I'm Melting...Melting...Melting

Captain's Quarters reports that Fox News' Major Garrett reported that Kerry may have admitted that his first Purple Heart could have been from a self-inflicted wound.

GARRETT: And questions keep coming. For example, Kerry received a Purple Heart for wounds suffered on December 2nd, 1968. But an entry in Kerry's own journal written nine days later, he writes that, quote, he and his crew hadn't been shot at yet, unquote. Kerry's campaign has said it is possible his first Purple Heart was awarded for an unintentionally self-inflicted wound.

I really feel for the people working on the Kerry campaign. It seems they're kept in the dark and then when are pressed hard (ie on the Christmas in Cambodia story and now this) they're forced to guess at his web of lies. It's interesting that they're not exactly sure but said it was possible that the Purple Heart was awarded for a self-inflicted wound. Kerry lies and leaves his campaign workers flapping in the wind.

Kerry Works On Damage Control

Drudge is reporting that Kerry telephoned Robert "Friar Tuck" Brant Cdr., USN (RET) Sunday to try and smooth things over with the Swiftboat Vets.

Dem presidential hopeful John Kerry personally phoned anti-Kerry swift boat vets, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Kerry reached out to Robert "Friar Tuck" Brant Cdr., USN (RET) Sunday night, just hours after former Sen. Bob Dole publicly challenged Kerry to apologize to veterans.

Brant was skipper of the #96 and # 36 boat and spent time with Kerry in An Thoi. Kerry and Brant slept in the same quarters, and Brant used to put Kerry back to bed at night when Kerry was sleepwalking.

Brant received a call from Kerry at his home in Virginia while he was watching the Olympics on TV.

The call lasted 10 minutes, sources tell DRUDGE.

KERRY: "Why are all these swift boat guys opposed to me?"

BRANT: "You should know what you said when you came back, the impact it had on the young sailors and how it was disrespectful of our guys that were killed over there."

[Brant had two men killed in battle.]

KERRY: "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."

Kerry then asked if he could meet Brant ["You were one of the best"] -- man to man -- face to face.

Brant declined the invite, explaining that Kerry was obviously not prepared to correct the record on exactly what happened during Vietnam and what happened when Kerry came back.

Developing...

This goes to show just how damaging the Swiftboat Vets have been to the Kerry campaign. Kerry is doing everything within his power short of a public setting of the record straight to get these guys to stand down. Fortunately the vets are standing their ground and will not stop until nothing less then publicly setting the record straight, which I doubt Kerry will ever do. You have to hand it to these guys. They have caught a lot of heat for standing up and exercising their right to free speech. They have practicly been crucified by the press. They've been called liars and lackeys of the Bush campaign but they have stood their ground. In the 60's and 70's they were called on by their country to defend her and they did so bravely. They seem to be still doing just that.

Not surprisingly, Powerline, Captain's Quarters, and Blogs For Bush all have their take on this.

New Ad by the Swiftboat Vets

The Swiftees have released another ad. You can view it at their site. The Kerry claims that it's part of a smear campaign coordinated with the Bush campaign.

I viewed the ad on Friday. It has audio from John Kerry's testimony before the Senate in 1971 about the atrocities that Vietnam Vets had been accused of committing. Between audio clips were members of their group stating what his testimony did to their morale especially those in the prison camps.

Kerry is livid. He's attacking this every way he can think of. He's filed a complaint with the FEC that Bush is coordinating with this independent group. He's calling on the president to denounce the group and their ads. Bush has denounced all 527 groups. He's always maintained the position that they shouldn't be a part of the election. He's been consistent on this.

Kerry wants him to denounce this particular group because of how damaging it is to him. Bush won't do it and why should he? Bush has been the victim of millions of dollars worth of 527 propaganda and hasn't said a word about it. He's never called on Kerry to denounce those ads. Apparently, it is now a requirement for Republicans to endorse or denounce every independent ad slated against the Democratic candidate while the Democrats can put out anything they want. They want it all their way because only then can they have a chance at winning elections.

UPDATE: As always, Captain Ed has a great take on this on Blogs for Bush and Captains Quarters

UPDATE: Powerline too

Iraqi Weapons Scientists Being Picked Off

The Washington Times reports:

Anti-coalition forces have killed a prominent Iraqi chemical-weapons scientist whom U.S. investigators were questioning at Abu Ghraib prison, in an attempt to unravel the mysteries of Saddam Hussein's arsenal.

The scientist's death is not the first such killing, and it has some U.S. analysts wondering whether there is a pattern and also whether the Iraqi insurgents had incredibly good intelligence and a deadly aim — or were just lucky.....

The death is at least the fourth hostile-fire killing of Iraqi scientists who had been talking to the ISG. There have been press reports that as many as nine have been slain.

One of the country's most prominent nuclear scientists, Majid Hussein Ali, was found dead earlier this year, shot twice in the back. He had been questioned by the ISG.

