Free Republic

What are the chances that Ramsey Clark will show up in Santiago to help Pinochet in his defense?

Pat Buchanan is like the other single issue guy, Andrew Sullivan. Sullivan sees everything through the single issue of gay rights or whatever he calls them.

Buchanan is a single issue guy, seeing everything through the single issue of his ego.

The information at Captain's Quarter includes Kerry's known wherabouts when the armistice was signed:

"Boston Globe Newspaper March 4, 1991

Saturday (March 2nd) it was off to "Brazil Night" at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel ballroom for a sold-out party to benefit the Cambridge-based human rights group, Cultural Survival Inc., in conjunction with the Rainforest Alliance. Simple little black dresses were de rigueur at this party. ......

Meanwhile, Sen. John F. Kerry, an honorary committee member, breezed in and out of the black-tie gala in minutes. The subject of fashion/style seemed an enigma to him. Kerry, wearing a business suit, stayed only long enough to accept a gift: a tin of candy called Rainforest Crunch.

Regarding the time frame, CQ reader Rod S writes this:

March 2, 2001 10PM Boston is March 3, 2001 6AM Baghdad (not Safwan, but ''close enough") time.

The Iraqi delegation arrived at Safwan at 11:30 AM and the meeting lasted two hours.

Baghdad is about 6000 miles ESE of Boston as the crow flies — the air route is no doubt longer. If Kerry left the soiree at 10PM Boston time, he would have had to make the trip to Safwan in about seven (7) hours to make the signing. The "crows" would have to average better than 850 mph.

To put it mildly, BALDERDASH!

The great researchers on FR should be able to find these tapes and transcripts.

It seems to be a common Kerry theme, a mine goes off under the boat, lifts it two feet into the air, and something interesting happens. Does the boat never sustain any damage? A mine exploding under an aluminum skinned boat with enough force to lift it two feet out of the water would likely do damage. I guess that is another problem that occurs when you don't think your lies through.

Delusional or BS artist? Who knows.

They can't call outright for burning the book but they are asking for the next best thing. It is incredible what the left thinks it can get a way with. If you use the same logic Media Matters is using, then "Tour of Duty" should get the same treatment.

As others have noted, if (a very unlikely if) Kerry really did go into Cambodia on a top, top secret mission, the fact begs some questions:

Why would they select Lieutenant JG Kerry, who would have been in the Swift Boat service for all of a month, at most, at that date?

Why would they use a 50+ foot swift boat for a clandestine insertion?

Why would the agents talk to Kerry and tell him who they were, what agency they were with, etc. That just wasn't done.

And you can insert a large number of additional questions that indicate the story just does not add up.

The story is made up.

An additional question: If Porter Goss, who Bush has nominated to head the CIA, was found, through the confirmation hearings to have made up a bunch of lies and stories about his service, like Kerry has, what would the democrats do to his nomination?

Instapundit has posted an image of the original article from the Boston Herald, with the context of the proceeding sentence:

On more than one occasion, I, like Martin Sheen in "Apocalypse Now," took my patrol boat into Cambodia

In fact, I remember spending Christmas Day 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. But nowhere in "Apocalypse Now" did I sense that kind of absurdity.

John Kerry, delusional or bs artist. Thinking he was Martin Sheen and thinking Nixon was president.

If these Sadr militiamen had any sense at all, they would get out of the Sadr militia. What can they be thinking? Day after day, their fellow militiamen are killed by the 10's and 100's. The supply is reported as being limited, around 2-3000. Are these guys that committed to some off-the-wall, egotistical, self appointed "cleric"?

YOU KNOW, sometimes I feel like maybe I'm too harsh in my charges of media bias. Then I read accounts like this one from Baghdad, by the Daily Telegraph's correspondent Toby Harnden:

The other day, while taking a break by the Al-Hamra Hotel pool, fringed with the usual cast of tattooed defence contractors, I was accosted by an American magazine journalist of serious accomplishment and impeccable liberal credentials.

She had been disturbed by my argument that Iraqis were better off than they had been under Saddam and I was now — there was no choice about this — going to have to justify my bizarre and dangerous views. I’ll spare you most of the details because you know the script — no WMD, no ‘imminent threat’ (though the point was to deal with Saddam before such a threat could emerge), a diversion from the hunt for bin Laden, enraging the Arab world. Etcetera.

