Kerry | "I gave back ... six, seven, eight, nine medals," Kerry said on WRC-TV in 1971

Yet Kerry now says he did not throw away - or “give back” - any of his medals.

In a videotape from 1971, obtained exclusively by ABCNEWS, Vietnam veteran John Kerry said he gave back his medals in order to “wake the country.” ABCNEWS.com

ABC News reports on Kerry’s contradictions regarding his medals in this report:

- - - - - - -

“I gave back, I can’t remember, six, seven, eight, nine medals,” Kerry said in an interview on a Washington, D.C., news program on WRC-TV called Viewpoints on Nov. 6, 1971, according to a tape obtained by ABCNEWS.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Kerry has denied that he threw away any of his medals during an anti-war protest in April 1971.

Calling it a “phony controversy” instigated by the Republican party, Kerry said on Good Morning America today that he has always accurately said what took place. “I threw my ribbons. I didn’t have my medals. It is very simple.”

He also said he — and the military — didn’t make a distinction between medals and ribbons. “We threw away the symbols of what our country gave us for what we had gone through,” he said.

And in an interview with ABCNEWS’ Peter Jennings last December, he said it was a “myth.”

But Kerry told a much different story on Viewpoints. Asked about the anti-war veterans who threw their medals away, Kerry said “they decided to give them back to their country.”

Kerry was asked if he gave back the Bronze Star, Silver Star and three Purple Hearts he was awarded for combat duty as a Navy lieutenant in Vietnam. “Well, and above that, [I] gave back the others,” he said.

The statement directly contradicts Kerry’s most recent claims on the disputed subject to the Los Angeles Times last Friday. “I never ever implied that I did it, ” Kerry told the newspaper, responding to the question of whether he threw away his medals in protest.

- - - - - - -

The disputed incident happened 33 years ago this past weekend, on April 23, 1971, when Kerry led the group Vietnam Veterans Against the War in a protest against the war they fought.

Many veterans were seen throwing their medals and ribbons over the fence in front of the U.S. Capitol. The Boston Globe and other newspapers reported that Kerry was among these veterans.

“In a real sense, this administration forced us to return our medals because beyond the perversion of the war, these leaders themselves denied us the integrity those symbols supposedly gave our lives,” Kerry said the following day.

But in 1984, when he first ran for the U.S. Senate, Kerry revealed he still had his medals. According to a Boston Globe report on April 15, 1984, union officials had expressed uneasiness with Kerry’s candidacy because he had thrown his medals away. Kerry acknowledged the medals he threw away were, in fact, another soldier’s medals. He reportedly invited a union official home to personally inspect his Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, awarded for his combat duty as a Navy lieutenant.

In the 1971 Viewpoints interview, he made no mention of the ribbons or the medals belonging to another veteran.

- - - - - - -

Kerry’s explanation to Charlie Gibson of ABC’s “Good Morning America” only made things worse.

This is a duplicate of the original post on the nikita demosthenes website.

UPDATE:

CNN is running a poll: “Is Sen. John Kerry’s Vietnam War medals controversy a relevant campaign issue?” (Scroll down).

Meanwhile, Eschaton thinks the issue is “bogus.” And Instapundit thinks Kerry didn’t help himself in the “Good Morning America” interview with Charlie Gibson.

SECOND UPDATE:

Wonkette: Not to worry. Kerry’s not a hypocrite. He’s a Zen master.

Give the guy a break. Maybe Kerry left his medals in his family’s SUV.

Posted by nikita demosthenes at April 26, 2004 12:47 PM | TrackBack

KERRY RESPONDS ON ‘GMA’
Mon Apr 26 2004 09:04:52 ET

ABC NEWS GOOD MORNING AMERICA’S CHARLIE GIBSON: Now joining us from West Virginia is himself senator John Kerry. He’s in the town of Glen Easton, West Virginia, today. Good to have you with us.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: i’m glad to be with you. i really am.

GIBSON: 1984, senator, to the present. you have said a number of times, as brian pointed out as recently as friday with the “”los angeles times,”” have you said a number of times that you did not throw away the vietnam medals themselves. but now this interview from 1971 shows up the in which you say that was the medals themselves that were thrown away.

KERRY: no, i don’t.

GIBSON: can you explain?

KERRY: absolutely. that’s absolutely incorrect. charlie, i stood up in front of the nation. there were dozens of cameras there, television cameras, there were — i don’t know. 20, 30 still photographers. thousands of people and i stood up in front of the country, reached into my shirt, visibly for the nation to see, and took the ribbons off my chest, said a few words and threw them over the fence. the file footage, the reporter there from the “”boston globe,”” everybody got it correctly. and i never asserted otherwise. what i said was and back then, you know, ribbons, medals were absolutely interchangeable . senator simmington asking me questions in the committee hearing, look ad at the ribbons and said what are those medals? the u.s. navy pam let calls the medals, we referred to them it is a symbols, representing medals, ribbons, countless veterans through the ribbon — threw the ribbons back. everybody did. veterans threw back dog tags. they threw back photographs, they th rew back their 14’s. there are photographs of a pile of all of those things collected on the steps of the capitol. so the fact is that i have — i have been accurate precisely about what took place. and i am the one who later made clear exactly what happened. i mean, this is a controversy that the republicans are pushing , the republicans have spent $60 million in the last few weeks trying to attack me. and this comes from a president and a republican party that can’t even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the national guard. i’m not going to stand for it.

GIBSON: senator, i was there 33 years ago and i saw you throw medals over the fence and we didn’t find out until later -

KERRY: no, you didn’t see me throw th. charlie, charlie, you are wrong. that’s not what happened. i threw my ribbons across. all you have to do -

GIBSON: someone else’s medals, correct in?

KERRY: after — excuse me. excuse me, charlie. after the ceremony was over, i had a bronze star and a purple heart given to me, one purple heart by a veteran in the v.a. in new york and the bronze star by an older veteran of world war ii in massachusetts. i threw them over because they asked me to. i never —

GIBSON: let me come back to the thing just said which is the military —

KERRY: this is a phony — charlie, this is a phony controversy.

GIBSON: the military makes no distinction between ribbons and medals but you are the one who made the distinction. in 1984 —

KERRY: no . we made no distinction back then, charlie. we made no distinction.

GIBSON: senator, i don’t want — i just want to ask the question. in 1984 when you were running for the senate, that was the first time that you called someone in from labor because they were upset that you had thrown ribbons away.

KERRY: no.

GIBSON: you called them and you made the distinction and said i didn’t throw my medals away. i just threw the ribbons away. you made the distinction.

