"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." ~ Benjamin Franklin

The President in Des Moines

>> Tuesday, August 31, 2004

I have been volunteering for the Bush/Cheney campaign here in Des Moines and helped earlier today with the President's visit. I and 3 others helped chaperone the press corps around, but we didn't get to meet with the President. Before going out to Alleman, he had a telephone interview with Rush Limbaugh.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, Iraq. You see, one of the lessons of September the 11th is that we gotta deal with threats before they fully materialize, and we saw a threat in Iraq. I say "we." The Congress saw a threat, I saw a threat and the United Nations Security Council saw a threat. In other words, the world took a look and said, "Saddam is a threat," and here's why they thought he was a threat. One, he used weapons of mass destruction, and one of the most dangerous parts of this new war is that if the enemy were ever to acquire the capacity to use a weapon of mass destruction it would make September 11th, you know, pale in comparison, and so we saw that threat.

Secondly, he had ties to terrorists. Abu Nidal was housed in Iraq, his organization. He was the guy that killed Leon Klinghoffer. He was a known terrorist. Zarqawi -- who's now, you know, the person beheading people in Iraq today -- was in and out of Baghdad and Iraq, as were members of his organization. So he had terrorist ties. As a matter of fact, not only did he have terrorist ties, he used to subsidize families of these suicide bombers, which is a terrorist act.

Thirdly, he invaded his neighbors. Fourthly, he was an enemy of this country, and we had been to war with him once. He had invaded others in the neighborhood. He was a source of great instability. So I saw a threat, and given the lessons of September the 11th, we decided to remove him from power, having tried diplomacy. See, I think it's very important for your listeners to know, Rush, that the commander-in-chief ought to try all avenues of diplomacy prior to committing troops and we did that. And so I'm sitting in the Oval Office, and I've seen a threat. I now see that he's ignoring the demands of the free world, he had no intention of disarming, as a matter of fact was systematically deceiving inspectors, and so I made the decision, a very difficult decision.

The way forward, which was to remove him from power -- and, by the way, we weren't "alone" going in. As a matter of fact, I talked to Tony Blair this morning, which I do on a regular basis, and Tony Blair saw the same threat. And so now the way ahead is this. We will work with Prime Minister Allawi to enable a political process to develop. In other words, we'll provide as much security as we can to help a political process forward which means elections in January, but more importantly we will train Iraqis so that they are capable of providing their own security, and that's an important ingredient about enabling me to say that troops will be there as long as necessary, but not a day longer -- and by that I mean when the Iraqis are capable of defending themselves and as the political process emerges, we will then be in a position to say the mission has been completed, which is a democratic Iraq, an ally in the war on terror and a source of stability in a part of the world that needs stability and freedom.

More of this and Kerry is toast. Kerry cannot compete in this league.


Rudolph Giuliani's Speech to the RNC

For those that didn't watch it last night on Fox or CNN, try to get a recording of it and see the whole speech. It was a perfect mix of humor, humility, strength and accolade for President Bush. Bush could see a 5 point bounce on this speech alone if it becomes widely discussed on the rest of the media outlets.

Transcript from Yahoo. Also archived here.

From the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, to President George W. Bush our party's great contribution is to expand freedom in our own land and all over the world.

And our party is at its best when it makes certain that we have a powerful national defense in a still very dangerous world.

I don't believe we're right about everything and Democrats are wrong about everything.

Neither party has a monopoly on virtue.

But I do believe that there are times in our history when our ideas are more necessary and important for what we are facing.

There are times when leadership is the most important.

On September 11, this city and our nation faced the worst attack in our history.

On that day, we had to confront reality. For me, standing below the north tower and looking up and seeing the flames of hell and then realizing that I was actually seeing a man — a human being — jumping from the 101st or 102nd floor drove home to me that we were facing something beyond anything we had ever faced before.

