As you might imagine the article is jammed with traffic and difficult to connect to, so the entire article has been pasted below:

Plot thickens after checking records
August 27, 2004
BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB

In the midst of the controversy between the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Kerry campaign representatives about Kerry's service in Vietnam, new questions have arisen.
The Kerry campaign has repeatedly stated that the official naval records prove the truth of Kerry's assertions about his service.
But the official records on Kerry's Web site only add to the confusion. The DD214 form, an official Defense Department document summarizing Kerry's military career posted on johnkerry.com, includes a "Silver Star with combat V."
But according to a U.S. Navy spokesman, "Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star."
Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a "combat V" for the Silver Star, the third-highest decoration the Navy awards. None of the other services has ever granted a Silver Star "combat V," either.

Fake claims not uncommon


B.G. Burkett, a Vietnam veteran himself, received the highest award the Army gives to a civilian, the Distinguished Civilian Service Award, for his book Stolen Valor. Burkett pored through thousands of military service records, uncovering phony claims of awards and fake claims of military service. "I've run across several claims for Silver Stars with combat V's, but they were all in fake records," he said.
Burkett recently filed a complaint that led last month to the sentencing of Navy Capt. Roger D. Edwards to 115 days in the brig for falsification of his records.
Kerry's Web site also lists two different citations for the Silver Star. One was issued by the commander in chief of the Pacific Command (CINCPAC), Adm. John Hyland. The other, issued by Secretary of the Navy John Lehman during the Reagan administration, contained some revisions and additional language. "By his brave actions, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to duty, Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself... ."

One award, three citations
But a third citation exists that appears to be the earliest. And it is not on the Kerry campaign Web site. It was issued by Vice Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, commander of U.S. naval forces in Vietnam. This citation lacks the language in the Hyland citation or that added by the Lehman version, but includes another 170 words in a detailed description of Kerry's attack on a Viet Cong ambush, his killing of an enemy soldier carrying a loaded rocket launcher, as well as military equipment captured and a body count of dead enemy.
Maj. Anthony Milavic, a retired Marine Vietnam veteran, calls the issuance of three citations for the same medal "bizarre." Milavic hosts Milinet, an Internet forum popular with the military community that is intended "to provide a forum in military/political affairs."
Normally in the case of a lost citation, Milavec points out, the awardee simply asked for a copy to be sent to him from his service personnel records office where it remains on file. "I have never heard of multi-citations from three different people for the same medal award," he said. Nor has Burkett: "It is even stranger to have three different descriptions of the awardee's conduct in the citations for the same award."
So far, there are also two varying citations for Kerry's Bronze Star, one by Zumwalt and the other by Lehman as secretary of the Navy, both posted on johnkerry.com.
Kerry's Web site also carries a DD215 form revising his DD214, issued March 12, 2001, which adds four bronze campaign stars to his Vietnam service medal. The campaign stars are issued for participation in any of the 17 Department of Defense named campaigns that extended from 1962 to the cease-fire in 1973.
However, according to the Navy spokesman, Kerry should only have two campaign stars: one for "Counteroffensive, Phase VI," and one for "Tet69, Counteroffensive."

94 pages of records unreleased?


Reporting by the Washington Post's Michael Dobbs points out that although the Kerry campaign insists that it has released Kerry's full military records, the Post was only able to get six pages of records under its Freedom of Information Act request out of the "at least a hundred pages" a Naval Personnel Office spokesman called the "full file."
What could that more than 100 pages contain? Questions have been raised about President Bush's drill attendance in the reserves, but Bush received his honorable discharge on schedule. Kerry, who should have been discharged from the Navy about the same time -- July 1, 1972 -- wasn't given the discharge he has on his campaign Web site until July 13, 1978. What delayed the discharge for six years? This raises serious questions about Kerry's performance while in the reserves that are far more potentially damaging than those raised against Bush.
Experts point out that even the official military records get screwed up. Milavic is trying to get mistakes in his own DD214 file corrected. In his opinion, "these entries are not prima facie evidence of lying or unethical behavior on the part of Kerry or anyone else with screwed-up DD214s."
Burkett, who has spent years working with the FBI, Department of Justice and all of the military services uncovering fraudulent files in the official records, is less charitable: "The multiple citations and variations in the official record are reason for suspicion in itself, even disregarding the current swift boat veterans' controversy."
Thomas Lipscomb is chairman of the Center for the Digital Future in New York.


The press should demand that Kerry sign the SF 180 that would release all of his records to the public. They demanded it of the President and he released his records. There are clearly discrepencies in Kerry's record and they are clearly an issue. Why won't he release the records? What could be in the records that he does not want the public to see? it seems that if his records would discredit the Swift Boat Veterans he would have released them weeks if not months ago.

Senator Kerry - release your records, end this controversy one way or the other, for the good of the country and the good of the election.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Admiral Schachte Disputes Kerry's First Purple Heart

Retired Rear Adm. William L. Schachte Jr., who had declined to be involved in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth controversy said in his first on the record interview that he was, in fact, in the skimmer on the mission when John Kerry received his first Purple Heart, and he disputes John Kerry's version of that story. The Admiral had declined to be involved with the group, Swift Boat veterans for Truth, but decided to break his silence after seeing Lanny Davis, Democratic spinmeister, question his truthfulness on CNN's Crossfire:

"I was astonished by Kerry's version" [in his book Tour of Duty] of what happened Dec. 2, Schachte said Thursday. When asked to support the Kerry critics in the swift boat controversy, Schachte said, "I didn't want to get involved." But he said he gradually began to change his mind when he saw his own involvement and credibility challenged, starting with Davis on CNN's "Crossfire" on Aug. 12.


Democrats, including Lanny Davis, James Carville and John Kerry have insisted that Schachte was not on the skimmer the night that Kerry received the injury that garnered him his first Purple Heart. In fact, John Kerry produced two enlisted men for the Democratic Convention who said they were in the skimmer with him. These men, Patrick Runyon and William Zaladonis, claim that they were the onlt people in the skimmer with Kerry. However, Robert Novak took it upon himself to call other officers who would know who was aboard the small boat that night. They both stated that Kerry would not have gone on that mission, which was his first combat mission, without Schacte, and that Schacte was, in fact, the originator of the technique of using the small whalers to lure the enemy from the banks:

Grant Hibbard, who as a lieutenant commander was Schachte's superior officer, confirmed that Schachte always went on these skimmer missions and said, "I don't think he [Kerry] was alone" on his first assignment. Hibbard said he had told Kerry to "forget it" when he asked for a Purple Heart.
Ted Peck, another swift boat commander, said, "I remember Bill [Schachte] telling me it didn't happen" -- that is, Kerry getting an enemy-inflicted wound. He said it would be "impossible" for Kerry to have been in the skimmer without Schachte
.