KERRY: i was asked specifically in greater detail about what took place. i answered the question truthfully. which is consistent with what happened in 1971. i mean, charlie, go back and get the file footage. there are were millions of people watching. i took my ribbons off my chest just as other veterans did. this is a phony controversy. this is being pushed yesterday by karen hughes of the white house on fox. it shows up at a several different stations at the same time. the republicans are running $10 million this week to attack my credentials on defense. this comes from a president who can’t even show or prove that he showed up for duty in the national guard.

GIBSON: senator —

KERRY: i’m not going to stand for it. i’m in the going to stand for it.

GIBSON: i-understand you are feeling politics is behind this. but i ask you, is it not —

KERRY: i know politics is behind this.

GIBSON: when trying to appeal to the anti-war people in 1971, you said as in that interview, it was the medals and then when the people who supported the war were giving you political problems, you then said i didn’t throw the medals away 13 years later.

KERRY: that’s the most — with all due respect, that’s the most ridiculous thing i have ever heard. because i stood up in front of the country, in front of cameras, a reporter of the “”boston globe”” got it correct . he wrote about the medals but knew they were my ribbons. everybody understood what we were doing. i even said in that interview we threw away the symbols of what our country gave us for what we had gone through. and if i was — you know, back then, trying to appeal to somebody, i stood up against richard nixon, stood up against the withar, took a position, and it wasn’t popular, and it was polarizing. i didn’t have to do it. if i was trying to hide something, i would have never stood there in floment of everybody and thrown them over the fence. i threw my ribbons over. i threw the medals of two veterans who asked me to throw them over, after the ceremony, completely separate, and i’m the one — if hi something to hide, i’m the one who made it known exactly what happened. to me, it is one in the same. and i’m proud of it.

GIBSON: let me ask you, too, about two other things that you have said. subsequent to that. 1985, you said to “”the washington post,”” it is such a personal thing i did no want to throw my medals away. then 1996, you said to the “”boston globe,”” i didn’t bring my own medals to throw because i didn’t have time to go home and get them. which one was it?

KERRY: i expressed there was great sense of wrench being the whole thing. many of us — we had a long argument the night before, charlie. it is a matter of record. as to how we were going to do it. and the vote was taken. i was not in favor of throwing them over the fence. i thought we ought to lay them on a table and put them in front of people in a way that, you know, wouldn’t be as challenging to many americans. other veterans felt otherwise. they took a vote. the vote was made, they voted to throw. i threw my ribbons. i didn’t have my medals. it is very simple . what the republicans are trying to do is make this into an issue because they have no record to run on and they can’t go out and talk about jobs or health care or environment. they are going to attack 35 years ago. last week in an unprecedented attack, they sent congressmen to the floor of the senate of the house to attack me on the anniversary of my speech. george bush has yet to explain to america whether or no t to tell the truth about whether he showed up for duty. i’m not going to get attack order something i did that’s a matter of record that the press saw, that i did in front of the entire nation and everyone then understood there was no distinction. we threw away the symbols of the war. i’m proud i stood up and fought stood up and fought against it. proud i took on richard nixon. and i think to this day, there’s no distinction between the two.

GIBSON: all right. senator, i appreciate your being with us this morning. i’m glad to have you here. thank you. all the best. diane?

Posted by: kh at April 26, 2004 01:01 PM

For those of you who are not in the military, a ribbon is an abbreviated medal. In many cases it is used as a stand in for the full medal. Bronze Star, Silver Star, Vietnam Campaign, Vietnam Service are all medals.

In some cases, the ribbon is all you get. There is something called the Combat Action Ribbon which does not have a medal. All unit commendations are ribbons only.

Ribbons are very easily replaced at the exchange. Getting replacement medals in those days was very, very tough. You had to provide documentation and you couldn’t buy medals at the exchange (like you can now).

Throwing ribbons over a fence wouldn’t have much drama. It would be like throwing ticket stubs over a fence. Medals have weight and mass to them.

Kerry is tap-dancing.

Posted by: Limpet at April 26, 2004 01:06 PM

Honestly, I could care less about the medals or the VVAW stuff.

MY problem with Kerry is twofold:

1) On the majority of issues, I think his viewpoint is wrong.

2) I do not trust him in the sense that I am afraid that he would place political considerations ahead of common sense.

Posted by: eric at April 26, 2004 01:30 PM

why six, seven, or eight…? Why not all of my medals or anything that Kerry ever received? So He could not remember due to trying to keep some back for rainny day? All out for war and then all out for anti war and now may be I am both but for face saving I will not admitted? Kerry is what Kerry is, He will not changed, that is his personel, love him or hate him but always he will not be reliable, a liar is a liar, it is only getting worst.

Posted by: pt at April 26, 2004 01:38 PM

why six, seven, or eight…? Why not all of my medals or anything that Kerry ever received? So He could not remember due to trying to keep some back for rainny day? All out for war and then all out for anti war and now may be I am both but for face saving I will not admitted? Kerry is what Kerry is, He will not changed, that is his personel, love him or hate him but always he will not be reliable, a liar is a liar, it is only getting worst.

Posted by: pt at April 26, 2004 01:39 PM

why six, seven, or eight…? Why not all of my medals or anything that Kerry ever received? So He could not remember due to trying to keep some back for rainny day? All out for war and then all out for anti war and now may be I am both but for face saving I will not admitted? Kerry is what Kerry is, He will not changed, that is his personel, love him or hate him but always he will not be reliable, a liar is a liar, it is only getting worst.

Posted by: pt at April 26, 2004 01:39 PM

kh-

Thank you! I gave up watching TV news about a year ago. This is priceless. I don’t know what it looked like, but it reads as if Kerry’s starting to panic towards the end.

Couldn’t happen to a sleazier guy. Notice how in his last story (I count 5, but I’ll admit to being confused) he portrays himself as the lone voice pleading for restraint and dignity, but “other veterans felt otherwise”.

What a maroon.

Posted by: marymcl at April 26, 2004 01:42 PM

at least kerry got some medals in vietnam, unlike george w. chimp.

Posted by: x at April 26, 2004 01:43 PM

I think Kerry’s behavior undermines the “BUSH LIED!” crowds arguments. The medals and his Vietnam adventures only contribute to his track record of placing political expediency over any deeply held convictions. Kerry has shown that he will tell you what you want to hear every time, and that he will act only for his own gain, every time.