We had to concentrate all of our energy, faith and hope to get through those first hours and days. And I will always remember that moment as we escaped the building we were trapped in at 75 Barclay Street and realized that things outside might be even worse than they were inside the building.

We did the best we could to communicate a message of calm and hope, as we stood on the pavement seeing a massive cloud rushing through the cavernous streets of lower Manhattan.

Our people were so brave in their response.

At the time, we believed we would be attacked many more times that day and in the days that followed. Spontaneously, I grabbed the arm of then Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik and said to Bernie, "Thank God George Bush is our President."

And I say it again tonight, "Thank God George Bush is our President."


Blogs from the RNC

>> Monday, August 30, 2004

Here's a small roundup of the bloggers at the Republican National Convention in NYC. Not much so far, but McCain and Giuliani speak tonight. More to follow, I'm sure.

captain's Quarters and the interview with Democrat and former mayor Ed Koch.

Blogs for Bush and his take on the first day.

Slantpoint has it on good authority that NYC firefighters are voting for Bush

Roger L. Simon brings his considerable writing skills and explains why the Swiftvet ads are connecting with vets.

Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics rounds up the day's political events.

I'll post more when I find them.

Adeimantus live from the protest march


Busy Week

My wife, Jody, and I will have a busy week. We're getting our lives and home ready for a new baby in a few weeks. We're helping Jody's brother, Justin, move his family to his duty assignment in DC. Tomorrow morning, Jody has another ultrasound. I hope everything shows up fine. Afterwards, I hope to make it out to the President's speech in Alleman. I'm a volunteer, but with Jody's OB appointment, I don't know if I can make it. I would love to share my experience here, though, so wish us luck.


I'm sure the Navy is lying too...

>> Friday, August 27, 2004

As reported by the Chicago Sun-Times and linked by Drudge:

"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."

Read the article


John O'Neil Lands a Blow

John O'Neil's letter to the editor of the Wall Street Journal.

Are we controlled by the Bush-Cheney campaign? Absolutely not. The Swift boat veterans who joined our group come in all political flavors: independents, Republicans, Democrats and other more subtle variations. Had another person been the presidential candidate of the Democrats, our group never would have formed. Had Mr. Kerry been the Republican candidate, each of us would still be here.


Why have we come forward? As explained in "Unfit For Command," Mr. Kerry grossly exaggerated and lied about his abbreviated four-month tour in Vietnam. He disgraced all legitimate Vietnam War heroes when he falsely testified to Congress that we were war criminals, daily engaged in atrocities that had the full approval of all levels in the chain of command. So, once Mr. Kerry decided to apply for the commander in chief's job with a war-hero résumé, we felt compelled to come forward to explain why he is "unfit for command."

We have faced assaults on our character, motives, personal backgrounds and honesty. We are told that Mr. Kerry's camp has prepared attack dossiers on the members of our organization. I have been charged with being a Republican shill. But for more than 30 years, I have been non-political, and have voted for as many Democrats as Republicans. In truth, I consider myself a political independent, regardless of how John Kerry and his supporters try to characterize me.

The Kerry-Edwards camp has threatened TV stations with libel suits should they choose to run our ads. Mr. Kerry has filed a complaint with the FEC, seeking to silence us.

How many different ways will John Kerry devise to ask President Bush to condemn our ads and squash our book? Why, Mr. Kerry, are our charges as a 527 group unacceptable to you, while the pronouncements from 527 groups favorable to you are considered acceptable, regardless of stridency and veracity? And we do not have a George Soros, willing to drop millions into our modest group. We control our message. To date, we have received $2 million from 30,000 Americans who have donated an average of around $64.

Mr. Kerry, we ask you not to repeat the same mistake you made when you returned from war: Please stop maligning your fellow veterans. Dealing with us should be easy. Just answer our charges. Produce your Vietnam journal and notes, and execute Standard Form 180 so the American people can see your complete military record--not just the few forms you put on your website or show to campaign biographers.

Sure makes Kerry look unfit. And it's all his own doing.


