Thursday, September 30, 2004

Bush Is For Rape!

Drudge has a quote from Cameron Diaz from the Operah Winfrey show that states that if you don't vote, then rape will be made legal.

Thu Sep 30 2004 12:12:11 ET

On Oprah's Wednesday 'voting party' show featuring important celebrities like P. Diddy (Vote or Die!), Drew Barrymore and Christina Aguilera, svelte suffragette Cameron Diaz took to shock tactics to get the female vote out.

After a discussion with Oprah on lynching and the vote, Diaz spoke of the dire consequences for women if they sit out this election:

Ms. DIAZ: We have a voice now, and we're not using it, and women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. We could lo--if you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote. But if you think that you have a right to your body, and you have a right to say what happens to you and fight off that danger of losing that, then you should vote, and those are the...

WINFREY: It's your voice.

Ms. DIAZ: It's your voice. It's your voice, that's your right.

Is she insane? Is this what the democrats have been reduced to doing to get people to vote for John Kerry? Do they really think that people are so stupid that they'll believe anyone is for legalizing rape. But that's what they have now. They can throw lies out and see if enough sticks to either get people to vote for Kerry or not show up to the polls out of fear. Truly despicable.

Monday, September 27, 2004

Mexico Wants Open Border

The Washington Times has a report concerning Mexico's new "border czar". Arturo Gonzalez Cruz, from Tijuana, would like to see the border between the US and Mexico to be open like the borders within the EU.

"I would like to see a border similar to the one that Europe has right now ... where they have common, very common objectives," he recently told reporters in Tijuana. "They have a common economy. They have policies that transcend their borders where they work with them to get it."

Of course Mexico wants an open border. That would improve Mexico and it's citizens immensely, but what will it do to the American economy? Can we rely on Mexico to make sure terrorists can't get into Mexico and therefore come into the United States? Can Mexico guarantee that it's political corruption won't bring down the economies of all three nations? Can Mexico guarantee that drug trafficking won't run rampant between the two nations? I'm sorry, but what's good for Mexico isn't always good for the US.

Monday, September 20, 2004

We Weren't Wrong, Just Mistaken

Drudge reports a statement from Dan Rather concerning the forged memos.

EXCLUSIVE // Mon Sep 20 2004 11:58:02 ET

Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question - and their source - vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.

Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where - if I knew then what I know now - I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.

But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.

Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.

So trying to not admit that they were wrong to do it, they say that they aren't convinced that the memos are authentic, but it's ok, because they have a "tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism." So it's ok to slander the President of the United States as long as you have a tradition of it. Well Dan Rather definitely has a tradition of slandering the Bush family without fear or favoritism. If they were misled, then they need to expose the source. Why are they protecting this source? Makes you wonder....


Captain's Quarters


Bill Burkett has come forward and claimed that he was the source for CBS News but he doesn't claim to be the original source. Burkett said that he misled CBS Producers in order to protect the source. Here's the kicker, though. Burkett refuses to release his source. So CBS probably hopes that this gets them off the hook to release their source, yet the original source is still safely anonymous. CBS shouldn't have relied on a 2nd or 3rd hand source in the first place. They've lost credibility.

Thursday, September 16, 2004

Marian Carr Knox Says Memos are Fakes

Last night on 60 minutes, Rather interviewed Knox, Killian's secretary during the time of Bush's Guard service. While through most of the whole interview, Knox was very negative about Bush, she did say that she did not type the memos and that the wording within the memos were more in line with Army rather than Air National Guard.

Even someone that is admittedly anti-Bush, won't authenticate the memos. It's incredible that CBS still stands by the memos.

Rather Wants to Break the Story

The Washington Post interviewed Dan Rather yesterday. They quote Rather saying:

"If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story," Rather said in an interview last night. "Any time I'm wrong, I want to be right out front and say, 'Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.' "

Somebody needs to tell Rather that this story was already broke by the blogosphere shortly after the memos were released.

CBS Feeling the Effects

Drudge is reporting that CBS has plummeted in every one of the top 10 markets in the country by as much as 6 to 1.

"The audience appears to [be] polarized," a top CBS source said from LOS ANGELES on Thursday. "Rightly or wrongly, we're being perceived as 'anti-Bush,' which I do not think is fair to Dan, who is a fine journalist... of course we do not like to see the ratings coming back the way they are this week."

Well, if the shoe fits....

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Nevermind Whether They're Authentic, Answer the Charge!