Rear Admiral Schacte contends that Kerry "nicked himself" with a grenade launcher, then requested his first Purple Heart:

"Kerry nicked himself with a M-79 [grenade launcher]," Schachte said in a telephone interview from his home in Charleston, S.C. He said, "Kerry requested a Purple Heart.

Schachte described the use of the skimmer operating very close to shore as a technique that he personally designed to flush enemy forces on the banks of the Mekong River so that the larger swift boats could move in. Around 3 a.m. on Dec. 2, Schachte said, the skimmer -- code-named "Batman" -- fired a hand-held flare. He said that after Kerry's M-16 rifle jammed, the new officer picked up the M-79 and, "I heard a 'thunk.' There was no fire from the enemy," he said.

Grant Hibbard, who as a lieutenant commander was Schachte's superior officer, confirmed that Schachte always went on these skimmer missions and said, "I don't think he [Kerry] was alone" on his first assignment. Hibbard said he had told Kerry to "forget it" when he asked for a Purple Heart

This is devastating for the Kerry Campaign. Will they go on public TV and call this retired Rear Admiral a liar or a schill? Will they try to tie him to the Bush Campaign? How will Lanny Davis and James Carville, the men who Kerry let so casually malign the Admiral on national TV, respond to this? How will they spin to defend Kerry?

If John Kerry is forced to admit this is true how will he explain the two men he presented at the DNC? His campaign and his lapdogs in the press have maintained that none of the people disputing Kerry's Vietnam War claims ever actually served on his boat. That is categorically false, as evidenced by the new Swift Boat Veterans ad, and now a retired Admiral has come forth to say that he was on the boat with Kerry for his for his first Purple Heart, and that Kerry has been dishonest about it. If Kerry does retract his version of the story it will be the second claim made by Kerry, disputed by the Swiftees that Kerry has had to retract. Will the press ever start to question Kerry's trustworthiness? Will Chris Matthews bring Lanny Davis on his show and berate him as he did John O'Neill? Of course not, Democrats make a living from ignoring and distorting reality.

There is a larger question however. John Kerry served only four months in Vietnam. Now he has based his entire campaign on those four months. He left his "band of brothers" behind and returned home only to slander them in front of the senate and in anti-war rallies across the country. Kerry was only allowed to leave because he had gotten three Purple Hearts. Now it seems that at least one of the Purple Hearts was, quite frankly, bogus. How will the veterans of the war who completed multiple full tours respond to Kerry after this? They stayed behind, risked life and limb to serve one or more tours, yet a man running for President skirted the system so he could go home.

There is rumor that Kerry will try to go on national television to issue some sort of apology for slandering the troops 35 years ago (although he stood by his statements earlier this year when they were not political liabilities). The apology would not have been warmly received before the statement by the Admiral, as veterans would see it for what it is - political opportunism. But how can he do it now, with the discovery that he received at least one bogus Purple Heart, used it to get out of Vietnam and lied about it for 35 years?

The press will do all they can to bury this story. The Democrats will spin and attack the Admiral because to a Democrat no one is beyond character assassination for political gain. But Kerry will have to respond to the Admiral. What will he say? What he always says: My name is John Kerry, and I served in Vietnam! One thing today, something else tomorrow.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.


Thursday, August 26, 2004

Kerry Admitted To Writing Own Combat Reports

John Kerry admitted to writing his own Combat reports in testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in testimony in 1971. This goes along way in explaining the descrepincies between the combat reports released by the Kerry Campaign and the eyewitness accounts of the events as told by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. From the article:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry’s 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee reveals that the then anti-war activist admitted to writing many of the battle reports during his four months of combat in Vietnam.

Kerry told the committee on April 22, 1971, “...I can recall often sending in the spot reports which we made after each mission...”

Kerry also said that many in the military had “a tendency to report what they want to report and see what they want to see.”

Kerry’s comments about the battle reports came in response to a question from then Senator Stuart Symington (D- Mo.), who wondered about the accuracy of information from military sources.

According to the testimony , which is available in the Congressional Record, Sen. Symington asked Kerry, “Mr. Kerry, from your experience in Vietnam do you think it is possible for the President or Congress to get accurate and undistorted information through official military channels.[?]”

Kerry responded, “I had direct experience with that. Senator, I had direct experience with that and I can recall often sending in the spot reports which we made after each mission; and including the GDA, gunfire damage assessments, in which we would say, maybe 15 sampans sunk or whatever it was. And I often read about my own missions in the Stars and Stripes and the very mission we had been on had been doubled in figures and tripled in figures.

Kerry later added, ”I also think men in the military, sir, as do men in many other things, have a tendency to report what they want to report and see what they want to see."



Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Stolen Honor

There is a new documentary out called, Stolen Honor which features POW's talking about John Kerry. The site contains clips of the testimonials, and claims to contain new information about Kerry's service record.

The clips are very damning and the men testifying are unimpeachable witnesses, as they were the men who were imprisoned and tortured, several for as long as 7 years.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Swift Boat Veterans For Truth Release Third Ad

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have released their third ad. Watch it here. This ad references Kerry's decades long assertion that he spent Christmas in Cambodia and refutes his later claims of running secret missions delivering CIA officers, Navy Seals and guns.

There are supposedly more ads on the way.

Partial Birth Abortion Ban Overturned

A federal court has overturned the Partial Birth Abortion Ban today, stating that it is unconstitutional. If you like Judicial tyranny, vote for Kerry.