It doesn't prove anything, of course, but it sure is interesting.

Hilarious

Powerline posted this one

Kerry Begins To Melt

Drudge has just updated his site.

Apparently Kerry has filed a complaint with FEC against the Bush campaign claiming that the Swiftboat Vets For Truth ad was put out in connection with the Bush campaign, which is illegal for a 527 group to do.

I think Kerry is finally starting to melt down. By doing this, Kerry probably hopes to cast a sinister shadow on the Bush campaign of illegal activity but what he's going to end up doing is putting more light on the Swiftboat ads then they had before. With this complaint being filed, the mainstream media is going to have to pay more attention to these men's claims. More people are going to look at the situation and think, "If they are truly lies, why is Kerry trying so hard to shut them down any way he can."

It's funny how a former Vietnam war protester that values free speech so much can work so hard to deprive others of the same right.

UPDATE: Blogs For Bush comments on how Kerry's campaign isn't exactly clean in its ties with 527s

Kerry Bans Books

Powerline comments on an article from Drudge saying that the Kerry campaign is trying to get Unfit for Command banned from being published.

From Drudge:

The Kerry campaign calls on a publisher to 'withdraw book' written by group of veterans, claiming veterans are lying about Kerry's service in Vietnam and operating as a front organization for Bush. Kerry campaign has told Salon.com that the publisher of UNFIT FOR COMMAND is 'retailing a hoax'... 'No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them,' Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton tells the online mag... Developing...

Democrats scream about radio stations and consumers boycotting their products as an infringement on their first amendment rights. Here's a member of the federal government doing everything he can to prevent the publishing of a book that paints him unfavorable. Maybe Chavez in Venezuela has a place for Kerry in his government after November.

UPDATE: Blogsforbush picked this up too.

Vets combat Kerry and it's Bush's fault?

Kerry is doing damage control. He's getting accused by over 250 Vietnam vets, members of Swiftboat Vets For Truth, that he has repeatedly lied about his Vietnam service which Kerry has made a central focus in his campaign. At first he ignored them but now that they're having an effect, he blames Bush for it. What?

Washington Times wrote today:

John Kerry yesterday accused Vietnam veterans who say he didn't deserve his combat decorations of lying and blamed President Bush for not denouncing their television commercials laying out their charges....

Mr. Kerry yesterday aimed most of his fire at the president. "If he wants to have a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my answer: Bring it on."....

Now let me get this straight. Vets attack his service claims, and he want Bush to debate him? Bush has never said anything about his service in spite of the substantial evidence against Kerry. Bush has denounced 527 groups, which Swiftboat Vets For Truth is, and thinks that they are merely soft money that should be banned while Kerry thinks 527 groups are just fine...unless they're against him.

Both Mr. Kerry and Mr. Bush have said the other served honorably during Vietnam - Mr. Bush in the Texas Air National Guard, assigned to duty in the United States - but others have questioned the service of both men.

White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan yesterday said Mr. Kerry's attempts to tie Mr. Bush to the ads were "false and baseless." He would not specifically denounce the Swift boat ad, and repeated the White House assertion that all ads paid for by "soft money," large unregulated contributions to tax-exempt "527" organizations, should end.

"Senator Kerry should join us in calling for an end to all this soft money," Mr. McClellan said. "Senator Kerry has declined to do so. The president has been on the receiving end of more than $62 million in negative false attacks from these shadowy groups."

This is classic Kerry not wanting to take responsibility for what he says and does and if someone ever questions him on it, he blames someone else. Do we want a Commander-In-Chief where the buck stops nowhere?

UPDATE: Generation Why? takes part in this discussion as well and makes some excellent points.

O'Neill OpEd part 3

Part 3 of John O'Neill's OpEd is in the Washington Times today. He summarizes his feelings in the last two paragraphs:

John Kerry's name tossed around as "president" and "commander in chief" summoned many of us Swiftees from long political slumber - from games with grandchildren or feet by the fire - to render one last service to the nation.

That service is the hard task of informing an uninformed America - against the wishes of a media sympathetic to Kerry and his myth - of John Kerry's total unfitness to command our armed forces or lead our nation. We are our own small "band of brothers," resolved to sound the alarm.

It's criminal how these men are being treated simply because they oppose John Kerry. The media invites them to their shows simply to shout them down and not let them make their points. John Kerry and the DNC threaten them and television stations with lawsuits if they run their ads. Bookstores refuse to carry O'Neill's book even though it's number one on Amazon and number 2 on the New York Times best selling list. Do we forget that these men are war heroes too? Do we forget that they sacrificed for their country? Or is that something that only John Kerry did? Let's show them the respect they deserve.

OpEd by John O'Neill tells all

John O’Neill, the writer of Unfit For Command and leader of the Swiftboat Vets for Truth, has been writing a 3-part OpEd for the Washington Times that summarizes some of his biggest points of contention with John Kerry’s Vietnam service. One particular section of the article, to me, summarizes things nicely:

Thomas W. Wright, another Swift Boat commander in Coastal Division 11, said Kerry "was not a good combat commander."

