Replies

A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists

by Mia T, 6.08.04

UNFIT SERIES: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#4 - Kerry champions tolerance for terrorists
ELECTION BOTTOM LINE: TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER or TERRORIST ANNIHILATOR <-- (click to see Bush-Kerry contrast)

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

For the better part of 18 months, John Kerry has bitterly denounced the Bush administration's conduct of international relations, above all in Iraq. Over and over he has pronounced his unsparing indictment: "George Bush has pursued the most arrogant, inept, reckless, and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of this country."

That is remarkably hostile language for a presidential challenger. No major party candidate for the White House in modern times has so thoroughly abandoned the principle that politics stops at the water's edge.

On the other hand, voters clearly benefit when candidates articulate their differences, and make plain what is at stake on Election Day. After 18 months of honing his anti-Bush message, Kerry should be able to outline his alternative foreign policy with crystal clarity. He should have no trouble laying out a comprehensive vision for Iraq and the Middle East and explaining why it is superior to Bush's.

So why doesn't he do so?

...No matter how the question is put, Kerry's answers on Iraq always boil down to a single recipe: Shrink the US role in Iraq and defer to the United Nations instead. That's it. That is the sum and substance of his thinking about Iraq. He doesn't relate it to the war on terrorism, to the future of liberty in the Middle East, to America's national interests. He repeatedly declares Bush a failure for not kowtowing to the UN and vows that in a Kerry administration, the UN will be given the commanding role it deserves.

Kerry has been talking this way for months. In his speech on Iraq at the Brookings Institution last fall, for example, he mentioned the UN no fewer than 25 times. ("We need a new Security Council resolution to give the United Nations real authority in the rebuilding of Iraq. . . . This shift of authority from the United States to the United Nations is indispensable.") By contrast, he mentioned terrorism just seven times. He mentioned freedom, democracy, and the Middle East not at all....

When Bush speaks about Iraq, by contrast, it is clear that he has thought the subject through and related it to his larger goals in the world...

"The defeat of violence and terror in Iraq is vital to the defeat of violence and terror elsewhere, and vital, therefore, to the safety of the American people. Now is the time, and Iraq is the place, in which the enemies of the civilized world are testing the will of the civilized world. We must not waver. . . .

The cause of liberty and the defeat of terror vs. the cause of a more powerful UN: In this first presidential election of the post-9/11 world, that is what the choice comes down to.

Kerry's U.N. fetish
Jeff Jacoby
April 23, 2004
townhall.com

T he Left's Fatally Flawed "Animal Farm" Mentality
(Why America Must NEVER AGAIN Elect a Democrat President)

WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

by Mia T, 6.04.04
(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

The Bush Doctine is built on two pillars, one -- that the United States must maintain its absolute military superiority in every part of the world, and second -- that the United States has the right for preemptive action.
Now, both these propositions, taken on their own, are quite valid propositions, but if you put them together, they establish two kinds of sovereignty in the world, the sovereignty of the United States, which is inviolate, not subject to any international constraints, and the rest of the world, which is subject to the Bush Doctrine.
To me, it is reminiscent to [sic] George Orwell's "Animal Farm," that "All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
George Soros

eorge Soros could not have more clearly enunciated the lethal danger that he and John Kerry and the clintons and the rest of his leftist cabal pose for America.

Yesterday, at the "progressive," i.e., ultra-extremist left-wing liberal, "Take Back America" confab, Mr. Soros confirmed the obvious: 9/11 was dispositive for the Dems; that is, 9/11 accelerated what eight years of the clintons had set into motion, namely, the demise of a Democratic party that is increasingly irrelevant, unflinchingly corrupt, unwaveringly self-serving, chronically moribund and above all, lethally, seditiously dangerous.

"All animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

Apparently missing the irony, George Soros chastised America with these words even as he was trying his $25,000,000, 527-end-run damnedest to render himself "more equal than others" in order to foist his radical, paranoic, deadly dementia on an entire nation.

"Animal Farm" is George Orwell's satirical allegory of the Russian Revolution; but it could just as easily be the story of the Democratic Party of today, with the

Kennedy-Pelosi-Gore-clinton (either--"one for the price of two," I say) -Sulzberger-Soros-Moore construct

its porcine manifestation.

GEORGE TSURIS

Soros' little speech reveals everything we need to know about the Left, to wit:

its naivete about the War on Terror,
its preference for demagoguery over rational argument, and ideology and reacquisition of power over national security,
its mindset, which is inextricably bound to its failed, tortuous, reckless schemes, relics of a different time, a different war and a different enemy.

