Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Kerry Slams the Troops, Democrat Moonbat Tries to Justify with Jessica Lynch

October 31, 2006

Yes, you read the title correctly. Believe it or not, some poor misled moonbat over on the radical far left discussion board Democratic Underground is actually using the forgotten Jessica Lynch to prove John Kerry’s words denigrating our Military (You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq) are true.

If they weren't serious over there, I would think this is outrageously funny. But, sad to say, they are totally serious in every effort to justify anything done by any Democrat.

From the post, in describing Ms. Lynch, we read: “ A poor West Virginia girl who dreamed of becoming a school teacher but knew she could never afford college on her own so she joined the Army to take advantage of the educational benefits to improve herself.”

Palestine West Virginia, where Lynch was born and raised, is and has been an economically repressed community, as much of West Virginia is. Located about 70 miles north of Charleston, Palestine is a farming community which at the time had a 15 percent unemployment rate. Reflecting a holdover from the Clinton era and sadly, advertised by former Top Army Brass, Lynch decided to enlist in the Army to take advantage of Educational Benefits instead of enlisting out of a sense of duty and honor to country.

Her father said, "We might have been able to pay for college, but it would have been rough. The Army offered her what she wanted." Who, except the wealthiest, haven’t faced the tight times of children in college? The Army is hardly the only hope for our youth. Student loans, scholarships, the old fashioned working are but a few methods that have put many a person through college, without joining the Army.

It should also be noted that Lynch enlisted on July 20, 2001 and departed for basic training two months later, presumably after the September 11, 2001 attacks. Anyone enlisting after September 11 that didn’t realize there was a good prospect for war wasn’t paying much attention.

Back to the DU post: “ Well, it just turns out that John was telling a truth we already knew. And what is that truth?

That if you didn't happen to win the "lucky sperm contest", there are very few opportunities out there for you to ever improve your lot in life. And unfortunately one of the few, very few, paths out of poverty and circumstance is the United States Military. So if you DO happen to drop out of college, and need to find a job capable of supporting a family at some level above poverty, one of the few paths available is military and eventually that path leads to Iraq.”

To be kind to ‘ewagner,’ the poster of this tripe, WHAT UTTER RUBBISH!!!

Lynch followed the misguided holdovers from the Clinton era in expecting an easy way to college. Too many enlisted during the Clinton years expecting a Social Club, not Military Service. Instead of trying to work her way through college, or getting a student loan or even trying for a scholarship, she chose the easy way, joining the ‘job corps’ Army. But, she entered active duty after 9/11 and was sent off to Iraq where her substandard training left her ill-equipped for the combat duties she found herself embroiled in, also thanks to the Clinton era in lowering training standards to accommodate more women as well the 1994 Clinton Administration lifting the 'risk rule,' which in effect let women take military positions where they might come under enemy fire or be captured.

I don’t fault Lynch; she was following what she had been taught in the 8 years of the Clinton administration. I do fault ‘ewagner’ for not doing the homework necessary to see that Kerry’s ludicrous remarks, “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq,” have absolutely nothing to do with the tragic circumstance Jessica Lynch found herself in.

It also has nothing to do with the Bush administration as she enlisted in July of 2001, 6 months into the Bush administration and entered active duty in September, 8 months into the new administration, when he was still trying to get his administration nominees approved through Congress with many hostile Democrats who started opposing him the day he was sworn in.

‘ewagner’ concludes, “Jessica Lynch was one a prime example of this terrible truth. And somehow or another, we've forgotten that....we've forgotten that Jessica is, an was, one of the first victims of George W. Bush's new America....

Sorry, no dice. Jessica Lynch was not victimized by the Bush administration. If she were victimized by any administration it would be Clinton’s as he lowered training standards and placed women in dangerous situations without the proper training to defend themselves.

As a Viet Nam Veteran, even though I was primarily a Helicopter Mechanic, I was trained to fend off attacks from the enemy. I was qualified in shooting the M-16, taught ambush defense tactics and prepared for where I was going to be sent, Viet Nam. We all were, even cooks and company clerks, we had to be able to defend our perimeter should ‘Charlie’ decide to come through. Without that training, I might not be here writing this today.

This post on Democratic Underground is just another sad and pitiful attempt at defending the indefensible. Kerry’s words, regardless of what he may have meant, were out of line and uncalled for. I thought the left were the “sensitive” men unafraid of apologizing.

Apparently, that doesn’t include Senator John ‘F’in Kerry.


Monday, October 30, 2006

Once Again, Kerry Trashes the Troops

October 30, 2006

John Kerry, rumored Viet Nam Veteran, once again fails to place his brain in gear before placing his mouth in motion. In a speech Kerry reportedly gave today on behalf of Phil Angelides on KFI 640AM in L.A. Kerry said, “You know, education, if you make the most of it, if you study hard and you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, uh, you, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Like others, I have not seen or heard the entire speech to see if somehow he tried to nuance this slam against our Brave Troops, but the words speak for themselves.

Kerry has a history of mispeaking without any regard for how the words may impact those entrusted in the security and defense of America. From his 1971 "testimony" before the Fulbright anti-war commission, later in his speech, he said, "there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America….."

Who were the "murderers?" Only the troops, those of us who spent our youth there, were representing the United States of America. Viet Nam Veterans are the only ones he could mean were "murderers."