>> Thursday, August 26, 2004

C-Span has posted Hanoi-John's testimony to Senator Fulbright and the Committee on Foreign Relations

I am adding my name and voice with millions of other vets in calling for Kerry to either apologize or retract these statements. They hurt America then and they are still hurting America.


The whole picture

Washington Times's The Whole Picture is an editorial by a captain currently stationed in Baghdad.

He lays out a handful of the unprecedented achievements and finishes with:

Will the media continue to ignore Iraqi progress and cover the situation here in a way that causes American decision makers to abandon their support for these initiatives? With the American people as the decision-makers this fall, this question figures prominently in the minds of Iraqis.

Just ask any Iraqi.

The only place we are losing is in the western media.


More Kerry Bashing Here...Git yer Kerry bash!

Blackfive has posted why he's voting against Kerry

Money quote:

Personally, I don't understand how a true American Fighting Man can leave his
troops during combat. I have some experiences that prevent me from understanding
this behavior. And because I don't doubt Kerry's bravery, I can come to no other
conclusion than he was a calculating, politically motivated S.O.B.

All I have to say is "me too!"


Kerry debating Kerry

I was reading the Federalist Digest and they link to a video everyone planning on voting this election need to see.

Watch the video and the following will be easier to follow...

"I will be a commander-in-chief who will never mislead us into war," claims John Kerry, with a none-too-subtle implication that President George W. Bush lied about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

On that note, we decided to take a look at the historical record. Indeed, we wanted to know precisely what the senator from Massachusetts had been saying all along about the Butcher of Baghdad. Lo and behold, we found that Kerry makes a compelling argument in support of President's Bush's actions to free the Iraqi people -- and the world -- from Saddam's terror.

Back in 1991, Kerry voted against the use of force in removing Iraq from neighboring Kuwait (S. J. Res. 2), later explaining that he only "voted against the timing of it. I said very clearly in my statement on the Senate floor that I was committed to getting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait...and that I was prepared to go to war if it took that...."

Regarding Bill Clinton's attacks on Iraqi targets, Kerry said in 1997, "So clearly the allies may not like it...where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity?"

A year later, after additional bombing, Kerry said, "We have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible to disrupt [Saddam's] regime and to encourage the forces of democracy. ... [H]e can rebuild both chemical and biological. And every indication is, because of his deception and duplicity in the past, he will seek to do that. So we will not eliminate the problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing attack. ... I believe that in the post-Cold War period this issue of proliferation, particularly in the hands of Saddam Hussein, is critical."

Three months after the 9/11 attack on our countrymen by state-supported Jihadi terrorists, Kerry argued, "Saddam is one who is and has acted like a terrorist. ... For instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. ... He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable."

Reiterating his position on Saddam prior to 9/11, Kerry said, "[I] think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I've said that for a number of years. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections...." He then added, "I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11."

Regarding Afghanistan and Iraq, Kerry said, "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue [to combat terrorism], for instance, Saddam Hussein."

Regarding diplomatic solutions and the Bush administration's efforts to get the UN to enforce the Security Council's unanimous mandates on Iraqi arms, Kerry said, in May of 2002, "[Saddam is] buying time and playing a game, in my judgment. Do we have to go through that process? The answer is yes. We're precisely doing that. And I think that's what Colin Powell did today."

In July of 2002, Kerry told the Democrat Leadership Council, "I agree completely with this Administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq.... Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991."

That's "completely," fellow Patriots.

A month later in a New York Times op-ed, Kerry asserted, "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."

That's even if it's "mostly at the hands of the United States."

In September of 2002, a year after 9/11, Kerry said: "It is imperative that we issue an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, and that would require immediate and full compliance, and if Hussein doesn't comply, the United States must be prepared to go in and...if need be, largely alone remove Saddam Hussein from power. There is also no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home. ...[Saddam] may even miscalculate and slide these [WMD] off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat."

