Rotating Header Image


The latest spin all over today’s airwaves are that the Swiftboat Vets’ “ads are unfounded.”

What does that actually mean? That is, the remark, ongoing throughout the day today and yesterday, by Kerry apologists on the airwaves, that goes like this:

“The ads are unfounded (and President Bush needs to denounce the ads).”

Examine the language. How can an “ad” be “unfounded.”

The most telling aspect to this Kerry charade about his self-endowed history, that is being ignored from most discussions, is the fact that Kerry hasn’t sued the authors of the “ads” but has, rather, threatened to sue the publisher of the book (“Unfit for Command”), has threatened to sue the retailers selling the book and threatened to sue the stations who broadcast the “ads” by the Swiftvets.

For obvious reasons, Kerry can’t counter the actual statements made by the Swiftvets — if he was to present a lawsuit against the authors, he’d then have to prove that they were wrong (or guilty of liable about him), so he’s trying to counter everyone who hears or sees them (or both), anyone and everyone who isn’t voting for Kerry…the list goes on and on, but Kerry, in a nutshell, is attacking everyone and anyone except the actual authors of the “ads” themselves.

Telephoning people who speak out — applying pressure, I suppose he thinks — sending various Democrats throughout the media to accuse (quite irrationally) President Bush, while encouraging and even laughing about the Left extremist use of advertising and media to attack Bush, attack the nation, attack, attack, attack…threaten, malign, threaten, attack. I’m surprised he isn’t sueing or threatening to sue the sun for showing light.

Kerry, telephoning one of the Swiftvets, said this:

“When we dedicated swift boat one in ’92, I said to all the swift guys that I wasn’t talking about the swifties, I was talking about all the rest of the veterans.”

So, alright, it’s the veterans now, who he was and is “talking about.”

Was that before the U.S. Senate when Kerry testified as to “war crimes?” Or was that about the “ads” that are “unfounded”?

Former Michigan Senator Don Riegle (D) appeared on FOX earlier today — the latest angry Democrat railing on about veterans — and said, “they’re attacking Kerry’s war record and it’s sleazy. It’s disgusting and the President ought to get rid of it.”

President Bush isn’t responsible for the “ads” — a President calling a citizen up and telling them not to speak out with their opinions would be the real offense, and it’s foretelling about Kerry that he would even suggest a President do something such as that. As in, I am assuming Kerryn would take such actions. Dictators do, too.

The reality of this situation seems to fly over the heads of Democrats, or, they are determined to continue to emphasize their irrational distortions about these “ads” — there’s a “Democrat Strategist” at this very moment on FOX saying that “the President was back home here skipping out on his war service” (while Kerry, he alleges, was “serving in the military”). The Democrats can not not denigrate President Bush with this sort of attack rhetoric and can not not parade John Kerry as a “war hero” and various outrageous exaggerations of that theme, and yet they can not focus on any one foothold that gives them leverage.

Because even John Kerry’s own diary proves his chronology of his “wounds” inaccurate, much less the testimony of the Swiftvets about that and other issues from their service experiences.

And, Howard Dean appears to be insane (well, isn’t he?) with his latest missive: that President Bush “broke the law” with “these ads,” when Bush isn’t responsible for the ads, nor is his campaign. Dean’s an educated person, he should have the cognitive capacity to understand that. With a physician like that, who needs enemies.

With a mate like Kerry, the Vietnam vets didn’t need the North Vietnamese. Kerry did their work for them, and still is.

So, the “ads are unfounded.” Ummm, no, they aren’t; an “unfounded ad” I have yet to view.

6 C O M M E N T S

  1. justaguy says:

    1) Did you approach your draft board to seek a deferment — in order to study for a year in Paris?


    “When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy.” Harvard Crimson, February 18, 1970.]

    2) Did you volunteer for patrol duty and only patrol duty, because it was a safe assignment?


    “They [swiftboats] were engaged in coastal patrolling and that’s what I thought I was going to be doing. Although I wanted to see for myself what was going on, I didn’t really want to get involved in the war.” John Kerry / “A War Remembered (1986).”

    “Kerry protested being transferred to An Thoi, arguing that he had volunteered only for coastal patrol ? not the more hazardous duty of missions within the inland waterways ? his objections were so strong that he was transferred out within a week.” William Franke (Silver Star recipient) / “Unfit For Command”]

    3) There have been numerous explanations of your trip or trips to Cambodia. In 1994, you said you were in Cambodia on Christmas Eve of 1968 and were shot at by drunken Vietnamese who were celebrating Christmas. US News and World Report Reporter Kevin Whitelaw says you told him that you went on “clandestine missions to deliver weapons to anticommunist forces” in Cambodia. Carl Cameron from Fox News says he was told by your staff that you were never in Cambodia, you were just near the country. Now, the latest variation of this story told by Douglas Brinkley is that you went to Cambodia “three or four times in January and February 1969 on clandestine missions. He had a run dropping off U.S. Seals, Green Berets and CIA
    guys.” Can you explain the discrepancies?

