If I were Bush, I’d refile some complaints right now, and make the FEC review them both together.

Posted by: TBox at August 21, 2004 09:59 AM

“Bring it On! And now, here are my lawyers to help stifle your ability to bring it on, but Boy if you can get by them, well, then you bet we might have that debate, assuming I don’t come up with some other whining pussy dodge and distraction.”

Not only is this utterly lame and cowardly on Kerry’s part, it’s also hypocritical and, as TBox points out, strategically stupid. The Dems have far more invested and rely far more heavily on Moveon.org, Americans Coming Together and a host of other b.s. independent front groups — and now people, possibly even the FEC, will be looking into that, too.

And this guy claims to be smarter than Bush?

Democrats should be hiding in shame and trying to figure out a way to take the nomination back and give it to somebody that stands for something and isn’t a shifty dipshit.

Posted by: TL at August 21, 2004 10:29 AM

Democrats should be hiding in shame …..

Ha! Ha!

Sorry, TL….. but I spent over 10 years in the trenches fighting the cockroach party that does not know the meaning of “SHAME”.

However, I will freely admit that this is a little harsh. There were actually some very decent Democrats in the house in the 90’s.

Yes, there really, really were! Why, I knew all 5 of them very well.

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 21, 2004 11:04 AM

There are lots of decent Democrats, they just don’t seem to have any juice within the party or inclination to distance themselves from the whackos and disingenuous a-holes that seem to be holding the microphone and controlling the money.

It’s a shame, because we need some honest idealogical competition to help solve some very serious problems. Instead, we’ve got Republicans who don’t seem able or willing to effectively sell their solutions and the Dems that have no solutions but know that they should be in charge, no matter what the cost, because they’re better and smarter than the rest of us.

Pretty crappy choice, but we don’t insist on better so we can only blame ourselves.

Posted by: TL at August 21, 2004 11:42 AM

Wahhhhhh!

Just look at all the lefty media and kerry’s band of liars trying to skirt the truth.

No matter how many times kerry supporters say “thats what happened, honest” they can’t overcome 250 other guys that say kerry is a liar.

kerry has one chance to come clean, but he won’t do it. He has to unseal his records, which he won’t because they prove he’s a liar.

Just like his “Christmas in Cambodia” story, it’s a lie, so are all his medals. Strange how superman kerry was such a “war hero” in 4 short months, yet claims to be a war crimminal at the same time.

And like typical liberals, it’s all well and fine when 3rd party ads are run in his favor, but they are not if they are in Bushes favor. what a hypocrate.
Kerry lies so much I wonder if he has ever told the truth, or even knows how.

Posted by: Grand Ayatollah Nathan at August 22, 2004 04:21 AM

It must really grate on you guys having to run against a certified war hero, while your guy was AWOL from the freaking Natonal Guard. Maybe you missed the Chicago Tribune editor who was there, who went public this weekend in support of Kerry’s story. The men on Kerry’s boat support his story. The Navy awarded him the medals. As I understand it those awards would have been based on what others said about the engagements and injuries, not what Kerry said. The leaders of the SBVT have been shown to be liars. The truth will prevail and these SBVT ads are so going to backfire on you guys.

Posted by: rdelephant at August 22, 2004 05:45 PM

rdelephant,

If you are really an Attorney, then you MUST HAVE FLUNKED Evidence, among other things?

John Kerry wrote the after-action reports that his medals are based on. Did you even know that?

If you had, I hope you would have enough intelligence NOT to write your previous IDIOTIC POST? Sheesh! Let’s use a little common sense, shall we!

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 22, 2004 07:20 PM

Kerry also WAITED until his commanding officer was Rotated Out of Vietnam BEFORE re-sending in the report on at least one medal that his Commanding Officer refused to allow. Talk about sneaky

By the way, which Cambodia story are you using as you pimp for Kerry. He has changed his story TWICE since last Tuesday you know, after his 35 Year Lie was BLOWN OUT of THE WATER by comparing his own Senate testimony from the Congressional Record with the words that he said to other reporters from 1979 on and the totally different version from John Kerry’s wriiten journals used by his biographer.

The man is caught by his own words. Nothing you, or anything any Demoncrat can ever say will change the fact that ALL of HIS STATEMENTS are documented by Congressional Records, Newspaper articles, etc. etc. etc.