If the left condems Bush for going to war without accurate intelligence, how can they support a candidate who contradicts himself frequently, and then lies when confronted about it? If his behavior is deceptive before hand, how will election to higher office end that? How do we know Kerry won’t “Lie” while in office? Why should I trust what he says?

Posted by: Brian at April 26, 2004 01:46 PM

i hate the way this guy answers questions. what he does is worse than simply avoiding the question. bush might be asked if he owes the nation an apology and his answer might involve how humanity yearns for freedom, but at least he doesn’t say that he’s sorry that some think apologies are necessary.
but in an attempt to recap…
kerry would’ve have thrown his medals if he had them. maybe. note that he didn’t actually say that. he said:

i threw my ribbons. i didn’t have my medals. it is very simple .

so damn simple that the issue still isn’t laid to rest. contrast that with:

Q.- “If you had it to do over again, would you inhale?”
A.- “Sure, if I could… I tried before”

that was probably the last time clinton had to respond to that line of questioning. it help to define him by clearly stating his intentions. kerry could learn something from slick.

Posted by: wafflestomper at April 26, 2004 01:50 PM

Hey “x”, As I understand it Kerry wanted a medal every time he got so much as a hang nail. If that’s all you need to get a Purple heart, does it mean anything?

Posted by: Brian at April 26, 2004 01:52 PM

x,

You’re back! Did you escape from Fallajuh or from Nahaf?

Posted by: leaddog2 at April 26, 2004 01:58 PM

When’s a medal not a medal — when it’s politically expedient….I watched him on GMA and was ROFLMAO….

Posted by: Mona B. at April 26, 2004 02:01 PM

“at least kerry got some medals in vietnam, unlike george w. chimp.”

It’s not the same when John F*g Kook didn’t even earn those medals.

Vote for a president with a spine not someone whose best known for his ‘whine.’

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at April 26, 2004 02:06 PM

HEY X!

Wasn’t it you X, that said that John Kerry has had nothing to do with attacking President Bush on the ‘AWOL’ deal?

John Kerry said,
“and this comes from a president and a republican party that can’t even answer whether or not he showed up for duty in the national guard.”

Well? Now John Kerry is mouthing off about the Terry McAullife AWOL deal. Someone forgot to tell John Kerry that the AWOL claim was a flop. President Bush released his Dental Records and 300+ pages of his military service.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at April 26, 2004 02:21 PM

sen lieberman had great comments on foxnews today. paraphrasing: ‘we need to unite as a nation against the issues at hand and not give this stuff so much attention’ Granted, he is a democrat, but I tend to agree. Let’s not focus on what the guy did 30+ years ago! Did he lie on tv about throwing his medals over the fence? - not worth our time. Do we want to talk about what Pres Bush was doing 30 years ago? no.

Surely we have more important issues to discuss in the here and now, than carrying on like little schoolgirls - pointing at each other and claiming that each other lied.

Then why am I posting to this subject? extra free time today..

Posted by: lucky at April 26, 2004 02:24 PM

Having read the transcript it’s fair to say: John Kerry voted AGAINST throwing ribbons and medals over the fence before voting IN FAVOR of throwing ribbons and medals over the fence.

Posted by: Mark at April 26, 2004 02:24 PM

UPDATE:

CNN is running a poll: “Is Sen. John Kerry’s Vietnam War medals controversy a relevant campaign issue?” (Scroll down).

Meanwhile, Eschaton thinks the issue is “bogus.” And Instapundit thinks Kerry didn’t help himself in the Good Morning America interview with Charlie Gibson.

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at April 26, 2004 02:37 PM

Here’s the issue for me Lucky: do Mr Kerry’s decisions reflect the kind of person I would like as a president.

The problem for Mr. Kerry is that he opposed the war and now wants to make an issue of his war record. I’m sure his oppostion would have had far less to say about this if Kerry had not made it a centerpiece of his campaign.

Let’s contrast this flap with the Bush DWI from the first campaign. Two things pop out immediately:

1. In this case the press is leading the charge, in the DWI case, the info was leaked by a Gore partisan, late in the campaign. The timing of the leak was designed to maximize the damage.

2. How did Bush respond? First, he clearly reformed from those days. he’s a solid citizen and a good man. He stood up to the issue, faced it and moved on.

Kerry keeps tripping on his own tongue. He’s trying to minimize the damage and in so doing he’s not painting a picture of courage or conviction.

Were he to stand up and say: That was not the best thing for me to do and I’ve reconsidered since then. I realize my actions might have been a problem for the soldiers fighting bravely there so I have altered my position.

But he can’t do this because the anti war left would run to Ralph Nader like lemmings over a cliff.

This is really a tough situation for Kerry.

Posted by: skip at April 26, 2004 02:50 PM

jeff macmillan said: “Vote for a president with a spine”

George Bush checked “Do not volunteer for overseas”

John Kerry specifically wrote “I request duty in Vietnam.”

You make the call about who has the spine.

Posted by: x at April 26, 2004 02:52 PM

Kerry’s biggest mistake in handling this is that he’s listening too much to Terry McAullife, who led the party to defeat in ‘02. Democrats haven’t figured out that firebrand politics doesn’t work for them. They need someone articulate in that job rather than someone who comes back with juvenile one-liners.

Posted by: kh at April 26, 2004 03:00 PM

X, you’ve made a mistake. Bush actively sought service in Vietnam after years in the guard, and was turned down. Kerry turned a minor scratch into a ticket home after only 4 months of active duty. It’s obvious who had more guts.

Posted by: Brian at April 26, 2004 03:02 PM

George Bush checked “Do not volunteer for overseas”

John Kerry specifically wrote “I request duty in Vietnam.”

You make the call about who has the spine.

—-

What is clear is that all that happened a long time ago, in a different setting, essentially a different world. But what is also clear is that both men have changed since then.

President Bush has learned to accept responsibility and move on … Senator Kerry has learned to lie or at least clarify without taking on responsibility for his own personal actions.

I find nothing to complain about the President’s accepting the job of a fighter pilot over the Senator’s chosen direct involvement. At the time the war was unpopular because Presidents Johnson & then Nixon chose not to win a war, but just to fight one.

I think both men acted honorably at that time - neither’s actions are preferable to the others. But I fear Senator Kerry’s current responses are less than presidential - it’s too bad it’s too late to select another Democratic candidate.

Posted by: Murrel at April 26, 2004 03:49 PM

skip - good point I think - it’s a mistake imo for kerry to worry about the far-left. If they are going to flock for nader there is nothing he should try to do to stop them. I agree, he should have handled this much better..