    4) Assuming the latest story is the one you’re going with, can you provide any details that support your story? What were the dates of trips to Cambodia? Which Swift Boat Vets were with you on the boat? Who ordered you to go? What are the names of the SEALs or CIA agents you took into Cambodia? What happened on these trips that later led you to believe you were being shot at by your Vietnamese allies who were celebrating Christmas despite the fact that these trips were in January and February?

    5) Back in 2003, you told Laura Blumenfield of the Washington Post that you had a “good luck hat” that you kept with you in a briefcase that was given to you by a “CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia”. What was the CIA guy’s
    name and can you give all the relevant details (dates, crewmen who were with you, etc) for that trip?

    6) The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth say that your first Purple Heart was obtained fraudulently. Their claim is that the tiny piece of shrapnel you had in your arm was not from enemy fire, but from an accidentally self-inflicted wound caused by firing your M-79 grenade launcher at a target that was too close. Interestingly enough, this passage which was written in your own biography, ‘Tour Of Duty’, nine days after the incident in which you won a Purple Heart, seems to support the Swift Boat Vets for Truth contention that you were not fired upon…

    “They pulled away from the pier at Cat Lo with spirits high, feeling satisfied with the way things were going for them. They had no lust for battle, but they also were not afraid. Kerry wrote in his notebook, ‘A cocky feeling of invincibility
    accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn’t been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven’t been shot at are allowed to be cocky.”

    Can you explain the discrepancy between your own biography and your account of how you won your first Purple Heart?

    7) Did Louis Letson tend to the “wound” you received your first Purple Heart for and did he treat it with a band-aid as he claims?

    8) Grant Hibbard, your commanding officer at the time you received your first Purple Heart, says he turned down your request for a medal because he said you were not under enemy fire that day and your “wound” was comparable to a scratch from a rose
    bush. Can you explain in detail who approved that Purple Heart, when they approved it, and on what basis they approved it after you’d already been turned down by your commanding officer?

    9) Your third Purple Heart was based on “shrapnel wounds in left buttocks and contusions on (the) right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard”. The bruise on your arm alone would not have been enough to qualify you for a Purple Heart so without the wound to your the buttocks, you wouldn’t have received the medal. However, your own biography, “Tour of Duty,” seems to belie the idea that you received the wound in combat. Earlier in the day, you admitted that the wound to your
    buttocks was accidentally self-inflicted by grenades thrown at rice bins during a non-combat situation…

    “I got a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice-bin explosions and then we started to move back to the boats.”

    Can you explain the discrepancy?

    10) A January 17, 2004 press release about the event in which you won your third Purple Heart and your Bronze Star says that the other boats fled the scene while your boat came to Jim Rassmann’s rescue,
    “Rassmann, a Green Beret, was traveling down the Bay Hap river in a boat behind Kerry’s when both were ambushed by exploding land mines and enemy fire coming from the shore. Kerry was hit in the arm, while a mine blew Rassmann’s boat out of the water. With enemy fire coming from both sides of the river and swift boats evacuating from the area, Kerry’s crew chose to turn their boat toward the ambush to save Rassmann.

    This is the basis for the “No Man Left Behind” theme that your campaign has used.

    However, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said that you lied and that YOUR BOAT was the only one to leave the scene and then return. Moreover, the Washington Post, after doing some research and concluding that you and the SBVFT were wrong about
    some things, seems to favor the SBVT on this particular issue…

    “It is unclear how far down the river Kerry’s boat was when he turned around. It could have been anywhere from a few hundred yards to a mile.

    O’Neill claims that Kerry “fled the scene” despite the absence of hostile fire. Kerry, in a purported journal entry cited in Brinkley’s “Tour of Duty,” maintains that he wanted to get his troops ashore “on the outskirts of the ambush.” Could you clarify: Was your boat the only one to leave the scene or did all the other boats evacuate the area while your boat alone went back?

    11) You claim that you’ve released your full military records already and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have said that you’re lying. However, after investigating, the Washington Post found that there apparently are large amounts of material in
    your records that have not been released…

    “A Freedom of Information Act request by The Post for Kerry’s records produced six pages of information. A spokesman for the Navy Personnel Command, Mike McClellan, said he was not authorized to release the full file, which consists of at least a hundred pages.”