Supporting this view is more words he spoke during that "testimony." He also said, "The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence….."

Monsters? We are "monsters" to him? And now, the troops are lazy uneducated hicks?

The thought that this loser came within a hairbreadth's of the Presidency makes my skin crawl.

You may not like George W. Bush, but you will never find any examples of him speaking against our troops in such a cavalier fashion.

Clearly, these people he represents cannot be entrusted running the country while we are facing the terrorist threat before us today.


Clinton Lies, Kerry Cries

October 30, 2006

With mid-term elections just days away, the Democrats, hoping to re-grab power in Washington D.C. are sparing no expense and pulling no punches, thinking they have the Republicans on the ropes. Listening to our lamestream media one would think Democrats are shoe-in next week, but seeing the pleas coming in my email, apparently even the Democrats can see it isn’t a slam dunk, like they wish.

Today is another one of those days I received two emails pleading for donations and slamming Republicans. One was from former President and prominent draft dodger and womanizer, B.J. Clinton. The other was from failed 2004 Presidential candidate, John ‘F’in Kerry (who is rumored to have once served in Viet Nam).

From Clinton’s plea, we read, “We cannot continue in the same direction that we have been going for these last five and a half years. The extreme ideological approach of the Republican leadership in Washington is spectacularly ill-suited to face the challenges of today and tomorrow. We need a Democratic majority to take us in a new direction.”

Just what “new direction” would that be? The same direction he placed the country in during his 8 years of acting like a President? Where he ignored terrorism and played with a White House intern? Where he obstructed justice in probes of his own misconduct, lying and being impeached by the House of Representatives for lying under oath? Maybe where he cut defense and intelligence spending, reduced the size and capability of our Military while deploying them more than Presidents before them, ordering them to run away like dogs with their tails between their legs when attacked and bodies of our brave fighting men were drug through the streets? Maybe he means another massive tax increase on all Americans, not just the wealthy, as they so fond of claiming, stifling economic growth, preventing minority Americans from attaining the American Dream of owning a home.

That is just a small portion of what we saw during his Presidency and given the chance, Democrats will bring us back to that, while we are at war!

He continues, “It's as simple as this: a small group of the Republican Party controls Washington. It is the most right-wing, radical, special-interest-dominated segment of their party.”

I wonder why he doesn’t name this “small group of the most right-wing, radical, special-interest-dominated Republicans?” Surely, since he speaks of them, he can identify them.

He neglects to mention that if Democrats return to power, it will be a case of “a small group of the Democrat Party controlling Washington. The most left-wing, radical, special-interest-dominated segment of their party.” Power would be placed in the hands of Democrats like Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy, Rangel, Conyers, Feinstein, Waxman, Hastings, Reid and others. These left-leaning Democrats have repeatedly voted against nearly every measure President Bush has tried to install to protect America, after the devastating attacks of September 11, 2001. They have filibustered Judicial Nominations, a U.N. Ambassador and demanded captured detainees be treated with dignity, respect and with kid-gloves, preventing them from possibly giving up information on future plans for terrorist attacks.

Clinton carries on, “These people believe they already have all the answers, and, therefore, differences of opinions are irrelevant. That is why they govern and campaign on an ethos of divide and conquer.”

Previously, I posted about an email as these I received today, one from B.J. Clinton received on September 27, 2006, titled, “The Difference Between Us and Them.” Who is actually trying to “divide and conquer?” Ever since President Bush won the tightly contested election in 2000 and again in 2004, we have been inundated with messages of incompetence, lies, special interests, corruption and on and on and on, nearly every single day by Democrats and their willing accomp0lices in the lamestream media.

I even challenged the left to show me some pro-Bush articles from the lamestream media since he took office in January 2001 to prove the media isn’t biased against him. One person thought of the 2004 Times Man of the Year, which went to George W. Bush. That’s it, one article, in 6 years. To count the anti-Bush tirades I would need help from my calculator. But, Clinton can now claim it is Republicans trying to “divide and conquer?” I don’t think so!

Clinton adds, “Look at their "stay the course" policy on Iraq and Afghanistan. Look at their insistence on cutting taxes for the wealthiest Americans, while adding $3 trillion to the national debt. Look at their energy and Medicare policies, which leave middle-class families struggling, while the oil and drug companies see record profits. Look at their refusal to raise the minimum wage, and their cuts in college aid.”

Democrats seem to think throwing out the catchy phrase “staying the course” shows Bush isn’t facing the challenges of the War in Iraq and Afghanistan. Quite the contrary, “stay the course” actually means finish the mission, reducing terrorism to an ineffective group of crybabies again, not a force of radicals hell-bent on world domination.

He speaks the common Democrat lie of “tax cuts to the wealthy,” an open attempt at class envy between Americans. Speak of “divide and conquer.” I don’t know about you, but I received that tax cut as well. I’m far from wealthy, just an everyday average blue collar worker who will never see any wealth if Democrats continue taking so much of my paycheck to give away to their “special interest groups.”