Soros is correct when he states that each of the two pillars of the Bush Doctine--the United States maintenance of absolute military superiority and the United States right of preemptive action--are "valid propositions" [in a post-9/11 world].

But when he proceeds from there to argue that the validity of each of these two [essential] pillars is somehow nullified by the resultant unequalled power that these two pillars, when taken together, vest in the United States, rational thought and national-security primacy give way to dogmatic Leftist neo-neoliberal ideology.

What is, in fact, "inviolate" here is the neo-neoliberal doctrine of U.S. sovereignty, which states simply that there must be none, that we must yield our sovereignty to the United Nations. Because this Leftist tenet is inviolate, and because it is the antithesis of the concept of U.S. sovereignty enunciated by the Bush Doctrine and the concept of U.S. sovereignty required by the War on Terror, rabid Leftists like Soros conclude that we must trash the latter two inconvenient concepts--even if critical to the survival of our country.

It is precisely here where Soros and the Left fail utterly to understand the War on Terror. They cannot see beyond their own ideology and lust for power. They have become a danger to this country no less lethal than the terrorists they aid and abet.

I think this administration has the right strategic vision and has taken many of the steps needed to get that long-term strategy rolling.
Where I give them the failing grade is in explaining that vision to the American public and the world. Key example: this White House enshrines preemptive war in the latest National Security Strategy and that scares the hell out of a lot of Americans, not to mention our allies. Why? This administration fails to distinguish sufficiently under what conditions that strategy makes reasonable sense.
My point is this: when you are explicit about the world being divided into globalization's Core and Gap, you can distinguish between the different security rule sets at work in each.
Nothing has changed about strategic deterrence or the concept of mutual-assured destruction (or MAD) within the Core, so fears about preemptive wars triggering World War III are misplaced.
When this administration talks about preemption, they're talking strictly about the Gap - not the Core. The strategic stability that defines the Core is not altered one whit by this new strategy, because preemption is all about striking first against actors or states you believe - quite reasonably - are undeterrable in the normal sense.
Thomas P.M. Barnett
The Pentagon's New Map
NB: Dr. Barnett is a lifelong DEMOCRAT

I'm a single-issue voter, as I guess must have become apparent.
I'm not a Republican. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a very great admirer of the president in many ways, but I think that my condition is... that this is an administration that wakes up every morning wondering how to make life hard for the forces of Jihad and how to make as hard as possible an unapologetic defense of civilization against this kind of barbarism... and though the Bush administration has been rife with disappointment on this and incompetent, I nonetheless feel that they have some sense of that spirit.

I don't get that... I don't get that feeling from anyone who even sought the Democratic nomination.

I would [therefore] have to vote for the reelection of President Bush.
Christopher Hitchens
Washington Journal, 6.01.04
C-SPAN

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

America's Real Two-Front War
: by Mia T, 4.17.04

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic
WHY JOHN KERRY IS DANGEROUS FOR AMERICA

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

merica's real two-front war: fundamentalist Islam on the right and a fundamentally seditious clintonoid neo-neoliberalism on the left, both anarchic, both messianically, lethally intolerant, both amorally perverse, both killing Americans, both placing America at grave risk, both quite insane.

If we are to prevail, the rules of engagement--on both fronts--must change.

Marquis of Queensberry niceties, multicultural hypersensitivity, unipolar-power guilt, hegemony aversion (which is self-sabotage in the extreme--we must capture what we conquer--oil is the terrorist's lifeblood)... and, most important, the mutual-protection racket in Washington--pre-9/11 anachronisms all--are luxuries we can no longer afford.

Notwithstanding, the underlying premise of our hyperfastidious polity, (that we must remain in the system to save the system) is fallacious at best and tantamount to Lady Liberty lifting herself up by her own bootstraps.

To borrow from the Bard, let's start metaphorically, or better yet, economically and politically, by killing all the seditious solicitors, which include the clintons and their left-wing agitprop-and-money-laundering machine: the Viacom-Simon & Schuster-60-Minutes vertical operation, the horizontal (as in "soporific") Cronkite-ite news readers, the (hardly upright) Ben-Veniste goons and Gorelick sleepers, and, of course, the clueless, cacophonic, disproportionately loud, left-coast Barbra-Streisand contingent.

America must not pull her punches.

To prevail, America must defeat--thoroughly destroy--her enemies. On both fronts.