Kerry Campaign Seeks Shelter from The Swift Boat Veterans - From John Ashcroft

First John Kerry used the "Daddy Make it Go Away" tactic when by trying to hide behind the President, now the Democrats have asked the Attorney General to launch an investigation of the ties between the Bush Campaign and the Swift Boat Vetereans, and the Kerry Campaign continues to claim that they are somehow working together illegally. The Kerry Campaign obviously does not realize that this type of retaliation has just as negative an impact on his campaign as the Swift Boat Veterans themselves. So far Kerry has attacked the Swift Boat Veterans, sent a threatening letter to radio and TV stations who ran their ad and asked that bookstores not carry the book, demanded the President condemn this 527 group (ignoring the groups that have run anti-Bush ads), called for an FEC investigation, sent Max Cleland to Texas in a stunt, and now has called for a criminal investigation by the Justice Department. The only thing he has not done is answer the questions.

Hey Senator Kerry, here's an idea! Agree to release all of your records as the President did when your campaign questioned his service, then stop whining and answer the questions. It seems pretty strightforward.

Update:

The Democrats are claiming that John O'Neill is a liar because he told President Nixon:

"I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border,"


He told the President that in 1971. He has said this year that he was not in Cambodia, and that he statement was unclear to Nixon, but that he was on the borger, not in Cambodia. It does not matter. The American people are now seeing John Kerry's own words from 1971 on their TV screens. The more John Kerry's Campaign calls the Veterans liars, the more the public will be disgusted. There is apparently a new Swift Vet Ad on the way. This one will supposedly feature POWs who first heard Kerry's testimony while being tortured. It will hard for the Kerry Campaign to call those men liars, although they are sure to try.

Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit has excellent analysis of this part of the story. O'Neill explains his statement, and the episode adds up to nothing, but look for the press and the Kerry Campaign to spin and spin.


Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Bob Dole's Devastating Impact On the Kerrry Campaign

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have had a significant impact on the Kerry Campaign. The impact is beginning to show in the polls. However, perhaps the most devastating statement to the Kerry Campaign has come not from the Swift Boat Veterans but from one of the most liked, respected, level-headed, soft-spoken, least partisan partisans to ever walk the halls of the Senate. Bob Dole. Bob Dole is all of those things plus a severely wounded WWII veteran to boot. His wounds are so severe that he has little to no use of his right arm. Bob Dole made his views on the Swift Boat Controversy and more importantly, John Kerry's reaction to it, known on CNN's Late Edition Monday night. The appearance made headlines and has had an impact on the race. Bob Dole made another appearance, this time on MSNBC's “Scarborough Country".

He gave an interview and it is likely to have as much impact on the electorate as the ads run by the Swift Boat Veterans. Below are excerpts:

-So this time you’ve got a candidate named John Kerry who had a good record in Vietnam, came back from the service, denounced the war, in effect, trashed the Americans who were still fighting there. Went before a Senate committee in April of 1971, threw away his ribbons or his medals or whatever and now is standing before the American people and saying you’ve got to elect me because I’m this Vietnam hero.

And it’s kind of hard to reconcile all of these things. So it does sort of bring up focus that I don’t think we’ve had in the past.

-I think you can do it in a different way, John Kerry’s a friend of mine. I sent a signal about two or three months ago on television, “John, back off. You know, cool it. Don’t make the Vietnam War the centerpiece of your campaign.”

But he’s got a problem, because he spent 20 years in the Senate and doesn’t have much to show for it.

-I said, “Well, John, I’m disappointed, too, in all these undeserved attacks on President Bush. If you want to question Dick Cheney’s deferment, that’s fine. If you want to question the National Guard, that’s fine. But John, these other guys, these swift boat veterans are a lot of them that have a different view of what happened than you have, and they have a right to speak. We live in the United States of America. It’s a free country. You may not like what they say, but they have a right to say it.”

-He said, “I haven’t spent one dime in my campaign on a negative ad.”
Well, he doesn’t have to. He’s got George Soros, who put in $15 million. He’s got Harold Ickes up there cranking out millions of dollars of ads. He’s got his former campaign manager in Boston in another group called Bringing America Together.
President Bush to his credit, and I wish John Kerry would follow suit, said, “Let’s stop all these so-called 527 ads, all these soft money ads that have been so critical. Let’s talk about the issues.”

Why are the words of Bob Dole so devastating for the Kerry Campaign? Because they are true, and because they are delivered in a way that is not offensive to undecideds and independents. Only the most hardened, leftist, Bush Hating Kerry supporters will not admit that what Bob Dole has said in his two public appearances is true. They may not like the fact that it is being said, but they know that it is true.

The Swift Boat Ads have accomplished two things. They have allowed the American people, many for the first time, to see that there is another side to John Kerry's Vietnam Service. Many people were not aware of John Kerry's 1971 testimony to the Senate. They weren't aware that while we had POW's being tortured and men dying on the field that John Kerry was running around the country leading protests and meeting with the North Vietnamese. John Kerry never talks about those things when he is telling crowds about his medals.

The ads have also highlighted the fact that John Kerry has nothing to run on but his four months in Vietnam. The record he has tallied in the Senate in the past 20 years is almost unbelievable. He has been on the wrong side of every national security issue, he has voted to raise taxes every chance he has had, and he has supported the most extreme abortion legislation with every vote. If he is forced to run on his record, the election is over. His only chance for victory was to convince the American people that he could be a strong leader because he served in Vietnam. Now people are realizing that he cannot reconcile his campaigning as a war hero with what he did when he returned. Bob Dole has pointed that out in a way no one else had, and it has made an impact on the campaign.

Wednesday, August 25, 2004

A Dog Named VC

Via Hugh Hewitt. Apparently Kerry told the Humane Society that he had a dog on his Swift Boat named VC, and it was thrown overboard in a mine blast that was never reported in action reports. The story is from Jim McCaslin at the Washington Times:

VC surfaces
A new four-legged angle -- actually a dog named "VC" -- has suddenly materialized surrounding Sen. John Kerry's swift boat service in Vietnam.
In a 2004 presidential candidate questionnaire for Humane USA, Mr. Kerry was asked whether any pets have had an impact on his life.
"I have always had pets in my life, and there are a few that I remember very fondly," Mr. Kerry replied. "When I was serving on a Swift Boat in Vietnam, my crewmates and I had a dog we called VC.
"One day as our Swift Boat was heading up a river, a mine exploded hard under our boat," he continued. "After picking ourselves up, we discovered VC was MIA (missing in action). Several minutes of frantic search followed, after which we thought we'd lost him. We were relieved when another boat called asking if we were missing a dog."
Said Mr. Kerry: "It turns out VC was catapulted from the deck of our boat and landed, confused but unhurt, on the deck of another boat in our patrol."
J.J. Scheele, program director of Humane USA, confirmed yesterday that her organization did, in fact, receive the above statement from the Kerry campaign.
No military records on Mr. Kerry's Web site, which aides say is a complete accounting, mention a mine exploding under his boat or any dog. The only report of a mine detonating "near" Mr. Kerry's PCF 94 was March 13, 1969, when Mr. Kerry says he was injured and a man knocked overboard.


