A Collection On Kerry, The one man to save the US

That was his second tour in vietnam. He had already completed a 12 month tour on ship and returned as a volunteer for the second tour.

That really doesn't strike me as the epitome of valor landing on a carrier.

after mentioning DUI's how about being caught stealing Christmas trees and that little sinus problem he had, Oh yeah just like Clinton "I didn't inhale."

The difference between Clinton and Bush is he only feels the pain of millionaires and Clinton's family didn't get him a Vietnam deferment he earned it with grades.

Again, this is from Drudge, so take it as you will.

But this could be tasty.

---

CONTROVERSY SURROUNDS KERRY CONVENTION FILM: WAR SCENES REENACTED

**World Exclusive**

A bombshell new book written by the man who took over John Kerry's Swift Boat charges: Kerry reenacted combat scenes for film while in Vietnam!

The footage is at the center of a growing controversy in Boston.

The official convention video introducing Kerry is directed by Steven Spielberg protégé James Moll.

MORE

Moll was given hours of Kerry's homemade 8 millimeter film to incorporate into the convention short, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"Kerry carried a home movie camera to record his exploits for later viewing," charges a naval officer in the upcoming book UNFIT FOR COMMAND.

"Kerry would revisit ambush locations for reenacting combat scenes where he would portray the hero, catching it all on film. Kerry would take movies of himself walking around in combat gear, sometimes dressed as an infantryman walking resolutely through the terrain. He even filmed mock interviews of himself narrating his exploits. A joke circulated among Swiftees was that Kerry left Vietnam early not because he received three Purple Hearts, but because he had recorded enough film of himself to take home for his planned political campaigns."

UNFIT FOR COMMAND, Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, will be unleashed next month by REGNERY. [It ranked #1,318 on the AMAZON hitparade Wednesday morning.]

The films shot by Kerry's own Super 8 millimeter hand-held movie camera have the grainy quality of home movies.

MORE

The BOSTON GLOBE reported in 1996 that the Kerry home movies "reveal something indelible about the man who shot them - the tall, thin, handsome Naval officer seen striding through the reeds in flak jacket and helmet, holding aloft the captured B-40 rocket. The young man so unconscious of risk in the heat of battle, yet so focused on his future ambitions that he would reenact the moment for film. It is as if he had cast himself in the sequel to the experience of his hero, John F. Kennedy, on the PT-109."

"John was thinking Camelot when he shot that film, absolutely," says Thomas Vallely, a fellow veteran and one of Kerry's closest political advisers and friends.

NEW YORK TIMES bestselling author Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson in his new book RECKLESS DISREGARD, details one of the claimed Kerry reenactments for film:

"On February 28, 1969, now in charge of PCF 94, Kerry came under fire from an enemy location on the shore. The crew's gunner returned fire, hitting and wounding the lone gunman. Kerry directed the boat to charge the enemy position. Beaching his boat, Kerry jumped off, chased the wounded insurgent behind a thatched hutch, and killed him. Kerry and his crew returned within days, armed with a Super 8 video camera he had purchased at the post exchange at Cam Ranh Bay, and reenacted the skirmish on film."

This post has been edited by Shamalama on 28-Jul-2004, 02:42 PM

Attached Image. (Click thumbnail to expand)

"The Speech"

John Kerry skipped past his role in the Vietnam protest movement that brought him to any prominence (other than marrying rich women) when he talked of his younger days fighting for his country and ignored that conflict when praising the American tradition of going to war only "because we have to."

Kerry once famously called the Vietnam War "the biggest nothing in history," and says he is still proud of his anti-war activism when he came back. But in the text of his televised speech at the Democratic National Convention, he emphasized his war record and offered mere clues to his protesting past.

A video introduction shown at the convention before the broadcast networks began carrying his speech included a clip of the young Kerry, in military garb, testifying to Congress against the war in 1971. And his speech made passing reference to his generation's marches for "civil rights, for voting rights, for the environment, for women, and for peace."

He declared, for example, that "we value health care that's affordable and accessible for all Americans" and called that care "a right for all Americans."

"A right for all Americans"? Is this Kerry or Hillary? Where is a copy of the Constitution when you need one?

He believes everyone has a right to health care. Any idea how much that would cost? He didn't say, but some cost-of-government experts have said that government paid health care plan would cost one trillion dollars. Where is he going to get that money? The rich? Nope. Tt's going to come from the middle class. The reason is simple - you could confiscate 100% of the wealth from the evil rich and it wouldn't cover Kerry's spending dreams.

On equipping the military, he said, "You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service." But wasn't he the one that voted against an $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan that included money for thousands of extra sets of body armor?