Posted by: skip at April 26, 2004 04:16 PM

Also, the far left will not get him elected. There just aren’t enough of them and they are alienating the folks in the fly over states (like me) with their nonsense.

I was at a party yesterday will a group of really unrepentant commies and they were just depressed. It was nice to see.

finally one lady moaned: “don’t they understand that if we didn’t have the war we could have spent the money on social programs in Iraq?”

Yup the far left is just watching their own sixties reruns.

Posted by: skip at April 26, 2004 04:24 PM

Wonkette: Not to worry. Kerry’s not a hypocrite. He’s a Zen master.

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at April 26, 2004 04:58 PM

Give the guy a break. Maybe Kerry left his medals in his family’s SUV.

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at April 26, 2004 05:07 PM

Imagine, Kerry aspires to be the next Commander-In-Chief. Now, there’s a scary thought given there’s a million militant, suicidal Muslim fanatics ready to kill Americans. I know the left is loopy and hates Bush, but now might not be a good time to trade in a decisive leader for one that can’t make it clear whether he has medals, or doesn’t, or not sure whether he doesn’t want them yesterday but does today.

Posted by: Derek at April 26, 2004 05:56 PM

Any links where I can see GMA video?

Posted by: jones at April 26, 2004 06:10 PM

John Kerry specifically wrote, “I request duty in Viet Nam”………..

Not quite so. J.K. specifically wrote, “I request permission to attend school in Paris for one year”. I will then join the U.S. Navy. The Navy responded, “NO”.
Kerry had no choice when it came to duty in Viet Nam.

Kerry knew this. That is precisely why Kerry requested duty as a swiftboat commander. Kerry thought he was going to get an easy job. By the time he arrived in South East Asia, the purpose of a swiftboat Commander no longer applied to simply patrolling the water ways and staying out of the fire of the VC.

Kerry thought that being a swiftboat commander would keep him far away from real action. Swiftboat commanders were now ordered to entice the VC to give away their locations. The big boys would then drop their hareware on or napalm the hell out of VC. G.W. Bush could not have gone to South East Asia if he had wanted to. The plane which Bush was aviator of was no longer being used in active warfare.

Of course I can here someone saying that Bush joined the National Guard for that very reason. And he might have. He can’t win for losing. The one certain thing that G.W. Bush can’t possibly be blamed for are the vicious VC caring out their atrocities on American POWs.

No person can say that Bush protested against the war in South East Asia. Neither can anyone say Bush made remarks or attended events that favored the VC in any possible manner.

And don’t think for one moment that the VC were not monitoring the anti-war protestors. That is very important. Whether one previously served admirably or not. In South East Asia.

One had and have the right to protest against a war. They can’t be forgiven for doing so when their own fellow soldiers were taking live fire and dying in the line of duty. Nor when the words and actions of the anti-war protestor lead to the cruel punshiment of those POWs in bamboo cages.

You can’t straddle the fence as Americas are dying or as POWs in bamboo cages are tormented. Given no food. And I could go on and on. You are either right. Or wrong. True heros stand behind the men and women in uniform irregardless of personal beliefs.

True heros keep their personal beliefs to themselves when fellow soldiers are coming under fire. When the deaths of fellow soldiers become a memory not to ever be forgotten. And the remembrance of the torture and daily torment that so many honorable men faced, is never forgotten.

Medals mean very little. Very little if they were not earned. The implication is not, that John Kerry did not earn his medals. The implication is that John Kerry knew that anti war protestors actions can prove to be much more harmful than helpfull.

He could have earned a basket of medals. A basket of ribbons. He could have earned them with great honor. It was his actions and his words of protest that I take issue with. Most especially when fellow soldiers were dying. And being tormented.

Posted by: Eugene at April 26, 2004 06:36 PM

lucky - “Let’s not focus on what the guy did 30+ years ago!” Posted by lucky at April 26, 2004 02:24 PM

Okay. Let’s focus on what he said. He said his brothers committed atrocities “on a regular basis”. Now that the assertion to the atrocities is called false, he says ‘It was an HONEST expression’.

It was false then, it is false now. He lied. He is lying. What more do you need, LUCK?

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at April 26, 2004 07:35 PM

IMHO, from what I have read Kerry earned his medals. Since none of us was there, how are we to really argue the point of how badly he was injured? The award requests I have read about say he faced fire in a valiant manner (meaning he actually engaged the enemy). Some officers in Vietnam got silver and bronze stars for touring the line despite never actually seeing the enemy.

Eugene, you say that he shouldn’t have protested while other soldiers were still dying. Isn’t that the point? He didn’t think they should be over there in the first place.

After all, a strong argument can be made that Vietnam was in fact a mistake. The Vietminh (in 1945) appealed to the US (offering Cam Ranh Bay for a Naval Base) to recognize them and tell the French to stay out after they liberated themselves from Japan. OSS officer A. Peter Dewey (the first American soldier killed in Vietnam) supported Vietnam being independent of France.

BUt once China went the way of Marx, we assumed Vietnam would be a puppet of China (despite hundreds of years of Chinese-Vietnamese fighting for control of Vietnam and not liking each other too much because of it). That and we had to back our “buddies” the French.

And France is still causing problems today. Sigh…

Posted by: nadwom69 at April 26, 2004 07:53 PM

Of course, having said the above, I am sick of Kerry refusing to admit anything.

Just admit you threw the damn medals. Most of America could forgive him if he would come right out and say, “I went over there, didn’t like what I saw, didn’t want others to have to go through it and tossed my medals in protest.” Same thing with the “atrocities” statement. Just say, “I was conflicted over aspects of the war and over stepped myself when I spoke out about it.”

Why does common sense not make sense to politicians? As someone who will not vote for Bush, Kerry really makes me wish someone else had “locked” the nomination.

Posted by: nadwom at April 26, 2004 07:58 PM

Nadworm,

You mean you can stomach Hanoi John’s evasions?

Posted by: leaddog2 at April 26, 2004 08:04 PM

No, I can’t. That’s the problem.

My not voting for Bush has to do with disagreeing with most (but not all) of his major policies he has talked about and actually initiated (which like most politicians are not always the same thing). I can extrapolate what he would wo with four more years and absolutely cannot vote for Bush because of his stands on issues I care about.

I’m frustrated, though, because John Kerry is trying to get as much mileage as he can simply attacking Bush’s policies rather than putting forth his own policies as alternatives. I understand the tactics behind this, but find it evasive and makes the interested voter disconnected from anything other than the “I hate Bush” ideology.

And Nader is a kook, so I don’t know what to do.

