|
See
the online
video
Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth
John Edwards:
"If you have any
question about what
John Kerry is made
of, just spend 3
minutes with the men
who served with
him."
Al French: "I
served with John
Kerry."
Bob Elder: "I
served with John
Kerry."
George Elliott:
"John Kerry has not
been honest about
what happened in
Vietnam."
Al French:
"He is lying about
his record."
Louis Letson:
"I know John Kerry
is lying about his
first Purple Heart
because I treated
him for that
injury."
Van O'Dell:
"John Kerry lied to
get his bronze star
... I know, I was
there, I saw what
happened."
Jack Chenoweth:
"His account of what
happened and what
actually happened
are the difference
between night and
day."
Admiral Hoffman:
"John Kerry has
not been honest."
Adrian Lonsdale:
"And he lacks the
capacity to lead."
Larry Thurlow:
"When the chips were
down, you could not
count on John
Kerry."
Bob Elder:
"John Kerry is no
war hero."
Grant Hibbard:
"He betrayed all his
shipmates ... he
lied before the
Senate."
Shelton White:
"John Kerry betrayed
the men and women he
served with in
Vietnam."
Joe Ponder:
"He dishonored his
country ... he most
certainly did."
Bob Hildreth:
"I served with John
Kerry ...
Bob Hildreth
(off-camera):
John Kerry cannot be
trusted."
Announcer:
"Swift Boat Veterans
for Truth is
responsible for the
content of this
advertisement."
Edward
Morrissey notes
a report from
Fox News's Major
Garrett that the
Kerry campaign
has acknowledged
one of the key
allegations in
John O'Neill and
Jerome Corsi's
"Unfit for
Command":
Kerry
received a
Purple Heart
for wounds
suffered on
December
2nd, 1968.
But an entry
in Kerry's
own journal
written nine
days later,
he writes
that, quote,
he and his
crew hadn't
been shot at
yet,
unquote.
Kerry's
campaign has
said it is
possible his
first Purple
Heart was
awarded for
an
unintentionally
self-inflicted
wound.
Which, of
course, is
precisely what
"Unfit" says
happened.
(From Best of
the Web, by
James Taranto)
|
|
This
photograph
of John
Kerry and 19
other
Coastal
Division 11
Swift boat
officers was
taken at Ton
Son Nhut Air
Base on
January 22,
1969,
immediately
following a
meeting with
General
Abrams and
Admiral
Zumwalt.
The Kerry
campaign
featured the
photograph
in an
advertisement
released in
May titled
Lifetime.
Swift Boat
Veterans for
Truth has
contacted
surviving
members of
this group
to find out
how many
actually
support John
Kerry, and
discovered
that of 19
Swift boat
skippers
pictured
other than
Kerry, 12
consider him
unfit, 4 are
neutral, two
have died,
and 1 is
working with
the Kerry
campaign.
Four other
officers
were not
present for
the photo
session; all
oppose
Kerry.
Only 1
of John
Kerry's 23
fellow Swift
boat
commanders
from Coastal
Division 11
supports his
candidacy
today. |
|
|
More than 250
Swift boat veterans are
on the record
questioning Kerry's fitness to serve
as Commander-in-Chief. That list
includes his entire chain of command
-- every single officer Kerry served
under in Vietnam. The Kerry game
plan is to ignore all this and
pretend that the 13 veterans his
campaign jets around the country and
puts up in 5-star hotels really
represent the truth about his short,
controversial combat tour.
|
"I do not
believe John
Kerry is fit
to be
Commander-in-Chief
of the armed
forces of
the United
States. This
is not a
political
issue. It is
a matter of
his
judgment,
truthfulness,
reliability,
loyalty and
trust -- all
absolute
tenets of
command. His
biography,
'Tour of
Duty,' by
Douglas
Brinkley, is
replete with
gross
exaggerations,
distortions
of fact,
contradictions
and
slanderous
lies. His
contempt for
the military
and
authority is
evident by
even a most
casual
review of
this
biography.
Senator
Kerry is not
fit for
command."
(Rear
Admiral
Roy
Hoffmann,
USN
(retired),
chairman,
Swift Boat
Veterans for
Truth) |
|
|
|
Kerry's
Scratch
"While in
Cam Rahn
Bay, Kerry
trained on
several
24-hour
indoctrination
missions,
and one
special
skimmer
operation
with my most
senior and
trusted
Lieutenant.
The briefing
from some
members of
that crew
the morning
after
revealed
that they
had not
received any
enemy fire,
and yet
Lt.(jg)
Kerry
informed me
of a wound
-- he showed
me a scratch
on his arm
and a piece
of shrapnel
in his hand
that
appeared to
be from one
of our own
M-79s. It
was later
reported to
me that
Lt.(jg)
Kerry had
fired an
M-79, and it
had exploded
off the
adjacent
shoreline. I
do not
recall being
advised of
any medical
treatment,
and probably
said
something
like 'Forget
it.' He
later
received a
Purple Heart
for that
scratch, and
I have no
information
as to how.
~~Commander
Grant
Hibbard, USN
(retired)
|
|
|
Read three chapters of
Unfit for Command by O'Neil
CHAPTER 3 THE PURPLE HEART HUNTER
CHAPTER 5 MORE FRAUDULENT MEDALS
CHAPTER 6 A TESTIMONY OF LIES
...The "war crimes" canard isn't so
easily handled, however. It relates
directly to our current effort in
Iraq, where U.S. constancy is as
much an issue now as it was in
Vietnam. Mr. Kerry's denunciation of
the U.S. at that time presaged a
career in which he has always been
quick to attack the moral and
military purposes of American
policy--in Central America, against
the Soviet Union, and of course
during the current Iraq War that he
initially voted for. It's certainly
fair to wonder if Mr. Kerry will
have the fortitude to fight to
victory in Iraq if he does win in
November. Or will he call for
retreat the way he and so many other
liberals did when Vietnam became
difficult?
(Editorial, Wall Street Journal,
August 24, 2004)
|
Escape From Kerryland
Fed up with Vietnamania?
Relief is at hand.
BY CLAUDIA ROSETT
Wednesday, August 25,
2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
Time for a deep breath.
We've hit that late-summer
stretch when everyone is
waiting for autumn, and the
news seems stuck in endless
replay. Seven years ago, we
were about to hit
round-the-clock eulogies to
Princess Di. Three years
ago, it was Gary Condit,
24/7 (the former
congressman, since cleared
of suspicion in the death of
his young lover, in case
anyone has trouble
remembering what topped the
U.S. talk shows in the weeks
just before Sept. 11).
This year, we have John
Kerry's Vietnam record. It
matters more than Gary or Di,
but how long do we have to
keep fighting the last war?
Having listened earlier this
month to breaking news on
where Mr. Kerry did or
didn't spend Christmas 1968,
I escaped last week to a
conference in Utah,
including a most
otherworldly stroll in the
Wasatch mountains--and, upon
returning, tuned back in to
find the country, or at
least its most vocal
inhabitants, still arguing
over Mr. Kerry's Vietnam
record.
This can't last. Even
beyond the presidential
election, this autumn is
freighted with more than the
usual portents. Soon, for
better or worse, events will
again compel us forward into
the war of today, tomorrow,
and years to come.
Somewhere--remember
Madrid--the next attack is
quite likely in the making.
Between such matters as
Iran's
nuclear-bomb-and-terror
program, North Korea's
nuclear blackmail, and the
leads packed into such
material as the 9/11
reports--including last
week's 152-page monograph on
global terrorist funding--it
must surely be clear by now
that we face not simply
Osama bin Laden, or Al
Qaeda, but a fascist
movement that finds in
murder an intoxicating power
over the rest of mankind,
and in modern technology a
terrible arsenal.
Though the form, anchored
in Islamofascism, may be
specific to our age, the
animating spirit runs deep
enough for Joseph Conrad in
his 1907 novel, "The Secret
Agent," to have captured it
perfectly in one of his
characters, the bomb-making
Professor: "He was a force.
His thoughts caressed the
images of ruin and
destruction. He walked
frail, insignificant,
shabby, miserable--and
terrible in the simplicity
of his idea calling madness
and despair to the
regeneration of the world."
Not that the Professor
alone can cause much ruin,
but when a state-sponsored
secret agent hooks up with
him, a bomb goes off. An
innocent dies. This ghastly
offshoot of human nature,
hitched in one way or
another to assorted despots,
is what now threatens our
civilization. This war will
require even more resolve
than we have found so far,
and it will not be won by
seeking the approval of the
tyrant-larded United
Nations. It will be won by
killing the Professor and
laying down the law for his
pals--and that can only be
done by keeping faith with
who we are. And while our
arguments of the day
certainly matter, some
deeply, I am not sure that
the spiritual strength for
the coming season should be
drawn chiefly from the froth
of most nightly news.
So, as we approach Sept. 11,
2004, marking the start of
year four of World War IV,
here are some alternatives
to watching the next talk
show:
• It sounds like a school
assignment, but as you get
older, it is more clearly
the stuff of life and death:
Reread the
Declaration of Independence
and the
Constitution, especially
the references to the rights
forfeited by tyrants, and
the blessings of liberty.
• Take the time you might
have spent listening to yet
more debate over Mr. Kerry's
Vietnam record, and Mr.
Bush's response, and write
two letters, one to
President Bush and one to
Mr. Kerry.
Suggestion for Mr. Bush:
If he wants to one-up Mr.
Kerry on Vietnam, try
nudging the debate forward,
from 1968 into the 21st
century. In the interest of
the liberty and democracy
that Mr. Bush has put
forward as pillars of U.S.
foreign policy, this would
be a good moment for him to
speak up for a democratic
dissident who is in prison
in Vietnam today,
still fighting for that
country's freedom,
Nguyen Dan Que.
Suggestion for Mr. Kerry:
One of his constituents,
Mohamed Eljahmi, has a
brother, a citizen of Libya,
and democratic dissident
there.
Fathi Eljahmi was
released from a Libyan
prison earlier this year, in
the first flush of new-found
U.S.-Gadhafi rapprochement,
only to be detained again by
Gadhafi within the month.
Since late March, Fathi
Eljahmi has been held
incommunicado by Gadhafi's
secret police. And while
Gadhafi's surrender of his
nuclear kit may have earned
his regime the privilege of
not being attacked outright
by the U.S., he has done
nothing to deserve the kind
of U.S. approval he has
since received. If Mr. Kerry
wants to one-up Mr. Bush, he
would do well to point out
that under Mr. Bush's own
doctrine, it is not the
tyrant, Gadhafi, but the
democratic dissident, Fathi
Eljahmi, who deserves the
support of America and our
allies.
• Dust off that old
college Shakespeare, and
open it to
Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3,
in which the king, on the
eve of battle, rallies his
"band of brothers." That
phrase may be best known
these days as the title of
an HBO series about World
War II, but it dates back to
1599, and belongs to the
most stirring call to arms
in the English language. And
though the character of man
may be the same, the methods
of war have somewhat
evolved. In this war we are
now fighting, there is a
call for many talents, not
solely on the battlefield.
This is also a global war of
information, of technology,
of ingenuity. If you want to
honor and understand our
troops, if you want a
reminder of why even at home
it is worth looking for any
way to contribute, these
lines of Shakespeare rank
among the mighty gifts of
our culture.
• If you want something
more recent, punch up the
Gettysburg Address. We
all toiled through it in
high school (I hope), but it
bears rereading in full, all
three paragraphs--honoring
those who died to preserve
this nation and what it
stands for; that "government
of the people, by the
people, for the people,
shall not perish from the
earth."
• For a contemporary
view, read
Charles Krauthammer's
speech at this past
February's American
Enterprise Institute annual
dinner: "Democratic Realism:
An American Foreign Policy
for a Unipolar World." Here
you will find the real
issues. Whether you agree or
not, Mr. Krauthammer
provides a brilliant and
lucid account of America's
character, culture and
choices in this post-Sept.
11 world.
• Get your hands on an
old black-and-white movie,
Fritz Lang's "M," filmed
in Berlin in 1931, which has
more to say about terror,
and the stopping of it, than
just about anything produced
in the 73 years since. It is
the story of a child-killer,
a murderer of innocents,
stalking a terrorized city.
The police finally rid the
city of this monster by
making life so unbearable
for the ordinary criminals
that the lords of the
criminal underworld run him
down themselves. It's a
terrific blueprint for
dealing with terrorists and
the regimes with which they
consort, such as Syria and
Iran.
Pick up one of those
classics on the best within
us, and never mind if it's
not set in color and
segmented into 30-second
sound bites. Rent "Inherit
the Wind," in which Spencer
Tracy defends the right of a
man to think for himself.
Sit back with a copy of
Harper Lee's "To Kill a
Mockingbird," in which
small-town southern lawyer
Atticus Finch faces down the
mob to do what he knows is
right.
And, if you have, as
recommended at the top of
this column, begun by taking
a deep breath--exhale. When
you get back to the TV news,
and tune in for the fall
season, it's going to feel
just a bit more manageable.
Ms. Rosett is a fellow
at the Foundation for the
Defense of Democracies and
the Hudson Institute. Her
column appears here and in
The Wall Street Journal
Europe on alternate
Wednesdays.
Copyright Dow Jones & Co.,
2004. |
Summary
of suggested learning activities:
 Dust
off that old college
Shakespeare, and open it to
Henry V, Act IV, Scene 3, in
which the king, on the eve of
battle, rallies his "band of
brothers."
If
you want something more recent,
punch up the
Gettysburg Address. It
bears rereading in full, all
three paragraphs--honoring those
who died to preserve this nation
and what it stands for .
For
a contemporary view, read
Charles Krauthammer's speech
at this past February's American
Enterprise Institute annual
dinner: "Democratic Realism: An
American Foreign Policy for a
Unipolar World." Here you will
find the real issues.
Get
your hands on an old
black-and-white movie,
Fritz Lang's "M," filmed in
Berlin in 1931, which has more
to say about terror, and the
stopping of it, than just about
anything produced in the 73
years since.
Rent
"Inherit the Wind," in which
Spencer Tracy defends the right
of a man to think for himself.
Sit back with a copy of Harper
Lee's "To Kill a Mockingbird,"
in which small-town southern
lawyer Atticus Finch faces down
the mob to do what he knows is
right.
Click here to
view the latest television ads from
Progress for
America,
and to find out how you can help.
Read more
Act Now to
Protect Our Country!
Vote Bush-Cheney 2004
"A government falls... the
new, left-leaning leadership
promises to seek peace at any price.
Terrorists vow to end the attacks as
long as the new regime
"cooperates"...
"Madrid, 2004? No.
This time terrorists target U.S.
cities in early November -- and
panicked voters throw the election
to John F. Kerry -- to the cheers of
gloating, bloodthirsty terrorists
everywhere.
"The tragic scenario continues...
"Hundreds of television cameras zoom
in as the new President, returning
from an "international peace
conference" in Paris, steps to the
bank of microphones at Andrews Air
Force Base.
"In his deep, sonorous voice,
President John F. Kerry -- flanked
by Kofi Annan and Jacques Chirac --
utters these fateful words:
"My fellow Americans, go home and
sleep well. I return from Paris
having successfully negotiated with
al Qaeda leaders. There will be no
more bombings. All U.S. troops in
Iraq are now under United Nations
command. I have won peace for our
troubled era."
"Could it happen? Would President
Kerry lead the free world to a
second Munich...?
"John Kerry is a "Trojan horse" of
the Left -- a military veteran who
is the perfect embodiment of the
"hate-the-military" Democrats -- a
political party that simply can no
longer be trusted to defend America."
~~Johnathan Garthwaite~~
Act Now to
Protect Our Country!
Vote Bush-Cheney 2004
(Copyright ©
1984-2004 by American Patriots Against John
Kerry).
|
In January of 2001, three weeks before
George Bush took his oath of office, Patriot No.
01-01 offered this analysis: "Mr. Bush [will] unify the
nation around his character and agenda and win big in 2004.
... Mr. Bush will be doing much more than installing new
administration faces after January 20th. He will be
restoring a few things that have been painfully absent from
the presidency for eight long years -- most notably, honor
and common decency."
While we are not among the chattering
class of political prognosticators, The Patriot's
editorial staff stands by this assessment today. We do so
not because we agree with all of the Bush administration's
policies -- indeed, we have roundly criticized many of
President Bush's domestic spending initiatives -- but, as we
projected almost four years ago, George W. Bush has
restored honor and decency to the White House. Further, he
is an honorable and decent man -- a leader who has
proven himself under the most difficult of circumstances
while remaining humble.
Unlike his opponent, George Bush is
plain-spoken, which is to say he does not speak in the
Left-elite's Beltway dialect. But his plain-spoken manner,
combined with his genuine decency and humility, resonates
with the majority of Americans across all racial and
socio-economic lines.
In other words, the majority of Americans
are still good, God-fearing people who, most of the time,
are able to break the Leftmedia's stranglehold on their
political perspective and worldview. (The Federalist
Patriot, Sept. 16, 2004)
The bizarre candidacy of John Kerry
David Limbaugh
September 14, 2004
Remember when former Senator Bob Kerrey said
that Bill Clinton was an "unusually good liar --
unusually good"? Well, surely by now Democrats
realize that John Kerry is an unusually bad
candidate -- unusually bad. Just consider:
Kerry's never said why he should be president,
other than to fulfill a lifelong dream. He
inappropriately boasts of his war heroism, when
experience tells us that authentic heroes rarely
brag about their heroism.
The Swift Boat Veterans have deeply discredited
numerous parts of his Vietnam record, but Kerry
hasn't even attempted a factual rebuttal to any
of the charges. He has been forced to admit --
despite testifying the memory was "seared,
seared in me" -- he wasn't in Cambodia,
Christmas 1968, at the orders of Richard Nixon,
who wasn't yet president.
He's had to virtually admit that no hostile fire
accompanied his first Purple Heart incident,
meaning he didn't deserve that award.
He has personally attacked President Bush's
National Guard Service and V.P. Cheney's "five
deferments" and contrasted it with his
volunteering for two tours of duty in Vietnam.
But he hasn't answered John O'Neill's charge
that his first tour was 100 miles off the shore
of Vietnam and he didn't volunteer for service
until he was about to be drafted. Besides, who
in their right mind would believe that Kerry
would volunteer to risk his life in a war he
adamantly opposed?
He either perjured himself in his antiwar
testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee in admitting to committing atrocities
or he actually committed those atrocities, which
is worse. POWs have said their Communist captors
used his slander of our troops against them.
He was present at a meeting of the VVAW where
assassinations of public officials were
discussed. Whether or not he voted against them
or left the meeting, he has never explained why
he associated with such a group of sadistic
thugs.
He admitted to being in Paris and having "talked
with both delegations at the peace talks, that
is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and
the Provisional Revolutionary Government …"
Under whose authority? For what possibly
legitimate purpose?
He castigates President Bush -- preposterously
-- for having no plan to win the peace in Iraq.
But he's never explained how he would be
qualified to plan for any peace, given his
disastrous predictions of no bloodbath or
refugee problem upon U.S. withdrawal from
Vietnam.
He was rated the most liberal senator in 2003 by
the nonpartisan National Journal. And that
doesn't even begin to tell the story of his
egregiously anti-defense and anti-intelligence
record for his entire 20 years in the Senate.
He has failed to denounce Michael Moore's
deceits, but demands that President Bush
denounce the Swiftees' truths.
He insists Iraq isn't part of the War on Terror
yet claims that we've lost 1,000 people in the
War on Terror.
He hasn't explained how his Silver Star citation
was signed by Navy Secretary John Lehman years
after the fact when Lehman denies signing it. He
also hasn't explained how a "combat V" was
affixed to the citation when such designations
never accompany a Silver Star. Where's Dan
Rather?
He refuses to release all his military and
medical records and hides behind his biographer
Brinkley, who contradicts him, saying Kerry
alone possesses authority over his records.
He brutalized Vice President Cheney for saying
America would be safer under Bush-Cheney but in
the next breath, said he would make America
safer.
He swears he voted for the Iraq war resolution
because President Bush promised he'd attack only
as a last resort. Since there were no such
conditions in the resolution and no one else
corroborates his claim, are we to assume Bush
gave Kerry these assurances confidentially based
on their close friendship?
He says he won't delegate our national security
to other nations, but never stops complaining,
essentially, about Pres. Bush's failure to
delegate our national security to other nations.
He claimed that foreign leaders prefer him for
president. What was he doing talking to them,
under whose authority and about what?
He has been ducking the press for over a month
after excoriating President Bush for hiding from
the press. He won't answer "hypotheticals" about
what he'd do on fundamental issues as president.
He says he has a plan to withdraw troops, but
when pressed, admits he won't know enough about
the conditions on the ground until he's
president.
He admitted that life begins at conception, but
is pro-abortion anyway.
He has made incredibly destructive and bogus
claims about GOP plans to disenfranchise a
million black voters.
He has said President Bush isn't being tough on
North Korea, when before, Democrats were
mortified at his "reckless" saber rattling
against that nation.
Are you dizzy yet?
Kerry's Lost Opportunity,
by Herman Jacobs. Be sure to
follow the many links for a full reading
of this historic article.
Kerry Should be Prosecuted and Disqualifed from
National Office A
citizen petition demanding that John Kerry be
prosecuted for "giving aid and comfort to the
enemy" and disqualified for national office.
Kerry's Medals
Strategy
Wall Street Journal
Editorial
Monday, February 9,
2004 12:01 a.m. EST
Why is Mr. Kerry
playing this
Vietnam-service
card. This is the
same John Kerry who
declared in 1992
that Bill Clinton's
draft avoidance
record should be out
of political bounds.
His precise words,
defending Mr.
Clinton against an
attack from fellow
Democrat Bob Kerrey
at the time, were
that "We do not need
to divide America
over who served and
how."
The transparent
answer is that the
Senator is trying to
use his Vietnam
biography as a
political shield
against his national
security voting
record. Mr. Kerry
has a proud record
as a Navy lieutenant
from that troubled
war, including
medals for valor and
three Purple Hearts.
His advisers no
doubt hope to use
this as a kind of
political trump on
the vital question
of whether he should
be
commander-in-chief.
To this end, he has
draped himself on
the stump with
veterans and
routinely invokes
his own war record.
We rather doubt this
gambit will work,
and it shouldn't. A
candidate's service
history is one
window on his
character, but far
more important is
his judgment on the
major security
issues of his time.
In Mr. Kerry's case,
he has taken the
dovish side of
nearly every foreign
policy debate since
he entered public
life.
After fighting in
Vietnam, he returned
to lead the protests
against that war and
urge the U.S.
withdrawal that
turned Indochina
over to Communist
rule for a
generation. He was
in favor of the
nuclear freeze
movement in the
1980s that would
have frozen the Cold
War in place with a
Soviet advantage. He
denounced the
invasion of Grenada
in 1983, though he
now cites it as an
example of a use of
force he favors. He
also opposed U.S.
support for
anti-Communist
movements in Central
America in the 1980s
that helped bring
democracy to
Nicaragua and
elsewhere.
These policy
instincts have held
even after the
Soviet collapse
vindicated the
Ronald Reagan
strategy that Mr.
Kerry opposed. The
Senator voted
against the first
Gulf War, arguing
that Saddam Hussein
could be contained
without force. But
in 2002 he voted to
give this President
Bush the power to
disarm Saddam, only
to oppose a year
later the $87
billion to finish
the job. We'd argue
that these votes say
more about the
policies and
judgment of a future
President Kerry than
does his Navy
career.
A record of military
service deserves to
be respected, but it
shouldn't be a kind
of sovereign
political immunity.
Mr. Kerry in
particular may want
to avoid making the
personal too
political, because
his own post-Vietnam
behavior will also
come under scrutiny.
Throwing away
someone else's
medals as if they
were his own says
something about
character too.
All indications are
that this election
is going to include
the most important
national security
debate in a
generation.
September 11 exposed
America's acute
vulnerability to
terrorists with
weapons of mass
destruction, and Mr.
Bush has pursued a
strategy to defend
against it. Senator
Kerry and his fellow
Democrats have every
right to attack that
strategy and offer
better ideas for
fighting global
terrorism, if they
can. But the debate
ought to be about
who has the best
policies to keep
America safe, not
who won the most
medals 30 years ago.
(Copyright Dow Jones
& Co., 2004)
Bush: 86 the 527s
Best of the Web by James Taranto
"Never murder a man who is committing
suicide," Woodrow Wilson once said.
President Bush seems to be following that
advice, refusing to be drawn into the
controversy over the Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth's allegations about John Kerry's
Vietnam War record. Yesterday the president
did, however, make a procedural criticism of
the group, as the New York Times reports:
In response to reporters' questions,
the president once again condemned the
so-called 527 groups, which can raise
unlimited donations and run attack ads,
but cannot directly coordinate their
efforts with the campaigns. . . .
"All of them," the president said,
when asked whether he specifically meant
that the veteran's group's ad against
Mr. Kerry should be stopped. "That means
that ad, every other ad. Absolutely. I
don't think we ought to have 527's. I
can't be more plain about it, and I
wish--I hope my opponent joins me in
saying--condemning these activities of
the 527's. It's--I think they're bad for
the system."
For once we'd have to say Bush is
actually vulnerable to criticism from civil
libertarians. Does he really mean to suggest
that no group except a campaign or a
political party has the right to express its
political views? And of course Bush is
substantially to blame for the rise of 527s
as an alternative to campaigns and parties,
whose fund-raising and free speech are
severely restricted by the McCain-Feingold
law, which he signed.
The Kerry campaign, meanwhile, is still
demanding that the president defend their
man:
"Again the president did the wrong
thing today,'' said Chad Clanton, a
[Kerry] campaign spokesman. "He has
refused to specifically condemn the
smear campaign against John Kerry's
military record.''
Has anyone stopped to ponder just how
pathetic this is? For years we've been
hearing from the Democrats that President
Bush is a dummy, an illegitimate president,
a liar, a military deserter, a "moral
coward" and another Hitler--but now
Kerry is begging Bush to use his moral
authority to get him out of a fix that he
himself created by running a campaign based
almost entirely on "war hero" braggadocio.
Bush, of course, is wise not to do so.
This isn't his battle; it's Kerry vs.
Vietnam veterans--and Bush, as the Democrats
never tire of reminding us, is not a Vietnam
vet. The president has graciously given
Kerry the benefit of the doubt, as the Times
notes:
Asked if Mr. Kerry had lied about his
war record, Mr. Bush said, "Mr. Kerry
served admirably and he ought to be
proud of his record.''
That's real class. But it can't be
emphasized enough that the same is true of
the men who make up the Swift Boat Veterans
for Truth. Over the years Kerry has trashed
them, first as war criminals and now as
liars--but in terms of service to their
country, every member of this group is at
least Kerry's equal.
(Copyright Dow Jones & Company,
2004)
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
founder Roy Hoffman issued a
statement saying his organization
will not curb its attacks:
"It would make no difference if
John Kerry were a Republican,
Democrat or an Independent, Swift
Boat Veterans would still be
speaking the truth concerning John
Kerry's military service record in
Vietnam, his actions after returning
home and his lack of qualifications
to be the next commander in chief,"
the statement said, adding that the
group "remains dedicated to its
mission."
August 19, 2004. War
veterans Jere Hill, middle,
from Warham, Mass., and
Robert Gibson, right, from
Lexington, Ky., stand with
their backs turned during
Democratic presidential
nominee John Kerry (news
-
web sites)'s speech at
the 105th Veterans of
Foreign Wars National
Convention in Cincinnati on
Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2004.
Man in foreground is
unidentified. Kerry received
a polite if not
overwhelmingly positive
reaction from the VFW. But
there was a clear divide,
with scores of veterans
sittings with their arms
folded while others clapped.
(AP Photo/David Kohl)
The irony
here is that a main reason Mr. Kerry has focused so much on Vietnam
is to avoid debating Iraq and the rest of his long record in the
Senate. He wants Americans to believe that a four-month wartime
biography is credential enough to be commander-in-chief. But a
candidate who runs on biography can't merely pick the months of his
life that he likes--any more than a candidate who makes Vietnam the
heart of his campaign can confine the resulting debate to his
personal home video." (Wall Street Journal Editorial, 8/23/04)
The choice will be clear in November. This is not a time for
pessimism and rage. It's a time for optimism, steady leadership, and
progress.
Make your vote count --
Vote Bush-Cheney 2004
Thursday, August 19,
2004
Statement by Vice President Cheney
JACKSON HOLE, WY – Vice President
Cheney today issued the following
statement:
"Just over two weeks ago, Senator
Kerry talked about the merits of
troop realignment in Europe and
Asia. 'There are great possibilities
open to us,' he said. Yesterday he
said it was a bad idea. The one
consistency we have seen from
Senator Kerry is that he is willing
to take any position on any issue if
he thinks it will benefit him
politically. As we saw yesterday,
these political calculations even
include his positions on our
national security."
|