A few days later, he told MSNBC, "The president...always reserves the right to act unilaterally to protect the interests of our country." On 11 October 2002, Kerry voted for the Iraq War Resolution (H.J. Res. 114).

That's "unilaterally."

In May of 2003, Kerry defended that vote, saying, "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." But when Howard Dean turned up the heat with his anti-war message, Kerry began to waffle. Announcing his candidacy, Kerry's support for regime change morphed into, "I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations."

Notice the head of the pin on which Kerry is now attempting to dance. He's claiming that he only "voted to threaten the use of force." In other words, he's now insisting that he only voted to deliver a hollow threat. Not exactly a profile in courage, eh?

As the Demo-primary season approached, Kerry began to hone his newfound opposition to the removal of Saddam: "They rushed to war. They were intent on going to war."

When it came time to provide supplemental appropriations for our troops in Iraq, Kerry (who planned to run his campaign on his veteran status) claimed, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible. I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

But on 17 October 2003, Kerry abandoned our troops, voting against S. 1689, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction. Thus, he put pure political expedience ahead of his obligation to arm and equip our fighting forces -- specifically those fighting forces currently standing in harm's way.

In January of this year, when asked if he was "one of the anti-war candidates," Kerry answered firmly, "I am -- yeah." After announcing his running mate in March, he said of John Edwards, "I'm proud to say that John joined me in voting against that $87 billion...."

Got that? He's actually "proud" of having stiffed our troops.

Last month, when asked by CBS if his vote for the removal of Saddam was a mistake (which, politically, it clearly was), Kerry fumbled his answer: "What -- what -- what I voted for, you -- you -- you see, you're playing here. What -- what I voted for was a -- an authority for the president to go to war as a last resort if Saddam Hussein did not disarm and we needed to go to war." When pressed for a direct answer to the question, Kerry responded curtly, "I think I answered your question."

When asked why he "voted for the war, but didn't vote for the money to finance the war," Kerry responded, "That's not a flip-flop. That's not a flip-flop."

And this week, Kerry claims, "I believe this administration is actually encouraging the recruitment of terrorists. The policies of this administration, I believe and others believe very deeply, have resulted in an increase of animosity and anger focused on the United States of America." (Here we suppose "others" is in reference to the same yet-to-be-identified foreign leaders who Kerry claims support his candidacy.)

The reality is, of course, that it's our very existence, and not our actions, that the Jihadis really object to. Kerry's failure to acknowledge this fact is indicative of just how deeply he has delved into the fevered swamp.

Last week, greeting Demo-conventioneers with a limp Clintonesque salute, Kerry intoned that he was "reporting for duty." To which we say, it's about time -- because he has been AWOL from Iraq since he voted to invade.

(To see and hear Kerry's comments on Iraq, link to -- http://kerry-04.org/iraq.php )


Democrat's talking points

Kathleen Parker, writing in Townhall.com noticed an interview with Wolf Blitzer.

Small quote from the article;

"I hope we've turned a corner, but obviously I think we need a change in presidents to really turn the corner."

Those are the words of Wendy Sherman, a former State Department counselor in the Clinton administration, speaking Monday to CNN's Wolf Blitzer.

Not to pick on Sherman, but she's a convenient example of how schadenfreude sometimes masquerades as diplomacy. Loosely translated, here's what Sherman was really saying:

Bush overthrew a brutal dictatorship; arrested and detained Saddam Hussein, soon to be handed over to Iraqi courts; killed the tyrant's murderous sons; restored or invented infrastructure while safeguarding Iraq's oil wells; and created and installed a new provisional government in just over a year following 13 chaotic months of insurgent attacks, with little international support and daily assaults by the media and the far left, while apparently preventing new terror attacks on American soil.

But he's got to go. Why? Well, because he's a Republican.

That's been Kerry's argument all along.


It's all about perspective

CNN reported today that more Americans are living in poverty and the number of uninsured in the US has also risen.