Posted by: nadwom at April 26, 2004 08:14 PM

nadwom I would continue what you are doing right up to the time to vote. Do not say you will not vote for one or the other unless your convictions are such that or the evidence is such that you cannot choose but otherwise.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at April 26, 2004 08:23 PM

“To everyone’s surprise, President Johnson had stopped all bombing along the DMZ a month back, and this policy was to continue indefinitely. Consequently, thousands of enemy soldiers were infiltrating into the south from Laos right across our area of operation. We read in Stars and Stripes that Johnson had halted all bombing because of pressure from antiwar groups protesting the killing of Vietnamese civilians. The only people being killed along the DMZ by American bombs, however, were North Vietnamese soldiers attempting to infiltrate south. After the bombing halt, the only people being killed were American soldiers who had to fight the increased numbers of North Vietnamese soldiers. “
Richard R.Burns, in the only political comment in his excellent book about his experiences as a Pathfinder with the 101st Airborne division in Vietnam, Pathfinder - First In, Last Out, published shortly after he died on October 19, 2001.

Posted by: hound at April 26, 2004 10:20 PM

cap’n - I don’t know what his atrocities statement was, but I agree with nadworn - sounds like he should just admit one thing or other and this would be forgotten.

Posted by: lucky at April 26, 2004 10:52 PM

Hey, now. Oliphant (whose daughter works for Kerry) says he witnessed Kerry throwing his “ribbons” over the fence.

Then why did Kerry years back say he threw his “medals” over the fence? Wasn’t grander to say he chucked his medals, but less of a commitment to just throw his ribbons.

The guy is always playing the angles. From dating Jackie Kennedy’s half-sister in high school to flipflopping every which way to get votes and win Kennedy family backing.

This guy is Gumbi. This guy is going to face up to terrorists. He’s going to do anything without taking a poll (and having it analyzed first) before going to the head?

Posted by: Limpet at April 26, 2004 11:04 PM

…nadworm69…

With all due respect, I stand by my words. Protesting was more harmful than helpful.

The Viet Minh of 1945 had nothing to do with Kerry in 1971. Neither did a well organized Viet Minh underground deliberately left behind in the South. This underground network formed the nucleus of subsequent Communist insurgency originated in Hanoi and directed against the Saigon government.

The Viet Minh had won the battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954. A provisional demarcation line was fixed roughhy along the 17th parallel and provided for the total evacuation of French forces and all Viet Minh from the South.

The French proceeded to hand over the controls and administration to the non Communist Vietnamese with its capital in Saigon. Ho Chi Ming began looking southward to the well organized Viet Minh underground in Saigon. Ho had established the Communization of the North. His eyes were now fixed on the South.

Vietnam was no mistake. It strikes me as though America did not wish to become embroiled with Cam Ranh Bay and a naval base in that part of the world. I don’t exactly know what our leaders were thinking of. It seems to me that becoming involved would have certainly altered the course of history.

Perhaps for the better.

Posted by: Eugene at April 27, 2004 12:31 AM

“it’s too bad it’s too late to select another Democratic candidate.” If I had earned medals in that war I’d damn sure remember what I did with them — and if I was going to throw them away as a symbolic act of my opposition to that war I’d have damn sure remembered to go home and get them, instead of toss’n some other fella’s bones. this bodes ill for the hippies.

Posted by: j at April 27, 2004 01:18 AM

“I am sick of Kerry refusing to admit anything.”

why can’t bush admit to doing cocaine?

Posted by: x at April 27, 2004 02:03 AM

Bush didn’t have any metals to give back. He was Lucky… Probably get the Peace Award for Iraq and Saving ALL the Iraqies from a fate Worse than Death..IF there are Any Left.. War is Hell

Posted by: VF at April 27, 2004 04:06 AM

LMAO! Bush served 4 years, and in each year, he served more than was required, even the last year.
It’s already proven. Kerry’s just tossing that BS out so he can avoid the questions about his own lies, and here is yet another LIE he is caught in:

Kerry Boatmate: Vietnam Troubles Just Beginning

Sen. John Kerry’s Monday morning meltdown on “Good Morning America” may be just the beginning of his troubles, according to one of his Vietnam boatmates, who is warning that more of the men who served alongside the Massachusetts Democrat are preparing to go public with their accounts.

Texas lawyer John O’Neill, who served on Kerry’s swiftboat after he left Vietnam just four months into his tour, told WABC Radio’s Steve Malzberg on Sunday, “I was in exactly the same unit. There were many people who were there simultaneously with him who are all about to speak.”

O’Neill gained brief fame in 1971 when he debated Kerry on the “Dick Cavett Show” and forced him to admit he never personally witnessed the war crimes he’d been accusing U.S. troops of committing.

Though he’s been contacted by Kerry’s opponents every time the Massachusetts Democrat has run for office in the 33-years since - O’Neill has refused to speak out. Until now.

Referring to reports this week in the Boston Globe questioning whether Kerry may have exaggerated his combat record, O’Neill told Malzberg, “This is just the first opening. They’ll be many different people. But I’d prefer to let the people who were actually there speak directly.”

O’Neill cited a Jan. 29, 1969 firefight that Kerry claims on his campaign web site that he and his boatmates were in.

“But according to the Boston Globe,” said the swiftboat veteran, “Kerry was not even on the boat that night. The guy that was really on the boat was a fellow officer of ours named Ted Peck. He remembers well that fight because he was terribly wounded in three places.”

“There was no Kerry anywhere around,” O’Neill said. “And yet it appears on his web site as some pitched battle that Kerry was involved in.”

Noting that the Democratic presidential candidate has made his Vietnam war experience the centerpiece of every campaign for office, O’Neill complained: “It’s [Kerry’s] self promotion that infuriates most of the people from his unit who actually know what he did.”

“He would be a terrible Commander-in-Chief of U.S. forces in the world at a time of crisis,” the Kerry boatmate warned.

Kerry is nothing but a LIAR!!!! A fraud, a fake, a compulsive liar, and THAT is NOT presidentual material at all.
Why is it Democrats are ALL LIARS??????

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 27, 2004 09:25 AM

That’s a bit much, Al-Lat. There are honest and honorable Democrats, just as there have always been.

Unfortunately, the presumptive Democrat nominee is a man with the ethical composition of Cardinal Richeliu, the ego of George Patton, and worse, the rhetorical skills of Pee Wee Herman.

Posted by: GDubya at April 27, 2004 10:01 AM

This cannot be good for the presumptive Democratic candidate for the presidency. Let’s see how they handle the damage control on this.