MORE
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

ne•o-ne•o•lib•er•al•ism n.
neocommunist political movement, a tipsy-topsy, infantile perversion of the Marxist-Leninist model, global in scope, beginning in the post-cold-war, unipolar 1990s, led by the '60s neoliberal baby-boomer "intelligentsia," that seeks power without responsibility, i.e., that seeks to dilute American power by concentrating power in said '60s neoliberals while yielding America's sovereignty to the United Nations, i.e., while surrendering to the terrorists, as it continues the traditional '60s neoliberal feint, namely: (1) concern for social justice, (2) distain for bureaucracy, and (3) the championing of entrepreneurship for the great unwashed.

Mia T, 2.24.04
COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

The Democratic Party's Problem Transcends Its Anti-War Contingent2

hyperlinked images of shame
copyright Mia T 2003
.

by Mia T, 4.6.03

If Act I was a thinly veiled allegory about naked clintonism, then Act II is a parable about the plan for world domination by the Establishment, aged hippies in pinstripes all, with their infantile, solipsistic world view amazingly untouched by time.
Mia T, June 9, 1999
THE ALIENS

l From is sounding the alarm. "Unless we convince Americans that Democrats are strong on national security," he warns his party, "Democrats will continue to lose elections."

Helloooo? That the Democrats have to be spoon-fed what should be axiomatic post-9/11 is, in and of itself, incontrovertible proof that From's advice is insufficient to solve their problem.

From's failure to fully lay out the nature of the Democrats' problem is not surprising: he is the guy who helped seal his party's fate. It was his Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) that institutionalized the proximate cause of the problem, clintonism, and legitimized its two eponymic provincial operators on the national stage. The "Third Way" and "triangulation" don't come from the same Latin root for no reason.

That "convince" is From's operative word underscores the Democrats' dilemma. Nine-eleven was transformative. It is no longer sufficient merely to convince. One must demonstrate, demonstrate convincingly, if you will… which means both in real time and historically.

When it comes to national security, Americans will no longer take any chances. Turning the turn of phrase back on itself, the era of the Placebo President is over. (Incidentally, the oft-quote out-of-context sentence fragment alluded to here transformed meaningless clinton triangulation into a meaningful if deceptive soundbite.)

Although From is loath to admit it -- the terror in his eyes belies his facile solution -- the Democratic party's problem transcends its anti-war contingent.

With a philosophy that relinquishes our national sovereignty -- and relinquishes it reflexively… and to the UN no less -- the Democratic party is, by definition, the party of national insecurity.

With policy ruled by pathologic self-interest -- witness the "Lieberman Paradigm," Kerry's "regime change" bon mot (gone bad), Edwards' and the clintons' brazen echoes thereof (or, alternatively, Pelosi's less strident wartime non-putdown putdown)… and, of course, the clincher -- eight years of the clintons' infantilism, grotesquerie and utter failure -- the Democratic party is, historically and in real time, the party of national insecurity.

The Democrats used to be able to wallpaper their national insecurity with dollars and demogoguery. But that was before 9/11.

addendum 12.13.03:
Pathologic self-interest: Richard Miniter's C-SPAN interview, contained in hillary talks:ON TERROR, (below), is absolutely devastating for the clintons. Miniter presents the clintons' monumental failure to protect America in sickening detail.

Note in particular Madeleine Albright's shocking reason given at the time of the USS Cole attack why the clinton administration should not respond militarily. It tell us everything we need to know about the clintons. It tell us why clinton redux is an absolutely suicidal notion.

Notwithstanding their cowardice, corruption, perfidy, and to borrow a phrase from Andrew Cuomo, their essential cluelessness, the clintons, according to Albright, made their decision not to go after the terrorists primarily for reasons of their own legacy and power. The clintons reasoned that inaction would MAXIMIZE THEIR CHANCES TO RECEIVE THE NOBEL PEACE PRIZE. No matter that that inaction would also maximize the terrorists' power, maximize America's danger.

For more than a half decade, the Clinton administration was shoveling atomic secrets out the door as fast as it could, literally by the ton. Millions of previously classified ideas and documents relating to nuclear arms were released to all comers, including China's bomb makers.

William J. Broad
Spying Isn't the Only Way to Learn About Nukes,
The New York Times, May 30, 1999

Broad would have us believe we are watching "Being There" and not "The Manchurian Candidate." His argument is superficially appealing as most reasonable people would conclude that it requires the simplemindedness of a Chauncy Gardener (in "Being There") to reason that instructing China and a motley assortment of terrorist nations on how to beef up their atom bombs and how not to omit the "key steps" when building hydrogen bombs would somehow blunt and not stimulate their appetites for bigger and better bombs and a higher position in the power food chain.