The New York Observer (via Drudge) quotes Dan Rather saying:

"With respect: answer the questions," said Dan Rather, the CBS News anchor. He was asking a direct question to President George W. Bush, his re-election campaign and his political allies in the press and on the Web. "We've heard what you have to say about the documents and what you've said and what your surrogates have said, but for the moment, answer the questions.

"I say that with respect," he added. "They'd be a lot stronger in their campaign if they did do that...."

"It's never been fully, completely denied by the Bush-Cheney campaign or even the White House that he was suspended for meeting the standards of the Air Force or that he didn't show up for a physical," he said. "The longer we go without a denial of such things - this story is true."

So let me get this straight. Anybody can come and and make any charges against the president. They can create whatever documents that suit them. They can say anything they want. They can make whatever lie furthers their cause and regardless of the authenticity of the sources, they can demand that the president answers the charges. We have all of the military records. We know that Bush was honorably discharged and that he had glowing comments made about him in the official record. What more can be said? Rather thinks that he's above actually having to bring up authentic charges against the president. If you ask me, that doesn't take courage. That takes a lack of good sense. As we all know, the truthfulness of the charge doesn't matter, it's the seriousness of the charge.


Captain's Quarters

CBS Makes Statement on Memos

Drudge placed the quote from CBS President, Andrew Heyward, concerning the Bush memos.

"We established to our satisfaction that the memos were accurate or we would not have put them on television. There was a great deal of corroborating [sic] evidence from people in a position to know. Having said that, given all the questions about them, we believe we should redouble our efforts to answer those questions, so that's what we are doing."

CBS has decided that, apparently, it's not important whether the memos were forgeries or not, the information within them was accurate. Note that they used the word accurate instead of authentic. They are going to hang on and hope that by not admitting their forged, they can make people believe in them whether they are authentic or not. CBS has lost all credibility in this and I wouldn't be surprised if a federal inquiry doesn't get into this.


Captain's Quarters

CBS Document Examiners Say They Were Forgeries is reporting that two of the document experts CBS hired to authenticate the Bush National Guard memos have come forward saying that they had told CBS that they were not authentic.

Emily Will, a veteran document examiner from North Carolina, told ABC News she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check the weekend before the broadcast.

"I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter," she said.

Will says she sent the CBS producer an e-mail message about her concerns and strongly urged the network the night before the broadcast not to use the documents.

"I told them that all the questions I was asking them on Tuesday night, they were going to be asked by hundreds of other document examiners on Thursday if they ran that story," Will said....

The second document examiner hired by CBS News, Linda James of Plano, Texas, also told ABC News she had concerns about the documents and could not authenticate them. She said she expressed her concerns to CBS before the 60 Minutes II broadcast.

"I did not authenticate anything and I don't want it to be misunderstood that I did," James said. "And that's why I have come forth to talk about it because I don't want anybody to think I did authenticate these documents."

CBS had good reason to know that these documents were forgeries. I liked what Emily Will said saying that if they ran the story on Wednesday that hundreds of document examiners would question them on Thursday. CBS didn't count on the blogosphere to keep them honest.

CBS is going to make a statement today concerning the documents and, according to the Wall Street Journal, will bring additional evidence forward. CBS is cornered and just will not relent and so are digging themselves deeper and deeper. The truly sad thing is that they're destroying their credibility and a whole lot of careers for something that people won't even care about when it comes to voting for or against the president. The fact is, people can look at the last four years to see what kind of commander-in-chief he'll be. They don't need to look back at military service from 35 years ago. Bush released all of his military records back in 2000, something Kerry has refused to do, and since there was nothing incriminating there, they have to "discover" new documents saying what they want to them to say to try and discredit him. This may have been useful in the 2000 campaign, but for an incumbent, it's just plain stupid.

CBS can solve this real quick. Name your sources. Produce the original documents and have a panel of independent experts analyze it publicly. Of course, they won't produce the originals because there are no originals.


Powerline picked this up.

Captains Quarters goes more in depth about the burden of proof of these memos.

Check out The Politburo Diktat and Wizbang too.

Monday, September 13, 2004

CBS Hangs On To Sinking Ship

CBS News is still standing by its story in spite of mounting evidence that the Bush Memos were forgeries. had this to say:

In a report on Friday night's "CBS News Evening News," Dan Rather reported that many of those raising questions about the documents have focused on something called superscript, a key that automatically types a raised "th."

Critics claim typewriters didn't have that ability in the 1970s. But some models did, Rather reported. In fact, other Bush military records already released by the White House itself show the same superscript - including one from as far back as 1968.