Let’s look the “energy and Medicare policies.” It’s been Democrats blocking all efforts at drilling for oil in known large oil reserves in Alaska and off the coast. It is they who have refused to allow refineries to be built to process oil into gasoline. And Medicare? Seems to me more people are using than ever before, especially since Bush raised and added the prescription benefit as he did. Of course, in more attempts at class envy, he can’t resist taking a shot at “oil and drug company profits.” He fails to mention most of their profits come from overseas investments and operations. Then again, isn’t it drug companies they are fighting so hard to receive federal money for embryonic stem cell research? This, so far, has shown no positive outcome to help disadvantaged people needing medical help. Why do they need more money while the Democrats are complaining they have too much?

And finally, “refusal to raise minimum wage?” BWAHAHAHA!!!!! Did he miss it being the Democrats that refused to vote for the last projected increase because they might have to reduce the death tax on estates of people who have left something for their survivors?

Clinton concludes, “They have certainly shown us what they're capable of.”

Yes, Mr. Clinton, they have and so have you and your cronies in the Democrat party. That’s why Congress has been under Republican control since 1994 and also why President Bush has been elected twice. God help the nation should you succeed in your subterfuge of misleading the sheeple into believing there are so bad off. You don’t mention that home ownership is at an all time high, unemployment is the lowest in decades and budget deficit is lower than it has been for a very long time, in the middle of a war! Things are a lot better for America then when you ran the country, B.J. Clinton.

John Kerry (suspected of being a Viet Nam veteran) chimes in, stumping for his favored few, “In the NH-01 district, Carol Shea-Porter has mobilized an army of active, fired-up volunteers to take on an attack campaign run by a close ally of Karl Rove. And in NH-02, Democrat Paul Hodes is facing a merciless barrage of special interest-funded attack ads.”

Once again, we see some “unnamed” ally of a Republican, as if they are a big secret and revealing their names might be offensive. So what is a friend of Karl Rove helps a candidate? You can’t tell me that screaming Louisianan James Carville doesn’t have friends helping others and that he isn’t helping campaigns himself. With his red-faced demeanor and constant screaming and intimidation, Democrats should be scared of him, should they cross his path, not soft spoken Karl Rove.

I just love it when they claim “special interest-funded attack ads.” What does the recent gaff released on TV by Michael J. Fox qualify as? He admitted he hasn’t even read the bill he is stumping for and we should listen to him? He and the have kept the lies of Rush Limbaugh’s comments about his own actions in that ad going, knowing full well that what was said in the ad was a lie. Even if he didn’t know it was a lie, it has been exposed and he doesn’t retract anything he said. Another example of pot calling the kettle black.

Kerry continues, “Our third candidate is Iowa's Leonard Boswell, who is facing more than $1 million in attacks from a group with direct links to the people who funded the Swift Boat attacks of 2004.”

Still sore over former shipmates and others that served either with him or alongside of him and then exposing him for the phony and opportunist he is, Kerry tries to convince voters that the Swift vets were funded by Republicans. Well hello, Kerry, Democrats wouldn’t be expected to donate money to them, would they? Yes, an initial very generous donation was made to get them started. After that, their funds were backed by little people like yours truly. Literally thousands of devoted Americans stood up and sent what we could afford to get their message out and stop Kerry from seeing the view of the Oval Office from behind the President’s desk.

That’s called a “grassroots” movement, Kerry. Not only legal, but a first in my lifetime that so many, Veteran and non, that came forward opposing one we all saw was not going to make America better. Instead of always whining, why not make your entire Military Jacket, un-sanitized, available to the entire public? Why won’t you allow the scrutiny of your record, as you demanded of President Bush’s? Questions were raised and still remain unanswered because your refuse to make your records public.

From these 2 emails I have to conclude the “slam dunk” next Tuesday isn’t as secure as they think. Once again, Democrats rely on obfuscation and disinformation to make their candidates appear as conservatives while they bash conservatism. That is the only way Democrats can get elected, though, pretending to have some conservative values, just as the bulk of America has.

Time to wake up, America. Democrats are once again trying to mislead you to return them to power. You want outrageous taxes again? You want to be forced to drive less and in a tin box? You want a return to the draft? You want even more gridlock in Washington, while we are at war? Do you want to see the brave sacrifice of our fighting people besmirched and go for naught, again? Then, vote for Democrats.

As for me, I’ll vote for real Americans, conservatives. Hopefully, they can show the RINOs either the error of their ways, or the door.


Sunday, October 29, 2006

Nancy Pelosi, Too Liberal for America

October 29, 2006

In an article today (click the title to access the article) Robert Caldwell has very adequately exposed the very left leanings of Nancy Pelosi (D. Ca.). For some time, I and many conservatives have been speaking out tying to show the country just what damage this woman could do should the Democrat Party regain political power in Washington D.C. in the upcoming mid-year elections.

In the article, Mr. Caldwell says, “Pelosi is fond of deflecting the “San Francisco Democrat” charge by noting that as a mother and grandmother, she's hardly the left-wing icon figure her critics allege.”

I am a Father and Grandfather as well. That fact affords one nothing! It does not take my conservatism away from me or hide it. On the contrary, I am proud of my conservative values. If, as Ms. Pelosi does, one needs to hide their political leanings and deflect attention from their values, or lack thereof, could it be that even she realizes her values are against what America stands for? Do we really want someone third in line for the Presidency that isn’t up front about their values, or lack thereof?