But it is Broad's failure to fully connect the dots -- clinton's wholesale release of atomic secrets, decades of Chinese money sluicing into clinton's campaigns, clinton's pushing of the test ban treaty, clinton's concomitant sale of supercomputers, and clinton's noxious legacy -- that blows his argument to smithereens and reduces his piece to just another clinton apologia by The New York Times.

But even a Times apologia cannot save clinton from the gallows. Clinton can be both an absolute (albeit postmodern) moron and a traitor. The strict liability Gump-ism, "Treason is as treason does" applies.

The idea that an individual can be convicted of the crime of treason only if there is treasonous intent or *mens rea* runs contrary to the concept of strict liability crimes. That doctrine (Park v United States, (1974) 421 US 658,668) established the principle of 'strict liability' or 'liability without fault' in certain criminal cases, usually involving crimes which endanger the public welfare.

Calling his position on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty "an historic milestone," (if he must say so himself) clinton believed that if he could get China to sign it, he would go down in history as the savior of mankind. This was 11 August 1995.

(There would be an analogous treasonous miscalculation in the Mideast: clinton failed to shut down Muslim terrorism, then in its incipient stage and stoppable, because he reasoned that doing so would have wrecked his chances for the Nobel Peace Prize. Indeed, according to Richard Miniter, Madeleine Albright offered precisely the Nobel-Muslim factor as a primary reason for not treating the bombing of the USS Cole as an act of war.)

Mia T, 2.11.04
BUSH, THE CLINTONS + WMD PROLIFERATION:
The REAL "Imminent Threat"

It is precisely the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening inaction to the attack on the USS Cole and the clintons' bin-Laden-emboldening token, ineffectual, August 1998 missile strikes of aspirin factories and empty tents that eliminate "bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance" as the rationale for the latter decision and support "wag the dog," instead.

Taken together, feckless clinton inaction and feckless clinton action serve only to reinforce the almost universally held notion: the clinton calculus was, is, and always will be, solely self-serving.

In the case of the non-response to the attack on the Cole, an unambiguous act of war, the clinton rationale, according to no less than Madeleine Albright, was a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by Arab appeasement. i.e., a clinton Nobel Peace Prize by bin-Laden-emboldenment.

And in the case of the curiously-timed, ineffectual (and, therefore, bin-Laden-emboldening) token missile strikes, the clinton rationale was Lewinsky-recantation distraction -- clearly not bin-Laden-emboldenment avoidance.

(This is not to say there wasn't a Nobel factor here, too. Obsolete intelligence, bolstered by the redundancy of a clinton tipoff, ensured that both bin Laden and the Mideast Muslim ego would escape unscathed.)

Mia T, "WAG THE DOG" revisited

WASHINGTON -- Two Norwegian public-relations executives and one member of the Norwegian Parliament say they were contacted by the White House to help campaign for President Clinton to receive this year's Nobel Peace Prize for his work in trying to negotiate peace in the Middle East.
Clinton Lobbies for Nobel Prize: What a Punk
White House Lobbied For Clinton Nobel Peace Prize Updated
Friday, October 13, 2000
By Rita Cosby


There's been speculation in the last few months that Clinton was pursuing a Mideast peace accord in an effort to win the prize and secure his legacy as president.
AIDES PUSH CLINTON FOR THE NOBEL


At the time, clinton observed: "I made more progress in the Middle East than I did between Socks and Buddy." Retrospectively, it is clear that clinton's characterization was not correct.
Mia T, Buddy Death Report Raises More Questions Than It Answers

COPYRIGHT MIA T 2004

May 11, 3:18 PM EDT

Video Shows Beheading of American in Iraq

By LOUIS MEIXLER
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- A video posted Tuesday on an al-Qaida-linked Web site showed the beheading an American civilian in Iraq in what was said to be revenge for abuse of Iraqi prisoners.

The video showed five men wearing headscarves and black ski masks, standing over a bound man in an orange jumpsuit - similar to a prisoner's uniform. The man identified himself as Nick Berg, a U.S. civilian whose body was found Saturday near a highway overpass in Baghdad.

"My name is Nick Berg, my father's name is Michael, my mother's name is Suzanne," the man said on the video. "I have a brother and sister, David and Sarah. I live in ... Philadelphia."

After reading a statement, the men were seen pulling the man to his side and putting a large knife to his neck. A scream sounded as the men cut his head off, shouting "Allahu akbar!" - "God is great!" They then held the head up to the camera.

The slaying recalled the kidnapping and videotaped beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in 2002 in Pakistan. Four Islamic militants have been convicted of kidnapping Pearl, but seven other suspects - including those who allegedly slit his throat - remain at large.