Near the bottom of the article you are given facts that almost negate the findings: 1)Census Bureau analyst Dan Weinberg said the results were typical of a post-recession period.


2) House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, noted that while more people lost insurance, there also were about 1 million more Americans with coverage in 2003. Overall, 243 million people had insurance last year.

"The bottom line is this: More people in America have health coverage today than at any time in our nation's history and I think that's a fact worth noting, but we can always do more," he said.

What this tells me is that we have more people, either children being born to families already in poverty, immigrants & illegal aliens than we have in the past who bumped the census numbers up but have no insurance.

Which leads to my question: What happened to personal responsibility? If you can't afford to feed yourself don't have children. Duh. If you come to this country seeking a better life (legally) be happy you've been let in, many people are denied. If you are here illegally be happy we don't lock you up and ship your ass home (which is what
should happen).

Yes, insurance is expensive. But it is not a right, it is a priority. Or not. But the choice is ultimately your own.


"I have always been honest....

about my military record" is what John Kerry told Minnesotans at a rally today. What he should have added was "Except when I haven't been." It seems Senator Kerry has conveniently forgotten that in the past 2 weeks he has admitted to not spending Christmas in Cambodia and has also admitted that his first Purple Heart was probably self inflicted. Ah, lawyers.... can you please define "always"?

In other news of the pot calling the kettle black- which I seem to use as much as the media uses quagmire- Bush today did what Kerry's people have been calling for. He denounced all 527 groups, including the Swifties. However, Kerry's people won't follow suit claiming ""The issue here is not this ... the issue is lies being elevated to facts and that's wrong," John Hurley, the national director of Veterans for Kerry, told FOX News on Thursday." read the article


Iowa Pork, err, Values Fund

The Des Moines Register had a plea today to Take the Values Fund deal! What is it with the Register and tax giveaways? The fund has a history of throwing money at shaky/shady deals, why would more money make it better? How does a government giveaway create jobs? The money has to come from somewhere and that somewhere are taxpayers. Wouldn’t it be better to have a lower tax burden and thereby provide an incentive for employers to come here? With lower taxes, we can invest in businesses of our choosing, rather than businesses of the governor’s choosing. With lower taxes, we can purchase more from local companies and maybe they’ll expand or start new ventures themselves.

Let’s make it easier and less costly to start and run a business, rather than give cash advances to a select few. Doesn’t that make more sense?

The fund was kicked off with $500,000,000. That means the Pork Barrel Fund costs $200 for each individual Iowan (based on a census of 2.4 million). For a family of 4, their tax overpayment comes to $800. Why do I call it that? I call it an overpayment because it sure isn’t needed to run the state, so the Governor just had to spend it somehow. We wouldn’t want to return it to the taxpayers like Jesse did in Minnesota or George did to all American taxpayers. Oh no, Iowa snatched that money from my pocketbook and they wont give it back, even if they have to find something to spend it on.

From past analysis, I know the Register’s editorial board has yet to find a tax they don’t like or a give-away that is too outrageous. I also know that the Register has reported about a couple of the businesses that have received money from the fund that have gone out of business. There was even a story about a company that took the money but didn’t relocate a single employee to Iowa. It’s not the State of Iowa’s job to make venture capital decisions. A half a billion dollars has been spent to attract a few hundred jobs. [sarcasm]Wow, that’s an impressive accomplishment![sarcasm off] Not! Does each of the new employees make a high six-figure income? How do I sign up!

At a minimum, I want my $200 back.


Adeimantus II

Let It Alone has an insightful look into the Kerry/Swiftvet controversy and why the war in Vietnam is pertinent today.



Tom at Adeimantus has several posts I think are worth your time.