Caldwell goes on to say, “Less than a year after 9/11, Pelosi said publicly that she didn't consider the United States at war. This year, she said that national security should not be a campaign issue in the 2006 midterm elections.”

Am I the only one that can see the glaring danger in her attitude? Maybe she doesn’t consider us at war, but we are. National Security is a very big issue and one that September 11, 2001 should have taught us all. There is a very gruesome enemy in the Middle East with operative freely roaming within our borders just waiting for the chance to another massive attack. This enemy, radical Islamofascism, desires to dominate the entire world with their misguided and highly oppressive version of Islam. And, Ms. Pelosi doesn’t think we are at war or that national Security is an issue?

Says Caldwell, “Pelosi voted repeatedly against the counterterrorism Patriot Act, opposed creation of the Department of Homeland Security and voted against a resolution condemning the leak of the National Security Agency's highly classified program for monitoring terrorist communications.”

I guess since we are not at war, by Pelosi’s misguided thoughts, we don’t need the measures to prevent another 9/11. Makes me wonder if she even realizes nearly 3,000 citizens lost their lives that day to radical Muslims.

All potential appointments she wants would end up raising taxes, not just on the wealthy, but on us all. Two she wants in leadership positions, Conyers and Rangle, are the only two Congressmen to propose and try to pass a new Military draft, forcing people against their will to serve in our Military, something even the Military doesn’t wish at this time.

Her and her cronies have repeatedly voted against appropriations for our Intelligence agencies, actually reducing the size and scope of them early on in the Clinton administration. Maybe that is why warnings of 9/11 were missed.

She denies they will try to impeach George Bush once she is in power, something that her past words have clearly indicated she does desire. Can the country afford this direction while we have people fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan in a war she says doesn’t exist? Can the last two years of his administration be so distracted that we lose even more brave troops and actually lose the War on Terror, inviting more radicals to attack us within our shores again?

She blasts Bush on border security, and rightfully so, I think. But what of her own party? What have they done during their 40 year tenure in control of Congress to secure the borders and ebb the tide of illegal immigrants? Isn’t it the Democrats that have told Illegals to vote for them so they can continue receiving benefits from Social Security when they haven’t paid in a dime? She has no room to complain but instead should standing with Bush to curtail this massive invasion of Illegals.

Caldwell closes his article with, “Most of Nancy Pelosi's Democrats are too liberal for the country. Worse yet, they would be decidedly weak in protecting national security in a time of war. That ought to be a determining factor for voters about to make some fateful choices.”

How very true. We cannot afford to vote in someone that desires to see the downfall of our country while claiming to be patriotic.

I urge any who are considering voting Democrat to rethink your position. America cannot afford the likes of Nancy Pelosi having such a powerful position within our government. While Mr. Caldwell says she is just too liberal, I think she is just too subversive as well as hypocritical.

She and her husband own a NAPA Valley vineyard. She says that labor unions are vital to negotiating good wages and working conditions. She won the Cesar Chavez award from the United Farmworkers Union in 2003. However, in the vineyard owned by her and her husband, they will not use members of the United Farmworkers Union, they hire only non-Union employees. In the hotel and restaurants they co-own, once again, non-union employees. Can we afford someone so hypocritical who would be just as hypocritical in her leadership?

In a September email received from her, she said, “I promise you that we will not be intimidated for one second by this despicable attempt by the White House to scare Americans.” Since when is warning of terrorists considered despicable? Once again, she shows that 9/11 was nothing to her and she would set us up for a repeat.

In a June 2005 speech addressing a Bush speech, she said, “The President missed an opportunity tonight for straight talk to the American people. He would have done more to honor the sacrifices of the brave men and women of the All-American Division before whom he spoke had he given all Americans specifics about a strategy for success in Iraq.”

Can you see the dangerous fallacy here? If we state our strategy outwardly, the terrorists also hear it and can counter it. And, Pelosi thinks we should give our plans to our enemies? Is she nuts?

Clearly, as I have said many times and now as Robert Caldwell as joined in on, Nancy Pelosi is not right for America. Her party, Liberal Democrats, is not right for America.

We cannot afford these people running our country ever again.


Saturday, October 28, 2006

Dixie Chicks, Shut Up and Post; Where They Whine About Their Freedom of Speech, But Restrict Yours.

October 28, 2006

To date, I have mostly stayed out of the fray over the Dipsie Chicks poor choice of bashing President Bush while performing in England. Frankly, I thought it a poor choice but they were exercising their freedom of speech. They have that right and even though I disagree with them, support their rights also.

Had they just shut up and said nothing more, it all would have blown over, I feel. For whatever reason, they could not do that. Once they incensed their fan base by spitting (figuratively) on their values and trust, they just kept egging everything on, making more anti-war comments, bashing Bush more and further alienating their fans.

Then, to make matters even worse, after their sales and concerts fell off, they started complaining they were being denied their constitutional right to free speech, even further alienating their now former fans.

Our freedom of speech is granted us by the first amendment to our Constitution, which says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. “

Last I heard Congress or the Bush administration has not made any move restricting their right to speak out, even in opposition to them. So, who has the audacity to be violating the Dipsie Chicks rights?

Me and you, that’s who. Networks that refuse to play their records, concerts or newly released “documentary,” Shut Up and Sing,” title stolen from right wing radio host, Laura Ingraham. Are we really restricting their freedoms, though? HELL NO, we aren’t.