NOTE: GRAPHIC CONTENT Video posted of beheading of American in Iraq

"Free Republic is one of those groups obsessed with the Clinton era."

Word's out: Protest at Hillary's tonight
U.S. News & World Report (Washington Whispers) |
March 11, 2003 | Paul Bedard

I'll bet that Mr. Bedard is a member of "one of those groups" so "obsessed" with voting in -- and having access to -- the clintons that they--ooops-- failed to notice the obvious danger of the lovely couple.
hillary talks: ON TERROR
(reinstalling the clintons in White House has 1 advantage over suicide)

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
Thanx for 9/11, Paul...

Mia T
"ONE OF THOSE GROUPS OBSESSED WITH THE CLINTONS"

THE TERRORISTS' USEFUL IDIOTS
all the usual suspects

A Vote for Kerry is a Vote for the Terrorists

ELECTION BOTTOM LINE:
TERRORIST SYMPATHIZER or TERRORIST ANNIHILATOR

UNFIT #6: The Deadly Kerry-Hollywood Axis
HOW CAN YOU PUT YOUR CHILDREN'S LIVES IN ITS HANDS?

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#1-making the tough choices in a post-9/11 world
UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#2-understanding the job description

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#3-sang-froid and the "nuclear" button

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#4 - Kerry champions tolerance for terrorists

sanitizing evil
Kerry Cabal Censors Nick Berg Decapitation

"Loose Cannon" Kerry's AWOL/PURPLE-HEART FRAUD

pro-islamofascist-terrorist radical chic

USEFUL IDIOTS

MOORE IS LESS--THE MOVIE

The Cycle of Violence:
NOW WITH HYPERLINKED INSTRUCTION MANUAL

JOHN KERRY'S RECKLESS TET-OFFENSIVE-GAMBIT REPLAY:
the left's jihad against America is killing our troops, aiding + abetting the terrorists and imperiling all Americans

bill clinton, boy "genius," unwittingly bares all on BBC

deconstructing clinton… "just because I could"

vetting missus clinton...

The Parallel Universe of Jamie Gorelick

nepotism + tokenism = a nancy pelosi
(or a hillary clinton)

Kerry's Belated Condemnation Focuses on Process
Kerry Lacks Moral Authority to Condemn Content

"CRY BUSH" + Iraqi-Prisoner "Abuse"
What are the Dems up to?

DON'T BELIEVE YOUR LYING EARS (The Perjurer Returns)
(Clinton: Claims I Turned Down Bin Laden are 'Bull')

The Mary Jo White Memo:
Documentation of clintons' and Gorelick's willful, seditious malfeasance

What is the REAL Reason for Gorelick's Wall?

Q ERTY6 ^utter ^failure_BUMP

Lib Author Regrets Voting (TWICE!) for clinton
"Sickened" by clinton's Failure to Protect America from Terrorism

MUST-READ BOOK FOR DEMOCRATS:
How clintons' Failures Unleashed Global Terror
(Who in his right mind would ever want the clintons back in the Oval Office?)

The Man Who Warned America
(Why a Rapist is Not a Fit President)

UDAY: "The end is near… this time I think the… Americans are serious, Bush is not like Clinton."

THE REAL "REAL DEAL"
(what Kerry's commanders and crewmates REALLY think of him--with transcripts): by Mia T, 7.18.04

KERRY SWIFT-BOAT-VET FRAUD!

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

KERRY A 'LOOSE CANNON'

I do not believe John Kerry is fit to be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States.
This is not a political issue. It is a matter of his judgment, truthfulness, reliability, loyalty and trust all absolute tenets of command. His biography, Tour of Duty , by Douglas Brinkley, is replete with gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, contradictions and slanderous lies. His contempt for the military and authority is evident by even the most casual review of this biography.
He arrived in country with a strong anti-Vietnam War bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for his political future.
He was aggressive, but vain and prone to impulsive judgment, often with disregard for specific tactical assignments.
He was a 'loose cannon.'
In an abbreviated tour of four months and 12 days and with his specious medals secured, Lt. J.G. Kerry bugged out of Vietnam and began his infamous betrayal of all US soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen, including our POWs in the Vietnam War. His leadership in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, his testimony before Congress in 1971, charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain as undocumented but nevertheless malicious stain on the men and women who honorably stayed the course.
Senator Kerry is not fit to command. The real 'brothers' are my shipmates and veterans who reliably and honorably stayed the course.