Posted by: skip at April 27, 2004 12:10 PM

In other words Kerry is:
1- a veteran who stabbed his fellow soldiers in the back and called them war criminals.
2- a liar.

Posted by: Ricky Vandal at April 27, 2004 12:39 PM

Ribbons or medals? It doesn’t matter. He could have thrown his car keys over the wall, for all I care. The important thing is not what but why. (more at the link above)

Posted by: submandave at April 27, 2004 03:01 PM

I guess I am one of the swing voters. I am also a combat veteran (an old one…Korea).

The way I see Kerry’s situation, and I have done my reading and stayed away from the pundits, he served, he joined as a volunteer, he request combat and served with gallantry. Indeed, his records from his superiors say he was under almost “constant fire” for his four months in Vietnam, which is more combat than 99% of living veterans and 90% of living “combat” veterans can say regardless of their length of service or deployments.

Sure he got two of his three purple hearts for minor wounds, but if you know purple hearts, you DONT request them, they are given automatically. Don’t think purple hearts gop only to

During the time of Kerry’s Riverine service, those force casualties ran 70%. Contrary to claims of peopel who served later when it was safer, Kerry’s length in combat during that extreme danger was normal, not low at all.

Whoeve wrote aboe that that kerry didn’t deserve his silver and bronze stars has his head in his rear and hasn’t read anything about the engamenents for which he received those medals.

I am also not trroubled in the least by Kerry’s protests and invovlement in the anti-war movement after his service. Anyone who lived through that time knows that perfectly rational and patriotic Americans, many of whom initially supported the war, began to see the war as wrong and or wrongly prosecuted.

Posted by: old man at April 27, 2004 08:38 PM

If the men he served with start coming out of the woodwork to challenge him and he responds to them like this (and really what else can he do?) then he’s done. Toast. And deservedly so.

Posted by: marymcl at April 27, 2004 11:54 PM

Here’s how damage control is going- not good:

John Kerry Must Go
Note to Democrats: it’s not too late to draft someone—anyone—else
April 27th, 2004 11:45 AM

WASHINGTON, D.C.— With the air gushing out of John Kerry’s balloon, it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn’t have what it takes to win and has got to go. As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party’s got to have someone to run against George Bush. They can’t exactly expect the president to self-destruct into thin air.

With growing issues over his wealth (which makes fellow plutocrat Bush seem a charity case by comparison), the miasma over his medals and ribbons (or ribbons and medals), his uninspiring record in the Senate (yes war, no war), and wishy-washy efforts to mimic Bill Clinton’s triangulation gimmickry (the protractor factor), Kerry sinks day by day. The pros all know that the candidate who starts each morning by having to explain himself is a goner.

What to do? Look for the Dem biggies, whoever they are these days, to sit down with the rich and arrogant presumptive nominee and try to persuade him to take a hike. Then they can return to business as usual—resurrecting John Edwards, who is still hanging around, or staging an open convention in Boston, or both.

If things proceed as they are, the dim-bulb Dem leaders are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean.

HAHAHAHAHAHA! You know kerry is done for when Liberal gay rags are printing this stuff already.
I guess I was wrong about Kerry, I thought he would last until June.

This is an interesting election. Bush has beat the whole democrat line-up.
Who’s next? This leave Nader, think he’ll win? LOL

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 28, 2004 04:42 AM

Old man,

I agree with you. Personally, I don’t particularly care what stupid things that Kerry did as a young man. In my view, he can be forgiven for that. (one would hope we can be forgiven for the stupid we do when we are young)

My concern now, OM, is that he can’t seem to tell the truth about it. In fact, he can’t seem to tell the truth about anything at all; whether he drives an SUV, what he voted for in the Senate, whether he’s talked to foreign leaders, whether ribbons and medals are the same etc. That is not the behavior of a statesman.

Posted by: johnnymozart at April 28, 2004 07:55 AM

Here’s my read on the whole Kerry-medals-flap:

I think Kerry’s statement in 1971, to the effect that he’d “given” all of his medals “back,” would have (and did) mislead the normal listenter to believe that he had … um, tossed all of his medals over the fence at the ceremony for same in DC.

The idea of a person with medals throwing them away is very powerful - and this is what made his actions seem powerful and newsworthy at the time. The idea however, of tossing over a fence only your ribbons (the small cloth bands made for wearing on a dress uniform), but NOT your actual medals, is much less impressive or noteworthy.

Kerry let the misleading, more powerful, idea stay out in the public realm to help his rise to fame and power. Only when it had the potential to do the opposite (when union voters in Massachusetts said they wouldn’t vote for him because he’d thrown away his medals) did he feel the need for complete honesty, by telling him, in effect: “gee, I never threw away my medals - just my ribbons.”

Bottom line, Kerry lied (or, at minimum, he knowingly lied by omission) to enhance his national standing. This is obvious. Now that’s he’s been caught in his fib, he doesn’t like it. Tough.

My above reading of the underlying events is fair and accurate I believe. If someone thinks otherwise, please indicate with specificity why. Thanks.

-your friendly neighborhood blogger, nikita

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at April 28, 2004 10:44 AM

Character? unverified posting …

I would like to add my two cents about my John Kerry experience. During my career as an Air Force pilot, I spent two years flying a small twin engine prop plane around the Pacific from my base in Okinawa, Japan. On one trip we had to fly Senator Kerry, his congressional aide, and a Navy Captain (Vietnam, A-4 fighter pilot) who was also in Kerry’s party to various locations in Vietnam and Cambodia as part of the MIA/POW talks. When I
met him, he was wearing a shirt with a picture of his sailboat on it. I told him I had a small 27 sailboat in Okinawa, he remarked “Oh I never sail on anything less than 135 feet.”
When we first flew him into Phnom Penh, he went to the back of the airplane and grabbed the pizza that was put aside for the crew and passed it around to his staff. He was never offered any pizza because they were supposed to have lunch with the Cambodian government once we landed. The
pizza would have been our only meal that day. Then when we picked him up
in Cambodia, he was an hour late getting to the airport. We could not start the engines and therefore the air conditioning until he arrived.
Phnom Penh at that time was over 100 degrees with 95% humidity and we were basically sitting in a greenhouse behind the cockpit windows. When he
finally did arrive, we were wringing out our clothes from the perspiration. He walks out of the air conditioned car, into the airplaneand asks us “Could you guys get the air conditioning running, I’m a little warm?” The other pilot had to physically restrain me from going back
there and picking a fight. Then we took him into Noi Bai airfield in Hanoi. After we picked him up
the next day (he stayed the night in Vietnam, we stayed in Bangkok) we taxied out, ran up the engines for takeoff, and noticed that our prop
rpm was vibrating all over the place. We taxied off to the side to look at it,
but there was a good possibility that there was an engine malfunction and the engine may fail if we took off with it. Well, Mr. Senator sticks his
head up in the cockpit and says “This plane WILL take off, I have a press conference in Bangkok in three hours!” (Maybe this is an indication of
how he will run the FAA). We ran the engines again, and did not have the problem, so we took off and made it back. During the flight, he told
everyone how he had taken a Cessna (a small General aviation plane) up with a fighter pilot, and the fighter pilot remarked that Kerry was one
of the best pilots he had ever seen. I don’t know about other pilots out there, but it’s hard to imagine a little, single-engine prop plane pilot
being able to show the “right stuff.” After Kerry left the plane, the
Navy Captain came up to us, apologized and said basically that “he knows Kerry is a jerk” and that we should be glad we don’t have to deal with him
every day. —————“Yet”