These spoiled little girls think they are impervious to their own actions. Sorry, but along with freedom of speech comes responsibility. In addition to being individuals, they are also a business with a responsibility to their fans, customers, if you will. As with any business, if you disappoint your customers, they stop buying your product. It’s that simple.

No other business I know of complains their rights are being violated when they run their customers off, except for the Dipsie Chicks.

Along with the release of this alleged “documentary,” wherein they claim to have been the “Top Selling Female Band of All Time,” they have placed a blog for others to comment, Shut Up and Post. What I find totally ironic there is that after I registered and made three comments, unlike either at this blog, FreeRepublic, or HotAir, right winged blog sites I also visit and make comments at, none of my comments appear right away, as yours do here or at the other sites I frequent.

Is it possible that while the Dipsie Chicks complain their freedom of speech is violated because fans don’t buy their garbage any longer, or because networks don’t give them air time and radio stations won’t play their songs, they actively restrict others freedom of speech on their blog site? Are they moderating comments there, while claiming they are moderated? Once again, the glaring hypocrisy of the leftist shines brightly for all to see.

Sorry girls, but you can’t have it both ways. If you expect to stay on top, after violating the trust of your fan base, but restrict others comments, you will remain the bimbos you have become noted as.

Fans have every right to purchase what they wish and not to purchase from those who offend them. That is not violating your freedoms, it is others exercising theirs.

Get over yourselves, girls, you really aren’t all that important.


UPDATE: A little over 3 hours, and comments showed up. Why the lag time, girls?

UPDATE: Apparently, someone realized something over there. Comments now are appearing immediately, as elsewhere. Still, why was it originally set up that way?

Yes, I realize none of the girls are sitting at a computer running this thing, but they did approve their name being used there. Makes me wonder.

Friday, October 27, 2006

Where Do Democrats Stand?

October 27, 2006

Less than 2 weeks left before ballots are collected, tallied and hopefully, not subjected to endless recounts to favor one party stealing an election, and what do we still hear? The Government is Broken. Bush is a failure. Allen is a racist. McGavick will privatize Social Security. Irey’s husband made money off of the Iraq War. Republicans hate Blacks and gays, but have them secretly in the party. Foley is corrupt, so that makes every Republican corrupt. DeLay is indicted and in politics, that’s as good as convicted.

DeLay can’t remove himself from the ballot to let someone else run, after he resigned, because Democrats sued to force his name to stay on, giving them an decidedly strong advantage, running against someone who resigned and is not running, or so they think.

In Florida, a simple sign to inform voters that voting for Foley is actually a vote for his replacement, state Sen. Joe Negron, is blocked in court by the Democrat party. Isn’t this the same party that in the 2000 Gore grab for the electoral votes complained that voters couldn’t tell just for sure who they were voting for? Now, they block efforts to let voters know who they are actually voting for.

Fortunately, just today, an appeals court ruled that election workers could pass out signs to voters listing all of the candidates

Also received in today’s mail is a flyer from the Washington State Democratic Central Committee bashing challenger to Democrat Maria Cantwell, Mike McGavick, over his tenure with Safeco, once failing Insurance Company that he lead out of near bankruptcy. Imagine, he saved a multi-billion dollar company and got a bonus for that! Maybe Democrats would be happier had he let the company fail and everyone working for Safeco lost their jobs?

Candidates try to inject issues into the campaign and in return, they find themselves shielding mud pies thrown at them, with no mention of issues at all. In the Cantwell McGavick campaign, we see Mike always mentioning his stand on pertinent issues while the Cantwell camp can only try to say she took tough stands and McGavick took a large bonus for saving a major Pacific Northwest company from bankruptcy.

On a more personal note, I do not hesitate in contacting my Representatives over matters I feel important. Even in disagreement, I have always received a kind reply from 2 of them. To date, I have NEVER received any reply from Maria Cantwell’s office. And, I should vote for her?

There are many issues pending this election that could have a major impact on our future. The Tax Breaks that have spurred our economy to the success we see today, although listening to Democrat challengers, one might think it a depression we are in. The War on Terror, particularly in Iraq. Other than Bush is incompetent and should be impeached, he’s a liar, a fraud, not elected, and such, what solution have they proposed? Abandoning another ally in their time of need, again?

Is that the Democrats plan to honor nearly 3,000 fallen heroes? Abandon Iraq and let Al Qaeda have it? Stop supporting the Iraqi people and let them fall into disarray? Cut off support for Israel, another fledgling country that is surrounded by enemies?

We also have a flood of illegal immigration facing us today that quite frankly, neither party has been responsive to for decades now. After 9/11, we cannot afford to keep allowing the influx flooding our borders to continue, considering some potential terrorists have also crossed with simple farm workers seeking work. Where do Democrats stand there?

Where are they on National Security, in light of the devastating attacks we suffered just five years ago? Can we afford to place control in those who bragged about killing the Patriot Act, the law passed to give our law enforcement and intelligence people the tools needed to discover and prevent another terrorist attack?

How about our energy needs? They also complain about dependence on foreign oil. Yet, when announcements are made of unusually large oil reserved discovered within out own land, do they support drilling it? Do they support building more refineries to process that oil into gasoline, the same gas they were complaining was costing too much recently?