Wright said he had such "serious problems" working with Kerry that he finally objected to going on patrol with Kerry. Elliott granted Wright's request that Kerry no longer be assigned to operations under his command.

Wright remembers that Kerry would disappear without warning on multiboat operations. He recalls that Kerry's boat had poor fire discipline and would open fire without prior clearance or apparent reason.

"John Kerry's leadership and operational style were different from mine," Wright said in a written statement in April. "I can see how his crew thought he was a hero, but it seemed like he was a hero fighting out of situations he shouldn't have been in to begin with. I had a lot of trouble getting him to follow orders.

"You had to be right, and you had to have fire discipline. You couldn't blame something on the rules of engagement."

George Bates, another officer in Coastal Division 11, participated in numerous operations with Kerry from January 1969 to March 1969.

In Bates' view, Kerry was a coward who overreacted with deadly force when he felt threatened. Bates, a retired Navy captain, believed that Kerry treated the South Vietnamese in an almost criminal manner.

Bates is haunted by a particular patrol with Kerry on the Song Bo De River in early 1969. With Kerry in the lead, their Swift Boats approached a small hamlet with three to four grass huts. Pigs and chickens were milling around.

As the boats drew closer, the villagers fled. There were no political symbols or flags in evidence. It was obvious to Bates that existing policies, decency and good sense required the boats simply to move on.

Instead, Kerry beached his boat. Upon his command, numerous small animals were slaughtered by heavy-caliber machine guns. Acting more like a pirate than a naval officer, Kerry disembarked and ran around with a Zippo lighter, burning up the entire hamlet.

Bates was appalled by the hypocrisy of Kerry's quick shift to the role of a peace activist condemning war crimes upon his return home. Even today, Bates describes Kerry as a man without a conscience.

Sorry about the length of the selection, but it all fits nicely together. I think this also summarizes why, perhaps, some of the men on his boat seem to think him the hero while most everyone else can see what he really is.

John Kerry won’t tell us much about what he plans to do as president so we have to infer from his past actions how he will be. He apparently doesn’t think things through. He is a knee-jerk leader. He’s doing who-knows-what when he should be taking care of business at hand. And in the end, it’s someone else’s fault when things don’t come out right. That’s definitely who we don’t need as the Commander-in-Chief in the war on terror.

UPDATE: Blogsforbush.com questions Kerry's leadership based on his current reaction to opposition of the swiftboat vets among others.

UPDATE: Captains Quarters criticizes Brinkley for not being the historian he claims to be in regards to the Kerry Vietnam story.

UPDATE: Powerline posts Kerry's defiance of the Swiftboat Vets' story and calls for a debate between him and Bush. Now let me get this straight. John O'Neill challenges his record so he calls for a debate with Bush about it? Weird.

Kerry Criticizes With No Real Alternative

The Washington Post reports on Kerry's criticizing Bush's plan to reorganize our troops stationed around the world.

"Why are we withdrawing troops from Korea at a time when we are negotiating with North Korea -- a country that really has nuclear weapons?," he asked.

Kerry, making frequent references to his own military service in Vietnam and his membership in the VFW, said, "Nobody wants to bring troops home more than those of us who have fought in foreign wars. But it needs to be done at the right time and in the right way.

"This is not the right time," he said. "The president's plan does not strengthen our hand in the war on terror" and "it in no way relieves the strain" on today's military.

I believe that this redistribution is long overdue. The United States is in the process of rethinking how it handles military conflicts and how to be the most effective with the least number of troops. The stationing of massive amounts of troops at bases around the world worked well for the Cold War, but we're fighting against a different kind of enemy. This enemy is international and can strike anywhere in the world. I heard an interview on the radio over a month ago and I wish I could remember what program and who was being interviewed. The man being interviewed was very high up in the command of the Army. I'll see if I can't track down the person who was speaking and the radio program. He essentially said, when asked if we have enough in the Army to do the jobs required of it, that we have plenty of people in the Army. The problem is that Army personnel are too specialized and are often left home when there is a conflict that doesn't require their specialty. They are going through a restructuring of how the Army does things. Their goal is to train troops in an array of skills and have them much more easily be shipped to where they are need quickly. This seems to be what Bush's plan is. They're going to make them into a leaner meaner fighting force that can be used anywhere in the world and they don't require the maintenance of a huge number of bases scattered all over the world. This is forward thinking. This is what we need in a Commander-In-Chief.

UPDATE: Blogsforbush.com Shows that this is actually a flip flop from a mere 17 days ago. Kerry's only position is the position opposite Bush's position!

UPDATE: Generation Y has some good comments about the flip flop as well.

The Shoe That's On the Other Foot

The Washington Post reports on MoveOn.org's response to the Swiftboats For Truth ad calling for George W Bush to condemn the ads (which he, incidentally has not sanctioned in any way).

Retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, founder of the Swift boat group, much of whose funding has come from a Texas developer, said in a statement: "We find it odd that MoveOn PAC would question the right of a group of veterans to voice an opinion on a legitimate issue -- an issue first raised by John Kerry -- and now the centerpiece of his campaign. . . . We will not be silenced."

Asked why Bush should be responsible for an ad by an independent group with the same legal status as MoveOn, Eli Pariser, the PAC's executive director, said: "They're clearly a surrogate organization. The Bush campaign has a responsibility for what's being done on its behalf. Certainly if Kerry felt MoveOn was doing something he didn't agree with, he has every right to condemn our ads."

It's rough when the shoe is on the other foot and you have a 527 making you look like a fool. It goes to show that even people who disagree with you have a right to free speech.

Border Patrol Not Allowed to Deport

The Washington Times picked up a story that's been around for the last week or so down here in the San Diego area. Apparently the Border Patrol had put together a 12 member "Mobile Patrol Group". This group was charged with picking up illegals within the interior of the country and not just along the Mexican border. The Mobile Patrol Group had picked up about 450 illegals at known public gathering places for illegals, but the Department of Homeland Security has ordered them to desist because they "failed to consider the 'sensitivities' of those detained."

Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson criticized the arrests, saying they had not been approved by officials in Washington and violated U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) policy, the agency that oversees the Border Patrol.

In a letter, Mr. Hutchinson, undersecretary for border and transportation security, assured Rep. Joe Baca, California Democrat — and other members of the state's delegation who complained about the arrests — that in the future, Homeland Security would enforce immigration laws "in a reasonable manner" and would consider the "sensitivities" surrounding the enforcement of those laws in its interior-enforcement program.

The California delegation had described those detained as victims of racial profiling and said the arrests caused panic in the Hispanic community.

Last week there was a townmeeting held in Temecula and I heard parts of it on the radio. It was abundantly obvious that the people attending the townmeeting not only approved of the work of the Mobile Patrol Group but were outraged that they were being forced to stop their activities. Everybody knows where groups of illegals hang out looking for work. There's a bridge that I cross every day on my way to work no more than a couple of miles from my house where 15 or 20 illegal Mexican men wait for someone to stop and offer them work for the day. The Mobile Patrol Group was going to these places and picking up the men on immigration violations.

T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents the agency's 10,000 nonsupervisory personnel, attended the meeting and called for the arrest of illegal aliens by the patrol in the nation's interior to continue.

"These mobile patrol arrests were actually having an impact in Mexico," said Mr. Bonner, a 26-year Border Patrol veteran. "Word was getting around that you weren't necessarily OK once you got past the border."

Law-enforcement authorities said the California arrests came as a result of intelligence operations that identified locations where suspected illegal aliens were thought to gather. Much of the information, the authorities said, came from local police and residents.

The team targeted illegal aliens at public sites, including bus stops, in a 3,000-square-mile area of Southern California. Some of the arrests were made 100 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border.

Hey, maybe this Mobile Patrol Group should be a model as to how things should be done instead of being ordered to stop activity. Obviously they were effective picking up illegals and having them deported. We have a serious illegal immigration problem in this country and special amnesty programs aren't going to fix it. We need small but highly effective groups rounding these people up and sending them back to where they come from. There are millions of illegals in this country and we have limited resources to enforce immigration, so when someone figures out an effective way to handle it, lets model it, not stomp on it.

Kerry is Still Lying About Cambodia

A new blogger has just emerged. Thanks to a link from Hugh Hewitt, he's getting a lot of attention. Froggy Ruminations was written by a former Navy Seal whose father was also a Navy Seal in Vietnam in 1970. Here's the end of his post.

In order to get permission to conduct an illegal incursion into Cambodia by Swift boat the following must occur: 1. Extremely fresh intel of a high value target (think U.S. POW, or VC chieftain). 2. Take that intel outside the group and up to intel at a higher level (risking compromise) in order to obtain boat support from the Swifties to go into Cambodia. That is extremely unlikely to the point of absurdity.

Furthermore, neither myself or my father in law knows anyone who was inserted anywhere by a Swift boat during Vietnam. It just wasn't done. It wasn't something SEALs wanted, and it wasn't something Swifties did.

Bottom Line......Kerry is a liar.

Kerry just needs to give up the Cambodia story completely. He has recanted the part about being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve of 1968 but still claims to have taken CIA and Navy Seals into Cambodia in the early part of 1969. No matter how he tries to spin it, he can't come up with a story that gets him out of his previous lies. It's almost pathological. He should just give it up, cut his losses, and move on to November. I think his goal, at this point, is to hope that the mainstream media never picks it up so that most people won't be exposed to these lies. We'll see.

Edwards Stomped on the Little Guy

The Washington Post reports on the malpractice lawsuits running rampant in Edward's home state of North Carolina and Edward's personal part in the problem.