    Why are you refusing to sign Pentagon’s Standard Form 180 which will allow the Pentagon release all of your records and can you explain why your campaign has said that all of your records have been released?

    (*** Bonus Question ***) Why do you think it is that your former doctor, one of the men who served on your boat, the majority of crew members whose picture you used in a campaign commercial, every commanding officer you ever had in Vietnam, and large numbers of men who fought beside you in combat on other boats are all coming out and not just saying that they don’t support you, but that you’re telling lies about your war record? Is it just a “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” or is there something else at work here?

    Special thanks to John Hawkins…

  2. -S- says:

    Interesting: Kerry’s has no recant or withdrawal or regrets about his testimony before the U.S. Senate (or is he dancing — as in, stepping aside, avoiding specifics — by simply referring to his “protest”), although what he said in that testimony isn’t substantiated, and is, actually, discounted by the testimony of others.

    If Kerry was to indicate that he had regrets or had rethought or rephrased his earlier comments, he’d be admitting that he’d lied under oath, before the Senate. So, he now frames his statements as being “protest” and that makes it alright?

    Um, despite the fact that the Swiftvets have a portion of Kerry’s testimony in their ads (“out of context,” complains Kerry), that’s not the issue…the issue is Kerry’s testimony and coordinated “protest” and what he said in dishonest testimony about his mates and about the military he was sworn, as an officer, to defend and protect and, umm, SERVE.

    Included in that is that he was still enlisted as an officer when he “met with” various (Communist) leaders, which also is a clear violation of his sworn code as an officer (no explanation from Kerry about that).

    But, interesting and very laudible here is that the veterans are standing up to Kerry’s horrible and dishonorable behavior from his “protest” that is based in dishonesty and theatrics. Oh, but he served honorably, I forgot to include that.

    Service, yes, but then he also violated his sworn code of service, ethics and a lot of people lost their lives because of Kerry’s “protest.” He says he “respects” them, he never says he is sorry.

  3. -S- says:


    I tried to view that full video (C-SPAN, the Kerry/O’Neill interaction on the Dick Cavette Show from 1971) but I lost my Operating System at around the 40 minute roll-in time. I did take a lot of notes, however, from only those first forty minutes or so.

    As an aside here — if I can call it that — I don’t know if anyone else among us Republicans has experienced an odd “interruption” to computing capability, but I’m only now picking up where I had to leave off from around five a.m. today (it’s now 9:33 P.M. and I’m only now working with a fully reconstructed P.C. here)…

    Anyway, remarkable video in that Kerry was saying then what he’s saying now, only now he’s trying to make it “Presidential.”

    I have a theory about Kerry and that is that he’s quite so tied up in a knot (as are his supporters) about being confronted by his own behavior and positions — at least, having to confront the fact that a lot of people don’t care for his positions now and didn’t then — is because he’s trying to still reconcile himself as being “right” from way back when. That is, if he can make himself “Presidential,” that will prove that his protest opinions and behaviors had value — which they have only, rather, become increasingly clearly offensive to many, but Kerry appears to have a deep seated psychological need for affirmation about his opinions from long ago. And so he’s going for the Presidency, as if that’d make the opinions common fare, “prove” his acceptability socially and morally.

    I’ve been listening to Father John Corapi while otherwise trying not to fall asleep from exhaustion while rebuilding my O.S. and desktop today…and he offers a remarkably perfect and to-the-point sermon (speech, whatever) from early morning today (his website, that pin points the very heart of the moral violations — mortal sin indeed — that Kerry is pushing to promote and as are those who encourage him to do so, and from the way Father Corapi defines the Faith, Kerry should be ex-communicated from the Catholic Church for his blatant and unremorseful behavior (about abortion, first and foremost).

    But, I am beyond exhausted as I write this tonight, and haven’t even been able to read any news from today…gotta go sleep and then start all over tomorrow but at least I have an O.S. again, which can again locate the Network. What a day, what a last seventeen hours of computing set-up and phone calls. DELL Technical Support, however, has drastically improved and really helped earlier in the afternoon with some great walk-through instructions.

  4. justaguy says:

    This will be played on tv soon…within the next couple of weeks.

    Also…the Cavett Show…it’s amazing…looking back in retrospect…how wrong Kerry was on every issue. For instance, Kerry was adamant that the North Viets…wouldn’t harm the southern, etc…if we pulled out, etc. They were slaughtered. Also, the widespread war crimes charge…made by Kerry has been destroyed by historians.