With the institution of marriage being eroded away, do they stand to protect it or further erode it away? Do they wish to see our National Flag protected or are they pleased to see it burned in protest? Will they support English being our National language or persist in the bilingualism that ends up costing more and more in taxes to print and broadcast in several languages instead of just one?

Will unborn babies continue to be slaughtered by the droves, out of convenience and without parents being notified if it is there underage daughter? Will they take a stand to stop paying Social Security benefits to those that are in our country illegally?

You see, there are several important issues actually facing the country today. In the case of the Republican challenger to Democrat incumbent, Maria Cantwell, I know where he stands; he speaks his values and thoughts. From Cantwell, as with several other Democrats, I get a song and dance about some program they may have played a small hand in and eventually, get to hear how incompetent Bush and Republicans in general are.

If they are really all that incompetent, we voters will see that and will vote for someone else. If we see they are doing well for the country, we will vote to either retain them or replace an incumbent Democrat with them. We are entitled to know where each candidate stands on the issues. How else may we make an intelligent decision and vote according to our conscience?

Maybe that is what the Democrats are hopeful of, that we won’t notice it is actually they who are incompetent and deserve to be out of power, as they have been the past 12 years.

One thing we don’t need is to receive a reply to a pertinent question on important issues of, “well, the Republicans are corrupt and incompetent.” Try telling us how you stand, for a change.


Monday, October 23, 2006

Iraq, Viet Nam Again?

October 23, 2006

Much has been said since we first invaded Iraq to depose the Saddam Hussein regime, comparing it to the War in Viet Nam. According to the left, we are mired in another Viet Nam. Ted Kennedy claims it is George Bush’s Viet Nam. John Kerry, rumored Viet Nam Veteran and self proclaimed hero, lauds it as “Wrong War, Wrong Time, Wrong Place,” during his failed bid for the Presidency. Protestors even chant the same swill they chanted during their youthful but misled protests against our fight in Viet Nam.

It is my fear that if the left regains power or succeeds to forcing the President to cower once again to an enemy, Iraq will have a much worse outcome than we saw in Viet Nam. To begin with, some history on the Viet Nam conflict, also wrongfully labeled as just a civil war.

Viet Nam’s struggles between North and South date as far back as 207 BC. Without addressing the lengthy history of that time, I’ll just say that the French became involved in the ongoing fighting in the 1700s and installed Colonial Rule. Other than the years under Japanese occupation, the French pretty much ruled Viet Nam. After the massive defeat the French suffered in Dien Bein Phu, they decided enough and began withdrawing after a cease-fire was signed in Geneva.

Elections mandated between the North and South in the cease-fire were to take place within two years, but never did. Ho Chi Minh, already a staunch Communist, had been installed as leader in the North while Bo Dai was installed in the South. Diem was brought back by emperor Bo Dai as Prime Minister and through strong-arm tactics, became the “elected” President in 1955, defeating Bo Dai. Diem proved he wasn’t going to be a “puppet” ruler, doing things his way.

Several reasons have been given for the elections not taking place. One was the massive influx of refugees, some 850,000, from the North to the South after Communist rule was installed. The South, which had not signed the Geneva Accords, did not feel the Communists in the North would allow fair elections. In January 1957, the International Control Commission (ICC), comprising observers from India, Poland, and Canada, agreed with this perception, reporting that neither South nor North Vietnam had honored the armistice agreement.

The U.S. aligned itself with South Viet Nam under Diem in a continuance of our opposition to the spread of Communism. Diem was neither a puppet of the US nor a very fair leader. We protected him from assassination attempts up until the time he, being part of the minority Catholic ruling class, began oppressing the majority Buddhists, resulting in the now famous scenes of Buddhist Monks setting themselves on fire. Through the CIA, Kennedy decided to stop protecting Diem and allowed the CIA to encourage a coup de tat to oust Diem from power. He did not expect Diem and his brother to be assassinated, as they were.

America’s entire involvement was designed to stop the spread of Communism, as the majority of the South Vietnamese indicated they didn’t desire. Viet Minh, later the Viet Cong, originally opposed to the French, became aligned with the Northern Communists in a shaky alliance with the Viet Cong eventually being decimated and made largely ineffective in the Tet of ’68 offensive. Viet Cong wished to be the ruling party in the South, the North wished to make all of Viet Nam Communist. Viet Cong were actually very small in number compared to the South Vietnamese Army and could never have achieved their goal by themselves. They were sort of parallel, but with different goals.

Our concern was to first bolster the French Forces, supporting them but staying out of the fight, to counter strong opposition they were receiving from the French Communist Party. After they left, our concern became preventing a Communist take over of the country, enslaving the peoples. A look at the massive deaths and the slipping into Communism by surrounding countries, as well as the massive “Boat People” evacuations of the late 1970s and early 1980s bears witness to what we were trying to prevent.

I urge all to seek out some of the Vietnamese “Boat People” that made it to our shores and ask them about it all. Who better knows than they?

It was never a civil war, as portrayed by mostly Communist supporters and sympathizers. It was outright aggression by Communist forces that cost us 58,000 souls and untold millions more from them and the South Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians and more.