Unbelievable. Perhaps this should be handled the way the college prefessor handled the four college students who claimed they were late for a test because they had a flat tire. In the joke the teacher puts two questions on their test, the second worth 99 points was: Which tire was flat?

Perhaps Kerry's crew should be separated and asked: What type of dog was it?

Be sure to check current posts for updates.


John Kerry Uses Max Cleland



John Kerry is a pathetic candidate. He is unable to stand up for himself and answer the questions posed about his service. He has yet to release his military records, he has yet to account for how it is possible that he could have "misremembered" being in Cambodia on Christmas of 1968. His campaign has ceded the fact that his first purple heart was caused by a "unintentional, self-inflicted wound". He has avoided the press for the last two weeks, restricting his appearances to campaign rallies and late night comedy shows where has been unable to answer the questions posed by a friendly comedic host. He has attacked the Swift Boat Veterans, filed lawsuits, and sought protection by the president.

But this is a new low. He has talked Max Cleland, former Senator from Georgia who lost three limbs in an accident in Vietnam, into making himself a spectacle before the world in a stunt meant to take the edge off the Swift Boat Veterans campaign against him. He sent Cleland to President Bush's Crawford, Texas ranch to deliver a letter demanding that the Swift Boat Veterans cease their actions. This may be an all time low in political campaign history. John Kerry has done everything in his power to discredit the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The only thing he has not done is answer their questions.

Update:

The Bush Campaign has responded with a letter.


Update:


White House slams stunt.

Be sure to check the current posts for more updates.

John Kerry - Hypocrite



John Kerry would never allow someone to question the President's service during the Vietnam War. No, never. And his campaign would certainly never be involved in questioning the President's service. No way, not in a million years.

John Kerry - hypocrite.

Stunts, Not Facts, For Kerry

John Kerry's latest ploy to try to rebut the Swift Vets and tie them to the President is, to use his word, pathetic. The Kerry Campaign is actually dispatching two veterans, Former Senator Max Cleland and Jim Rassman, the man Kerry pulled from the water in Vietnam, to President Bush’s Crawford Ranch to deliver a letter demanding that he condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The level of desperation in this stunt is mind blowing. Hey Senator Kerry I have an idea, why don’t you just answer the questions and release your military records?

The Reuters article also does its bit to perpetuate the lie that because Benjamin Ginsberg, a lawyer for the Bush Campaign also advises the Swift Vets there is an illegal connection between the two. It never mentions the DNC lawyers who advise groups like MoveOn.org and Americans Coming Together. That would not fit their agenda, so it is left out of the story.

John Kerry has limited his public appearances to friendly campaign rallies and appearances on late night comedy shows, where he still can’t answer a question. Kerry has reason to worry, the polls are tightening, he has lost his lead in battleground states and Drudge is reporting the Unfit For Command is the number one book in the nation. Kerry’s entire campaign is based on the fact that he served four months in Vietnam. If he loses that as an issue what will he run on, his record in the Senate? As John Kerry would say, "Bring it On"!

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

Kerry's War Journal Refutes His First Purple Heart Claim

John Kerry's own war journal seems to refute the claims he has made regarding his first Purple Heart. He recieved that purple heart for a wound he recieved on December 2, 1968. But in his own war journal the entry dated December 11, 1968 states that he had recieved no enemy fire:

"A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky,"


This is according to the book, Tour of Duty, written by biographer Doug Brinkley.

According to military regulations, purple hearts can only be earned by recieving injuries as the result of enemy fire:

"The Purple Heart is awarded to members of the armed forces of the U.S. who are wounded by an instrument of war in the hands of the enemy,"
Mr. Kerry has also claimed that he faced his "first intense combat" that day, received his "first combat related injury." An unnamed campaign official gave this impossible to understand explanation of the journal entry:


A Kerry campaign official, speaking on background, told The Washington Times yesterday that the "we" in the passage from Mr. Kerry's journal refers to "the crew on Kerry's first swift boat, operating as a crew" rather than Mr. Kerry himself.
"John Kerry didn't yet have his own boat or crew on December 2," according to the aide. "Other members of the crew had been in Vietnam for some time and had been shot at and Kerry knew that at the time. However, the crew had not yet been fired on while they served together on PCF 44 under Lieutenant Kerry."


Apparently this campaign official formerly worked for the Clinton Administration because it seems that the answer depends on what the definition of the word "we" is. Later the Kerry Campaign admitted that it is possible that the first Purple Heart was from an "unintentional, self-inflicted wound" in an interview with the Fox News Channels Major Garrett:

"Is it possible that Kerry's first Purple Heart was the result of an unintentionally self-inflicted wound?" asked reporter Major Garrett.
"Anything is possible," Mr. Hurley replied.


Hurley is the Kerry Campaigns John Hurley, national leader of Veterans for Kerry.

Why does this matter, beyond the fact that John Kerry is running for President of the United states based on the fact that he served for four months in Vietnam? It matters because it is a huge boost in credability for the Swift Boat Veterans. They have now challenged John Kerry on two key issues, Christmas in Cambodia, which John Kerry had to retract after 30 years, and now the first Purple Heart, which the Kerry Campaign is now admitting may have come from an "unintentional, self-inflicted wound". Kerry is 0 for 2, the Swift Boat veterans are batting 1000, yet John Kerry is still on the campaign trail calling them liars and touting his service in Vietnam.

If the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were to end their campaign against John Kerry today, their actions would still have served a useful function. Beyond the medals and even beyond Christmas in Cambodia, they have exposed how little John Kerry has to run on beyond his four months in Vietnam. That is all he has as a biography. If he ran on his actions after the war, including his 19 years in the senate, he would have never made out of the primaries.