Some analysts outside CBS say they believe the typeface on these memos is New Times Roman, which they claim was not available in the 1970s.

But the owner of the company that distributes this typing style told CBS News that it has been available since 1931.

In classic coverup fashion, they represent only half the critiques and resolve them and then just not mention the rest. For example, the issue isn't that the font, New Times Roman, wasn't around in the 70s, it was the fact that most typewriters didn't have the ability to use it, not being a fixed width font. If CBS wants to truly get to the bottom of this, as a news agency should want, they should release the documents, release the names of the people that authenticated it, and release the source.

Nevertheless, in the end, it doesn't matter. We are trying to determine who would be a good president. With Bush, we know what kind of president he would be. We've seen him for the past 4 years. With Kerry, we're guessing. We have to take what we know about him from his past to try and determine whether he would be better than the sitting president. That's what makes Kerry's voting record relevant. That's what makes his service relevant. That's what makes his past statements relevant. This smear on Bush using forged documents is just trying to cloud the issues, the very thing Kerry claims he's trying to focus on.


Powerline has so many posts about this, I'll just link the main site.

Blogs For Bush lists experts that claim they are forgeries.

Captains Quarters claims that Dan Rather thinks the memos are forged as well.

Yes, Senator Kerry, But What Will You Do?

Time Online has the transcript of an interview with John Kerry. Here are some excerpts:

We can do a better job at homeland security. I can fight a more effective war on terror....

We have a health-care plan for all Americans. We're going to stop subsidizing jobs that go overseas and create jobs here in America. We're going to fund education and not leave millions of children behind every day....

I will pursue a far more aggressive, proactive statesmanship role to bring countries to our side in an effort in which they have an interest....

I believe very deeply that it takes a new President, a new credibility, a fresh start, to change the whole equation in Iraq. I will get countries involved in ways that the President doesn't have them involved today, and I will get our troops home....

I won't cede our security to any institution, but I know how to reach out to countries and leaders and build bipartisan-support structures necessary to strengthen the country.....

But what's important here is that I can fight a more effective war on terror.....

And it just goes on and on from there. Kerry is very good at being broad and saying he would do a better job but doesn't say how and why he would be better at it. It's time for Kerry to be "crystal clear" on these things and actually share his secret plans with the rest of us so we can judge it upon its merits. Until then, he's a complete unknown.

Friday, September 10, 2004

Forgeries Came From Kerry Campaign

American Spectator writes about the source of the documents coming from the Kerry Campaign. Drudge linked to this article and subsequently took their server down. I'll copy the article here and highlight the parts that are the most interesting.

Washington Prowler
Anatomy of a Forgery
By The Prowler
Published 9/10/2004 12:09:06 AM

More than six weeks ago, an opposition research staffer for the Democratic National Committee received documents purportedly written by President George W. Bush's Texas Air National Guard squadron commander, the late Col. Jerry Killian.

The oppo researcher claimed the source was "a retired military officer." According to a DNC staffer, the documents were seen by both senior staff members at the DNC, as well as the Kerry campaign.

"More than a couple people heard about the papers," says the DNC staffer. "I've heard that they ended up with the Kerry campaign, for them to decide to how to proceed, and presumably they were handed over to 60 Minutes, which used them the other night. But I know this much. When there was discussion here, there were doubts raised about their authenticity."

The concerns arose from the sourcing. "It wasn't clear that our source for the documents would have had access to them. Our person couldn't confirm from what file, from what original source they came from."

The documents that CBS News used were not documents from any of Bush's personnel files from his time in the National Guard. Rather, CBS News stated that they were documents uncovered in the personnel files of Killian. That would explain why the White House or the Pentagon had never before released or even seen them.

According to a Kerry campaign source, there was little gossip about the supposedly hot documents inside the office of the campaign on McPherson Square. "Those documents were not something anyone was talking about or trying to generate buzz on," says the staffer. "It wasn't like there were small groups of people talking about this as a bombshell. I think people here weren't sure what to make of it, because provenance of these documents was uncertain."

A CBS producer, who initially tipped off The Prowler about the 60 Minutes story, says that despite seeking professional assurances that the documents were legitimate, there was uncertainty even among the group of producers and researchers working on the story.

"The problem was we had one set of documents from Bush's file that had Killian calling Bush 'an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot.' And someone who Killian said 'performed in an outstanding manner.' Then you have these new documents and the tone and content are so different."

