Smears for Fears:
How Kerry's Boat just keeps sinking
by JohnHuang2
So why isn't anyone talking about Vietnam? ;-)
As the campaign season heats up, the burning question at the People's Republic of the New York Times is: Is this group a "front group" for the evil, diabolical Bush campaign? Or is this group operating independently? Is BushCo secretly pulling the strings? Is this group just a puppet of Rightwing Rove and the Bush Family Evil Empire (BFEE)? Hasn't the evidence already exposed this group as a surrogate for Bush, a tool of the dummy who cleverly masterminded this whole plot by secret coordination? What silly questions.
I'll give you some facts and you tell me if it's a "front group" for Bush or not. Notice how this group has made Kerry's Vietnam war record the center of campaign debate. Notice that the only thing this group wants to talk about is Kerry's Vietnam war record (although, in fairness, they do mention one other issue -- Vietnam). What Kerry did in Vietnam, what Kerry didn't do in Vietnam -- day, noon and night -- that's all this group talks about. Turn on the TV, and this group has someone talking about Kerry's Vietnam war record. Change the channel, and this group is running an ad about Kerry's Vietnam war record. It's an utter obsession with this group! Oh wait -- 'this group' is the Kerry campaign.
But, getting back to the main question, look at all the damage the growing controversy over Kerry's disputed Vietnam war record has done to Kerry. In a bid to make the controversy go away, the Kerry campaign elevated the controversy again Tuesday, with Kerry demanding that Bush make the Swift Boat Vets stop being so mean to him with those ads they're running which hurt his feelings because they question his war record. (Democrats call Bush a draft-dodger, AWOLer and deserter. Democrats call Kerry a highly decorated veteran. So who better to persuade a bunch of highly decorated veterans to stop running ads than the deserter?) Kerry bitterly complains that Bush and his surrogates are trying to make him look weak when he's trying to look strong. With all the back-and-forth over what happened in the jungles of Vietnam, Kerry, hero of 'Operation Christmas in Cambodia', is seriously off message. Rather than talking about his secret plan for Iraq and secret plan for the economy, Kerry is stuck talking about Vietnam and not answering questions of whether he exaggerated his war record. (Kerry could settle lingering questions once and for all by releasing all his military and medical records which would expose him as a fraud. Hence, he's just dying to release them.) So, Kerry comes unglued about a few TV ads and a book, steps on his message, keeps this story alive, looks stuck in the past, acts like a crybaby, looks like a wimp, alienates veterans, proves he can't take the pressure. Read that list again and tell me the Kerry campaign isn't a "front group" for Bush. (Bob Shrum is the best campaign strategist Bush's got.)
Speaking to reporters on Monday from his ranch in Crawford, Tex., "President Bush repeated his condemnation of unregulated money that he said was 'pouring' into the political process," the Washington Post reports. "But," says the Post, while Bush denounced the ad by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, "he stopped short of denouncing the ad," saying only that he denounces all ads, including the ad by the Swift Boat Veterans. "Pressed several times by reporters" on whether he would denounce the Swift Vet ad, Bush refused, notes the Post. "Bush would only say: 'That means (I denounce the Swift Vet ad) and every other ad. I'm denouncing all the stuff." The Post says this proves he secretly agrees with the Swift Vet ad because he denounced it and every other ad but "stopped short of denouncing" it. Got that?
So, when Bush said in that same presser, "I think Senator Kerry served admirably, and he ought to be proud of his record," clearly Bush had taken the low road because he didn't specifically praise Kerry for Cambodia. He only lauded Kerry's entire service record, the smear artist.
If only Bush had taken the high road like Kerry, who went out of his way to specifically mention Bush's guard service in Alabama: "The issue here, as I have heard it raised, was (Bush) present and active on duty in Alabama at the times he was supposed to be . . . Just because you get an honorable discharge does not in fact answer that question," said Kerry back in February (WSJ, 8/24/04).
In New York Tuesday, Kerry accused the Bush campaign of being behind the Swift Vet ads. (Kerry smeared hundreds of thousands of Vietnam veterans in Senate testimony. He accused them of thuggery, murder, rape, mutilation and torture. Yeah, no doubt Bush had to really twist their arms to get them to step forward.) In his speech at New York's Cooper Union, Kerry accused Bush of personally smearing his heroic war record and called on Bush to muster the courage to make the Swifties stop picking on him. ('Do you really want to hurt me? Do you really want to make me cry?') Kerry, nominated one month ago at the Vietnam convention in Boston, accused Bush of only wanting to talk about Vietnam, a war he fought for before he fought against. (Kerry wonders why we're debating Vietnam when he's never even brought it up.)