"The John Edwards we know crushed [obstetrics, gynecology] and neurosurgery in North Carolina," said Dr. Craig VanDerVeer, a Charlotte neurosurgeon. "As a result, thousands of patients lost their health care."

"And all of this for the little people?" he asked, a reference to Mr. Edwards' argument that he represented regular people against mighty foes such as prosperous doctors and big insurance companies. "How many little people do you know who will supply you with $60 million in legal fees over a couple of years?"

We need tort reform right away. I'm not sure why we haven't heard more about it in the past 4 years than we have. I'd like to hear what both candidates have to say about it and make it a central theme in the campaigns. Democrats don't want any changes and if they have to make changes, as ineffective as possible. Republicans have talked about a limit on punitive damage awards.

I agree with the limit on punitive damages, but I don't think it goes far enough. I think that on top of that limit, it should be law that in any case thrown out for being frivolous, the plaintive should be responsible for all court costs. I think that this way, people and their lawyers will at least make sure they have a valid case instead of bringing a case that they know is frivolous in hopes of a quick settlement with the insurance company. Until there is some responsibilities placed on the plaintive, things will only get worse.

WMD in Syria?

The Washington Times reports that there is evidence, though not proof, that Saddam moved WMD into Syria right before the invasion of Iraq.

Saddam Hussein periodically removed guards on the Syrian border and replaced them with his own intelligence agents who supervised the movement of banned materials between the two countries, U.S. investigators have discovered.

The recent discovery by the Bush administration's Iraq Survey Group (ISG) is fueling speculation, but is not proof, that the Iraqi dictator moved prohibited weapons of mass destruction (WMD) into Syria before the March 2003 invasion by a U.S.-led coalition.

We know that Iraq had WMD. We know that Saddam couldn't account for them in his report that he gave the UN. The question we're trying to figuring out is what happened to them. Did he hide them? Did he send them to Syria? Did he lose them? I think we will find out eventually but probably not for a while. There are lots of documents and intelligence to put together before we'll be able to put the whole picture together.

UPDATE: Powerline mentions this same article.

California Supreme Court Does the Right Thing...For Now

The Washington Times reported that the California Supreme Court found that Mayor Gavin Newsom had overstepped his mayoral powers in granting more than 4,000 homosexual couples marriage licenses. There's no doubt that the Mayor overstepped his bounds. I don't think anyone really thought that a mayor of any city has the right to change state laws. It was a purely political maneuver. Towards the end of the article (isn't it interesting that the most telling quotes are usually near the end of the article?) the reporter writes this:

When the California Supreme Court agreed to hear the San Francisco case, the justices said they would decide only whether Mr. Newsom overstepped his mayoral powers. But they noted they could also entertain a constitutional challenge -regarding whether homosexual couples should be treated the same as heterosexual couples under the California Constitution - if such a lawsuit were to reach them.

Now this quote from this article was not a direct quote from the justices, but it seems to me by the way that it is worded, that the justices will eventually rule that prohibiting same-sex marriage as unconstitutional. Here's the line that says this:

...regarding whether homosexual couples should be treated the same as heterosexual couples under the California Constitution...

Just the fact that they stated it that there is an unequal treatment between homosexuals and heterosexuals shows what will eventually happen. The thing is, it's backward thinking. There is no equality. Any man has the exact same opportunity to marry any woman that any other man has and the same goes for any woman has the exact same opportunity to marry any man that any other woman has. I understand that this will set homosexuals off because they do not want to marry people of the opposite sex, but that doesn't change the fact that, under the law, they are equal to heterosexuals.

I have no problem with civil unions or other legal contracts between homosexual couples, but lets leave marriage out of it. We do not have to redefine an institution that has been around for thousands of years in just about every society just so that a small group can have their relationships sanctioned by the government. Let them develop their own institution, but leave marriage out of it.

It's My Resignation and I'll Resign When I Want To

McGreevey, the New Jersey Governor, yesterday, admitted to having an extramarital gay affair and has decided to resign as governor of the state, according to the Washington Times this morning. Apparently the Governor has a lot more problems coming down the pike as well, which is probably more the reason for the resignation than just the affair.

The Democrat said his resignation would be effective Nov. 15, a move that avoids the risk of his party losing the seat in a special election.

Senate President Richard J. Codey, a Democrat, will become acting governor and serve out the remainder of Mr. McGreevey's term, which ends in early 2006.

Had Mr. McGreevey left office before Nov. 15, a special election would have to be called before New Jersey's regular 2005 election.

Former Republican Gov. Christie Whitman said Mr. McGreevey "made a courageous decision" but criticized his wait until Nov. 15, saying it "smacks of politics" and it "would be in the best interests of the state" if he left office immediately.