Preventing the spread of oppressive Communism was as much our concern as is standing up to radical Islam terrorists today that desires world domination under their perverted view. Like WW2, we are going to have to fight them wherever they may be or wherever their support may come from.

A suggested book to read. “Unheralded Victory” by Mark W. Woodruff. It has one of the best backgrounds to the Viet Nam conflict I have ever read. He also details most all of the major battles. I don’t necessarily agree with all of his conclusions afterwards, but his research into the history of it all is meticulous.

As in every other war, there were opposers from the start. In Viet Nam, the opposers, who happened to be more leftists than anything other, received a huge boost in the arm on February 27, 1968, when Walter Cronkite announced about the Tet of ’68 Offensive launched by the North Vietnamese, “To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in a stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion.”

Apparently unbeknownst to Mr. Cronkite, the North Vietnamese Forces were soundly defeated. Their forces were decimated and the Viet Cong nearly ceased to exist. General Vo Nguyen Giap, Commanding General of North Vietnamese Forces and Defense Minister, is reported to have been considering negotiating a surrender. Although there is much speculation on the veracity of this thought (as claimed) relegating it to the status of Urban Legend by the anti-war left but embraced by others, sources have come forward now indicating there is a distinct possibility of it being factual.

On page 38 of the October 2005 edition of VIETNAM magazine, there is an interview with retired North Vietnamese General Nguyen Duc Huy where he is asked, “After the war, Giap told a group of Western reporters that Communist losses in the Tet Offensive [of 1968] were so devastating that if the American forces had kept up that level of Military pressure much longer North Vietnam would have been forced to negotiate a peace on American terms. Do you agree?”

General Huy replied, “If the American army had fought some more, had continued, I don’t know. Maybe. I can’t say what would have happened.”

Along these same lines, we have the August 3, 1995 Wall Street journal account of the interview with Colonel Bui Tin. When asked what the purpose of the Tet Offensive was, he replied, “To relieve the pressure Gen. Westmoreland was putting on us in late 1966 and 1967 and to weaken American resolve during a presidential election year.”

Asked about the results of the Tet Offensive, he said, “Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise;. Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election. The second and third waves in May and September were, in retrospect, mistakes. Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968. It took us until 1971 to re-establish our presence, but we had to use North Vietnamese troops as local guerrillas. If the American forces had not begun to withdraw under Nixon in 1969, they could have punished us severely. We suffered badly in 1969 and 1970 as it was.”

Obviously, Walter Cronkite was wrong as was the anti-war left of the time. In effect the opposition ended up costing us more than had we fought the war to a finish, which was possible. In American lives, it cost us nearly 40,000 more dead. The Vietnamese loss of life runs into the millions, both before and after our withdrawal and the surrender of Saigon.

Like Viet Nam, we have the same opposition and undermining of the war effort by Democrats. Whether we agree with the war or not, we are in it, we have troops in harm’s way and our enemy’s will fight us whether we face them there or here. It is said,”Nobody bothers to care what the cost was to the other population.” This time around, the left is failing to care what it is going to cost OUR population. The left fails to see that much of the anti-Americanism in the world is due to us abandoning allies when they need us most. Bay of Pigs, Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia, the First Gulf War, Rwanda, the list just grows as we allow our allies to languish and do not support them. We have the reputation of “Paper Tiger” and thanks to the left we earned it.

Several Democrats have vowed to launch investigation after investigation with the sole goal of impeachment, should they regain power. This is nothing more than childish tit for tat get back games. It would also mire our troops down in a real quagmire, as the President would be unable to properly focus on prosecuting the war. This alone could raise our casualty list considerably and if we just left, as many want us to do, we leave a vacuum that would most likely be filled by the Islamofascists, which would then result in untold death and casualties and enslavement of citizens of both Iraq and Afghanistan. My guess is the number would make the numbers we saw in Southeast Asia in the 1970s and 1980s pale in comparison.

We have others vowing to de-fund the war effort as well raise taxes again. Virtually everything the Democrat Party has vowed to do I see as detrimental to our country and to our troops in harm’s way.

Much like has been revealed by the North Vietnamese, fundamentalist Islamofascists are seeing they only need to wait us out once more and they can achieve victory, at a severe cost both to us and to our fledgling allies in Iraq and Afghanistan. This time, though, the cost will not only be bore by those in other countries, but by our citizens as well as the terrorists have shown they can easily breech our shores and their goal is not just to remove us from the Middle East, but to eliminate Western Culture as we know it.

The only correlation I see between Viet Nam and Iraq is how the leftist Democrats and lamestream media are attempting to sway public opinion against our fight there to eliminate terrorists and to give the Iraqi and Afghani peoples a good chance at choosing their own style of governing themselves.

As has been said, “if we leave, they will follow us.” Electing Democrats will accomplish that.


Sunday, October 22, 2006

GOP losses could spark partisan warfare

October 22, 2006

An interesting title Associated Press writer, Tom Raum, has chosen for this article. Reading it, one would almost assume we have been in a period of relative partisan peacefulness the past few years. Anyone that pays the least bit of attention knows this is not the case.

I think partisanship is at an all-time high already since George W. Bush won the 2000 election and Democrat candidate, Al Gore, failed in his bid to manipulate recounts in Florida to his advantage and take the states electoral votes for his own ascension to the office held by his former boss, B.J. Clinton.