Kerry emphasized throughout his speech his credentials as a Vietnam veteran. "I defended this country as a young man," he said. "We fought for this nation because we loved it and we came back with the deep belief that every day is extra." There was no telling from his remarks that Kerry became a leading anti-war protester after his return from Vietnam. Testifying to Congress on behalf of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, he detailed atrocities he said were committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam, including rapes, beheadings and random killings of civilians, only to acknowledge later he had not witnessed these acts. So, was he lying then, or is he lying now?

He rhetorically asked, "What does it mean when 25 percent of the children in Harlem have asthma because of air pollution? America can do better. And help is on the way." Yes, a study by Harlem Hospital Center last year found 25 percent of the children in a 24-block area of Harlem had the disease. But blaming all of that on air pollution as part of a case against the Bush administration is not supported by the study. Apart from genetic factors, the study found that the asthmatic children were about 50 percent more likely to live with a smoker. So we have pollen, dust, animal dander, and 2nd hand smoke found to be causing these ailments, but no mention of Bush and "his" air pollution. Kerry is playing fast and loose with the facts - he must have taken lessons from Michael Moore.

He asked people to judge him by his record. How about judging him by his Senate voting record, the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate. This supposedly patriotic Democrat voted for the nuclear freeze, to cut the intelligence budget and also voted against the $87 billion in funding for American troops.

His record? Maybe we can judge him by his record of missing 29 out of 38 meetings of that intelligence committee he served on in the Senate. Maybe we can judge him on his record of 20 years in the U.S. Senate without a noteworthy legislative accomplishment. He wants people to judge judge him by his record? So what does he mention when he said that? His voting record? His lies about soldiers committing atrocities during Vietnam? Nope, he goes all the way back to his days as a prosecutor, then mentions only two votes in the Senate. This from a guy that says he deserves to be President of the United States?

Look as his record. Compare it to Ted Kennedy. Putting Kerry into the Presidency would be much like putting Ted Kennedy into the Presidency. But yeah, I know - anybody but Bush.

Then he accused President Bush of misleading us into war, which is a widely discredited charge. President Bush and Tony Blair have both been exonerated against any sort of misleading since they relied on the intelligence at the time. Oh, and you do know that Kerry voted for the war in Iraq, don't you? Does that make him a liar too? He was privy to the same intelligence as Bush.

He used the dumb slogan "stronger at home and respected in the world." If you read between the lines, what he means is more government spending at home, and more appeasing and capitulating to Germany, France, and the UN. And also to anyone he thinks can beat him up.

He had the nerve to bring up dependence on foreign oil. But he's also opposed to any drilling for oil here in the United States. How about promoting nuclear power, John? Too bad the liberals and the anti-capitalist environmentalists are the ones that have us dependent on foreign oil in the first place.

But now, officially, you liberals have your "anybody but Bush".

That works. ANYBODY but Cheney/bush!
Bush doesn't even make a good sock puppet. He screws up even the orders of Cheney!
Bush (Georgie) is a complete screwup who has failed at EVERY job he has ever had. He has failed as president, even as a front man-president!
Even Nader would be better.

Maisky,
I was with you until you had to make me gag with the reference to Nadir.

How about a point/counterpoint monologue then Maisky of what you see as the screw ups of Bush, and how you would do differently. And before you immediately jump on the favorite liberal issue of the war in Iraq, remember that it was an action overwhelmingly approved by congress, using the same intelligence Bush had at the time as a guide. Remember that the incomparable John F'ing Kerry voted to go into Iraq, although he voted against funding for it. If you say Bush lied, then explain those lies and give some shred of evidence outside of your hate-filled ramblings. I'm looking for specifics here, not emotional drivel.

Another point I would just love for you to expound on. WMD's not being found in Iraq. You tell me how long it takes to thoroughly search a land mass the size of this size (166859 sq miles) using resources involved in combat. Considering the amount of time that lapsed between G W's announcement that Iraq was part of an "axis of evil" until the time US forces began searching, explain how it is not possible that WMD's, or anything else could have not been removed to other locales. I'm not looking for reasoning as to the motives to move or not to move, just how you may explain the impossibility of such a move.

How about a point/counterpoint monologue then Maisky of what you see as the screw ups of Bush, and how you would do differently. And before you immediately jump on the favorite liberal issue of the war in Iraq, remember that it was an action overwhelmingly approved by congress, using the same intelligence Bush had at the time as a guide. Remember that the incomparable John F'ing Kerry voted to go into Iraq, although he voted against funding for it. If you say Bush lied, then explain those lies and give some shred of evidence outside of your hate-filled ramblings. I'm looking for specifics here, not emotional drivel.