Meanwhile, Howard Dean, in a Fox News interview, also accused Bush of coordination with the Swift Boat Vets. Coordination is illegal. So he called on Bush to coordinate with the Swift Boat vets to pull the ads. Coordination is not illegal. Dean, furious that Bush refuses to get the government to pull those ads, has also blasted Bush for running a Big Brother state and for crushing free speech. Kerry's running mate, John Edwards, back from a covert mission in Cambodia, blasted Bush for refusing to "say the three magic words: Stop these ads." (If Bush were Saddam and the Swift Vets were al-Qaeda, only then would Democrats definitively declare 'no links' between the two.)
Edwards, campaigning in battleground Ohio Tuesday, told an AFL-CIO gathering, "There's one person, one person who can put an end to this today if he had the backbone, the leadership, the courage" to protect Kerry from those awful Swift Vets, "and that person is George W. Bush." But he won't. (Bush had a chance to save Kerry's sinking boat but Bush failed the test!) Backboneless Bush, despite his backbonelessness, hasn't called on Kerry to protect him from Michael Moore, George Soros, MoveOn.Org, Media Fund, ACT, et al.
(In a stunning development to the New York Times, Bob Perry, major donor to the Swift Vets, isn't voting for Kerry in November.)
Let me say that this whole 'Coordination' thing is a lot of hooey. Did you catch the latest statement from North Korea? Nothing but a torrent of personal insults aimed at Bush. They call Bush an "imbecile," a "warmonger," a "tyrant," a "Hitler" running a police state -- oops, that's the latest MoveOn.Org ad. Seriously though, just because Kim Jong Il and the boys are Kerry supporters, and their press releases call Bush an "imbecile," doesn't prove illegal coordination with the Kerry campaign, though I could easily level that charge (no, worse -- coordination with a foreign power). The point being, you don't need coordination between Kerry and his band of brothers in North Korea to get North Korea to sound like Howard Dean and MoveOn.Org. Kerry's soul-mates in Pyongyang do it on their own.
As to the substance of the charges, the media says there's not a shred of documentary evidence supporting claims that Kerry didn't earn all his medals. Therefore the Swift Vet claims are false. (There's not a shred of documentary evidence that Kerry was in Cambodia as he claims. Therefore his claim must be true!) When it comes to Kerry and Vietnam, the media uses a very simple rule to test credibility: Swift Boat Vets like Ken Cordier aren't credible because they're voting for Bush. Vets like Jim Rassman are very credible because they're voting for Kerry. Any version of events at odds with Kerry's must be false -- after all, Kerry was in Cambodia.
Boston Globe columnist, Tom Oliphant, says Kerry welcomes this debate, telling MSNBC Monday: "If I interpret what the (Kerry people) are saying, they want this debate to continue . . . and they're perfectly happy to keep arguing about it." (Yep -- it's why Kerry keeps imploring Bush not to pull down those Swift Vet ads.) Kerry sees Bush as vulnerable on the economy and Iraq, so he's perfectly happy to keep arguing about Vietnam and staying off message. He'd planned to be mired in Vietnam debate all along. Others question the timing of Kerry's response, saying his 'push-back' is too little too late. Kerry, who blasted Bush for waiting 7 massive minutes to respond on 9/11, waited two weeks to respond here. Hotline editor Chuck Todd complained on Fox News Tuesday that Kerry "had been a victim of this" before "when the whole allegation that he had had an affair (with an intern, and) when Matt Drudge put up this stuff that turned out not to be true."
"And Kerry handled that pretty well," observed host Bill O'Reilly. Todd: Yes, "and why? Because he did it directly and he did it quickly." No question he did it directly and quickly -- pay her off.
But, though he may have bought her silence, I'll tell you one group of people who won't be silent come November: Millions and millions of brave vets who were slimed and smeared by this contemptible, treacherous, lying scumbag. He abandoned them, then he blood libeled them -- but they've not forgotten. His words of calumny and slander were truly seared. And come Election Day, it'll be Payback Time. At long last.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents.. "JohnHuang2"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
