Rotating Header Image


Editor’s Note: photograph unfortunately lost during server changes 2004, but the caption describes the imagery:

War veterans Jere Hill, middle, from Warham, Mass., and Robert Gibson, right, from Lexington, Ky., stand with their backs turned during Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry’s speech at the 105th Veterans of Foreign Wars National Convention in Cincinnati on Wednesday, Aug. 18, 2004. Man in foreground is unidentified. Kerry received a polite if not overwhelmingly positive reaction from the VFW. But there was a clear divide, with scores of veterans sittings with their arms folded while others clapped. (AP Photo/David Kohl)

From the reader comments here, a link to this photograph.

Today, John Kerry is saying to George Bush, about Kerry’s military service record, “bring it on.”

It’s already been brought on, and by citizens in the United States, as to Kerry’s military service record. Only Kerry and campaign would have people accept their standard of “silence” to and about anyone who doesn’t support Kerry’s idea of himself and his military service record.

President George Bush was heard to say (“Larry King LIVE,” August 15, 2004) that he considered that John Kerry had “served honorably.”

So, what, again, is it that Kerry needs? Silence from the country?

Well, I think so: most probably, a silent, ongoing dulled down acceptance of whatever Kerry says and doesn’t say, about himself, about the U.S. military, about the nation — and anyone who speaks up with information that is contrary to Kerry’s ‘reality’ is deemed expendible by Kerry and Kerry apologists. Which is no indication of military comraderie to some, certainly not to me, by Kerry himself.

A lot of veterans (the Swiftees, at least, as to recent media, who number approximately two hundred and fifty) have shared their stories from their own experiences, and, from what I have heard by John Kerry, he’s only willing to take on the few stories by a small group of fellow veterans about the Kerry behavior on the spot, in Vietnam, in service, and those that he is willing to take on provide benefit to Kerry’s perspective about what is true, what happened, what didn’t happen.

It’s good to have friends, no one’s dinging Kerry for that, but it’s another thing to lead a nation and world into accepting falsehoods while silencing others with observations about the same things, particularly when those observations point out the lack of truth from some who have been given preference in the many decades since — that is, something isn’t inherently true or accurate, just because it’s been allowed to persevere in record. Antiquities are found to be forgeries years after they’ve been deemed to be priceless. Which is to say, there’s no need to rush to “closure” (doesn’t everyone revile that word, anyway?) about a time in history in which Kerry’s full military “service” is situated. As in, what’s the rush? Why NOT listen to the stories of others who served, were present, have survived to share their experiences? Hey, you know, “bring it on,” and all, so, alright, they brought it.

The rest of the stories, from the several hundred (or more) veterans who had first-hand experiences with and about John Kerry, Kerry’s tried very hard to demean and discard, for one reason or another.

Today, earlier, on FOX, I heard a Kerry apologist saying that the Swiftees’ “are funded by a Republican from Texas…”


Let’s look at, say, the organization called “” (among many other similar sources, just that enjoys the most funding from the most Democrats and therefore, the highest profile among the Left among political advertisers for Kerry). is responsible for much of the hate speech and horrid advertising about anyone not among the Left in the United States (or worldwide, for that matter), and, at it’s worst, published the “Bush (is) Hitler” “advertising” spot (it was comprised of audio-video media, it was funded by and through, it was broadcast — in some cases, it still is — throughout the media, promoted by on their website, linked to by the Kerry campaign, lauded and lauded again by most Democrats and other apologetic Liberals — and still is — and otherwise, a product of common fare for, who continues to plague humanity with various deplorably derisive “political advertising.”

And, just yesterday, Democrat apologist Susan Estrich was heard on FOX with great irreverancy, lauding as “a great American story” or thereabouts (I paraphrase), gleaming on about as being an example of heroic citizens at work. So, alright, no apology from Democrats and other Kerry apologists for that version of “greatness,” no exercise of conscience there. Estrich teaches “law” in California (University of Southern California [“USC”]). She’s a Democrat! She’s a Democrat with money in California who apologizes for and supports! I bet she even donates to the Democratic Party, even, in fact, to! Whoaa

It would take but a moment to determine that the funds that enjoys and spends for purposes of creating and disceminating “political advertising” originates from “Democrats.” In Texas, in California, in (name your state here).

