Powered by TypePad

« "B" Is For "Batman", and Maybe "BS" | Main | Indiana John - Why Did It Have To Be Snakes? »

August 27, 2004


Tom Grey

There is the beginning of explicit recognition that we are in a Moral Superiority War (not a culture war). All intellectually honest folk SHOULD be enraged at the press, my point #2 below.

The 3 big issues the Kerry Lie brings up (Lies):
1) Kerry’s Lie mean he is unfit to be commander in chief; he will be sunk by the Swifties.

2) The press & academia has been enabling Kerry for years, covering up his lies. The PC beliefs of most press reporters, and their censorship of discussion & cover up of the facts, has been enabling Kerry’s Lie, and most in the press are still trying to. Bush-hate by the press is no excuse for a press cover-up.

3) Kerry’s Lie helped create Political Correctness: “ending the Vietnam war, now” as the morally superior position. This is the Kerry Lie sand that PC is built on, and it is now developing cracks.

What is worth fighting for, what is worth fighting against?
The evil commies deserved to be fought against;
Saddam deserved to be fought against.
To fight means to kill, die, and even kill some innocents. The real alternative is surrender.

The desire to avoid killing innocents is good. That's what war crimes is all about. The evil guys don't have war crimes trials. If Christian based Civilization, Moral Civ, allows war trial fear to stop us from winning -- we will lose due to our morals.
Cambodia Genocide occurred because such morality stopped oppostion to evil.
Such morals are not superior.


none are as blind as those who refuse to see

Mitch H.

There's nothing as meaningless as a truism.

Now that we're done exchanging pointless aphorisms, do you have anything of substance to discuss, reggie.


It's all so simple if you just remember how to parse responses as was required when dealing with Bush's immediate predecessor in the White House.

"No, I don't think he lied." READ: "I KNOW he lied."

steve sturm

I believe Kerry lied in 1971 when he reported that he had read in Stars and Stripes (DOD newspaper) accounts of his missions. The paper barely covered the big battles (Khe Sanh), they weren't into covering 5 man Swiftboat crews. For more info, please check: http://thoughtsonline.blogspot.com/2004/08/nice-to-see-hugh-hewitt-joining-in.html

The Kid

Were it not for the fact that he’s such a dummy (Raines says so, no?), Bush might have been referring to Kerry’s pride of authorship regarding his military records. From today’s Sun-Times comes this:

The Kerry campaign has repeatedly stated that the official naval records prove the truth of Kerry's assertions about his service.

But the official records on Kerry's Web site only add to the confusion. The DD214 form, an official Defense Department document summarizing Kerry's military career posted on johnkerry.com, includes a "Silver Star with combat V."

But according to a U.S. Navy spokesman, "Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star."

Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a "combat V" for the Silver Star, the third-highest decoration the Navy awards. None of the other services has ever granted a Silver Star "combat V," either.
Kerry's Web site also carries a DD215 form revising his DD214, issued March 12, 2001, which adds four bronze campaign stars to his Vietnam service medal. The campaign stars are issued for participation in any of the 17 Department of Defense named campaigns that extended from 1962 to the cease-fire in 1973.

However, according to the Navy spokesman, Kerry should only have two campaign stars: one for "Counteroffensive, Phase VI," and one for "Tet69, Counteroffensive."
Questions have been raised about President Bush's drill attendance in the reserves, but Bush received his honorable discharge on schedule. Kerry, who should have been discharged from the Navy about the same time -- July 1, 1972 -- wasn't given the discharge he has on his campaign Web site until July 13, 1978. What delayed the discharge for six years? This raises serious questions about Kerry's performance while in the reserves that are far more potentially damaging than those raised against Bush.

One B.G. Burkett – an acknowledged expert in finding fraud in military records – finds Kerry’s records suspicious, saying "The multiple citations and variations in the official record are reason for suspicion in itself, even disregarding the current swift boat veterans' controversy."


this comments section has become very strange recently


Maybe Bush thinks Kerry is delusional, and therefore would not fit the exact definition of "liar".

Let's see. . . .we have the Christmas in Cambodia, and VC the flying wonder dog stories, both of which have been shown to be rather tall tales.

How many more fabrications of his Vietnam record does it take before Kerry would be considered delusional, rather than just a liar?


The wheels are coming off, fellas. If Glenn Reynolds wants to change the subject, ya gotta wonder. Where is the post on Robert Lamberts's story? How about Wayne Langhofer? Jim Russell? These guys weren't on Kerry's boat, and they support his version of events.

I got to hand it to ya though, this BS moved the polls.
As GWB likes to say, "Mission Accomplished"!

jim jones

yep, texas toast, the wheels have come off and kerry is fast becoming burnt toast.


Kerry's magic bus is heading over a cliff.


So now Bush has adequate credibility for the folks down at the Times. I thought that he was the Father of Lies and lies were his native tongue, but apparently he has now stumbled upon the truth. Or something.

Greg F

Trying to acquire Purple Hearts.


"Kerry SHOULD be proud of his record. I don't think he lied"

"Should be proud" meaning he isn't and embellishes?
"I don't think he lied" meaning the speaker, but not all the others who know the facts?

seems that Bush hit the precise phrases to express exactly what he meant. Was anybody listening?

The Kid

Chances are that Kerry’s pride has increased with each passing year. After all, the valor he displayed in 1969 has increased too, at least on his Silver Star citation. The third and most recent citation was signed over fifteen years after the act by the then Secretary Navy John Lehman and adds: "By his brave actions, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to duty, Lieutenant (jg) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself...."

The additional language varied from the two previous citations, signed first by Adm. Elmo Zumwalt and then Adm. John Hyland, which themselves differ.

It’s vitally important that Kerry remind us of his heroism too, lest we forget. Heck, even Lehman has forgotten and now says he never signed that citation.


I am glad to see the maligned Viet Nam vets standing up for themselves and proclaiming that they are honorable people, were honorable people when they were in Viet Nam, and that they fought honorably.

Kerry, and the anti-Viet Nam war movement, demonized them with lies. Today's anti-war movement can't wait to demonize today's soldiers too, witness the overblowing of the Abu Ghraib story. They want America to think that the abberant behavior of Abu Ghraib is the norm.

They want to demonize the war by demonizing the warriors. They have no shame, just like Kerry had no shame in the seventies. The warriors are fighting back this time.


Brinkley appears in the WaPo and NO Times-Picayune today. Looks like your prediction that there will be no New Yorker story is correct. Unfortunately the WaPo didn't press him on his claim to the London Telegraph that Kerry went into Cambodia on three or four occasions.

The comments to this entry are closed.