While it's perfectly legal to resign whenever he wants to resign, if he's going to do it, the sooner the better. It doesn't matter what party he were from, I think that playing politics with your resignation date is not looking out for the best interest of the people of your state. With all of the information on the scandal coming out, New Jersey's going to have a completely useless Governor for the next 4 months. If he would just resign and get it over with, the Lieutenant Governor could take his place until November 15 and get the business of the state done until a new Governor can be elected. The lieutenant Governor taking the place of the Governor is useful in the order of government, but whenever possible the person to take that office should be the person elected to it. It's not right to maneuver so that that doesn't take place.

Update: Captain's Quarters goes more in depth as to why McGreevey decided to resign.

Update: Powerline gives an opinion too.

Kerry lied about Cambodia

The London Telegraph today reports that the story of Kerry spending Christmas Eve of 1968 in Cambodia was an invention of Kerry.

Michael Meehan, a Kerry campaign adviser, told ABC Television: "The Mekong Delta consists of the border between Cambodia and Vietnam, so on Christmas Eve in 1968, he was in fact on patrol . . . in the Mekong Delta between Cambodia and Vietnam. He was ambushed, they fired back, he was fired upon from both sides, from the Cambodian side of the border and the Vietnam side during that day in 1968."

Who knows if this is in fact true either. Kerry told the Cambodia story on the Senate floor in 1986. This is a credibility issue. Kerry made his Vietnam service a key point in his campaign. If he's lying about this, what else is he lying about?

Update: Powerline has some comments on this as well.

Update: Captain's Quarters has a great post about his pattern of lying.

Is Iran Next?

The Washington Post reports the increasing danger of Iran developing nuclear weapons.

European countries were as worried by this development as Washington, and because the United States has no relations with Iran, Europe stepped in last fall and negotiated a deal with Tehran. It was an excellent agreement, under which Iran pledged to stop developing fissile material (the core ingredient of a nuclear bomb) and to keep its nuclear program transparent. The only problem is, Iran has recently announced that it isn't going to abide by the deal. As the IAEA's investigation became more serious, Tehran became more secretive. One month ago the agency condemned Iran for its failure to cooperate. Tehran responded by announcing that it would resume work in prohibited areas....

In the face of these stark dangers, Europe seems remarkably passive. Having burst into action last fall, it does not seem to know what to do now that Iran has rebuffed its efforts. It is urging negotiations again, which is fine. But what will it tell Iran in these negotiations? What is the threat that it is willing to wield?

Europe isn't willing to put its money where its mouth is. The European Union wants to simply play negotiating games and to ask real nice that other nations behave. What does this all remind us of? Didn't Europe learn anything from World War II? The US can't be the loan enforcer of the world. Europe is going to have to step up or else another huge crisis will develop within the next few years.

Little Is Worst Than Big

Captain's Quarters posted a New York Times article reporting that the police had picked up an illegal Pakistani immigrant who had made some very unusual video tapes of places in the South. Ever since the 9/11 attacks, I've always thought that if the terrorists tried to take out a target in a small town, it would do something much worst than large targets. It would show the American people that nobody is safe. It isn't just those that work in tall buildings in big cities. It isn't just those that work in Washington D.C. Anybody anywhere is at risk and it would be impossible to guard every soft target across the country. This may be an example of the terrorists doing just that.

Al Qaeda - Iraq Connection

Jesse Sweeney (JS) has challenged that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda (See comments under Missile Sting post). This is simply not true. According to the 9/11 report (pages 60, 61, 66) there in fact were connections between Saddam's regime and Al Qaeda and Bin Laden. Saddam even offered Iraq to Bin Laden as a safe haven. It's unclear whether any of these offers from both sides were ever taken advantage of, but the fact that there was a relationship progressing between the two groups in response to the US being a common enemy is clear.

This, nevertheless, clouds the real issue. Iraq was invaded because Saddam had connections to terrorists. Saddam had the ability to create weapons of mass destruction and distribute them to terrorists to be used. Saddam had made cash rewards to the families of suicide bombers among the Palestinians. Saddam had many weapons already that were unaccounted for. Saddam refused to account for them. Saddam never aloud free access to the country to inspectors. Saddam was in violation of the conditions set for the end of the Gulf War in 1991. All intelligence pointed to the fact that Saddam was a current threat that had to dealt with. This was corroborated by the intelligence from Britain, Russia, and many other nations. Invading Iraq was the right thing to do and we are, in fact, safer because of it.

With Enemies Like These, Who Needs Friends?

Powerline zeroed in on a story by the Washington Times saying that Bin Laden is planning on a major assassination to signal major attacks here in the United States. A telling paragraph in the article was this:

"The goal of the next attack is twofold: to damage the U.S. economy and to undermine the U.S. election," the official said. "The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush.'"

Now that we know who Bin Laden wants to win the election.

I noticed another paragraph that was interesting to me:

The officials also said the terrorist group has begun using female members for preattack surveillance and possibly as suicide bombers, thinking that women will have an easier time getting past security checkpoints at airports, borders and ports.

I was just wondering...If they promise multitudes of virgins in paradise to male jihadists that give their lives, what are the women promised?