Posted by: hound at April 28, 2004 10:45 AM

The first part of this is from an F-4E pilot. The pilot’s name is Jerry Driscoll, a River Rat. In 1968, the former Commandant of the USAF Survival School was a POW in Ho Lo Prison-the “Hanoi Hilton.”

>Dragged from a stinking cesspit of a cell, cleaned, fed, and dressed in clean PJ’s, he was ordered to describe for a visiting American “Peace Activist” the “lenient and humane treatment” he’d received. He spat at Ms. Fonda, was clubbed, and dragged away.

>During the subsequent beating, he fell forward upon the camp Commandant’s feet, which sent that officer berserk. In ‘78, the AF Col. still suffered from double vision (which permanently ended his flying days) from the Vietnamese Col’s frenzied application of a wooden baton.

>From 1963-65, Col. Larry Carrigan was in the 47FW/DO (F-4E’s). He spent 6 years in the “Hilton”- the first three of which he was “missing in action”

>His wife lived on faith that he was still alive. His group, too, got the cleaned, fed, clothed routine in preparation for a “peace delegation” visit.

>They, however, had time and devised a plan to get word to the world that they still survived. Each man secreted a tiny piece of paper, with his
SSN on it, in the palm of his hand When paraded before Ms. Fonda and a cameraman, she walked the line, shaking each man’s hand and asking little encouraging snippets like: “Aren’t you sorry you bombed babies?”

>and “Are you grateful for the humane treatment from your benevolent captors?” Believing this HAD to be an act, they each palmed her their sliver of paper.

>She took them all without missing a beat.

>At the end of the line and once the camera stopped rolling, to the shocked disbelief of the POWs, she turned to the officer in charge and handed him the little pile of papers. Three men died from the subsequent beatings. Col. Carrigan was almost number four but he survived, which is the only reason we know about her actions that day.

>I was a civilian economic development advisor in Vietnam, and was captured by the North Vietnamese communists in South Vietnam in 1968,
and held for over 5 years. I spent 27 months in solitary confinement, one year in a cage in Cambodia, and one year in a “black box” in Hanoi.

>My North Vietnamese captors deliberately poisoned and murdered a female missionary, a nurse in a leprosarium in Ban me Thuot, South Vietnam, whom I buried in the jungle near the Cambodian border.

>At one time, I was weighing approximately 90 lbs. (My normal weight is 170 lbs.) We were Jane Fonda’s “war criminals.”

>When Jane Fonda was in Hanoi, I was asked by the camp communist political officer if I would be willing to meet with Jane Fonda. I said yes, for I would like to tell her about the real treatment we POWs received different from the treatment purported by the North Vietnamese, and parroted by Jane Fonda, as “humane and lenient.” Because of this, I spent three days on a rocky floor on my knees with outstretched arms with a large amount of steel placed on my hands, and beaten with a bamboo cane till my arms dipped.

Posted by: hound at April 28, 2004 10:59 AM

thanks, hound. powerful stuff.

Posted by: nikita demosthenes at April 28, 2004 01:07 PM

I thought I heard Kerry say to Charlie Gibson, “We may still find WMD in Iraq.”

I’m wondering why none of the news outlets have jumped on that?

Posted by: Joel Gaines at April 28, 2004 02:49 PM

X wrote,

“why can’t bush admit to doing cocaine?”

Was it cocaine? Was there proof he did it?
Refresh my memory X of what the question
and answer was.

But as I recall… president Bush did not ‘LIE’ about it. He probably changed the subject as I recall. I don’t believe that President Bush ever ‘LIED’ about his DUI.

John Kerry Lied.

Posted by: Jeff MacMillan at April 28, 2004 03:49 PM

Why can’t “x” admit to being a traitor? It’s much easier to admit to things your are or did.

Bush never had to “apologize” for 9/11, because it wasn’t his fault. It was the people who attacked, and, the democrats who for 10 years prior, undermined the threats to the country, which they are still doing to this day.

Hound, that first (and second) story is just what my impression of Kerry is.
A rich snot, selfish, arrogant, spoiled, a kid you would spank, but unfortunately, he’s all “grown up”.
Maybe that’s not the right word. Washed up is more like it.
After the country gets a refreshed memory of what, and who he is, I don’t think we will see him in government ever again, thank goodness.

What would be good is a Jane story from her own mouth about now, just to ease her mind about what she did with those little notes.
Hanging Kerry for things may buy her what money can’t, a little forgiveness.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 28, 2004 11:33 PM

X escaped from Fallujah; but his ass got burned while running away from that 1,000 pound bomb!
Wait until X gets a load of whats coming for Kerry.
If you look closely at some of his certificates on his website you can make out the name of ‘Lehman’ as the man who signed his name of approval. Since Lehman was Naval commander in the 80’s I think we can get TWO birds with one stone here. What if Lehman approved replacing the very medals that Kerry threw away? And now he is on the 9/11 Committee…..conspiratorial? NOPE….I think Kerry really did throw his medals but he wanted them back so bad he sold his soul to have them replaced, and now he doesnt want to show anybody because he knows they are recently minted with numbers from the 80’s!!!!! ha ha ha
You are allowed to go back into your spider hole now X….we’ll call you when we need you.

Posted by: DickD at April 29, 2004 02:10 AM

Ribbons are worn as part of the regular dress uniform. Maybe what he has hangin’ on his office wall belong to someone else? Or did he just take those back after giving them back? Medals? Ribbons?

By his words you shall know the man.

US military personnel in Vietnam committed atrocities on a “regular basis”. In his words, that is “an honest expression”.