The Bush haters have a vague idea why it is that 250 or so fellow swiftboat veterans are challenging John Heinz-Kerry's fitness to serve as Commander in Chief, but being Bush haters, they can't quite bring themselves to examine the anti-Kerry swiftboat veterans' charges in the larger context of Kerry's entire Viet Nam record, including his anti-war, anti-American diatribes before Congress and on national television after his return from Southeast Asia. They instead rely on fellow Bush haters in media and on the web to come up with reasons why a few of the 250 or so anti-Kerry swiftboat veterans, some 60 of whom have sworn out affidavits accusing Kerry of either lying about, exaggerating, or embellishing his four month tour of duty, may be wrong in certain details.

Is it a coincidence that the Kerry campaign and ABC/CBS/NBC/NY Times/PBS, et al ignored the SwiftVets claims for the same 2 week period, then all put out stories going after the messengers rather than refuting the claims?

Aha! Here’s the reason...
The strategy is obvious and we've seen it before with Clinton: Find one contradiction in one of your critics' accounts of this or that and declare all your critics untrustworthy. It's the false-in-one-false-in-all doctrine used by the courts taken to a ridiculous extreme.

Everything Kerry has done in this campaign makes Clinton look like a mere jaywalker.

There was also the DNC's goofy attempt to silence SBVFT by threatening to sue networks and stations that broadcast their "slander". Curious thing, though: If Kerry and the DNC truly believe that SBVFT is engaging in slander, why threaten to sue the networks? Why not sue the slanderers themselves?

The DNC then went so far as to try to recall the book and pressure the publisher to stop printing. Why, does the DNC and Kerry campaign not believe in free speech? Why haven’t they sued the SwiftVets? Is it because they can’t and have to resort to underhanded censorship tactics? Wild-eyed leftists get off on claiming that the Patriot Act is an infringement of our civil liberties (only if you consider planning terrorist acts a civil liberty), but can offer no proof that any said infringement exist. Then, here comes the Kerry’s and DNC (followed by MoveOn, ACT and the Media Fund) actively trampling on civil liberties by intimidating television and radio stations and attempting to shut down a publisher. The hypocrisy is stunning. Two words... Michael Moore.

Please read the whole article. It continues by breaking down how “seared” Kerry’s memory is about “Christmas in Cambodia”.


A Soldier's View

>> Wednesday, August 25, 2004

As friends and family know, Jody's brother, a SSG in the Iowa Guard, just came back from Iraq. He'll be stationed in Washington, DC for the next year or so. We haven't really sat down and discussed his war-time experiences yet, but it's something I hope to do in the near future.

I told you that in order to segue into another soldier's experiences in Iraq. Mike is stationed in Mosul. He started his blog to kill time and because he's a decent amateur writer. It’s definitely worth your time to read his stuff. His Men in Black post has received a lot of attention.

His latest post is about being on guard duty in a tower overlooking Mosul.

I'm constrained up in some f--king guard tower in Mosul, Iraq (itching for stimulants to help me cope with the boredom) staring off at the night lights radiating from this ancient Islamic city. Working the guard tower shift sucks. There aint s--t to do up in that tower but stand there and stare off into that city and fight boredom as best you can.[uncensored in original – DJH]

I remember back to my own time on guard duty and it only sucks donkey d--ks if you’re not expecting trouble. Mike has written about a lot of scary days, but he now finds guard duty to be boring. In Mosul, no less. Let’s hope it stays nice and boring for him. The more boring days we can string together in Iraq, the better Iraq (and by extension, the US) will be.


Yet another seared memory

The Opinion Journal has another entry in the growing list of Kerry lies.

From a John Kerry speech commemorating Martin Luther King Day, Jan. 20, 2003:

I remember well April 1968--I was serving in Vietnam--a place of violence--when the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home--and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of that unabashedly maladjusted citizen.

If you take a look at John Kerry's self-described service record, we find that he didn't get to Vietnam until November, 1968.

Why does anyone think he has any credibility?


Did Kerry help hide POW/MIA's still in Vietnam?

From the Villiage Voice:

Senator John Kerry, a decorated battle veteran, was courageous as a navy lieutenant in the Vietnam War. But he was not so courageous more than two decades later, when he covered up voluminous evidence that a significant number of live American prisoners—perhaps hundreds—were never acknowledged or returned after the war-ending treaty was signed in January 1973.