The Swift Boat Veterans have also managed to expose the media for what it is in a way that few other stories have been able to do. Elite journalism is made up of elitist lefties, who have been driven in the open by this story. Can Chris Matthews ever claim to be unbiased again? Does the New York Times have any credibility left after it ignored the Swift Boat Veterans and the fact that they had forced John Kerry to retract his Cambodia story until they unleashed a hit piece on them? Does the AP? Can anyone ever again deny the power of the blogosphere on driving news stories?

The Swift Boat Veterans have accomplished a lot in the past two weeks despite the media campaign against them, and despite the fact that Senator Kerry has done nothing but slander them, much like he did 35 years ago. He has yet to answer their questions. He has yet to release his military record. The Swiftees have accomplished a lot, and unfortunatley for Mr. Kerry they are not finished.

Challenge To Readers

The challenge is easy. Read this article then state John Kerry's position on the War in Iraq. Leave your explanation of his position as a comment. That's it, should be easy right?

Tuesday, August 24, 2004

AP Runs Interference For Kerry - Again

The Associated Press is biased. They are biased and they mislead their readers. This article is a perfect example. The title of the article is, "Attorney Works for Bush, Anti-Kerry Group". It is intended to make the reader think there is an illegal link between the Bush Administration and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth as alleged by John Kerry and the spinmeisters in the Democratic Party have alleged. The article begins with these two paragraphs:

WASHINGTON - A lawyer for President Bush (news - web sites)'s re-election campaign disclosed Tuesday that he has been providing legal advice for a veterans group that is challenging Democratic Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites)'s account of his Vietnam War service.

Benjamin Ginsberg's acknowledgment marks the second time in days that an individual associated with the Bush-Cheney campaign has been connected to the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which Kerry accuses of being a front for the Republican incumbent's re-election effort.


So the title of the article and the first two paragraphs lead the reader to the same conclusion about the association of the Swift Boat Veterans and the Bush Campaign. It is not until the last five paragraphs that you learn that it is legal under the FEC for a attorney to advise a soft money group and a campaign. Then in the last two paragraphs, the AP includes a very interesting quote:

Joe Sandler, a lawyer for the DNC and a group running anti-Bush ads, MoveOn.org, said there is nothing wrong with serving in both roles at once.

In addition to the FEC's coordination rules, attorneys are ethically bound to maintain attorney-client confidentiality, Sandler said. They could lose their law license if they violate that, he said.


Yes, you read it right. The AP includes a quote by a lawyer for both the DNC and MoveOn.org, a 527 group running anti-bush ads, who says there is nothing wrong with serving both roles at once. So what is the story? There is no story. What Joe Sandler and Benjamin Ginsberg do is perfectly legal under the FEC. The entire point of the article and the title is to plant the seed in the mind of a person skimming headlines that there is illegal collusion between the Bush Campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The AP writer, Sharon Theimer, has constructed her article in a way to have the maximum negative impact on the Bush Campaign. The title of the article could have just as easily read, "Attorney Works for Kerry, Anti-Bush Group". An honest reporter interested in something other than damaging the Bush Administration would have titled the article, "Both Parties Employ Advisors to Soft Money Groups" or something to that effect. But reporting the truth is not the point, advancing the Democratic Party is the point - even if it means having no journalistic integrity. If such a thing exists anymore.

Update:

Beldar also has coverage of Pot Calls Kettle Black story. It seems that the Democrats share more than one lawyer with more than one 527 group.

Be sure to check the current posts for updates.

One Airliner Down, One Missing In Russia

One airliner has crashed and another is missing in Russia. The two planes were carrying approximately 100 passengers and crew total. There are also reports of a bomb detonation at a Moscow bus station.

John Kerry Continues To Call Names

Yesterday the president made a public statement condemning all outside negative advertising by 527 groups. At the same time he praised Kerry’s service in Vietnam. The Kerry Campaign had been calling on the President to condemn specifically the Swift Boat Veterans, (Powerline is calling this the “Daddy make it go away defense”) ignoring the $60 million in negative advertising spent by pro-Kerry groups. The news agencies are running the President’s condemnation as front page news, hoping that it will serve to discredit the Swift Boat Veterans. Of course it won’t. Kerry will never agree to condemn all 527 ads and ask that they be pulled from the air because he is relying on groups like Moveon.org to continue to run ads against the President. And the President’s condemnation of the ads does not take away the essential truth behind them, that a man that previously railed against the Vietnam War and the Veterans of that war is now basing his entire campaign on the fact that he served in that war. The Presidents condemnation simply serves to show what a fraud Kerry actually is. Kerry wants to silence his critics, while allowing the Presidents critics to have free run of the airwaves. This is proven by the fact that despite the fact that the President condemned the ads and praised Kerry’s service, Kerry is still attacking the president and the veterans as a smear machine and front group for the Bush campaign. John Kerry knows that there is no relationship between the president and the Swift Boat Veterans, but it apparently is his only defense. He refuses to release his journal and his military records. If he did that many of these issues might be cleared up. Why won’t he release all of his records? Why won’t he simply answer the charges and stop calling names? Why has he decided to hide behind the skirt of his allies in the media and the President. Until he adequately answers the questions posed he is, in effect, hiding behind the President, asking him to protect him from the same types of groups he uses to attack. “Daddy, make it go away”, is not a very presidential stand for a candidate to make.

Swift Vets Reject Kerry

Things are not getting better for the Kerry Campaign. Drudge is running several stories that are apparently just breaking. The first is that Kerry tried to reach out to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth with a phone call. The call was apparently prompted by Bob Dole’s criticism of Kerry and his call for Kerry to apologize to all veterans of Vietnam. It is not likely that the Swift Boat Vets will be receptive to Kerry after what they see as 30 years of slanders and lies directed towards them.

A second and potentially more devastating story is the Kerry Campaign is now conceding the fact that Kerry’s first Purple Heart may have been earned by an “unintentional, self-inflicted wound”. Powerline is pointing out that Captain Ed has been on this story for a while. Kerry’s own journal entry from nine days after he received the first purple heart states that he and his boat have yet to be fired upon. If Kerry is forced to admit that he has in effect lied about that Purple Heart for the last 30 years, including in this campaign, it will be devastating. He will be admitting that in yet another case (Christmas in Cambodia was the first verified lie) the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth version of events is true and his version was fabricated. Let’s not forget as well it was the fact that he received three purple hearts that allowed him to leave Vietnam after only four months. It is not for civilians who have never served, or even for veterans who were not there to question whether or not any veteran deserved a medal they received. However, many of the Swift Boat Veterans were there and they have every right to question Kerry’s version of events.