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 22, 2004 07:30 PM

Kerry’s commanding officers are the one’s who chose to put him in for the medals. They did so based not just on Kerry’s after-action reports, but the reports of the other Swift Boat commanders who were witnesses (or are you now claiming that there were no witnesses ?). If the commanders had any doubt about the events, they had complete access to the crews to verify and/or confirm. You are just speculating that Kerry wrote his after-action reports to make himself the hero and that his commanding officers relied solely on these reports.

Posted by: rdelephant at August 22, 2004 07:51 PM

rdelephant,

Do you want the actual time line? I have numerous links to send you, if you really want to read them.

The whole point is ….. that what you have stated is FICTIOUS. Do you want the Truth or Not?

This is just one example.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=14743

Why does John Kerry have a “V” for valor on his Silver Star when it is apparently against the law? I believe document forgery is a Federal crime.

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 22, 2004 08:00 PM

The link you posted shows just how desperate you guys have become. I think its sad, bordering on the pathetic actually. Whether Kerry should have gotten a V with his Silver Star (itself an award for gallantry) is like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. You guys are supporting an AWOL National Guardsman, while trying to tear down a certified war hero. It’s the same crap you all tried to pull with Clinton. It will have the same effect.

Posted by: rdelephant at August 22, 2004 08:11 PM

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/002255.php

Get the Truth! David Alston did not serve with John Kerry from January 30, 1969 until at least Feb.1 1969. His statements at the Democratic Convention do not mention that he was wounded and in the hospital when he was supposedly “fighting with Kerry

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 22, 2004 09:26 PM

a typo …. should be March 1st in the above Post

Jabuary 30, 1969 to March 1, 1969

rdelephant,

The “V” for Valor is NOT EVER GIVEN as part of a Silver Star. To our knowledge (so far anyway), John Kerry’s “V” on his citation is the ONLY ONE known to exist in the history of the Silver Star.

We are still doing research on World War 2, etc.

You want to continue to claim he is honest! O.K., do so if you chose.

However, I am curious, do you also chase ambulances? Because I DO NOT !

Posted by: leaddog2 at August 22, 2004 09:50 PM

rdelephant,

My friend, I’m afraid that the can of worms I warned against is now being opened. As a former awards officers and writer of many awards, I know that there are so many loop holes that can be manipulated and used to get awards through. I also know that many othewise honorable men are caught wearing the wrong award or special device, most from ignorance or misunderstanding or even the wrong advice. Not too long ago, an active CNO committed suicide in part because of a growing body of evidence of his having doctored or wrongfully claiming variuos awards and devices was about to be presented to the Navy.

The bottom line, anytime a service member is caught abusing the awards system even for the simplest of mistakes or failure to know, it is very embarassing and leads others to question motives and judgment.

I felt all along that saner wisdom by the Dems was to let the Viet Nam ear records lay quiet and try not to spot light them for obvious reasons.

The Vets dislike for Kerry has little or nothing to do with his being a “war hero”. Such titles and claims may carry weight with the general public, but not with legitimate Vets. Most of these guys could care less about decorations and awards, especially the enlisted who rarely got what they truly deserved. They resented even more officers who had pull and position (Kerry had both access and the ability to directly influcence supporting documentaton if so desired) to get personal awards while no one was looking after the average Grunt, airman or sailor that much. This resentment may be driving the larger number of Vets coming out against Kerry far more than partisan politics.

Posted by: steve at August 22, 2004 10:39 PM

Compare Kerry’s response to this from O’Neill, it tells you all you need to know:

“John O’Neill, co-author of the best-selling ‘Unfit for Command,’ the book that accuses John Kerry of falsifying his Vietnam record, challenged the presidential candidate to sue him if he’s wrong about any of his claims.

O’Neill made the challenge on Monica Crowley’s radio show on WABC in New York last night.

‘If he was actually in Cambodia on Christmas Eve in 1968, he should sue me,’ said O’Neill. ‘If, in fact those other five boats on March 13th, 1969, if they all fled like he did instead of staying like he knows they did, he should sue me.’”

Posted by: TL at August 23, 2004 10:13 AM

RDE I‘m impressed that you feel compelled to defend your guy, or attack Bush (which is the same thing in the minds of most Democrats).

Kerry did as another poster points out, open a can of worms and now had to deal with the aftermath. The next onslaught will be focused on Kerry’s behavior upon his return from the war, so get your spin o meter revved up!!

Posted by: skip at August 23, 2004 01:37 PM