The Massachusetts senator, now seeking the presidency, carried out this subterfuge a little over a decade ago— shredding documents, suppressing testimony, and sanitizing the committee's final report—when he was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on P.O.W./ M.I.A. Affairs.


A Medal of Honor awardee blasts Kerry

Major General (ret.) Patrick Brady speaks out against Kerry. It's a long piece but worth considering.

The last comment, from Ranger71;

What is more important to me than his brief service in Vietnam, is what he did after he came home. He slandered those of us he left behind in order to further his own political ambitions. He provided propaganda to the enemy we were still fighting. He met with the North Vietnamese, giving aid, comfort and support to the enemy. Indeed, he and his organization signed an agreement with them and lobbied for their position in the peace negotiations. He actively worked with avoved communists whose objective was the defeat of South Vietnam and the success of communism throughout the world.

That sums it up nicely.


John Kerry on Jon Stewart (get yer mind out of the gutter)

>> Tuesday, August 24, 2004

John Kerry was on Jon Stewart's Daily Show tonight. Half way through, I decided that I couldn't take it anymore and had to comment on it. Thank God for laptops, wireless internet and TiVo. (I told you I'm a geek.)

Let's start this little journey by discussing JF Kerry's botox problem. Half of his face is immobile and it's really distracting to watch. Kerry seemed genuinely happy to be on the show. He should, yesterday Steward played the Kevin Bacon game with the Swiftvets.com guys to George Bush. Tellingly, he didn’t do the same with MoveOn, MediaFund and ACT. I actually think it’s a good sign Jon Stewart is making more fun of Bush than Kerry, Jon usually goes after the big dogs. Don’t forget how helpful John Edwards’ appearance on the show was to his presidential campaign.

Anyway, I digress; back to watching the show. What did I do before TiVo?

JF Kerry gets a big chuckle out of Stewart (too many John/Jon’s in this campaign) saying that after he watched cable news all weekend he found out that Kerry was never in Viet Nam. Isn’t that why Kerry took his own 8mm video camera over with him? I heard on Meet the Press that Kerry sometimes claims he spent 2 tours in Viet Nam. Doesn’t that just sum up his perception on the world? After 4 and ½ months in country, he claims to have spent 2 tours in combat. If he were sitting on a bar stool trying to impress the locals, he would get laughed at, but at this level, he looks like a self-delusional buffoon. Walter Mitty-ish even.

He makes a point about “most Americans would like to have a much more intelligent debate about where the country is going.” I agree. So why doesn’t he offer up such a debate? All we got out of him at the convention was “I am the anti-Bush and I would do everything Bush has done, but better. Just don’t ask me how, ‘cause I’m making stuff up as I go. Don’t these veterans behind me look good? I was in Viet Nam!” When talking about the economy… “When I was in Viet Nam.” When talking about outsourcing… “My Band of Brothers.” “I am reporting for duty.” All that talk about Viet Nam, then “How dare you attack my trumped up military record? Do you know how hard it is to get the Secretary of the Navy to sign off on an award? Especially if it’s the Secretary under Reagan, 15 years after the fact?” Oh, wait, we were talking about intelligent debate, I forgot. “One thing I learned in Viet Nam is to stay the course and meet challenges head on.” Damn, there I go again.

My God… Kerry is saying that the Swift Boat Veterans are funded by… wait for it…. Republican supporters. Wow, you mean George Soros didn’t want to pony up for anther 527? Does he honestly think that major league Democrats would fund a 527 against the Democrat candidate? Would he be equally surprised to find that Kerry supporting 527’s are supported by Democrats? I think not. The Democrat National Committee recently touted their partnership with MoveOn in voter registration drives. Isn’t that illegal? More info here.