The more important issue is one of credibility. John Kerry has been challenged on two issues by the Swift Vets so far, and he has had to retract one story and appears to be about to retract the second. His credibility is sinking, the Swift Vets is rising, and all John Kerry can do is call them names. Not a good situation for Kerry.

Bad News For John Kerry

The Wall Street Journal has finally weighed in on the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Controversy, and it is not good news for John Kerry. It begins:

The issue here, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be. . . . Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question.

--John Kerry, questioning President Bush's
military-service record, February 8, 2004.

A good rule in politics is that anyone who picks a fight ought to be prepared to finish it. But having first questioned Mr. Bush's war service, and then made Vietnam the core of his own campaign for President, Mr. Kerry now cries No mas! because other Vietnam vets are assailing his behavior before and after that war. And, by the way, Mr. Bush is supposedly honor bound to repudiate them.

We've tried to avoid the medals-and-ribbons fight ourselves, except to warn Mr. Kerry that he was courting precisely such scrutiny ("Kerry's Medals Strategy," February 9). But now that the Senator is demanding that the Federal Election Commission stifle his opponents' free speech, this one is too rich to ignore


Ouch. Read the whole thing.

Also this morning, Joshua Muravchik writes in the Washington Post on Kerry's Cambodia lie. It ends with this paragraph:

But Kerry has repeated his Cambodia tale throughout his adult life. He has claimed that the epiphany he had that Christmas of 1968 was about truthfulness. "One of the things that most struck me about Vietnam was how people were lied to," he explained in a subsequent interview. If -- as seems almost surely the case -- Kerry himself has lied about what he did in Vietnam, and has done so not merely to spice his biography but to influence national policy, then he is surely not the kind of man we want as our president.


John O'Sullivan of the Chicago Sun Times also joins in the fray with an article about the Cambodia fabrication.

This is bad news for John Kerry. The main stream media is just now getting to the Cambodia story and already the Vets have taken a toll on the Kerry Campaign in the polls. The new Swift Vets ad leaves the medals and Cambodia controversy and begins using John Kerry's own words against him. At the rate that the media has covered this story, the new ad won't have it impact for at least a week maybe more. It will hit just as the RNC begins. It could be a bad few weeks for Kerry.

John Kerry, The Swift Boat Veterans For Truth and the Rise of the Blogosphere

The Kerry Campaign is floundering on the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth. August was a bad month for the Kerry camp as this timeline clearly shows. When John Kerry was forced to make a statement about the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth he went with the tried and true Democratic response, he attacked the messenger and claimed right wing conspiracy by attempting to link the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to the Bush Campaign. To that point the media had done its dutiful best to keep the fact that John Kerry had been caught in a whopper of a lie away from the eyes of the general public. The press was arrogant in believing that the strangle hold they had had on the flow of information was as tight as it had been for the last 100 years. Besides, no one listens to the right-wing nuts on talk radio anyway, right? But Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Katie Couric et al had underestimated a powerful new force in media. A force that is reaching millions of Americans on a daily basis, a force that provides instant fact-checking abilities to the reader, yet unlike the nightly news proudly admits to bias in one direction or the other. The Blogosphere. The Blogosphere was able to push the story into the "main stream' by sheer force of numbers. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth produced and ad and a book, a sample chapter of which was available online. In that chapter there was one claim that had been made by Kerry dozens of times that seemed implausible, that he had spent Christmas of 1968 illegally in Cambodia. The blogosphere then did what reporters in the main stream press used to do: they investigated the claim using readily available public sources. Bloggers then posted their findings on the internet, complete with sources, for the world to read - and the world read. One blog alone, Instapundit, received over 250,000 hits yesterday. There are newspapers in this country that wish they could get their circulation back to that number. John Kerry ignored the fact that he had been caught in a lie, and the mainstream press ignored the story completely. But much to their surprise, millions of Americans were talking about the story. They knew John Kerry was caught in a lie of major proportions. A stunned Kerry was forced to respond and an even more stunned press was forced to cover the story.

Much to the chagrin of big media, the blogosphere has come of age.

Monday, August 23, 2004

North Korean Government Endorses John Kerry

A spokesman for the North Korean Government unleashed a tirade against President Bush on Monday calling him a tyrant, and an imbecile who "puts Hitler in the Shade". There is nothing unusual about this rhetoric. The North Korean Government usually talks in feverish tones. There are six way talks scheduled for September or October, but it looks as though the talks have stalled as the North Koreans are waiting to see who they will have to work with, George Bush or John Kerry:

"The negotiating process is stalled. It is clear they have just refused to participate in talks before the American presidential election," said Alexander Losyukov, who was Russia's negotiator at the talks until this past spring and is now Russia's ambassador to Japan.

The North Koreans have a lot to gain from a John Kerry win in November and they know it. John Kerry has already stated that he would resume bilateral talks with the North Koreans and would provide them with nuclear fuel oil. That is exactly the same type of agreement struck with the North Koreans by the Clinton administration in 1994. An agreement that the Bush administration discovered they had started cheating on before the ink had dried on the contract. I t had been reported several months ago that Kim Jong Il, the leader of North Korea, broadcast John Kerry speeches to the citizens of North Korea. The North Korean government has now given John Kerry an open endorsement, according to Kenneth Quinones, a former U.S. diplomat who was in Pyongyang this month for a Korean studies conference:

"The North Koreans made it very clear, politely, that they want Mr. Kerry to win the election. North Koreans are going to play wait-and-see," Quinones added in an interview in Tokyo.

If you are a Democrat you have to ask yourself why one of the most brutal regimes in the world, a regime that is responsible for mass starvation of its people, a regime that produces and deals in WMD, that still holds a captured American warship, one of the last Stalinist regimes in the world, would endorse your candidate for the presidency.

President Bush Denounces Ads- Commends Kerry's Service

President Bush denounced all negative TV ads by outside groups today from hid Crawford Ranch. The president also commended Kerrys service in Vietnam saying:
"I think Senator Kerry served admirably and he ought to be proud of his record."