Signed affidavit

George Elliot has signed a sworn affidavit for his statements made in behalf of Swiftboat Veterans for truth. You can get a copy from here. It's part of a campaign to try and encourage TV stations to play their commercial on the air. Recently TV stations have been threatened with libel suits from Terry McAuliffe's attorneys if they aired the commercial.

There's no way that a libel suit will be brought against the TV stations. A libel suit would require John Kerry to actually testify under oath which he, of course, would not do. It's just a way to intimidate people from exercising their first amendment rights through force of government.

It's interesting that liberals cry when there are economic implications when they exercise free speech (ie Dixie Chicks) but have no problem using the government to silence their opponents. Please tell me what's wrong with this picture?

Europe to observe US elections

I found this on the Free Republic.

When 13 Democratic members of the U.S. Congress asked United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan to send election monitors to the U.S. this fall, the move outraged many Republicans and other proponents of national sovereignty.

When those same 13 Democratic members of Congress were turned down by Annan, they took their request to Secretary of State Colin Powell again to the shock of many Republicans and those who warn about foreign entanglements.

Yesterday, those 13 Democratic House members got their surprising answer from the State Department the administration will indeed invite foreign election monitors to observe the U.S. elections in November.

I can't believe that the Bush administration would invite a foreign body to come and observe the elections in November. Kofi Annan is right. This flys in the face of our national sovereignty. This is the most absurd thing I have ever heard. Since when is the US subject to international observation like we're some 3rd world country performing their first free elections after the rule of a dictator. This is almost consenting that the election of 2000 was indeed invalid and Bush wasn't the rightful winner.

There's an interesting paragraph at the end of the story:

Meanwhile, Rep. Corrine Brown, a Florida Democrat, announced that the Democratic Institutions and Human Rights Office of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has confirmed that it will be present in the United States specifically, in Florida on Election Day.

However, state election authorities in Florida have already announced that such observers are not to be allowed access to the voting process and, in any case, they would have to remain at a distance of more than 50 feet from the polls.

This begs a constitutional question. Can the federal government demand observers for an election within a state? Constitutionally, it's the electoral college that elects the president. It's up to the state how those electoral votes are determined and it's up to the state to certify the election. I wonder if Collin Powell can merely invite the OSCE to observe the casting of the electoral votes. Florida is already placing restrictions on these observers basically making their job ineffective anyway. Good for Florida.

Missile Sting

Reuters yesterday published an article about the two Muslim clerics in New York that were caught in a sting trying to provide missiles to someone who they thought was a terrorist. I thought the last line in the article was interesting:

Another law enforcement source said the two were believed to be linked with Ansar al-Islam, an Iraqi militant group suspected of having ties to the al Qaeda network.

And here I thought Iraq and Al Qaeda had no ties.

UPDATE: blogsforbush.com made this same connection via an AP story.

John Kerry couldn't think much less read to children

A great post on blogsforbush.com comparing a quote from Kerry criticizing Bush for reading to school children for 7 minutes before excusing himself after the first plane hit the World Trade Center with a quote of Kerry saying he couldn't even think until the pentagon was hit over 40 minutes after the second plane hit the World Trade Center. It's easy for Kerry to say what he would have done 3 years later. After the first plane hit, nobody knew that we were under attack. First reaction was that it was an accident. It wasn't until the second plane hit that we knew that we were under attack.

UPDATE: Powerline reports on this as well but emphasizes how politically stupid it is to remind everyone of Bush's finest hour in how he dealt with the tragedy of September 11 and how it paints himself as divisive and unlikable.

Unfit for Command

John O'Neill will be releasing a book soon that is already number 1 on amazon.com's web site. O'Neill is a member of Swiftboat Vets For Truth. You can get a free preview of chapter 3 from humaneventsonline.com. Just fill in your e-mail address and they'll send it to you by e-mail. I haven't read it yet but will post about it when I get the chance.

New Ad from swiftboat vets

Today the Swiftboat Vets for Truth released an ad countering many of Kerry's Vietnam claims. They have it posted on their site: www.swiftvets.com. I have yet to see the ad since I can't seem to get onto their site. I would expect that their server is experiencing some serious traffic. I have heard the audio on the radio, though.

On Powerline, The Big Trunk comments that he was disappointed that the ad wasn't more specific. I would agree except that they only had a limited amount of time and I think they wanted to emphasize just how many vets are against Kerry becoming the Commander-In-Chief.

It's interesting that all of a sudden many in the press are outraged at 527 organizations, which is an organization that can place political issue ads in the media independent of a certain candidate and it falls outside of the campaign finance reform laws, while no one seemed too upset with all of the ads put out by left-wing 527 organizations such as movon.org up to this point. It's only when a 527 organization, like the one financing the Swiftboat Vets for Truth commercial, puts out an anti-Kerry ad that the outrage is heard.

Revenge of the Metrosexuals

Shot in the Dark has an hillarious post sparring with a column from www.foreignpolicy.com comparing the European Union to a metrosexual appealing and influencing the world much more than it's bullish cousin, the United States.