The CBS producer said that some alarms bells went off last week when the signatures and initials of Killian on the documents in hand did not match up with other documents available on the public record, but producers chose to move ahead with the story. "This was too hot not to push. If there were doubts, those people didn't show it," says the producer, who works on a rival CBS News program.

Now, the producer says, there is growing concern inside the building on 57th Street that they may have been suckered by the Kerry campaign. "There is a school of thought here that the Kerry people dumped this in our laps, figuring we'd do the heavy lifting on the story. That maybe they had doubts about these documents but hoped we'd get more information," says the producer. "If that's the case, then we're bigger fools than we already appear to be judging by all the chatter about how these documents could be forgeries."

ABC News' political unit held a conference call at 7:00 p.m. Thursday evening to discuss the memo and its potential ramifications should the documents turn out to be a forgery. That meeting took place around the time that the deceased Killian's son made public statements questioning the documents' authenticity.

According to one ABC News employee, some reporters believe that the Kerry campaign as well as the DNC were parties in duping CBS, but a smaller segment believe that both the DNC and the Kerry campaign were duped by Karl Rove, who would have engineered the flap to embarrass the opposition.

The DNC and the Kerry campaign obtained (produced?) these documents and suspected they were forgeries. They sent them to CBS and CBS suspected they were forgeries but went ahead with the story anyway because "This was too hot not to push." They probably figured nobody would check them on it anyway. They didn't count on the new media to debunk this the way that it did.

I think it's interesting that it is apparently illegal for campaigns to coordinate with 527 groups but it's just fine for them to coordinate with networks and news organizations.

Powerline, of course.

CBS News backpedaling

Drudge reported last night that sources have told him that CBS is launching an internal investigation to get to the bottom of the forged documents.

CBS NEWS executives have launched an internal investigation into whether its premiere news program 60 MINUTES aired fabricated documents relating to Bush's National Guard service, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

"The reputation and integrity of the entire news division is at stake, if we are in error, it will be corrected," a top CBS source explained late Thursday.

The source, who asked not to be named, described CBSNEWS anchor and 60 MINUTES correspondent Dan Rather as being privately "shell-shocked" by the increasing likelihood that the documents in question were fraudulent.

Rather, who anchored the segment presenting new information on the president's military service, will personally correct the record on-air, if need be, the source explained from New York.

I especially liked the quote about Rather being "shell-shocked". They're in trouble and they know it. They ran with a story without checking the authenticity of it. They claimed that they did but it's very apparent that they didn't. I'm sure they'll come out with some plausible reason why they were duped but it'll have to be some spin artist to make this one ok. Rather and CBS News has proven itself, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are nothing more than a bunch of partisans out to try and help Kerry in his campaign. Their credibility is lost. Just because they don't operate under the 527 law doesn't mean they aren't any better than or any of the others, they're just sneakier about it.

This story, of course, has been Powerline's baby and they're keeping close tabs on it.

Captain's Quarters is following the story.

And, of course, Blogs For Bush

Thursday, September 09, 2004

60 Minutes Document a Probable Fake

60 Minutes did a whole show on some supposed personal memos stating that Bush had served dishonorably in the Air National Guard. Now first of all, why did 60 minutes rush to air with these documents when not a word is said about the Swiftboat Vets for Truth's charges against Kerry.

Little Green Footballs did a little investigative work of his own. He typed out the text of one of the memos using all defaults and Times New Roman font on his Microsoft Office 2004 and then compared it to the memo from 60 Minutes. Here they are.


Office 2004:

They have identical spacing. The only difference is the "th" that is raised (something impossible to do with typewriters of the time) is slightly higher in the original but upon printing, the raised "th" matched. Then the two were superimposed.


Can there be any doubt? It's amazing that 60 minutes couldn't detect a forgery (a poor and sloppy one at that) but it took about a day for this to come out in the bloggosphere.

The thing is, why does any of this matter? What is the point? Kerry has made his Vietnam service a centerpiece of his campaign. Kerry is saying that we should vote for him because he served bravely in Vietnam and therefore can be Commander-In-Chief. He doesn't want you to look at his voting record of the past 30 years because that tells a different story. He wants everyone to focus on his war record only. That is what has brought the Swiftboats Vets out against him. Bush has never stood on his National Guard service. In fact, he's even admitted that when he was young and foolish, he was indeed young and foolish and did a lot of things he wasn't proud of but he's a different man. He's changed. We can look back and Bush's last 4 years and tell what kind of president he'll be for the next 4 years. That's what's most important in looking at Bush's past. With Kerry we should look at his record too, but he'll try and divert you from that every time in favor of his Vietnam record, which we're finding out, wasn't that great either.