The Bush Administration has been on the recieving end of over $60 million in ads from outsode groups, mostly 527 groups. The swift Boat Veterans For Truth have run two ads costing around $100,000. Despite the relatively small amount of money spent by the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth, the Kerry Campaign has denounced the group, run ads that claim there is a link between the group and the Bush Campaign and have filed an FEC complaint against the Swift Vets and the Bush Campaign alleging illiegal ties and cooperation. They have done this depite lack of evidence, as a way to try to accuse the President of running a smear campaign. They have also done this despite the many intricate and close links between the Kerry Campaign and many 527 groups responsible for the ads against the President.

The President has denounced all of the ads. John Kerry should now proceed to talk more about his record in the Senate and less about his four months in Vietnam. If he feels the need to respond to the Swift Boat Veterans he should do so, and he should join the President in the request for all outside groups, including the many who have spent millions in advertising on his behalf, to pull the ads.

John Kerry, The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Why It Matters

John Kerry chose to make his four and one half months in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign for the presidency. He finds a way to work the topic into almost every stump speech, and often flies several of the eight or nine veterans he served with who support him around the country to appear at rallies. When he took the stage at the DNC to give his acceptance speech, he began by saluting and exclaiming that he was John Kerry and he was "reporting for duty". His 55-minute speech was a walk down the memory lane of the Vietnam War with very few lines dedicated to his 25+ years as an elected official, including his 19 in the Senate.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth oppose John Kerry. They are a group of 254 Veterans, many of whom served at John Kerry's side in Vietnam and at least one who served on John Kerry's Boat. They assert that John Kerry lied about his record in Vietnam and that he was awarded several of his medals based on false information given to the Navy by Kerry. They also claim that John Kerry's anti-war statements after his return to the United States was a slander to the veterans of that war.

The debate on the merits of John Kerry's medals can be made by the Swift Boat veterans for Truth because many of them were present and saw first hand what happened. For others who were not there, and especially for civilians who have never served, the medal debate should be off limits. John Kerry has not released his journal from the war, nor has he, contrary to his own statements, released all of his military records. Even if the records were released it is unlikely that the medal debate would ever be resolved. The medal debate is a sidelight. The much more important discussion is of John Kerry's anti-war actions upon his return to the United States and his subsequent political career.

After returning from Vietnam, John Kerry became a leader of a group called Vietnam Veterans Against the war (click here for a timeline and history of the group, including John Kerry's actions). The group staged protests and anti-war rallies. It was as a member leader of that group that John Kerry famously threw his medals (although now he says they were actually not medals, but ribbons, and they belonged to somebody else) over the fence of the White House. John Kerry authored a book called "The New Soldier", the dust cover of which featured a group of longhaired and scraggly men in torn fatigues hoisting an upside down American Flag - an attempt to mock the famous scene of Marines hoisting the flag on Iwo Jima in World War II. On April 18th, 1971, John Kerry appears on Meet the Press and admits to committing war crimes:

"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages."


January 31-February 2, 1971 Vietnam Veterans Against the War held the "Winter Soldier Investigation" during which over 100 soldiers gave testimony of war crimes committed under orders and as a matter of policy. It was later found that many of those who testified were never even in the military, much less veterans of combat in Vietnam. It was further discovered that many of those who were actually veterans, who claimed to have been in combat weren't. Based on this "investigation" John Kerry testified, under oath, before the Senate on April 22, 1971. During this sworn testimony Kerry states:

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.

It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit, the emotions in the room, the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam, but they did. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped 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 countryside 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.

We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

And:

I would like to talk to you a little bit about what the result is of the feelings these men carry with them after coming back from Vietnam. The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history; men who have returned With a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped.

It would be almost a full year after this testimony before hundreds of American POW were released.

On November 12-15, 1971 the VVAW meet in Kansas City where they debate and then vote down a plan to assassinate several pro-war US senators. John Kerry later denied being present at the meeting, but subsequent eyewitness accounts, meeting minutes and FBI files reveal that he was there. It is just after this meeting that Kerry resigns from the Executive Committee of VVAW, but he continued to represent the group at rallies and in speaking engagements.

John Kerry began his political career during this time, winning a primary for a congressional race but ultimately losing the seat to his Republican opponent in 1972. After graduating from Boston College law school in 1976 Kerry became a prosecutor for Middlesex County, Massachussets. He was elected Lt. Governor of Massachusetts in 1982, serving under Governor Michael Dukakis. His political career, rooted in his radical anti-war days had begun.

John Kerry ran for Lt. Governor in a race that featured former Massachusetts Governor Edward J. King running to retake the office he held four years before against Mike Dukakis. Kerry , unwilling to take a side, offered supporters a choice of campaign buttons: one that read "King/Kerry" and another that read "Dukakis/Kerry". Dukakis won the race, and Kerry won the LT. Governor race.

As Lt. Governor John Kerry authored an executive order, signed by Michael Dukakis that declared that in the event of a successful nuclear strike against the United States, the state of Massachussetts would offer the Federal Government no help in civil defense efforts. The document read, in part:

"Whereas the existing and potential strength of nuclear weapons is such that nuclear war can neither be won nor survived, it can only be prevented; and Whereas the only effective defense against the horrors of nuclear weapons lies in their elimination and in the prevention of nuclear war or attacks, [the Commonwealth of Massachusetts] shall seek to ensure the safety of its citizens by pursuit of policies reflecting a serious commitment to prevention of nuclear war."

John Kerry's support of a nuclear freeze was only beginning. Paul Tsongas soon announced that illness would force him to give up his Senate seat, and Kerry soon jumped into the race, running on a nuclear freeze platform and calling for the elimination of such weapons as the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, AH-64 Apache helicopter, Patriot missile, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser, and the Trident missile system, the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile, and the F-16 jet. It was also in this campaign that Kerry first turned to his Vietnam Service for help in a political race. His campaign theme was "War and Peace", with the emphasis on the peace. With the help of Vietnam Vets who followed his opponent around the state looking for ways to pick fights, Kerry was able to defeat his opponent and win the primary and the Senate seat. (Taken from the series John Kerry: The Making of a Candidate from the Boston Globe )

Kerry won the senate seat and began opposing Ronald Reagan at every turn. He opposed the buildup of Pershing Missiles in Europe, a strategy employed by the Reagan Administration to counter the Soviet SS-20 missile placements in Eastern Europe and to force the Soviet Union into a crippling arms race. In 985, John Kerry introduced The Comprehensive Nuclear Freeze Bill, and sponsored two amendments to freeze the Strategic Defense Initiative- related nuclear development.