--Admiral Hoffman, United States Navy, retired

KERRY HAS PERSONALITY DISORDER THAT WILL ENDANGER AMERICA

I'm here representing my late father, Admiral Zumwalt and my brother, Lt. J.G. Elmo Zumwalt who was a swift boat commander in Vietnam.
If Lt. Kerry failed to heed the commandments of his military superiors 36 years ago, whom will he heed as president? It surely will not be the electorate who voted him into office.
Senator Kerry has demonstrated a dangerous propensity to slip into multiple personalities depending on the audience he is addressing. This was clear of his Vietnam service and his actions upon returning home. It has been clear as a senator in his actions on various issues related to Iraq.
It is a personality disorder that will endanger America in the event that he is elected president.

-- Lt. Col. Jim Zumwalt, U.S. Marine Corps, retired

KERRY'S INDECISIVENESS PUT BOATS AND CREW IN JEOPARDY

I served in '66 and '67 on my first tour of duty in Vietnam on swift boats and I did my second tour in '68 and '69, involved with John Kerry in the last 2 1/2 months of my tour.
The John Kerry that I know is not the John Kerry that everybody else is portraying..
I served alongside him and behind him, five feet away from him as third class gunner's mate, and watched as he made indecisive moves with our boat, put our boats in jeopardy, put our crews in jeopardy.
If a man like that can't handle a 6-man crew boat, how can you expect him to be our commander in chief?
I left the Navy, lived in Clover, South Carolina and managed boat dealerships. I'm an ordinary guy with no political agenda and no party affiliation.

--Steve Gardner

'FIELD GENERAL' KERRY PRIME MOVER IN AMERICA'S DEFEAT

I served in Vietnam from September 1968 to September 1969, six months of which was with this honored bunch of people, many of whom are here today.
I signed that letter because I, too, felt a deep sense of betrayal: Someone who took the same oath of loyalty as I did as an officer for the US Navy would abandon his group here to join this group here and come home and attempt to rally the American public against the effort that this group was so valiantly pursuing.
You know, it is a fact that in the entire Vietnam war, we did not lose one major battle. We lost the war at home. And at home, John Kerry was the field general.
Only last week--or two weeks ago--I saw on television where, when asked to respond for his support for the Iraq war, he said, "I cannot imagine going to war without the support of the American people." The same man who joined this group to rally the American people against our effort.
This is not the making of a commander in chief.

--Bob Elder

KERRY--OPPORTUNIST OF THE WORST KIND

I served as an officer in charge of swift boats in Vietnam from June 1969 to June 1970. I think it's extremely important that all of his records be released so that the American people can judge for themselves. That's in part why I'm here today.
My greater concern is for his shameful behavior after returning from only four months in Vietnam to condemn and malign the hundred of thousands of men and women who served their country honorably and that he, by his actions, aided and abetted the very enemy we were sent to Vietnam to defeat.
In my specific experience in both coastal and river patrols over a 12-month period, I never once saw or heard anything remotely resembling the atrocities described by Sen. Kerry.
If I had, then my obligation was to report them in writing to a higher authority and I would certainly have done that. If Sen. Kerry actually witnessed or participated in these atrocities, or as he described them, "war crimes," he was obligated to report them. That he did not until later, when it suited his political purposes strikes me as opportunism of the worst kind.
That he would malign my service and that of his fellow sailors, with no regard to the truth, makes him totally unqualified to serve as commander in chief.

--Jeff Wainscot

KERRY ENGINEERED EARLY VIETNAM EXIT WITH FRAUDULENT PURPLE HEART

I served as commander, coastal division 14-4 early days of 1968 til the first week of 1969. Lt. J.G. Kerry reported in mid-November to that division.
While in Cam Rahn Bay, he turned in -- he trained on several 24-hour indoctrination missions. On one specific skimmer operation with my most senior and trusted lieutenant, the briefing from some members of that crew the morning after revealed that they had not received any enemy fire, and yet Lt. J.G. Kerry informed me of a wound and showed me a scratch on his arm and a piece of shrapnel in his hand that appeared to be from one of our own M-79s.
It was later reported to me that Lt. J.G. Kerry had fired an M-79 and it had exploded off the adjacent shoreline. I do not recalling being advised of any medical treatment and probably said something like, "Forget it."
He later received a purple heart for that scratch and I have no information as to how or whom.
Lt. J.G. Kerry was allowed to return to the good ol' USA after four months and a few days in country; and then he proceeded to betray his former shipmates, calling them criminals and [accusing them of] committing atrocities.
Today we are here to tell you just the opposite is true.
Republican or Democrat, it doesn't matter. I for one, could not support and do not want Senator Kerry to be commander in chief of our brave and honorable men.

--Commander Grant Everett, United States Navy, retired

KERRY'S ARROGANCE ROOTED IN IGNORANCE

That's the problem with Mr. Kerry. He's always criticizing others in command without knowing the facts.