Another point I would just love for you to expound on. WMD's not being found in Iraq. You tell me how long it takes to thoroughly search a land mass the size of this size (166859 sq miles) using resources involved in combat. Considering the amount of time that lapsed between G W's announcement that Iraq was part of an "axis of evil" until the time US forces began searching, explain how it is not possible that WMD's, or anything else could have not been removed to other locales. I'm not looking for reasoning as to the motives to move or not to move, just how you may explain the impossibility of such a move.

Congress was stampeded into the war through a combination of bad intelligence (they only saw what Cheney/bush chose to tell them) and rabble rousing. The war WAS a major blunder that has alienated virtually the entire world.

The US has spent a total of $500 million dollars making US ports safe from terrorist attacks. This is what Bushnam costs in 4 days. We are p***ing the money and troop resources down a rat hole for NO purpose other than Georgie's ego. Sorry to dissapoint you, Mr. Shamrock sir, but I believe you are completely missguided in supporting this losing cause. But that IS your right!

This expresses it nicely:

Attached Image. (Click thumbnail to expand)

I agree someone here is misguided, but I'm not quite sure it's me. I was asking for specifics alright, but I was looking for irrefutable fact. You say congress was stampeded by bad intelligence. Tell me, has our system of checks and balances eroded to the point that the two highest public officers can manipulate information to that extent. And even if that were even slightly conceivable, wouldn't an even greater burden be put on congress, seeing how they had ample time and resources to "check up" on this supposed scandalous rearrangement of the facts. I believe that our system of government is only a shadow of that drafted and conceived by our founding fathers, but a great portion of it still works. The collusion you allege in light of something as serious as war, the elements of which including intelligence showing justification and passage by congress, is totally impossible to be accomplished by the president and vice president alone. Either the intelligence was truly faulty, thereby relieving our government as a whole from any guilt of wrong doing, or the white house and congress share equally in the responsibility. So now I ask you for specific facts. What exactly is the manipulation? In what possible way can you back up your claims that Bush/Cheney only told congress what they wanted them to know, or otherwise fabricated the intelligence?

Now, after you answer these questions, ask yourself another. Why do you submit to such unfounded allegations? Why do you jump on the band wagon with those who will say anything, run with any of the tiniest of details, rearrange the truth, all in an effort to make GW look like anything less than the brave leader he has been. If you have facts, by all means share them. But don't go around spewing hate speech and making accusations you can't show one ounce of evidence for. That doesn't sound at all intelligent. If what you say about Bush were true, I'd be the first to denounce him, and without a doubt, he'd be before a Grand Jury answering for his actions, maybe even the World Court. He would have a cell next to Millosovich (sp?) where they could share war crimes stories.

Maisky: I believe you are completely missguided in supporting this losing cause.


I hope you are wrong here. I do not think we will lose anything more than alliance, which I've felt has occupied a place on the priority ladder too many notches higher than our own countrymen and women.

A cell next of Milosavitch? Now THERE is a good idea!
My motivation here is simple, I am doing my best to get King George II out of office. I am limited to legal means, so I do what I can. I believe Mr. Bush to be a puppet for "outside interests". He has been a failure at EVERY job he has ever held. That includes his current position. It has taken decades to place the US in a leadership position in the world. It has taken George Bush JR. just over 3 years to destroy that. We are stuck in a quagmire in Bushnam, with our troops spread far too thin to do a proper job of protecting our country. We need a new administration. It just happens the John Kerry is the one to take the place of the current administration.

Alright, there is a place up in Kerry's home state, in the town of Foxboro, called Fitzy's. I believe you could find joy in the coincidental association there. Also, they have the most incredible prices on prepared Maine lobster. I ate there once, a big lobster, salad, baked potato, rolls, and two Killians for just over $14. You make the arrangements and pay for it all, and I'll be there to redirect you back to the original request to show me facts.

That sounds like fun! I have encountered the fresh lobsters in Maine and New Hampshire. YUMMY!

The fervor to remove Bush from office is greater than anything I've seen in recent history. It borders on hysteria.

BUT...

Is it based on anything other than hysteria? Let's factually examine Brother Maisky's scathing statements.

- "I believe Mr. Bush to be a puppet for "outside interests"" Kerry has received more campaign cash from lobbyists than any senator over the past 15 years. That's right - according to survey of federal records by The Washington Post, he is the Senate's No. 1 recipient of individual campaign contributions from lobbyists. The ACLU, the AFL-CIO, abortion backers, trial lawyers, MoveOn.org, America Coming Together, the NEA, all form part of Kerry's spending base. Without special interests Kerry would have few backers.