I might be able to forgive and forget if he would only say it was a lie, so that my fallen brothers and so those that still are sharing air with him could have this terrible stain removed.

Posted by: Cap'n DOC at April 29, 2004 09:54 AM

Sorry Doc! It will never happen.

1) Kerry always supports Draft-Dodger “Slick Willie”” but NOT American veterans who served honorably
or at least NEVER the POW’s.

2) The scum at the Demons National Committee like McAuliffe are pandering to NOW and the proven American baby-killers.

3) Therefore, DO NOT EVER expect any decent human impulse to come from from the Loony Left. Just watch your back. You can be “Frenched” or “UN’d” if you are not careful.

Posted by: leaddog2 at April 29, 2004 11:31 AM

All the Democratic pundits were saying awhile back that Hillary’s hiding in the weeds waiting for 2008.

Anybody think she’s going to ride in on a white horse soon? I mean what are the Democrats going to do? Who do they have? Bush as the Republican nominee has been a no-brainer all along and anyone who can’t see the word LOSER on this guy is dreaming. Nader’s just going to talk everybody to death.

I’m not a Democrat or a Republican but I do vote and I see the election as a chance to put to rest this question of whether the so-called war on terror is in fact a war or a law enforcement initiative. I love the fact Kerry’s getting his just desserts but I think the situation overall is bad for the country. We need a clear choice and a real debate about this and the Democrats are just not showing up.

Posted by: marymcl at April 29, 2004 12:46 PM

It gets worse, Mary.

Kerry is doing well enough, that there will be an argument that he is the Democrat’s best chance;

Plus, expect a HUGE court battle, if the guy who won all the necessary delegates is kicked to the curb. Imagine the chaos, if a Federal Judge ordered Kerry to be added to the ballot, days before the election;

Next, Hillary is clearly aiming for 2008, not 2004. The money is lined up for ‘08, plus all the tactics. Besides, Bush definitely won’t be running in ‘08, so the field looks better than. Also, if Hillary runs against Bush and loses, it’s the kiss of death for her political career, the one thing she really loves.

Posted by: GDubya at April 29, 2004 02:16 PM

GDubya-

I have to agree with you about Hillary. Not to get too chatty about it, but you do get the impression that the pair of them are political animals to the bone in the worst way. Venal, in a word.

One the whole, the Democrats don’t seem to have anything to say except the usual derisive knee-jerk soundbites and high-minded bromides about doing things differently, whatever that’s supposed to mean. They’re one of the two major political parties in the leading nation of the free world and they have nothing to say about the war that demonstrates they even comprehend what’s happening. Amazing.

Posted by: marymcl at April 29, 2004 04:55 PM

Old man, I DO have a problem with Kerry’s medals. IF he recieved them honerably, then prove it. The simple fact is, he can’t, and THAT evidence he WON“T present. It suggests he is hiding something, and is LYING.

Further, LYING about tossing them is the issue, not the fact that he did, or now, didn’t.

He’s a LIAR, and THAT is the issue. You democrats scream about “Bush Lied”, which he didn’t, Yet now your supporting a man who lies about everything. EVERYTHING! He’s a compulsive liar, not what we want in the whitehouse.
YOU are hypocrate in every sense of the word. Why? Because you accuse Bush of lying, although he didn’t, yet you can see Kerry’s obvious lies, and you support him. Democrats are liars, It’s plain to see.
If Bush did indeed lie, I wouldn’t support him either. I don’t like liars. But bush didn’t lie. we can prove that with common sense analysis of the facts.
It is one thing to have a good reason not to like a man, ie: lying, but it’s clear that you don’t like Bush only for the reason that he is a republican, from texas, short, talks funny, but you have no grounds otherwize. He is right about this terrorism stuff and wars in Iraq, and any country that harbors them.
during clintons 10 years, millons died because of terrorism, Islamic terrorism.
Bush has the guts to put a stop to it, even though it’s not a popular thing to do. In doing so, he also exposed the corruption in the UN, which is also a threat to the country. He shook out the bed sheets, and now you can see who America’s freinds really are. And that is a good thing to know, rather than having them smile in your face as they insert the knife in your back.

Posted by: Al-Lat at April 30, 2004 12:18 PM

amen, alait, youre humourously accurate as usual…

“Anybody think she’s going to ride in on a white horse soon? “

I dont know but I pray to god if she does she’ll have her clothes on or AT LEAST JOHN KERRYS RIBBONS.

Posted by: hound at April 30, 2004 01:05 PM

I too really enjoy reading your posts Al-Lat.
As for you Hound, you put a very nasty image in my head now, speaking of a naked Hillary!! YIKES!
What I really envision is that Teresa and Hillary are sitting next to each other comparing ankle sizes….speaking like men; that size really does matter!! he he he Hillary would win though…those babies look like about 15 inchers!!

Posted by: DickD at April 30, 2004 01:33 PM

Sorry dd, I was thinking of “Lady Gotahaveyourmoneya”

Posted by: hound at April 30, 2004 04:11 PM

I find it instructive that the CBS group of the Demon’s National Committee has done everything it can to bolster John Kerry.

First… they promoted the Clarke garbage. Now they run anti-American photos designed to get American soldiers killed. They should be bombarded with the outcries of all decent Americans. They should be boycotted and all advertisers should be boycotted so that CBS rapidly loses massive amounts of money. We can only survive this type of garbage if we take economic action against the enemy. CBS is led by the most left-wing radical in American coporate ranks. He and his kind MUST BE EXPOSED.

Posted by: leaddog2 at May 2, 2004 10:45 AM

Actually, their audience is miniscule compared to e.g. Limbaugh, Hennity, Drudge, etc. Upon closer examination, one might find behind them the same american big-business interests (advertising dollars) that the leftists constantly rail against. I wouldnt waste my time watching any TV even if it was forced on me by Sharia police.

Posted by: hound at May 2, 2004 12:21 PM

Will display what you type here

Posted by: Redneck Texan at May 25, 2004 09:07 PM

<Will diplay in Blue whatever you type here

Posted by: Redneck Texan at May 25, 2004 09:10 PM

Posted by: Redneck Texan at May 25, 2004 09:13 PM

<Will diplay in Blue whatever you type here

Posted by: Redneck Texan at May 25, 2004 09:30 PM

<Will diplay in Blue whatever you type here

Posted by: Redneck Texan at May 25, 2004 09:37 PM

<a href="Paste your URL here between the quotes">Will diplay in Blue whatever you type here</a>

Posted by: Redneck Texan at May 25, 2004 10:07 PM