Powerline has been following this quite closely.

Captains Quarters has posted about this.

Blogs For Bush is also following it.

Wednesday, September 08, 2004

Cheney Tells It How It Is....Kerry-Edwards Can't Take It

I've noticed that the only think Kerry and Edwards can do when they can't answer a charge is to scream that they're being called unamerican and unpatriotic. Cheney, in typical Cheney fashion, was direct and to the point on the difference between how the two candidates will fight the war on terror. The New York Times reported:

Cheney was campaigning Tuesday in Des Moines, Iowa, when he suggested the United States, if Kerry were elected, would risk falling back into a ``pre-9/11 mind-set'' that terrorist attacks are criminal acts that require a reactive approach. Bush's offensive approach works to root out terrorists where they plan and train, he said.

He also made this comment:

``It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States.''

Here's the only way Edwards and Kerry know how to respond. Edwards said:

``This statement by the vice president of the United States was intended to divide us,'' Edwards said. ``It was calculated to divide us on an issue of safety and security for the American people. It's wrong and it's un-American.''

They know that Cheney is right. They will be weak in standing up to terrorism. They know that they'll treat it more like a law-enforcement exercise rather than a war. They know that they'll pander to Europe for permission in order to do anything to defend ourselves. Most importantly, they know that the American people don't agree with that and so they do the only thing they can. Scream how Bush/Cheney aren't playing fair and that they're breaching topics that are off-limits. Is this who we want as the leader of the free world?

National Sales Tax Mulled

After Bush mentioned a simplification of the tax code in his acceptance speech, a national sales tax is starting to get more attention and more support within congress. discusses this proposal.

Under Linder's plan, the national sales tax would be set at 23 percent, which he claims would be enough to replace the funds that the canceled payroll tax would have raised. The national sales tax would be in addition to the average 6.2 percent state sales tax that people already pay.

Linder said low-income Americans would benefit the most because they would receive a rebate or "prebate" for the new 23 percent sales tax. Linder's plan would abolish the IRS, creating in essence, he said, a $3 trillion to $5 trillion tax cut. The states would then be responsible for distributing these funds.

I've discussed this before in this post, Make April 15th just another day. We are overdue for an absolutely simple tax code saving billions of dollars in inefficiencies.

Friday, September 03, 2004


In spite of all the political analysts leading up to the Republican Convention claiming that there was little room for a bounce, Time has come out with the first poll after the convention giving Bush a 52% to 41% (Nader had 3%) lead over Kerry, the largest lead since it became a 2-man race.

For the first time since the Presidential race became a two person contest last spring, there is a clear leader, the latest TIME poll shows. If the 2004 election for President were held today, 52% of likely voters surveyed would vote for President George W. Bush, 41% would vote for Democratic nominee John Kerry, and 3% would vote for Ralph Nader, according to a new TIME poll conducted from Aug. 31 to Sept. 2.

Now this was while the convention was still going on. I'll be waiting to see the polls starting after the convention ended to get a clearer look. At any rate, people are beginning to see a clear distinction between the two candidates and they like Bush better. Bush is a straight shooter. He stands up for what he believes in and the people always knows where he stands and, frankly, he's just plain likeable. This will go a long way with the people come November.

I saw this originally on Instapundit via Powerline.

Blogs For Bush mentions this as breaking news.

Kerry Fights Back

John Kerry, not willing to wait more than an hour after the end of the Republican National Convention, made spoke in Ohio, finally itemizing some of the things he's going to work for as President.

To paraphrase Kerry, if you like the direction the country is heading, vote for President Bush. If you think Kerry can do better, vote for him. Seems simple enough.

If you are for protectionism and a decrease in how effectively American companies can compete, vote for Kerry.

If you are for the government simplifying regulations and getting out of companies' way so they can succeed and not be handicapped by the government, vote for Bush.

If you are for highly regulated and/or socialized health industry, vote for Kerry.

If you are for bringing health costs down through tort reform maintaining our superiority in health care, vote for Bush.

If you are for complicating the tax code even more and making sure the wealthier half of Americans pay even more taxes, vote for Kerry.

If you are for lower taxes for EVERYONE and a simplified tax code, vote for Bush.

If you are for continuous pandering to certain European countries for permission to defend itself, vote for Kerry.

