Er...Actually I was close to Cambodia...
For quite some time we have been hearing about the heroics of John Kerry's military service in Vietnam. Unfortunately those four months appear to be the only thing John Kerry is running on. Doesn't this man have a twenty year Senate career? Shouldn't he be discussing his legislative achievements?
Quick quiz to our readers: How many legislative accomplishments of John Kerry can you name? If you are having trouble coming up with a list, how about mentioning just one or two major legislative achievements?
Anyway, since John Kerry seems to think he should be elected based upon his four months of service in Vietnam, then an analysis of that record should be in order. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that service in Vietnam qualifies John Kerry to be President, yet cry foul when someone actually disagrees with some of what John Kerry claims to have happened in Vietnam.
The latest item of interest relates to the "Christmas in Cambodia" story. For years John Kerry has remarked about his "vivid" memories of being on patrol 5 miles inside of the Cambodian border. Some interesting points about this time can be found on NRO at http://nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp
A few things strike me about the "Christmas in Cambodia" story. For years John Kerry has talked about how this time was seared into his memory. He has made comments about this experience in the Boston Herald in 1979, on the Senate floor in 1986, and in the Michael Kranish biography. Now that the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php have come out with an ad and a new book, the story about Cambodia is now changing. Kerry advisor Jeh Johnson now states that John Kerry had a mistaken recollection about the events. This is strange. For years John Kerry talked about the event in vivid detail. Now the event that was so important to him that he talked about it numerous times is incorrect?
A side note: In one of his talks about his experience in Cambodia in 1968 he mentions that it was at a time that Nixon claimed there were no troops in Cambodia. We know that Nixon did indeed send troops into Cambodia. However the problem with this story is that Nixon was elected in 1968, but did not take office until January of 1969. Not only does John Kerry's old story glorify his achievements, but at the same time provides an example of how bad those pesky Republicans are. Not bad...one story...two important points...Kerry good...Repbulicans bad.
Unfortunately once again it appears that John Kerry is fast and loose with the truth. He tells a story or takes a position that benefits him. When the political winds change or someone can point out a flaw in his story, John Kerry's position or story changes again.
Most of the press has come out against the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ad and the new book "Unfit For Command" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260174/103-7503936-2106248. Instead of looking at the charges, they simply dismiss the group as Republican partisan hacks. In light of the ever changing John Kerry stories, doesn't the mainstream press have an obligation to stop attacking the Swift Boat Vets personally and start checking out their stories. If the stories are incorrect, let us all know so we can condemn the Swift Boat Vets. If they are correct we need to ask John Kerry about the inconsistencies?
Another question comes to mind. Why is it that when some vets stand up with John Kerry, go to the convention and/or out on the campaign trail the press treats them as non-partisan vets? Yet when another (larger group) of vets attacks the positions of John Kerry they are partisan. Why does one group get a free pass from the press while the other is vilified? Why does the press do this? What is the standard they use to determine that a group that travels around the country with John Kerry is non-partisan, while the other group is not?
The public has a right to know the truth.
We are waiting...
Quick quiz to our readers: How many legislative accomplishments of John Kerry can you name? If you are having trouble coming up with a list, how about mentioning just one or two major legislative achievements?
Anyway, since John Kerry seems to think he should be elected based upon his four months of service in Vietnam, then an analysis of that record should be in order. It is intellectually dishonest to claim that service in Vietnam qualifies John Kerry to be President, yet cry foul when someone actually disagrees with some of what John Kerry claims to have happened in Vietnam.
The latest item of interest relates to the "Christmas in Cambodia" story. For years John Kerry has remarked about his "vivid" memories of being on patrol 5 miles inside of the Cambodian border. Some interesting points about this time can be found on NRO at http://nationalreview.com/kerry/kerryspot.asp
A few things strike me about the "Christmas in Cambodia" story. For years John Kerry has talked about how this time was seared into his memory. He has made comments about this experience in the Boston Herald in 1979, on the Senate floor in 1986, and in the Michael Kranish biography. Now that the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth http://swift1.he.net/~swiftvet/index.php have come out with an ad and a new book, the story about Cambodia is now changing. Kerry advisor Jeh Johnson now states that John Kerry had a mistaken recollection about the events. This is strange. For years John Kerry talked about the event in vivid detail. Now the event that was so important to him that he talked about it numerous times is incorrect?
A side note: In one of his talks about his experience in Cambodia in 1968 he mentions that it was at a time that Nixon claimed there were no troops in Cambodia. We know that Nixon did indeed send troops into Cambodia. However the problem with this story is that Nixon was elected in 1968, but did not take office until January of 1969. Not only does John Kerry's old story glorify his achievements, but at the same time provides an example of how bad those pesky Republicans are. Not bad...one story...two important points...Kerry good...Repbulicans bad.
Unfortunately once again it appears that John Kerry is fast and loose with the truth. He tells a story or takes a position that benefits him. When the political winds change or someone can point out a flaw in his story, John Kerry's position or story changes again.
Most of the press has come out against the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth ad and the new book "Unfit For Command" http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260174/103-7503936-2106248. Instead of looking at the charges, they simply dismiss the group as Republican partisan hacks. In light of the ever changing John Kerry stories, doesn't the mainstream press have an obligation to stop attacking the Swift Boat Vets personally and start checking out their stories. If the stories are incorrect, let us all know so we can condemn the Swift Boat Vets. If they are correct we need to ask John Kerry about the inconsistencies?
Another question comes to mind. Why is it that when some vets stand up with John Kerry, go to the convention and/or out on the campaign trail the press treats them as non-partisan vets? Yet when another (larger group) of vets attacks the positions of John Kerry they are partisan. Why does one group get a free pass from the press while the other is vilified? Why does the press do this? What is the standard they use to determine that a group that travels around the country with John Kerry is non-partisan, while the other group is not?
The public has a right to know the truth.
We are waiting...
posted by Predator Intelligence at 08:50
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home