- "He has been a failure at EVERY job he has ever held." Kerry has spent the last 20 years in the US Senate. But can anyone name a piece of legislation that he authored? Co-authored? Nope - he never did anything meaningful in 20 years. But he did a lot of voting - in fact the results of Senate vote ratings show that Kerry was the most liberal senator in 2003, with a composite liberal score of 96.5 -- far ahead of such Democrat stalwarts as Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton. And his running mate, John Edwards, was ranked #4. In fact if you go back through Kerry's historical votes you'll easily see that he has voted lock-and-step with the top liberals, like his mentor Ted Kennedy, 90% of the time, no matter if the rest of the country was liberal or not. He's not a representative of the people - he's a representative of the liberal ideal. That alone makes him a failure to his people. To vote Kerry into office would be much akin to voting Kennedy or Clinton into office.

- "It has taken decades to place the US in a leadership position in the world. It has taken George Bush JR. just over 3 years to destroy that." Leadership? We know he means "angered the Islamic jihad, France, Germany, and the UN". Other that those four groups, he mustered 30 countries around the world to join the US in the liberation of Iraq. That took leadership. He faced the recession and beat it back before it could do real damage. That took leadership. But back to the aforementioned Axis of Weasels: is there anyone out there that really cares what the Islamic jihad, France, Germany, and the UN has to say anyway? "I?m an internationalist," Kerry told The [Harvard] Crimson in 1970. "I?d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." Kerry also said he wanted "to almost eliminate CIA activity." Kerry?s 1970 remarks signaled the senator?s weakness on defense then. Since then Kerry has voted against nearly every modern-day weapon system. He tried to gut the CIA once but even Ted Kennedy wouldn't vote on Kerry's proposed legislation. Sure, Kerry may be a "different man" today - but are you willing to gamble on it?

- "We are stuck in a quagmire in Bushnam, with our troops spread far too thin to do a proper job of protecting our country." I will agree that our troops are spread thin, but that's what happens in war - you send a lot of troops to the front. And this "quagmire" stuff - what does that mean? Will we ever completely leave Iraq? Probably not - 60 years later and we still have troops in Germany and France. The liberals want the US to cut-and-run, leaving Iraq in a vacuum so that it will implode, anarchy will reign, and the liberals can say, "Bush failed". Everyday Iraq becomes more and more stable and democratic (as much as that culture can), so the liberals cannot allow any military presence to guard and rebuild this flower in the desert. But as long as the military stays in country they can claim, "quagmire". That's how you can have it both ways.

- "We need a new administration." No, you desire a new administration. I desire the same administration. There has been no proof of need.

- "It just happens..." And that tells more than you realize. Very few liberals want Kerry as President - it's just that they detest Bush more. Kerry has very little the liberals want, except a Democratic name. Kerry has very little many Americans want - outside of the most liberal voting record for the last 20 years, money from every liberal organization in the US, and the threat of giving other countries and the UN power over US defense.

Oh my. Here we go with another campaign theme for the Democrats. "We want an America that is fair".

"Fair." Now there's a nice little word that resonates well with pretty much everyone! Everyone just loves fairness, don't they? Everyone wants to be fair, and everyone wants to vote for a candidate that's fair.

Just what does Kerry mean by "fair" though?

* Not Fair: Allowing someone to keep the money that they earn.
* Fair: Taking money away from people who are earned a lot just because they're "lucky" and giving that money to people who just aren't that "lucky".

* Not Fair: Allowing someone to take the money that they worked for and earned and to make their own decisions on how to invest that money for retirement.
* Fair: Taking 14% of every person's paycheck and then telling them that they may get that money back with about a 1% return when they retire, if, that is, they live long enough to retire.

* Not Fair: Allowing you to have that money back so that you can make up your own mind on where your child will go to school.
* Fair: Seizing sizeable portions of your income to fund hideously bad government schools.

He's a "Man of the People" all right.

From NewsMax.com

Woo hoo, Brother Gtrplr: how about the "rest of the story"?

DEM'S MARINE MISFIRE
By STEFAN C. FRIEDMAN

July 31, 2004 -- SCRANTON, Pa. ? John Kerry's heavily hyped cross-country bus tour stumbled out of the blocks yesterday, as a group of Marines publicly dissed the Vietnam War hero in the middle of a crowded restaurant.

Kerry was treating running mate Sen. John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, to a Wendy's lunch in Newburgh, N.Y., for their 27th wedding anniversary ? an Edwards family tradition ? when the candidate approached four Marines and asked them questions.

The Marines ? two in uniform and two off-duty ? were polite but curt while chatting with Kerry, answering most of his questions with a "yes, sir" or "no, sir."

But they turned downright nasty after the Massachusetts senator thanked them "for their service" and left.

"He imposed on us and I disagree with him coming over here shaking our hands," one Marine said, adding, "I'm 100 percent against [him]."

A sergeant with 10 years of service under his belt said, "I speak for all of us. We think that we are doing the right thing in Iraq," before saying he is to be deployed there in a few weeks and is "eager" to go and serve.

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/25935.htm