--Joe Ponder

KERRY "REQUIRES CONSTANT SUPERVISION"

In the Navy, we have a term, 'service reputation,' by-and-large, unofficial and unwritten. It means the few words that a sailor's colleagues would use to give a snapshot of someone. Kerry would be described as 'devious,' 'self-absorbed,' 'manipulative,' [has] 'distain for authority,' 'disruptive,' but the most common phrase would be 'requires constant supervision.'

--Charlie Plumly, Captain, United States Navy, retired

KERRY'S BETRAYAL CONTRIBUTED TO THE IMPOSITION OF TYRANNY ON THE VIETNAMESE PEOPLE

Good morning ladies and gentlemen. My name is Bernard Wolff.
I'm a Georgia boy who joined the Navy to avoid the draft. After a couple of years in a safe, secure assignment in California, I felt an obligation to follow in the footsteps of my forebears and fight for my Country. I volunteered for Swift Boats, and was privileged to be accepted.
I served in three Coastal Divisions during my one year tour from August 1967 to 68: Cam Rahn Bay, An Thoi, and Da Nang. Like so many combat veterans, I returned to civilian life, earning an MBA and joining the business world.
I have signed the Letter to John Kerry in hopes that releasing his Navy medical records will clarify the credibility of his statements in 1971 that defamed those of us who served in Vietnam.
In addition to signing this Letter, I want to refute Kerry's assertions regarding Swift Boat crews engaging in war crimes. We went out of our way to protect innocent Vietnamese, even when it placed us in deep peril.
John Kerry's statements not only brought heartbreak to Vietnam Veterans and their families. They contributed to the imposition of tyranny upon the Vietnamese people.
My 30 years of business travel in the Far East have provided a sad testament to Vietnam's plight. I have seen citizens of neighboring countries enjoy growing prosperity, while our former friends in Vietnam have languished in isolated poverty and hopelessness. This is John Kerry's legacy.
I deeply resent John Kerry's using his Swift Boat experience, and his betrayal of those who fought there as a stepping stone to his political ambitions.

--Bernard Wolff

KERRY'S FALSE ACCUSATIONS RUINED LIVES, HARMED AMERICA

My name is Richard O'Meara. I'm from the Bronx. I served as a petty officer, 3rd class on a Swift Boat from September '68 to September '69. This was tough, frustrating and sometimes very deadly duty that we took very seriously. During my tour, I participated in over 100 combat patrols, from the very mundane Coastal patrols to the serious and deadly river operations. As crewmen, we were young volunteers and committed to our mission. After my year of duty, I left Vietnam, proud of my service to my country, proud of my crew members and proud of the work that we did.
In 1971, when John Kerry spoke out to America, labeling all Vietnam veterans as thugs and murderers, I was shocked and almost brought to my knees, because even though I had served at the same time and same unit, I had never witnessed or participated in any of the events that the senator had accused us of.
I strongly believe that the statements made by the senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States' efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the anti-war movement and their Allies retreated to a life of despair and suicide. Two of my crewmates were among them. For that, there is no forgiveness.

--Richard O'Meara

KERRY DOESN'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ENDURING TRUTHS AND A BOLD-FACED LIE

I'm David Wallace from Atlanta, Georgia. In 1969-'70, I was officer-in-charge of a Swift Boat in Coastal Division 13.
The officers and men with whom I served were honest and honorable. I can only speculate what went on with John Kerry's boats and crew. I do know that I didn't see anything remotely resembling war crimes committed by American sailors, soldiers or airmen.
To the contrary, I saw time after time where American fighting men knowing placed themselves in greater danger to protect civilians and avoid what the politicians called "collateral damage." About one-third of our operations were to assist the people of Vietnam.
John Kerry returned to this country and, under oath, told my parents, my brother, my sister, my neighbors, he told everyone I knew and everyone that I would ever know, that I and my comrades had committed unspeakable atrocities, that we tortured people, raped women, burned villages without any reason--that sort of thing. He never let up on that.
That wasn't even the worst part. He told the parents, brothers and sisters of the 58,000 brave men who paid the full measure that it's not so bad--they're just war criminals anyway....
Now he's parading around in a Navy flight jacket with patches all over it. I was in Vietnam three times longer than the senator and I didn't see anyone wear flight jackets in 90-degree weather. Now that it suits his purpose, he wants to be a war hero &endash; one wearing a leather flight jacket and telling people it brought him luck in Vietnam.
I just want a commander in chief who knows the difference between the truth and a fanciful flight that gets you somewhere. I want someone who knows the difference between a bold-faced lie and the enduring truths. From what I've seen, John Kerry isn't close.