Kerry said that he will be “laser beam focused” and that he just gave a speech there in New York about “real choices”. I think that means another flip-flop for Kerry, since the last policy statement from him pretty much went down the Republican agenda. Oh, I get it, he’s in New York, where the population is predominantly liberal. When he goes to Dallas (I doubt that will ever happen) he’ll take the conservative line. There’s the choice right there! Just pick the speech in the town of your choice!

Kerry just denied being the #1 most liberal senator. That ranking came out of a liberal think tank to rate their supporters. I guess we’re just supposed to forget all those votes to gut the defense and intelligence establishments, votes for late-term abortion, votes for tax increases, votes for new entitlements, and meeting with Communists when not on official diplomatic missions. I wonder what liberal means to him?

Wow, he just admitted to being a flip-flopper, flop-flipper. Then he goes on about needing more entitlements and taxes.

Kerry thinks that President Bush abused his authority in going to war in Iraq. He thought Bush was going to build an international coalition and exhaust the UN inspection process, and lastly “He didn’t give meaning to the words ‘going to war as a last resort’”. “I think the US should never go to war to because you want to, you go to war because you have to.” Evidently Kerry has missed all of those Intelligence Committee meetings, where he might have learned that Clinton had ample reason to go to war in the 90’s, but chose not to. Bush is finishing up what should have happened years ago. I think 12 years of inspections was too long. But wait, there’s more. The UN was getting a percentage of the Oil for Palaces program. Nope, no conflict of interest there. The “non-existent” coalition include the following; the United Kingdom, Portugal, Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Albania, Moldova, Macedonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Estonia, Kazakstan, Mongolia, Japan, Thailand, Philippines, Azerbaijan, Georgia, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Honduras, New Zealand, Australia, and the United States of America. (thanks Chris Lynch!) Last time I checked, the UK, Portugal, et al weren’t states. I think that meets the definition of “international coalition”. Hey, what about that vote you guys in Congress had in November, 2002, that gave President Bush authority to invade Iraq? Bush is not Clinton, he says what he means and means what he says. Is that why he’s so confused?

Kerry then goes on about “4 million American’s have lost health care coverage” but doesn’t back that up. Last year, I changed my insurance providers, does that mean I’m a part of that 4 million number? It’s right up there with the claim that middle-class Americans are paying more taxes, it doesn’t hold up to facts. Of course, many Democrats think middle-class is anyone paying taxes. However, everyone paying taxes got a tax cut, so how can he state that we’re paying more taxes? Aha! It’s because people who don’t make enough to pay taxes didn’t get a check! Well, that would be considered an entitlement, not a tax cut, now wouldn’t it?

Oooh, Steward got away with saying that Kerry loves Fidel Castro.

Kerry has a better “plan”. But he can’t say what it is besides universal healthcare. When has the government done anything efficiently and effectively? Why does anyone think that a government run healthcare policy would be a good idea? Bureaucrats are already too involved. Get the bureaucrats out of healthcare and costs will come down naturally.

Oil! What to do? “We can’t drill our way out of this crisis.” True and I can’t say anything bad about this. However, we need to let private industry do their job to put something on the market. Once government gets involved, it’ll be 12 years before the committee format gets approved, let alone something tangeable getting done.

Kerry said that his rallies are open to the public and that he wants to talk to America. He conveniently forgets all of his own invitation only events.

I’ll leave with Jon Stewart asking “Is it true that every time I use your wife’s ketchup, she gets a nickel?”

Addendum: CNN now has a story about Kerry's appearance


Iowa Stars Hockey

I've been informed by "the Boss" that we will be getting season tickets to the Iowa Stars hockey season starting next year. That was the deal when Jody moved down from Minneapolis. Is it normal for your wife to get more excited about a sports team than you? :-)

Happy to be at Home 1 Powered By Ringsurf
Proud Mommy Webring
© WebRing Inc.
Proud Mommy Webring
<< Prev | Ring Hub | Join | Rate| Next >>

WidgetBox Network

  © Blogger templates Shiny by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP