Swift Boaters take aim at Murtha.
By on Aug 1st, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Swift Boaters take aim at Murtha.
“The ‘Swift Boat’ veterans who grabbed national headlines in 2004″ are back, and their new target is Rep. John Murtha (D-PA). “Armed as a new group — Veterans for the Truth — they’re bringing their campaign to ‘Redeploy John Murtha From Congress’ to his backyard.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Global Warming
Health Care
Hoffman
Immigration
International Relations
Iraq
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
The swift boat has become a deflated rubber duck.
Goper’s Lament
August 1st, 2006 at 1:21 pmwhat’s taken them so long?!?
August 1st, 2006 at 1:21 pmc’mon, guys… jeesh…
Oh brother the Bush lover fascists are out for blood again > they never give up smearing those who oppose Bush their imbecilic god who needs thorizine badly!
August 1st, 2006 at 1:22 pmI think we should call these fascists what they really are. They are U-boat operators. Just like Nazi’s, destroying civilians and leaving hatred and destruction in their path.
-GSD
August 1st, 2006 at 1:23 pmStewie: “Oh, heere we gooo! Please wait while MSNBC, CNN, Fux News give them all the air time they equire to tell their lies (unchallenged) and deploy their screed on the unwitting populace because “it’s good tv.”
August 1st, 2006 at 1:25 pmI thought Veteran’s for Truth was Paul Reikoff’s organization? They’re liars AND thieves?
August 1st, 2006 at 1:26 pmO.K., I think we’ve had enough of this bullshit. Let me just say this: It doesn’t really matter to me how innocent the troops are in all this. There comes a point when it is undeniable that those troop’s mission is ultimately hurting all of us. therefore, I must say we need to purge all the hilbillies and those Christian taliban rednecks. Oh yes, I;m talkin civil war all over again. Only this time it’s the coastal, city folk who are being wronged. I want to mobilize the whole north east and some of the midwest, get our own military and push texas and the bible belt into mexico. then I would let the illegal Mexicans have Texas back and secure the borders. You can be sure that those fanatical hillbillies will be much more of a threat than the Mexicans ever were. I tell you what, then when can have a real border protection debate.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:30 pmSounds like these twerps would be some good target practice for some Fighting Dems: Sestak, Massa, Fawcett, Winter, Brown.
Let’s kick them in the balls……….
August 1st, 2006 at 1:33 pm“Redeploy John Murtha From Congress’ to his backyard.†I LOVE IT!
August 1st, 2006 at 1:34 pmWhy don’t you get your wrinkled ass out of the Lazy Boy Retarded Republican Soldier and go visit the limbless soldiers at a VA hospital. Tell them all about how you love war, bet you leave with a crutch up your flabby ass.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:46 pmThose millionaires are already paying republican politicians back, for the estate tax repeal.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:49 pmaka “Veterans for Truthiness”.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:49 pmMurtha is no John Kerry.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:50 pm#9 Of course you love it. You were told to love it out of fear.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:50 pmThose millionaires are already paying republican politicians back, for the estate tax repeal.
How else could republicans pay for swiftboating commericials.
August 1st, 2006 at 1:51 pmI would like to know how Mr. Murtha will respond or if he will respond. Remaining silent does not work. Mr. Murtha should come out swinging. He has the credentials and experience to speak his piece without any regrets.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:00 pmLike I said, they would slime Reagan if he were still here and voiced his opinion. You KNOW things are BAD when you yearn for the Reagan days!
August 1st, 2006 at 2:03 pmThe “swiftboat thing” signals the GOP is circling the drain–when their only tool is defame opponents, you know they have NOTHING positive to share with voters in the fall. Moderate Republicans now feel they have to run against the war to win re-election.
Just remember that this is a VERY unpopular president. The American public has very good reasons for disliking him and his policies so intensely. They are all but begging you to stand up and refuse to go along with his incompetent, extremist, and unlawful behavior
August 1st, 2006 at 2:04 pmDidn’t there used to be such laws that outlawed SLANDER?
August 1st, 2006 at 2:04 pmSwift boating (defaming anyone in PNAC path) is not as effective as it once was.
It was so stunning at first, but now we are wiser than before, and stronger not weaker. At first we thought no one would stoop so low as to blatantly lie, and blasted by paid PR teams instead of real people. Now that we are awake and aware, and firing back, we will sink their “swift crippled boat” aka “slow boat!”
Gettem’ Murtha! We’ve got your back!
August 1st, 2006 at 2:13 pmI thought Veteran’s for Truth was Paul Reikoff’s organization? They’re liars AND thieves?
Comment by cynicalgirl — August 1, 2006 @ 1:26 pm
you may be right, cynicalgirl… but reikoff changed to name of the site from OpTruth to http://www.iava.org/index.php – Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America…
August 1st, 2006 at 2:20 pmI continue to wonder why the Dem’s don’t have a “response group” set up to counter this GOP supporter garbage attack tactic. Everyone knows it’s coming and rather than have the “target” spend time, energy and money to counter the false and misleading claims of thise yahoos ~ have a very obvious and direct counter group to face off with them.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:20 pm#16…if you read the article that Think Progress linked to you’ll see Murtha’s response.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:20 pmSame whores, new Johns, who gives a shit?
At least they’re out in the open. Shame is a powerful weapon. I wonder which one of the Swift Boat Veterans for Rent will lose his job this time?
August 1st, 2006 at 2:23 pm.
It’s becomes obvious that war is just hugely profitable. So much so, that these mauraders will spend millions of dollars to protect their outrageous positon at the expense of fellow veterans. Real veterans don’t demean real veterans, plain and simple. And to disguise themselves as “Veterans for the Truth”? Low lifes the lot. And veterans themselves? No, just “Traitors to Truth”.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:24 pmCircling the drain, glug glug glug. Loved the analogy.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:31 pmEvery side of the GOP, from the bottom of their wicked little Evilgellicals to the top of their addled Bush brains, have lost all credibility. I hear a GOP pol speak, I reverse it to get the truth. The method has proved remarkably reliable. Much more reliable than the MSM, actually, when compared to what finally rolls out as historical fact.
Swiftboaters, meet Davy Jones.
There was great money in it last time.
Of course they’ll do it again.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:31 pmAccording to the article
Actually, the authors of the book were John O’Neil and Jerome Corsi. Larry Bailey is not credited with authoring or coauthoring the book. Its not clear why participating in the creation of a work of fiction would burnish his credentials, but more to the point … Haven’t some of these gentlemen previously raised concerns about people taking credit for things they didnt do?
August 1st, 2006 at 2:40 pmOnce this type of tactic become ineffective, it will stop.
Until then, we’re going to continue to be bombarded by this nonsense.
I’m just amazed at what some people will believe.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:40 pmGeez, could you imagine the outrage if us democrats were to attack republican veterans in Congress? Oh wait, are there any republican veterans in Congress? There sure as hell none in the White House!
August 1st, 2006 at 2:43 pmI could be wrong, but it seems to me that if no one pays attention to those ass clowns that their slanderous message can’t really do much harm. It only became a problem for Kerry when the media started giving the swiftboaters the time of day. It’s hard fo rme to say that we, the people, should not be made aware of such news, but in this case it’s probably best not to pay any damn attention to them.
August 1st, 2006 at 2:45 pmI can’t wait to hear Murtha’s response. Kerry probably lost the election becuse he remained silent while these treasonous bastards spread their lies (Remember Sinclair broadcasting Corp.? Republican shills that refused to stop airing the ads??). At any rate, Mutha will not take this slander without fighting. The question is though, will the MSM continue to tacitly approve these methods by their own silence and failure to investigate the truth?
August 1st, 2006 at 2:51 pmI continue to wonder why the Dem’s don’t have a “response group†set up to counter this GOP supporter garbage attack tactic…
Comment by Southwest Bob — August 1, 2006 @ 2:20 pm
they do – http://mediamatters.org/ , for one… TP is a big help…
August 1st, 2006 at 3:13 pmbut they only get air time with bill o’lielly…
Don’t you think it’s interesting how “swiftboating” has come to mean a smear campaign attack? Since this seems to be the generally accepted meaning of the term, it also shows what generally is thought of the “Swift Boaters” tactics. I realize that not everyone will agree with this conclusion, but I do believe it is the current general consensus. Leave it to the Republicans to inadvertently create a new term for underhanded politics.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:32 pmWhy are these republican fellow travelers maligning and chastising Murtha, who is a bona fide combat veteran? Must be political. Murtha as a congressman and American citizen has every right to critcize the conduct of a ” war” that was started based on lies and deceit, squandered over 320 billion dollars to date, killed tens of thousands of civilians and thousands of Americans and seems to have no end. Murtha rightfully so has condemned the overall strategy, tactics and lack of real success in this meaningless debacle. The “swifties” should be nailing the Bush-Cheney Crime sydicate and the corrupt republican party of which almost none ever served in the armed forces. This is a war of profit. The Helliburton war corporation has acquired huge profits from the “war” and look for more. My three brothers served in combat zones in WW2 and I served in the US Army. I am ready to be “swiftboated”.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:40 pm“Supporting the Troops”, Republican style. Nice, really nice.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:43 pmI think Murtha will eat them alive.
The republicans are all mouth .Its time we took the S.B. down …
August 1st, 2006 at 3:51 pmWhy doesnt someone with the means look into the personal lives and records of these pigs and show them for who theytruely are. Everyone of these traitors has something im sure they are quite ashamed of and if they wanna smear a war hero then we owe it to Murtha to at least balance the field.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:57 pmDisinformation, the article lies.
August 1st, 2006 at 3:58 pmI think the mendacious group “Veterans for Perpetuating Lies” have taken on a Veteran that’s gonna tear them a new one.
The Dems they’ve gone after so far have not fought back. Rep. Murtha is one that’s gonna show them how badly they screwed the pooch. Rep. Murtha is a better man than any of them think they are.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:05 pmIf they has anything on him other than his “convict before trial” remarks, they would. Like i said, the article lies.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:11 pmU Boat Liars for Bush.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:15 pmU Boat Liars for Bush.
U Boat Liars for Bush.
U Boat Liars for Bush.
U Boat Liars for Bush.
U Boat Liars for Bush.
U Boat Liars for Bush.
Remember in November, America
Murtha better take this seriously and hit back hard again and again and again. Ignoring this kind of crap will take even a guy of Murtha’s stature down. Can you say Max Clelland? A little reminder, from Wikipedia:
August 1st, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Murtha, chew these shitbags up ‘n’ spit ‘em out.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:40 pmWe should keep abreast of the developments in this matter. Rep. Murtha should not fight this battle alone. Here is one Democrat that needs our help.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:43 pmJohn McCain is sorta an outcast as well. But he is a veteran.
August 1st, 2006 at 4:44 pmWho are these swiftboaters, and where do they live?
August 1st, 2006 at 5:09 pmA lie unchallenged becomes the truth. Swiftboating must be challenged.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:11 pmDemocrats have been civil, they got really upset when Howard Dean spoke from the cuff. Now is the time to speak plainly and frankly. We need to call fascists, thieves, yellowbellys, evil people by the label they have earned. And evidence needs to be simply presented with each rebuke so that people understand and see us standing defiant.
August 1st, 2006 at 5:52 pmThose republican pukes couldn’t carry Murtha’s water.
August 1st, 2006 at 6:29 pm#
Cant wait to see the evidence.
Comment by chung — August 1, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
LOL you will be waiting a long time. If it was like the “evidence” Kerry, it will be dishonest lies from men who didn’t serve with Jack Murtha. But best to toe the line and believe what is spoon fed to you.
August 1st, 2006 at 6:45 pm#17 madashell; Reagan? Things are SOOOOOOOOO bad these days that I even miss NIXON.
August 1st, 2006 at 6:56 pmMurtha is one bad-ass they ought not try to take on. He won’t back down like Kerry. Go get ‘em Murtha!
August 1st, 2006 at 7:06 pmThe great news that Murtha will fight and fight hard. Kerry took the body blows for a month before he said anything.
Support Murtha with contributions!!!
Where’s the Outrage?
August 1st, 2006 at 10:11 pmLet’s flush the swiftboaters…come to the rallies, make contributions…how long must we all have to deal with their rhetorical nonsense…the time has come for them…let’s take back the congress!
August 1st, 2006 at 11:46 pmYou reap what you sew. Liberals go after Lieberman with smears, now the swiftboaters go after Murtha with smears.
August 1st, 2006 at 11:53 pmWhat really amazes me is that after all that has been said regarding the SBVFT, the belief that their allegations against Kerry were PROVEN to be false, continues to be accepted. Such belief is NOT supported by the FACTS. Virtually every argument has two sides. However, in the case of the SWVFT, the allegations regarding Kerry’s Vietnam record remain UNRESOLVED. Neither side has presented evidence which can be characterized as being definitive. The only honest representation concerning those issues is to say that they remain open to question.
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:11 amEXCEPT, of course, in the case of Kerry’s “Christmas Cambodian Fantasy”(ABSOLUTELY PROVEN TO BE A PATENT LIE) and the Senator’s, so-called “two Vietnam tours,” which turned out to be a gross, intentional misrepresentation of the fact.
They were full of $h!t then, and they’re still LIARS now…
I for one am sick of these sub-humans lying about honorable veterans like Murtha, Cleland, and Kerry, while they defend the ’slacker-in-chief’.
These people have no souls, let alone honor.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:08 amDisinformation, the article lies.
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:54 amMarine Names Rep. John Murtha in Defamation Suit
A Marine Corps sergeant under investigation in connection with the deaths of 24 Iraqi civilians in Haditha is accusing Rep. John P. Murtha of defaming him in public comments about the case.
Lawyers for Frank D. Wuterich, 26, argue in a suit to be filed Wednesday in federal court that Murtha falsely accused Wuterich “of cold-blooded murder and war crimes.”
The suit maintains that Pentagon officials “who have briefed or leaked information to Mr. Murtha deliberately provided him with inaccurate and false information” and that the congressman subsequently “has made repeated statements …. that are defamatory” to Wuterich and his fellow Marines.
The suit accuses Murtha of spreading “false and malicious lies” about Wuterich and his squad that were “intended to serve his own private purpose and interests” and that Murtha’s comments “have been reproduced by countless third parties throughout the world.”
It says many of Murtha’s remarks were made outside his “scope of employment as a congressman.” Murtha, a former Marine, has been a leading proponent of withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq.
The planned court filing was first reported late Tuesday on The Washington Post’s Internet site.
Wuterich’s lawyers, Neal A. Puckett and Mark S. Zaid, subsequently provided a copy of the suit to The Associated Press early Wednesday and announced plans for a news conference outside the courthouse where they planned to file the suit.
The claim for libel and invasion of privacy seeks damages to be determined, but not less than $75,000.
“This case is not about money; it’s about clearing Frank Wuterich’s name, and part of that is to identify where these leaks are coming from,” Zaid told the Post. “Congressman Murtha has created this atmosphere that has already concluded guilt. He’s created this environment that really smells, and he’s the only one who has done that.”
The suit details Wuterich’s account of what happened on Nov. 19, 2005, in Haditha, a story he has told through his lawyers previously.
Wuterich maintains several civilians were killed when his squad pursued insurgents firing at them from inside a house after a roadside bombing that killed one Marine. He describes a house-to-house hunt that went wrong in the midst of a confusing battlefield, but has denied through his attorneys any vengeful massacre.
Wuterich and three other Marines from his 3rd battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, are under criminal investigation by the Naval Criminal Investigation Service. A parallel investigation is looking at whether officers at higher levels in the chain of command covered up the facts.
No one has been charged in the case.
The Post said telephone calls Tuesday to Murtha’s office in Washington were referred to his district office in Pennsylvania and that calls there were not returned.
© 2006 Associated Press
Kerry’s ‘Christmas in Cambodia’
On the floor of the Senate on March 27, 1986, Sen. John Kerry issued this statement: “I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me.”
Mr. Kerry’s statement at the time was similar to other statements he had made after returning from duty in Vietnam, and throughout much of the 1970s. Writing for the Boston Herald in October 1979, Mr. Kerry said this: “I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.”
First, the obvious: Richard Nixon was not president in December 1968, and no history of the Vietnam era suggests that Lyndon Johnson ever ordered troops into Cambodia; but those are minor points. A new book, “Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry,” by John O’Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, argues that Mr. Kerry was never in Cambodia, during Christmas 1968 or otherwise. To support their allegation, Messrs. O’Neill and Corsi highlight the denials of all living commanders in Mr. Kerry’s chain of command that Mr. Kerry was in Cambodia, or was ever ordered into Cambodia (Joe Streuhli, commander of Coastal Division 13; George Elliott, commander of Coastal Division 11; Adrian Lonsdale, captain, Coast Guard, commander, Coastal Surveillance Center at An Thoi; Rear Adm. Ray Hoffman, commander Coastal Surveillance Force Vietnam; and Rear Adm. Art Price, commander of River Patrol Force). Also, the authors report that three out of Mr. Kerry’s five-man Swift boat crew deny that they or their boat was in Cambodia during Christmas 1968 — the other two refused to comment.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:34 amAccording to the book, Mr. Kerry and his Swift boat crew were stationed at Coastal Division 13 in Cat Lo, with a patrol area extending to Sa Dec, which was a little more than 50 miles from the Cambodian border. Tom Anderson, the commander of River Division 531, who was in charge of the patrol boats canvassing the waterways from Sa Dec to the Cambodian border, confirmed to the authors that no Swift boats were anywhere in the area, and that any would have been stopped, or their captains court-martialed for breaching the border.
In 1992, The Associated Press interviewed Mr. Kerry about his Vietnam experience. Again, the Cambodian story resurfaced: “By Christmas 1968, part of Kerry’s patrol extended across the border of South Vietnam into Cambodia. ‘We were told, “Just go up there and do your patrol.” Everybody was over there (in Cambodia). Nobody thought twice about it,’ Kerry said.” Then, in a Boston Globe report from last summer, Mr. Kerry slightly changed his Cambodia story: “To top it off, Kerry said, he had gone several miles inside Cambodia, which theoretically was off limits.” If it was “theoretically off limits,” who gave Mr. Kerry the order to enter Cambodia, as he asserted numerous times before? Yet in “Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War,” author Douglas Brinkley provides a thoroughly different version of what happened in Christmas 1968. According to Mr. Brinkley, who received his information from Mr. Kerry directly, Mr. Kerry was on patrol in Sa Dec (50 miles from the Cambodian border) on Christmas Eve and spent Christmas day writing journal entries back at his base.
Over at JohnKerry.com, you can read “After-action” reports — first-hand accounts written immediately following combat — from Mr. Kerry’s Vietnam tour. Strangely, the reports extend only as far back as February 1969. In the absence of these reports, the public can only pit one version of events with another.
Why is any of this important? Mr. Kerry has made his Vietnam experiences the focal point in his campaign. Indeed, the candidate wants voters to judge his Vietnam service as reflecting the qualities needed in a commander in chief. It is not Mr. Kerry’s detractors who have placed Vietnam at the forefront of the campaign, it is Mr. Kerry himself. As such, his testimonials both during and after his tour should be subject to verification and debate.
Moreover, it is not beyond the realm of the media to discover whether or not Mr. Kerry was truthful on the floor of the Senate, nor should it be beyond Mr. Kerry to answer such a charge. The inconsistencies in Mr. Kerry’s Cambodia story should be explained, either by an inquisitive press corps or by the Kerry campaign itself.
Kerry’s Cambodia Whopper
By Joshua Muravchik
Tuesday, August 24, 2004; Page A17
Most of the debate between the former shipmates who swear by John Kerry and the group of other Swift boat veterans who are attacking his military record focuses on matters that few of us have the experience or the moral standing to judge. But one issue, having nothing to do with medals, wounds or bravery under fire, goes to the heart of Kerry’s qualifications for the presidency and is therefore something that each of us must consider. That is Kerry’s apparently fabricated claim that he fought in Cambodia.
It is an assertion he made first, insofar as the written record reveals, in 1979 in a letter to the Boston Herald. Since then he has repeated it on at least eight occasions during Senate debate or in news interviews, most recently to The Post this year (an interview posted on Kerry’s Web site). The most dramatic iteration came on the floor of the Senate in 1986, when he made it the centerpiece of a carefully prepared 20-minute oration against aid to the Nicaraguan contras. Kerry argued that contra aid could put the United States on the path to deeper involvement despite denials by the Reagan administration of any such intent. Kerry began by reading out similar denials regarding Vietnam from presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon. Then he offered this devastating riposte:
“I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me.”
However seared he was, Kerry’s spokesmen now say his memory was faulty. When the Swift boat veterans who oppose Kerry presented statements from his commanders and members of his unit denying that his boat entered Cambodia, none of Kerry’s shipmates came forward, as they had on other issues, to corroborate his account. Two weeks ago Kerry’s spokesmen began to backtrack. First, one campaign aide explained that Kerry had patrolled the Mekong Delta somewhere “between” Cambodia and Vietnam. But there is no between; there is a border. Then another spokesman told reporters that Kerry had been “near Cambodia.” But the point of Kerry’s 1986 speech was that he personally had taken part in a secret and illegal war in a neutral country. That was only true if he was “in Cambodia,” as he had often said he was. If he was merely “near,” then his deliberate misstatement falsified the entire speech.
Next, the campaign leaked a new version through the medium of historian Douglas Brinkley, author of “Tour of Duty,” a laudatory book on Kerry’s military service. Last week Brinkley told the London Telegraph that while Kerry had been 50 miles from the border on Christmas, he “went into Cambodian waters three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions.” Oddly, though, while Brinkley devotes nearly 100 pages of his book to Kerry’s activities that January and February, pinpointing the locations of various battles and often placing Kerry near Cambodia, he nowhere mentions Kerry’s crossing into Cambodia, an inconceivable omission if it were true.
Now a new official statement from the campaign undercuts Brinkley. It offers a minimal (thus harder to impeach) claim: that Kerry “on one occasion crossed into Cambodia,” on an unspecified date. But at least two of the shipmates who are supporting Kerry’s campaign (and one who is not) deny their boat ever crossed the border, and their testimony on this score is corroborated by Kerry’s own journal, kept while on duty. One passage reproduced in Brinkley’s book says: “The banks of the [Rach Giang Thanh River] whistled by as we churned out mile after mile at full speed. On my left were occasional open fields that allowed us a clear view into Cambodia. At some points, the border was only fifty yards away and it then would meander out to several hundred or even as much as a thousand yards away, always making one wonder what lay on the other side.” His curiosity was never satisfied, because this entry was from Kerry’s final mission.
After his discharge, Kerry became the leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Once, he presented to Congress the accounts by his VVAW comrades of having “personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires . . . to human genitals . . . razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan . . . poisoned foodstocks.” Later it was shown that many of the stories on which Kerry based this testimony were false, some told by impostors who had stolen the identities of real GIs, but Kerry himself was not implicated in the fraud. And his own over-the-top generalization that such “crimes [were] committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command” could be charged up to youthfulness and the fevers of the times.
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.
The writer is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
http://www.wintersoldier.com/audio/kerry2.mp3
The Truth, John Kerry, and The New York Times
By Thomas Lipscomb
Kate Zernike’s story on the front page of the Memorial Day Sunday New York Times, “Kerry Pressing Swift Boat Case Long After Loss,” is an unfortunate reminder of the Times’s embarrassingly poor coverage of Kerry in the face of the Swift Boat Veterans’ for Truth charges in the 2004 election. Now as then, the Times acts as if the issues involved were between Kerry’s latest representations of his record and the “unsubstantiated” charges of the Swift Boat group. The Times used the term “unsubstantiated” more than twenty times during its election coverage and continues to make no discernable effort to examine any of the charges in detail.
But there was plenty of evidence in the work of other news organizations that some of the charges, and the Kerry military records themselves, were worth examining seriously. I found numerous problems with Kerry’s records on his website in my own reporting for the Chicago Sun-Times: a Silver Star with a V for valor listed that the Navy stated it had never awarded in the history of the US Navy, three separate medal citations with some heavy revisions in Kerry’s favor signed by former Navy Secretary John Lehman who denied ever signing them, to name two.
Additionally I found by examining the message traffic with experts that when the Swift Boat Vets charged that Kerry had written the Bay Hap after action report, by which he received his bronze star and the third purple heart that was his ticket out of Vietnam, the evidence showed that it was indeed probably written by Kerry himself. Zernike seems to have totally missed this in her reporting. Zernike is content to refer to Kerry’s claim that “original reports pulled from the naval archives contradict the charge that he drafted his own accounts of various incidents,” none of which she cites, provides, or analyzes.
Zernike appears to have made no effort to look at any record besides listing Kerry’s latest assertions with obligatory quotes from the usual Swiftie suspects to provide “balance.” She doesn’t appear to be aware of the hilarious inconsistency of the Kerry hat story she recites dutifully as if this was the very first time the hat had appeared in print. As the clips should have shown her, Kerry first pulled the famous hat out of a “secret compartment” for Washington Post reporter Laura Blumenfeld’s feature story in 2003. “My good luck hat,” Kerry told Blumenfeld, “given to me by a CIA guy.” Now he tells Zernike a “special operations team” member gave it to him on a secret “mission that records say was to insert Navy Seals” in February.
Once again Zernike cites a Kerry claim as fact, this time directly conflicting with the Washington Post account on the record. But the facts on this are already on the record and no matter what Kerry “researchers” may come up with they should be addressed by any reporter attempting a review of the dispute. Admiral Roy Hoffman may have been head of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but he was also in command of all the Swift Boat operations in Vietnam, directly under the commander of all sea operations in Vietnam, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt.
Any tasking for insertions of special operations troops across borders by sea, whether Seals, CIA, Army Special Forces or Vietnamese troops like CIDG had to come through his command. Hoffman stated he was never asked to handle missions for the CIA. “They had their own teams for that. And none of my Coastal Commands ever inserted any troops of this kind into Cambodia. We had some operations we ran north that I am not at liberty to discuss.”
Orders for sensitive incursion operations like this don’t appear by magic. And an individual boat commander, whether it is Kerry or anyone else, doesn’t simply head across a border with a boatful of Seals on his own. Kerry’s direct commander at An Thoi, George Elliott, has denied ever being asked to run such a mission out of his base and three of Kerry’s PCF 44 crewmen have denied ever being in Cambodia with Kerry.
Tedd Peck, accompanied Kerry’s PCF 44 on his PCF 57 from Cam Ranh down to their new assignment at An Thoi where they arrived on December 8, 1968. Peck served there with Kerry until he was wounded and med-evaced out on January 29, 1969. Douglas Brinkley states that “Kerry liked Peck.” So what does Peck have to say about secret missions out of An Thoi to Cambodia? “There never was one. And I never saw a Navy Seal at An Thoi the whole time I served there with Kerry”
What does it take to wake up a good reporter that there are some issues here besides one junior lieutenant’s latest assertions on the basis, once again, of totally undisclosed records? It isn’t simply a matter of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth “lies.” The facts recited by Kerry make no military sense, fly in direct opposition to authoritative testimony, and are yet to be backed by any records anyone has seen. And Kerry keeps changing his story.
The mission Kerry described to Laura Blumenfeld was the famous “Christmas in Cambodia” trip since disproved by Kerry’s own log. Zernike ledes with “showing the entry in a log he kept from 1969: ‘Feb 12: 0800 run to Cambodia’” and swallows it unquestioningly. The only authority that “Kerry log” has ever had is that it has been in the sole possession of John Kerry and carefully kept away from objective research that may or not have disclosed changes or heavy editing over time.
Zernike should remember what happened to historian Douglas Brinkley who accepted Kerry’s word in his best-selling TOUR OF DUTY. Kerry told Brinkley personally that he was a “no-show” at a national meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War in Kansas City which voted on a resolution to assassinate six US Senators supporting the Vietnam War in 1971.
One can understand why Brinkley would naturally have assumed that as a sitting US Senator himself, Kerry would have vividly recalled the occasion if he had been there. My reporting and Josh Gerstein’s in The New York Sun and Scott Canon’s at The Kansas City Star found quite a few witnesses, most of whom were working for Kerry’s presidential campaign, who saw Kerry at the meeting and some saw him vote and his presence was confirmed by FBI taps as well. The FBI taps were surfaced by a left wing writer, Gerald Nicosia, for whom Kerry had hosted a book party at his Senate office.
Kerry flatly lied to Brinkley and continued to lie to the press until the story got so strong he finally had a sudden attack of minimal memory recovery. Brinkley had to print a correction, but not before Kerry showed another unattractive side to his approach to historical revisionism. He pressured several of the witnesses who confirmed his presence at Kansas City to change their stories. I reported it, and The New York Times confirmed my story in a front page story by Adam Nagourney and David Halbfinger.
One of those witnesses was a Marine who had been totally disabled in the fighting in Viet Nam and had been a Kerry supporter. When Kerry suddenly discovers a witness who has changed his mind in his favor, the circumstances might merit more than one grain of salt. And all this happened well before the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ever appeared on the scene.
Zernike makes much of the support of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth “backed by Republican donors and consultants,” which indeed it was. But she shows no interest in who is backing “the Patriot Project” challenging the Swift Vets claims “formed by Kerry supporters” since February 2005 that is the occasion for her story. She even passes on the following at face value: “Kerry portrays himself as a wary participant in his own defense, insisting in the two-hour interview that he does not want to dwell on the accusations or the mistakes of his 2004 campaign. ‘I’m moving on,’ he says several times.”
That will certainly come as a surprise to anyone reading this story which lays down a lot of unproven statements as fact, unproven and unconfirmed by Kate Zernike, such as: “Naval records and accounts from other sailors contradicted almost every claim they made, and some members of the group who had earlier praised Mr. Kerry’s heroism contradicted themselves.” Please note this is not a statement of position from a Kerry advocate being quoted. This is a flat statement of fact by Zernike on behalf of “the newspaper of record.”
Zernike wastes most of her story simply repeating rather than weighing Kerry talking points: She defines John O’Neill as “a former Swift boat commander who was recruited by the Nixon administration to debate Mr. Kerry on “The Dick Cavett Show.” That is a pretty dramatic charge by The New York Times. But the extensive record Zernike apparently missed, including the Times’s own archives, shows it is totally untrue. If O’Neill was recruited by anyone for the Cavett Show, it was Bruce Kesler, a Marine veteran whose op-ed O’Neill had come across in the Times and whose “Vietnam Veterans for A Just Peace” O’Neill quickly joined.
Kesler nominated O’Neill for the show. In the CSPAN rebroadcast of the original 1971 Cavett debate during the 2004 campaign, Dick Cavett, who had been on the famous Nixon “enemies list,” denied the Nixon Administration had anything to do with setting up the debate or who participated. During the election Kesler gave the entire story to Todd Purdum, but nothing appeared in the Times. Kesler also outlined how the debate had come about in a commentary piece in the Augusta Free Press in August of 2004. And the Kesler challenge for Kerry to debate was carried in the June 2, 1971 New York Times.
If The New York Times fails to correct that error, O’Neill could have a pretty good libel action. How can there be “absence of malice” when a great newspaper repeatedly lists claims by eyewitnesses backed by military records as “unsubstantiated,” while its reporter ignores published records including its own archive?
In any case, it is time for some tough reporting to evaluate the Kerry’s claims as listed in Zernike’s article. I will be following up with several other key incidents which appear to be widely at variance with these claims. These will include what appears to be the current state of the evidence about the “skimmer” operation Kerry has decided to put in play again and the greatest newspaper coverup in modern history.
It is time we all got to see a picture of the famous Kerry “lucky hat,” rather than another account by the latest star-struck journalist. It is time for Kerry to stop alluding to “records” and start producing them. And it is time media assigned reporters with military experience or the resources to analyze this record and see just who is lying about what.
Thomas Lipscomb is an independent investigative reporter whose work was entered for the Pulitzer for investigative reporting in 2005. He is a senior fellow at the Annenberg Center for the Digital Future (USC) tom@digitalfuture.org
John Kerry and the VVAW: Hanoi’s American Puppets?.
– Jerome Corsi and Scott Swett analyze the implications of two newly discovered documents showing that the Vietnamese communists guided the American antiwar movement via meetings between the communist delegations to the Paris Peace talks and American antiwar activists. John Kerry and the VVAW were working toward the exact goals set forth in the communist directives.
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=puppets
Kerry Lied, And So Did I….
– Steve Pitkin, former member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, tells in his own words how John Kerry pressured him to give false testimony about war crimes at the Winter Soldier Investigation, and about his recent opportunity to apologize to Vietnam veterans.
http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=Pitkin1
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:43 am
Kerry’s Cambodia confusion
On Wednesday, the Kerry campaign acknowledged that John Kerry probably was not in Cambodia on Christmas 1968, contrary to the senator’s decades-old assertion. Speaking on Fox News’ “Fox and Friends,” Kerry campaign aide Jeh Johnson said, “John Kerry has said on the record that he had a mistaken recollection earlier. He talked about a combat situation on Christmas Eve 1968 which at one point he said occurred in Cambodia. He has since corrected the record to say it was some place on a river near Cambodia and he is certain that at some point subsequent to that he was in Cambodia. My understanding is that he is not certain about that date.” Recall that this is the date that Mr. Kerry, speaking on the Senate floor in 1986, said was “seared” into him.
Case closed? Not quite. Michael Meehan, a Kerry campaign adviser speaking on NBC News, offered an explanation for Mr. Kerry’s confusion: “The Mekong Delta consists of the border between Cambodia and Vietnam, so on Christmas Eve in 1968, [Mr. Kerry] was in fact on patrol … in the Mekong Delta between Cambodia and Vietnam.” Unfortunately for Mr. Kerry, this explanation raises more questions than it answers. First, at the point where the Mekong River intersects the Cambodian/Vietnam border, there is no “between.” As the map on the opposite page reveals, the river in fact runs from Cambodia to Vietnam, unlike, say, the Potomac River, which creates the border between Maryland and Virginia, and Virginia and Washington. If there is a point where the river meanders in a way that Cambodia is on one side and Vietnam the other, it constitutes such a small area that for Mr. Kerry to be in that exact spot on the river would be highly dubious, although not, we add, impossible.
Furthermore, the nature of the Cambodia/Vietnam border, especially at the Mekong intersection, was a point of extreme tension in 1968. As Andrew Antippas writes on the opposite page, both the Cambodian and the Vietnamese officials were very sensitive to Cambodia’s neutrality, though North Vietnamese incursions did occur. For U.S. forces, entering Cambodia was forbidden. As the Foreign Service officer in Saigon responsible for Cambodian border incidents, Mr. Antippas remembers just one occasion in 1968 where a Navy vessel ventured into Cambodia, most likely because the accident created such a diplomatic nightmare for the Americans.
But why would Mr. Kerry tell such a misleading tale on the floor of the Senate? Throughout his political career, Mr. Kerry has referred to his Christmas in Cambodia as the moment when he became disillusioned with the American political leadership, and why he became such a vociferous opponent of the war upon his return from duty. Indeed, it is a moving lesson, as he recounted in 1986 on the Senate floor: “I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me that says to me, before we send another generation into harm’s way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible in order to avoid that kind of conflict.” But it didn’t happen. And what are Americans to make of a presidential candidate whose life-altering moment was a figment of his imagination?
Vets’ evidence against
Kerry ironclad
Posted: August 14, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
John McCain dishonored himself when he appeared with John Kerry to denounce the statements of the Vietnam veterans who say John Kerry is unfit to be commander in chief. McCain obviously spoke before he knew the facts.
The Kerry campaign and much of the media went ballistic when a television ad featuring several veterans who oppose Kerry’s candidacy was aired by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The Kerry campaign immediately launched a campaign to get TV stations to bar the ad, threatening legal repercussions.
The vets for truth are not backing down. The group’s attorney, John E. O’Neill, replied with a letter setting forth extensive documentation of the statements made in the advertisement.
Kerry’s third Purple Heart, for example, which entitled him to reassignment away from the battlefield, was awarded fraudulently, according to O’Neill’s documentation. No one who reads O’Neill’s complete document can doubt the authenticity of his evidence. Dozens of outright lies and fabrications from the Kerry campaign are fully documented.
The photograph that John Kerry so blatantly used in his campaign to show his “Band of Brothers” includes only one surviving veteran who supports him. Eleven of the others issued a cease and desist letter demanding that Kerry stop using the photograph.
On May 4, hundreds of Vietnam veterans signed a letter delivered to John Kerry that asked him to unseal his military records so the American people could see for themselves how his record belies his campaign rhetoric.
Were there no other reason to reject John Kerry as president, the testimony of these veterans is sufficient. But there are more reasons, many more.
Kerry’s campaign contends George Bush “abandoned our allies” in his “rush” to war. The fact is clear: Our allies abandoned George Bush when he demanded action after the U.N.’s failure to enforce its own resolutions.
His campaign contends that Kerry can woo Germany, France and Russia into supporting our war efforts. The only way this can possibly happen is to give them what they want: control over the United States through the United Nations.
Even though Kerry said during his convention that he would not allow the U.N. to veto U.S. actions, in 1970, he told the Harvard Crimson: “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”
It is clear that Kerry’s word cannot be trusted – his actions, though, cannot be ignored.
Since immediately after his return from Vietnam, his actions have displayed contempt for the military, which, by virtue of his trumped-up war rhetoric, he now claims the right to command. His voting record in the Senate displays contempt for the CIA, which he now wants to command.
There is yet another reason to reject John Kerry as president of the United States. The next president will almost certainly appoint as many as four Supreme Court justices.
These appointments will influence the direction of America long after John Kerry and George Bush are forgotten. The legacy left in the Supreme Court by the next president will determine whether “under God” remains in the Pledge of Allegiance; whether the Second Amendment stands; whether private property will continue to be private; whether “international law” will influence the court’s decisions; in short, whether the U.S. Constitution or the United Nations will define America’s sovereignty.
When viewed in this light, it is hard to imagine how anyone could support John Kerry for president. Reality demands awareness that integrity, honesty, even character, no longer matter for nearly half of the electorate. But perhaps more important in the November elections are those who ignore reality. George Bush (41) was denied a second term not by the Democrats, but by conservatives who chose to support Ross Perot as an expression of their unwillingness to continue to vote for the “lesser of two evils.” In so doing, America got the worst of the candidates.
Disappointment among conservatives is again putting a Republican presidency in peril. By not voting, “voting your conscience,” or not voting for the “lesser of two evils,” as perceived by many conservatives, John Kerry could very well be the next president. Reality dictates that the next president will be either a Democrat or a Republican. Despite the efforts of the veterans and the Bush campaign, it is entirely possible that the most conservative of the conservatives will usher John Kerry into the White House – as Perot supporters did for Bill Clinton.
Henry Lamb is the executive vice president of the Environmental Conservation Organization and chairman of Sovereignty International.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:53 amMarc Morano, CNSNews.com
Thursday, March 18, 2004
A Vietnam War historian and supporter of Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry has told CNSNews.com that Kerry is lying about key events related to his anti-war activities in 1971.
Kerry said he hasn’t spoken to former anti-war associate Al Hubbard since the two men appeared side by side on national television in April 1971, but according to author Gerald Nicosia, that assertion is wrong. So is Kerry’s insistence that he did not attend a November 1971 meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, at which group members discussed the possibility of assassinating U.S. senators who were still supporting the war in Vietnam, Nicosia said.
Nicosia backed up his comments regarding Kerry’s presence at the November 1971 meeting by providing CNSNews.com with the FBI’s redacted files about that meeting.
Questions about events that happened 33 years ago continue to nag the Kerry candidacy as the Massachusetts Democrat’s November match-up against President Bush comes into sharper focus.
Kerry faces increasing skepticism about answers he gave to certain questions as well as recent statements he made, including his claim that some foreign leaders had told him they were hopeful Bush would be defeated this year.
Among the questions surrounding Kerry’s involvement as a 27-year-old anti-war protester are those about his relationship with Hubbard, the former executive director of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Kerry and Hubbard appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on April 18, 1971 to argue for an end to the war.
But shortly thereafter, Hubbard, who had been introduced on the NBC program as a decorated Air Force captain, was exposed for having exaggerated his military credentials. A separate news investigation revealed that there were no military records showing that Hubbard had either served in Vietnam or was injured there.
Last week, during a Capitol Hill news conference, CNSNews.com asked Kerry whether he was still in touch with Hubbard or whether he was willing to repudiate him because of Hubbard’s fabricated war record.
“I haven’t talked to Al Hubbard since that week” of the “Meet the Press” appearance, Kerry replied. He also said he did not believe that VVAW’s credibility was hurt as a result of Hubbard falsifying his war record.
Bull
But Gerald Nicosia, author of the book “Home to War: A History of the Vietnam Veterans’ Movement” and a Kerry supporter, disagreed with Kerry’s contention that he and Hubbard saw no more of each other after the week of April 18, 1971.
“That is bull****. No, no, [Kerry] saw [Hubbard] at numerous meetings after that, including the one I talk about in my book, the July meeting in St. Louis,” Nicosia told CNSNews.com.
[Kerry] saw [Hubbard] in July, and according to FBI [files on Vietnam Veterans Against the War] and the minutes of those meetings, [Kerry] probably saw him in November [1971] too,” Nicosia said.
200 Witnesses
Kerry and Hubbard had a heated argument at the St. Louis meeting in July that was “witnessed by 200 veterans,” according to Nicosia.
Despite the presidential candidate’s claim last week that Hubbard had not hurt the anti-war group’s credibility in 1971, Kerry actually believed otherwise, according to Nicosia.
“There was a big fight with Al Hubbard in which Kerry confronted him and they were screaming at each other across the hall,” Nicosia explained. Hubbard, who had ties to the radical Black Panthers, and Kerry “couldn’t have been more opposite personalities,” Nicosia said.
The simmering tension between the two men finally reached a boil in St. Louis, Nicosia said, with Kerry shouting, “Who are you, Al Hubbard? Are you even really a veteran?
“So it was a big screaming match,” he added.
‘Awkward Position’
Nicosia told CNSNews.com he was uncomfortable disputing Kerry’s statements.
“I am in kind of an awkward position here. I am a Kerry supporter, and I certainly don’t want to do anything that hurts him. On the other hand, my number one allegiance is to truth. So I am going to go with where the facts are, and John is going to have to deal with that,” Nicosia said.
“I am having some problems with the things he is saying right now, which are not matching up with accuracy,” he added.
Talk of Assassinating Senators
Nicosia also disputed Kerry’s denial that he was in attendance when VVAW members met in Kansas City in November 1971 to discuss the possibility of assassinating U.S. senators still committed to the Vietnam War.
Kerry was at the meeting, Nicosia insisted, pointing to FBI files and the minutes from the VVAW meeting, which he has obtained. “The minutes of the meeting, November 12th through the 15th, it’s got John Kerry there, it’s got John Kerry resigning there on the third day,” Nicosia said.
Nicosia provided CNSNews.com with a copy of the FBI’s redacted files of that November 1971 VVAW meeting. The files refer to the fact that Kerry had “resigned for ‘personal reasons.’”
“You are talking to a Kerry supporter, but I will tell you, after everything that I have heard and seen, I would conclude that he was there,” he added.
‘Negative Thing’
Nicosia said he was not sure why Kerry is answering questions on the issue in the manner he is.
“Why didn’t Clinton say he [had sex with] Monica Lewinsky? It took him until he had to be confronted with the hard evidence before he said he did,” Nicosia said.
“I think [Kerry] may be worried or the people around him may be worried that his association with VVAW is a very negative thing and they want John to back away from it,” he said.
Nicosia concluded with advice for Kerry.
“The chickens are coming home to roost, and unfortunately he is starting to backtrack, and I personally don’t think backtracking is going to work because people are going to go at him and find the discrepancies,” Nicosia said.
As recently as two days ago, Kerry’s presidential campaign spokesman David Wade told the New York Sun, “Kerry was not at the Kansas City meeting.” Wade added that Kerry had resigned from the VVAW “sometime in the summer of 1971.”
Copyright CNSNews.com
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:56 amJohn Kerry Lies Again
I do wonder what is it with our Democrats that they feel the have to relentlessly lie about easily discovered facts all the time – from Texas Rainmaker:
KERRY: Why not engage in a bilateral one and get the job done? That’s what the Clinton administration did.
BOLTON: Very poorly, since the North Koreans violated the agreed framework almost from the time it was signed. And I would also say, Senator, that we do have the opportunity for bilateral negotiations with North Korea in the context of the six-party talks, if North Korea would come back to them.
KERRY: Mr. Ambassador, at the time — Secretary Perry has testified before this committee, as well as others — they knew that there would be the probability they would try to do something outside of the specificity of the agreement.
But the specificity of the agreement was with respect to the rods and the inspections and the television cameras and the reactor itself.
BOLTON: Senator, the agreed framework requires North Korea and South Korea to comply with the joint North-South denuclearization agreement, which in turn provides no nuclear weapons programs on the Korean Peninsula.
So it was not limited only to the plutonium reprocessing program.
KERRY: Mr. Ambassador, the bottom line is that no plutonium was reprocessed under that agreement. No plutonium was reprocessed until the cameras were kicked out, the inspectors were kicked out, the rods were taken out, and now they have four times the nuclear weapons they had when you came on watch.
So there’s your context. Kerry really told him off, didn’t he? Well, except for the fact that Kerry was lying (hat tip: Old Soldier):
July 1999: A U.S. intelligence report claims that North Korea has between 25 and 30 kilograms of weapon-grade plutonium, enough to make several nuclear warheads.
You’d think someone who served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence would know the truth. That is… if he’d ever bothered to show up for the meetings. (Then again, this is the same guy who issued a press release claiming he’d been Vice Chairman of that committee when, in fact, he never had been)
What our Democrats really need to do is ask themselves why the North Koreans would ever keep such an agreement. Think about it: what benefit would North Korea obtain by keeping the agreement?
The government leadership, the secret police and the army are well fed, so there’s no need to worry about any adverse affects on the average North Korean. Meanwhile, by actually building and deploying a nuke or two, you might be able to shake down the West for even more. In the worldview of an atheist tyrant, keeping agreements and being a responsible player in the world doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense – especially when the world has a large segment of elite leadership who will happy to make a new agreement with you as soon as you violate the old agreement.
Dishonesty and stupidity – that is really all the Democrats offer these days.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:58 amYou’d think someone who served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence would know the truth. That is… if he’d ever bothered to show up for the meetings. (Then again, this is the same guy who issued a press release claiming he’d been Vice Chairman of that committee when, in fact, he never had been)
August 2nd, 2006 at 12:40 pmHey Sam, if you’re railing about Kerry’s “lies” how about devoting equal time to Bush’s service(lack of). I know for a fact that if you did not do your required drills in the reserve/guard that your reward would be having orders cut putting you back on active duty for the remainder of your enlistment. I know cause I had to do the weekend warrior bit myself after my tour of duty on active service.
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:38 pmSo Sam, if AWOL is gone for 30 days (in accordance to the UCMJ, just what does that make Bush? A DESERTER!!!! It’s in Bush’s own service record that has could not receive his annual evaluation from his commanding officer because Bush was NOWHERE TO BE FOUND. So how about focusing on this little tidbit just to be “fair and balanced”>
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:43 pm#58: Virtually every argument has two sides. However, in the case of the SWVFT, the allegations regarding Kerry’s Vietnam record remain UNRESOLVED.
I allege that you killed 347 Christian toddlers between 1998 and 2003. Go.
August 2nd, 2006 at 4:47 pmHey,Sam the Spam.
August 2nd, 2006 at 7:09 pmLinks would be better than e-books.
dragonseed Please do not interject John Murtha’s military status into a conversation with out proof of same. If you profess to be a veteran, the proof is your DD214. If you profess to be a hero, medals and all, your Military Record is proof of your “Hero Status”, not the DD214. In the case of John Murtha, he is the one that claims his hero status, he campaigned on it but refused to make public his Military Record to quell the cries to set the record straight. To do otherwise would appear his stated record could be fiction rather than fact. As a public servant that has campaigned in hero status, the least he could do is make the rcord public and settle this issue onceand forall.
August 2nd, 2006 at 10:14 pmBreana
A friend is someone who sees through you and still enjoys the view.
March 15th, 2008 at 10:19 pmGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 16th, 2008 at 4:26 pmtake preparation
All fiberscopes introduce a certain amount of image distortion; much of this is similar to the distortion of modern night vision
March 17th, 2008 at 11:01 amRachel Perry Cosmetics
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !
March 19th, 2008 at 4:43 amYoung Girls Youngest Boys Gallery Young Girls Naked
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 31st, 2008 at 2:20 amGay Incest Old Gay Men Gay Male Galleries
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 1st, 2008 at 12:36 amPayday Advance
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 amAccounting Financial Financial Success
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:06 amPayday Loan Advance
If a friend is simple on money just simply sign up for a online cash advance online that is super, downright easy, and swiftly today!
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:20 pmYoung Girls Young Teens Angus Young
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 4th, 2008 at 8:59 pmDistance Learning Teachers Having Sex With Students Very Hot School Girls
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 5th, 2008 at 6:54 pmRun Time Error 2004 Out Of Memory
Cpu Speed Multiplier
April 6th, 2008 at 8:15 amGay Incest Gay Male Sex Gay Brothers
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 4:33 amcriminal lawyers california
When you are searching for the right lawyer, ask your friends, family and associates who their lawyers were and what they think of them.
April 7th, 2008 at 9:23 amGay Sex Gay Sex Videos Black Gay Men
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 7th, 2008 at 6:26 pmFederal Housing Administration New Deal
Thanks for creating this blog. I thought it was a very interesting read. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
April 7th, 2008 at 7:42 pmGay Incest Gay Cumshots Gay Jock
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
April 8th, 2008 at 6:54 amLinwood
Apply yourself. Get all the education you can, but then, by God, do something. Don?t just stand there, make it happen
April 8th, 2008 at 10:25 am