Never mind we've protected them throughout the cold war. Never mind we've financed them to rebuild after WWII. If the European Union was all that, we wouldn't be the first one called whenever they needed someone to bail them out of trouble.

How long can we last?

From all reports, the plans to attack some of America's financial icons has been in the works for a very long time. Homeland Security has just uncovered enough to raise the alert and push for extra security around the targets, but how long can this last? This obviously has been long in the planning. One thing about Al Qaeda is that they're patient. We can post extra police and security guards. We can check cars for bombs. We can change security procedures, but eventually we'll have to relax. We'll have to let the extra police get back to their previous duties. Financially we can't fund an elevated level of terror indefinitely. Al Qaeda can just wait. They have nothing but time. They can wait until we no longer expect it and then strike! How can we fight that?

I don't have answers for this one. All we can do is keep striking them at home, disrupt their money supplies, kill their leaders, and pray. We can rest assured of one thing, though. They can hit our buildings but they can never kill the American spirit that is in every one of us and in the end, we will succeed. We'll succeed because this country is founded on the greatest concept in the history of civilization. We are founded on individual freedom and that all power derives from our consent. This is a very powerful ideal that can't be driven out with bombs and suicide missions. They have embarked on an impossible task that will, in the end, bruise us, but we will crush them.

The orange political ploy?

Many in the blogosphere have made claims that the recent upgrade of our nation's alert system from yellow to orange is merely a political ploy by the Bush administration citing that much of the information was at least 3 years old. The New York Times in an article written yesterday had this to say:

After past terror warnings, critics have at times accused the Bush administration of exaggerating the threat for political purposes. But on Sunday, few prominent Democrats were making that charge, and many Democrats appeared to take the threat seriously. The code-orange announcement, by Tom Ridge, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, sent immediate tremors through financial, political and law enforcement worlds, with reverberations from Wall Street to the presidential campaign trail.

It seems Kerry has sent out a lone and expendable horseman to make blanket charges against the administration politicizing our nations security for Bush's own political ambitions. Is Howard Dean the new James Carville?

Make April 15th just another day

I just wanted to take a minute and talk about something that could mean everything to our country. It's the tax system. Currently the tax system is an huge behemoth weighing in at 58,000 + pages and growing every year. It's main purpose is to penalize people for making money. The more money we make, the more we pay in taxes.

There is an alternative tax structure that's starting to make gains in this country. It's called the Fair Tax. It can be read about from the organization that developed it at http://www.fairtax.org. It's really easy to understand. Here it is in a nutshell.

The fair tax would scrap all federal income taxes including social security and Medicare and replace it with a retail sales tax. Only final goods would be taxed. No one would have to fill out tax forms at the beginning of the year. No one would have money withheld from their paychecks and sent to the federal government. The tax rate would be about 23%. Again, this is only on retail goods so wholesale and business to business goods wouldn't be taxed until final consumption and used items would not be taxed. The tax would be collected through the existing system in almost all states of collecting sales taxes and a fee would be paid to the states for the collection of the tax for the federal government.

To make the tax progressive, the first portion of what each family spends, up to the poverty line, would not be taxed. For example, the poverty line for a family of four is about $25,000. The taxes that would be paid on that $25,000 would be paid to each family in the form of a monthly check. So 23% of $25,000 is $5,750. So almost $480 check will be sent to a family of four at the beginning of the month in what is called a "prebate" because it is sent before the money is sent. Everyone will get this prebate whether you are the poorest or the richest. If you actually spend less than $25,000 per year, you will in fact receive more money than you pay in the sales tax.

One of the biggest benefits of the fair tax is that the cost of producing products here in the United States will go down because of all of the taxes companies pay that are embedded into the price of the products. Our products will be sold on a level playing field with products that are imported from other countries because the exact same taxes will be charged with the sale of an imported product as a domestic product and our exports will be lower in price in other countries, especially in Europe, where income taxes are still being used.

By taxing what we spend, instead of what we make, we're encouraged to make more money and save it for the future and invest it to create more income without penalty.

We will also benefit by abolishing the IRS. The cost of collecting taxes will decrease by 90%. The cost to taxpayers for compliance to the tax code (ie tax lawyers and accountants) will reduce to almost nothing. It will reduce the number of lobbyists in Washington DC by more than half. (More than half the lobbyists are lobbying for more tax loopholes.) The number of entities to collect taxes from will go from 200 million to about 14 million. For most people, audits will become a thing of the past and it will make April 15th just another day to millions of Americans.

In 2003, Senate and House bills were introduced to abolish the current tax code and adopt the fair tax. The Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com/rnc.htm) reported that in a second Bush term, this will become a main focus of the Republican party with support from many Democrats. Bush has said that he would sign such a bill in his second term.

If for no other reason, we should reelect George Bush to get this tax reform passed and to grow our economy like it has never grown before.