But then she came to the point. Not only had she ‘known’ the Iraq war would fail but she considered it essential that it did so because this would ensure that the ‘evil’ George W. Bush would no longer be running her country. Her editors back on the East Coast were giggling, she said, over what a disaster Iraq had turned out to be. ‘Lots of us talk about how awful it would be if this worked out.’ Startled by her candour, I asked whether thousands more dead Iraqis would be a good thing.

She nodded and mumbled something about Bush needing to go. By this logic, I ventured, another September 11 on, say, September 11 would be perfect for pushing up John Kerry’s poll numbers. ‘Well, that’s different — that would be Americans,’ she said, haltingly. ‘I guess I’m a bit of an isolationist.’ That’s one way of putting it.

The moral degeneracy of these sentiments didn’t really hit me until later when I dined at the home of Abu Salah, a father of six who took over as the Daily Telegraph’s chief driver in Baghdad when his predecessor was killed a year ago.

Moral degeneracy, indeed. You hate to think that any American journalist could feel this way, but we've had other admissions of this sort in the past. To explain things in words of few syllables: It's wrong to root for your country's defeat. Especially when that defeat would mean the death of innocents. And surely it's worse still when it's merely for domestic political advantage.

Isn't it?

If it doesn't fit the leftist perception of reality, it doesn't exist. Watching what is published in the NY Times, for example, (which I hate to do, one, because it makes me angry, two, because I hate to give them any hits) you see that they publish only what they want. They profess objectivity but don't practice it.

They are so afraid that the readers would not come to the same conclusions or develop the same opinions that they, the intelligent, wise caretakers of the media have, that they are afraid to present unaltered facts or what we would call the truth.

How will the media spin it?......

"A group of Vietnam veterans defended Sen, Kerry's service in that war, extolling his leadership, courage, and sacrifice" ... after some comments and quotes, etc. from the veterans, the newsreader continues "Another group of veterans, in a separate news conference, attempted to counter the first groups message by rehashing old disproven claims. Sen. Kerry said he was disappointed that fellow veterans would question his patriotism."

Compare whatever coverage appears in the mainstream media with what you know would happen if it were Bush's National Guard commanders saying the same thing about him.

Almost all of the commentaries and editorials written about the effect the terrorist bombings had on the Spanish election and new Spanish PM's decision to pull out the troops have seen this as a victory for terrorist. The most obvious (and expected) exception has been the editorial writers for the NYT. The editorial in today's paper says:

"If Al Qaeda organized the bombings, as now seems to be the case, the outcome may be seen by some as a win for the terrorists. We disagree."

The NYT editorial board lives in a different world, whos purpose is to defeat George W. Bush. They want to be consistent by saying that Spain changed horses in mid-stream and the fight againt terrorism will continue as strong or stronger than ever (not supported by facts or statements by the Socialist party but when has the Times ever worried about facts?)no matter who was elected. Then they can make the same argument about Kerry. The Times' editorial boards plans on saying (when they endorse Kerry) "This election is not about the fight against terrorism, it is about political philosophies, and we support Kerry's philosophy. The fight against terrorism will go on no matter who is elected, yada, yada."

The Times' editors are so obvious.

The purpose of the "correction" is to give news organizations a cover to either ignore or brush off the story, just like MSNBC did. "Move along folks, there's nothing to see here." The story about Kerry making things up or lying about these foreign leaders becomes irrelevant, history, and they, the news media organizations, have a reason not to pursue it.

It seems that the real challenge in all of this is to find an issue where Kerry didn't take both sides of the issue, on multiple occasions.

This is just another example of how the Democratic party and their supporters, the useless idiots of the media, would and will do anything to get their candidate elected.

Kerry is well known as "Heinz 57", be everything to everybody. Senator, are you for or against US intervention in "country of choice?" Response from Senator Kerry, "Absolutely!"

You can see the photo on the following link:

Link

He, OBL, could be alive but my question is: Wouldn't his supporters want to prove to the arab world that he is alive? That would be a big thumb in the eye of the infidels. How hard is it to come up with a video camera? From my experience its easier to find a video camera than a tape recorder.