--David Wallace

THE GALLING IRONY OF KERRY'S OPPORTUNISM:
SELF-CONFESSED VIETNAM-WAR-CRIMINAL KERRY BECOMES SELF-PROCLAIMED VIETNAM-WAR-HERO KERRY

I find it ironic that in 1971-72, for almost 18 months, John Kerry stood before the American people and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam in combat were all villains. There were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared running for President of the United States and Commander in Chief.
It just galls one to think about it.

--George Elliot

KERRY'S WORST ATROCITY OF ALL

During the Vietnam War, I was a task group commander at An Thoi and my tour of duty was 13 months from the end of Tet to the beginning of the Vietnamization of the Navy units. My tour spanned the four months that Kerry served there in the area.
I think the greatest atrocity of all was when we pulled the financial rug out from under the thousands of military officers and South Vietnamese government officials and assigned them to three and four years of hard time in reindoctrination camps.

--Capt. Adrian Lonsdale, US Coast Guard, retired

KERRY'S OPPORTUNISTIC EXPLOITATION OF SWIFT BOATS -- WANTS TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS

I'm a retired chief petty officer and I live in Sun City, California. I was in Vietnam from June 1968 to Jun 1969 serving up in Da Nang and Chu Li and in January 1969, I went to Cat Lo where I served as an engineer and a lead petty officer aboard swift boats during the same period as John Kerry.
I signed this letter because I feel he used Swift Boats for Sailors to proclaim his action, his anti-war statements after the war, and now he uses the same Swift Boats for Sailors to support his claims of being a war hero.
He cannot have it both ways and we are here to ask for full disclosure of the proof of his claims.

--Jim Steffis

MORE STATEMENTS BY KERRY'S COMMANDERS AND CREWMATES
DETAILING THE UNFITNESS AND DANGER OF JOHN KERRY

UNFIT: taking the measure of a would-be commander-in-chief
#3-sang-froid and the "nuclear" button

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

Did John Kerry pick a running mate or hire a lawyer when he selected John Edwards?

by Mia T, 7.18.04

PLAINTIFF PETTIFOGGER EDWARDS' 1^ST JOB AS KERRY RUNNING MATE: KERRY DEFENSE LAWYER

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 7, available HERE)

johnkerryisdangerousforamerica.blogspot.com

"There is no one better prepared to keep the American people safe than this man. And if you have any question what John Kerry is made of, just spend three minutes with the men who served with him 30 years ago who still stand by his side. [Emphasis added.] They saw up close that this man is a leader and he has courage, determination and he would never leave any American behind."

John Edwards
Three Minutes (Kerry ad)
July 2004

id John Kerry pick a running mate or hire a lawyer when he selected John Edwards?

That ambulance-chaser extraordinaire Edwards' first task on the ticket is to defend Kerry against the three-decades-old charges of betrayal and sedition and purple-heart fraud and engineering an early battlefield exit and political opportunism argues strongly for the latter...

That Kerry felt compelled to hire a lawyer rather than select a running mate who would provide balance for his ultra-left-wing credentials, or his wimpishly metrosexually Eurocentric proterrorist national-insecurity proclivity, tells us everything we need to know about John Kerry's view of his central vulnerability.

Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, Chief of Naval Operations from July 1970 to July 1974, anticipated this move by Kerry when he observed, "With Kerry's large ambitions, his career in Vietnam will haunt him if he were ever on the national stage."

PLAINTIFF PETTIFOGGER DOES "THREE MINUTES" DEFENSE

John Edwards, the man who made his millions as plaintiff pettifogger, should feel right at home on the other side of the aisle.

He will doubtless work it with the same syrupy Southern drawl and Southern-belle eye flutter.

He will surely continue to confect out of whole cloth his requisite villains and victims, in this case, respectively, Bush/Cheney + the haves, and Kerry/Edwards + have-nots, i.e., Edwards' "two Americas," (notwithstanding Kerry's missus' late husband's billions and Edwards' pillaged-from-the-injured multi-millions, and although the too "pessimistic" shibboleth, itself, has apparently been stricken from the Edwards script).

In place of the junk science and no less shoddy so-called expert witnesses he regularly employed to sway credulous juries, Edwards will use on an equally credulous subset of the electorate the standard demagogic techniques of the run-of-the-mill (even if "son-of-a-millworker") leftist politico: lies, illogic, sleight of hand... and a splash of snake oil to lubricate the Left's ever churning agitprop-and-money-laundering machine.