So, the “outrage” and otherwise complaints by Democrats and apologist Liberals for Kerry, about the Swiftees’ modest video and their book, “Unfit for Command,” seems entirely heavy handed by comparison. Are they suggesting that no one from “Texas” who has ever contributed to the Republican Party be “allowed” to voice an opinion? That any veteran be silenced unless they laud John Kerry? That only Democrats can contribute to political advertising? That only financial contributions from states other than Texas be allowed acceptable by political parties? Or, rather, only allowed from other states other than Texas but not from Republicans?

The permutations of that line of thinking by Democrats, about the Swiftees’, are obviously endlessly nonsensical. As is also nonsensical, what is apparently motivating the argument itslelf by Liberals and Kerry apologists about the Swiftees’ statements, resulting in the Kerry statement of today, again refreshing his “bring it on” gauntlet. “Political” in nature. Used in advertising by every afforded Liberal and liberally funded organization who isn’t really a part of the Kerry campaign but who is linked to by the Kerry campaign, quoted by the Kerry campaign, who provides funding and/or goods and services to the Kerry campaign, who is relied upon by the Kerry campaign, vulcanized by the Kerry campaign…political advertising is like that. D’oh.

The point being, I doubt very, very strongly that anyone who provides funding and/or support to and otherwise contributes in any way to that organization is not working, one way or another, for Kerry “taking back the White House.” The only “~Republican~” involved in is moby.

But, returning to the pin here, Kerry has made his military record, from the starting point forward, a bedrock campaign issue as to his qualifications and character for occupying the Presidency. Perhaps he never anticipated anyone challenging his concept of his military record, but, he did ask. Kerry exemplifies that sort of personality who no one ever told “no” to, so he has grown into an adult who assumes he won’t ever be challenged, or, that anyone challenging him should be, is to be, is assumed to be, inferior: silence those comments, take them to the tower! Outrage! Boiling blood!

Several of John Kerry’s statements about his past have already been proven to be false and acknowledged by Kerry to have been false. So, let’s continue as a population to examine the known remaining questions about this man’s past and character and expect proof to the contrary or proof that supports, one way or another, Kerry’s military record. He’s apparently lied before the United States Senate in his testimony from April 22, 1971, he’s lied about circumstances, times, places, names.

So, what else has John Kerry lied about? People want to know before they vote — one way or another, simple as that. It’s not an outrageous or even a prying question, it’s a necessary question, it’s a necessary examination of this person who says he wants to “take back the White House.” Kerry’s credibility also relates to those other Democrat politicians who have encouraged voter support for Kerry. It affects me, is what I write here, as to who I’ll be voting for in the future, and who I won’t if for no other reason that I have an expectation about other politicians, “elected officials,” that they’re providing me with informed opinions and encouragements about issues, and particuarly about Presidential candidates.

Continuing here, as of today, Kerry taunts President George Bush with his reuse of the Kerry campaign boast, “bring it on.” By responding, Kerry apparently assumes that means that Bush is otherwise involved in the very issue — points in John Kerry’s self written personal history that have been evidenced as being false by others present at key times — and Kerry now insists that the issue become even more politicized by making it a “bring it on” confrontation between him and President Bush.

We’ve all been there, by trolls worldwide, on the Internet. Kerry, apparently, is Trolling, and has been Trolling his entire adult life where the United States military is concerned.

It’s time to take a stand.

Because, my impression here — which is all I can write about — is that John Kerry and apologists aren’t going to stop until they discredit or whittle away the credibility of the United States military, just denigrate the heck out of it, one individual at a time. Isn’t that John Kerry’s original point, what he went to Vietnam to establish, what he returned four months later to testify about before the United States Senate? “Bring it on” now takes on a strange counter-offensive message: take it back. Or, rather, take that.