If you are for America being in charge of its own defense, regardless of the opinions of other nations that do not have our best interests at heart, vote for Bush.

To me it's pretty clear. I think I'll go ahead and take John Kerry's advise and vote for Bush.


Blogs For Bush makes some final comments on Bush's plans.

Captain's Quarters as well.

Powerline has a nice play by play of Bush's speech as it was happening.

Generation Why?, as always, good analysis

Thursday, September 02, 2004

Kerry: Let's Focus On The Issues....No Wait!

With the Swiftboat Vets coming hard at John Kerry and his campaign, the thing you hear from Kerry and his supporters the most is that we should focus on the issues. Well, last night at the Republican National Convention, Zell Miller decided to focus on the issues. I think everyone should read his speech, or better yet, see his speech. It is truly an impassioned speech from a Democrat that has watched his party walk away from his core values to pander and sell itself to special interest groups. You can read the speech here or view it here if you click the "video" tab on the right. Here are a couple of my favorite excerpts:

It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking. They claimed Carter's pacifism would lead to peace.

They were wrong.

They claimed Reagan's defense buildup would lead to war.

They were wrong.

And, no pair has been more wrong, more loudly, more often than the two Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.

Together, Kennedy/Kerry have opposed the very weapons system that won the Cold War and that is now winning the War on Terror.


This is the man who wants to be the Commander in Chief of our U.S. Armed Forces?

U.S. forces armed with what? Spitballs?

Twenty years of votes can tell you much more about a man than twenty weeks of campaign rhetoric.

Campaign talk tells people who you want them to think you are. How you vote tells people who you really are deep inside.


John Kerry, who says he doesn't like outsourcing, wants to outsource our national security.

That's the most dangerous outsourcing of all. This politician wants to be leader of the free world.


In this hour of danger our President has had the courage to stand up. And this Democrat is proud to stand up with him.

The whole thing is fantastic.


Powerline has three good posts about the reaction to Zell Miller here, here, and here

Captain's Quarters has an excerpt from the Chris Matthews interview with Sen. Miller

Blogs For Bush have their own commentary on the Miller speech.

Wednesday, September 01, 2004

The Vets Are Back In Town

The Swiftboat Vets are back with another ad. Check it out here.

The Swiftees have also given Kerry a way out of their onslaught. On the front page of their site they have posted a letter to Kerry on how to get them to stop their ads.

We urge you to:

1. Apologize for your conduct once you returned from Vietnam. Your exaggerated testimony before the US Senate; the blanket indictment of your fellow veterans; throwing away medals and ribbons; all of these actions dishonored America and the armed forces. Your rhetoric and actions were not only wrong, they aided the enemy and brought great pain to POW's, veterans and their families.

2. Clarify the conflicting accounts involving the Bay Hap River incident of March 13, 1969 (Bronze Star and 3rd Purple Heart). You have now described three different versions of this incident. In the first version of this incident presented during the Democrat National Convention, you stated: "No man left behind," suggesting to the American people that you alone stayed on the river to rescue Mr. Rassmann. Later, when forced to acknowledge conflicting eyewitness testimony from fellow swift boat veterans, you said that your boat left the scene to return moments later to retrieve Jim Rassmann from the water. Yet, in another version of the same incident discovered in the Congressional Record, you reported that your boat struck a mine and Rassmann fell off the boat. Mr. Kerry, please explain to your fellow veterans and the American people which version is the truth.

3. Affirm that the injuries for which you received your purple hearts never required any medical treatment beyond perhaps a bandage and that, in all instances, these injuries were self-inflicted and came from your own weapon. Further, that if any of these purple hearts were falsely awarded, that you would not have been eligible to leave Vietnam after serving only four months.

4. Acknowledge what your own biographer is now saying, that the Christmas in Cambodia claim is "obviously wrong," that you were never in Cambodia over Christmas or any other time during your brief, four-month tour in Vietnam and that your statements before the United States Senate in 1986 were false.

I wonder what Kerry will choose to do. He's already tried to call members of the group to see what he can do to stop the ads but I doubt he's willing to do this. Kerry has already announced some new campaign advisers to help with his sinking boat. Kerry's going to try and weather this storm which will keep the Swiftees on the attack until November. Maybe eventually people will see the person that wants to be the leader of the free world for who he really is.

I'm Back From Vacation

Well, after a week in Seattle, I'm back from vacation. It was a nice rest and I enjoyed myself with my family. Much has happened since last week so lets get back to it....