Kerry went on to support Daniel Ortega, the Communist Sandinista leader of Nicaragua - to the point of flying to Nicaragua in 1986 with Senator Tom Harkin - to meet with him. Kerry led the fight to stop the Reagan Administrations War to oust the communist government. Kerry called the contras, the anti communist forces fighting forces of Ortega, a “mercenary army” financed by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). In an echo of his accusations about U.S. actions in Vietnam, Kerry charged that the contras had been “guilty of atrocities against civilians".

Kerry was also opposed to the US invasion of Grenada after its fall to Marxist rebels, from the Boston Globe:

Kerry was scornful, for instance, of the Grenada invasion, launched by Reagan the previous October to evacuate US medical students after a Marxist-backed military coup on the Caribbean island.

At one point he likened it to "Boston College playing football against the Sisters of Mercy." Earlier, Kerry told The Cape Codder newspaper:

"The invasion of Grenada represents the Reagan policy of substituting public relations for diplomatic relations . . . no substantial threat to US interests existed and American lives were not endangered . . . The invasion represented a bully's show of force against a weak Third World nation. The invasion only served to heighten world tensions and further strain brittle US/Soviet and North/South relations."

Campaigning now for president, however, Kerry is rewriting that history. As he accuses President George W. Bush of hamhanded diplomacy before the invasion of Iraq, Kerry often lists Grenada among the US military incursions he says he has supported.
"I was dismissive of the majesty of the invasion of Grenada," Kerry says now. "But I basically was supportive. I never publicly opposed it."


John Kerry would continue his march on the wrong side of history by voting against many of the weapons systems we are currently using to fight the war on terror. He voted against the Patriot missile, the Tomahawk cruise missile and the B-2 stealth bomber, the Apache helicopter, the M-1 Abrams tank and a wide range of fighter jets. Senator Kerry also voted nine times against developing a missile-defense system envisioned to protect the United States from nuclear attack. He voted six times in the past 10 years to freeze or reduce defense spending. Mr. Kerry also cast two votes to loosen trade controls over "dual-use" technology such as U.S.-made high-speed computers that can also be used by enemies to build high-tech weaponry. In 1996 Senator Kerry authored a bill to cut the deficit. The proposal, which would have cut spending on defense and intelligence by $6.5 billion, never attracted a co-sponsor or came to a vote.

In January of 1991, John Kerry voted against the resolution that gave President George H. W. Bush the power to launch the Persian Gulf war against Iraq. He actually took both sides of that war, sending a letter of support for the war and a letter of opposition to the war to the same constituent:

“Rather than take a side--albeit the one he thought was most expedient--Kerry actually stood on both sides of the first Gulf war, much like he did this time around. Consider this ‘Notebook’ item from TNR’s March 25, 1991 issue, which ran under the headline ‘Same Senator, Same Constituent’: ‘Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war.’ --letter from Senator John Kerry to Wallace Carter of Newton Centre, Massachusetts, dated January 22 [1991] ‘Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush’s response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf.’ --Senator Kerry to Wallace Carter, January 31 [1991]” (Noam Scheiber, “Noam Scheiber’s Daily Journal of Politics, The New Republic Online, 1/28/04) (via George W. Bush.com taken from the New Republic Online.)


As we know John Kerry has taken both side on the War in Iraq. He voted for the resolution to go to war. Then he later claimed to have voted only for the threat of force. In an early Democratic primary debate John Kerry voiced his support of the presidents decision to go to war saying:

George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him.” (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/4/03)


Later, on hardball with Chris Matthews he claimed he was an anti-war candidate:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: “Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it’s been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?” KERRY: “I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don’t believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.” (MSNBC’s “Hardball,” 1/6/04)

More recently, when challenged by President Bush to take a stand on the war, Kerry said that he supported the war even though no weapons had been found:

"Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

Yet Kerry voted against the $87 billion funding supplement that supplied equipment to the troops fighting the war.

John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act, but is now against it, saying at a campaign rally:

“We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night. So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time. I’ve been a District Attorney and I know that what law enforcement needs are real tools not restrictions on American’s basic rights.” (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At Iowa State University, 12/1/03)


John Kerry's entire political career has been an extension of the remarks he made, under oath, to the Senate upon his return from Vietnam. His statements were the outline for his political career. He has been on the wrong side of every national security issue since he left his Swift Boat after four months in Vietnam. He has supported Communist leaders in their struggle against the United States, he has voted against funding almost every piece of military technology we use today. He has been unable to articulate a position on Iraq or the greater war on terror. He has voted for the Iraq war only to vote against its funding, for and against the Patriot Act, for and against troop redeployment as announced by the President. To understand John Kerry you must understand that he is still the person who made the slanderous remarks against the Senate, which the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are now using in a TV ad. His disdain for the military and the men he called monsters has never subsided. He has opposed the US military with every political choice he has made in his long career. The United States is engaged in a global war, more dangerous and unpredictable that the Cold War. Decisions will have to be made, men will have to be sent in harms way, sometimes quickly and without the benefit of 100% solid intelligence. John Kerry has demonstrated from the time he stepped on American shores after the Vietnam War that he not the man to lead the country at this time. That is why his testimony in 1971 and the Swift Boat Veterans opposition to him are important and why his actions from that time are open to discussion and evaluation. The John Kerry running for President now is the same John Kerry that delivered those damning remarks to the Senate in 1971. He is the same John Kerry that led anti war protests, who supported Ortega, opposed the US invasion of Grenada and the Persian Gulf War. He is the same John Kerry that voted only for the threat of force and voted against funding the war. John Kerry is incapable of leading the United States through the war on terror and he has a lifelong record to prove it.

John Kerry's medals in Vietnam do not matter. It should be assumed by all who were not there that he earned them honarably. His actions after his return do matter. They matter because he has never apologised for his testimony to the Senate, nor has he retracted it. As a matter of fact his political career has been an affirmation of what he said that day. It matters because character counts. It matters because the ability of the president to lead the armed forces in the war on terror will determine the fate of our country.

Check the current posts for updates.