In every way imaginable the Democrats have opposed, demonized and ridiculed the bush administration, stopping only briefly after the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001 to feign solidarity against Radical Muslim Terrorists.

The article opens with, “The White House is bracing for guerrilla warfare on the homefront politically if Republicans lose control of the House, the Senate or both — and with it, the president's ability to shape and dominate the national agenda.”

Seems to me that President Bush has been fighting to implement much of his agenda since he attained office, often facing opposition from some within his own political party, unaffectionately referred to as RINOs (Republicans in name only).

I don’t believe, as many conspiracy theorists do, that he went into office with a pre-conceived thought of having the war we are embroiled in currently. Honestly, I don’t even think a Democrat would have taken office with that goal in mind. Still, we lost nearly 3,000 of our citizens on 9/11 and looking back, have endured too many terrorist attacks since 1979, mostly against our interests abroad, but once before on our own soil. It’s pretty hard to shape an agenda when you are blind-sided by such an attack and loss of life and must respond.

Adding Iraq to the equation gave the Democrats fuel they were looking for to trump up charges of incompetence and neglect, while they constantly opposed every step taken there, after they even agreed on adding Iraq to the battle front.

Mirroring Viet Nam, our lamestream media joined forces with the left to oppose Iraq, often claiming it as a “quagmire,” and unnecessary. As we saw in Viet Nam, there is no good news or American heroes in this war, just criminals committing atrocities that would make John Kerry (rumored Viet Nam veteran and failed presidential candidate) proud.

Judicial nominations have been openly opposed and filibustered as was the nomination of John Bolton to be American Ambassador to the Useless Nations. His Ambassadorship had to be appointed through a recess appointment that will last only until the Congress reconvenes in January 2007 or he is re-nominated and confirmed.

As with this current article the lamestream media is having a field day with claims of dropping poll numbers and worries of the Republican Party hopefuls. Reading lately would make one feel there is no use in anyone going to vote for Republicans on November 7, the obvious goal of the left, to encourage conservatives to not vote and convince them all is lost. Reading comments from some conservative blog sites, it seems to be working. As Yogi Berra once said, though, “it ain’t over ‘til it’s over.”

Should Democrats pull this off next month, statements from them already point to what to expect. Harry Reid has bragged about killing the Patriot Act, the law that allows our intelligence and law enforcement to intercept and block terrorist acts before they happen. Charlie Rangle, potential head of the House Way and Means Committee and virulently opposed to the Iraq War, even though he co-sponsored a bill with John Conyers to reinstate the Military Draft of our young people, has threatened to cut off funding the war effort, once saying, “you can’t fight a war if you can’t pay for it.”

Democrat John Murtha, who has already accused U.S. Marines of committing “cold blooded murder,” advocates withdrawing our troops to Okinawa, some 6,000 miles away, to be a “rapid response element.” Most in the Democrat Part advocate granting Constitutional Rights to those we capture in the War on Terror including severely limited interrogations, which in the past has led us to terrorist leadership and exposed pending plans for new attacks. Additionally, they desire these same “detainees” be freed from Guantanamo Prison to be relocated somewhere else, possibly returned to the battlefield to kill more American Troops.

In addition, Democrats have some hopeful legislation they wish to pass should they regain Congressional Control. Among their desires are:

Department of Peace and Nonviolence Act -- H.R. 3760: Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) and 74 Democratic cosponsors propose a new "Department of Peace and Nonviolence" as well as "National Peace Day." Cosponsors include three would-be Democratic Chairmen: John Conyers (Judiciary), George Miller (Education and the Workforce), and Charlie Rangel (Ways and Means).

Gas Stamps -- H.R. 3712: Jim McDermott (D-WA) and eight Democratic cosponsors want a "Gas Stamps" program similar to the Food Stamps program to subsidize the gasoline purchases of qualified individuals.

Less Jail Time for Selling Crack Cocaine - H.R. 2456: Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and 23 Democratic cosponsors want to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for possessing, importing, and distributing crack cocaine. John Conyers, the would-be Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over the bill, is a cosponsor.

Voting Rights for Criminals - H.R. 1300: John Conyers (D-MI) and 32 Democratic cosponsors, and H.R. 663: Charlie Rangel (D-NY) and 28 Democratic cosponsors would let convicted felons vote. Rep. John Conyers is the would-be Democratic Chairman of the Judiciary Committee which would consider this legislation.

Expand Medicare to Include Diapers -- H.R. 1052: Barney Frank (D-MA) supports Medicare coverage of adult diapers. Barney Frank is the would-be Chairman of the Financial Services Committee.

Nationalized Health Care - H.R. 4683: John Dingell (D-MI) and 18 Democratic cosponsors want to expand Medicare to cover all Americans. John Dingell is the would-be Democratic Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee who along with cosponsors Charlie Rangel, would-be Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, and Henry Waxman, would-be Chairman of the Government Reform Committee, would have jurisdiction over the proposal.

Federal Regulation of Restaurant Menus -- H.R. 5563: Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and 25 Democratic cosponsors authorize federal regulation of the contents of restaurant menus.

Taxpayer Funded Abortions & Elimination of all Restrictions on Abortion, Including Parental Notice - H.R. 5151: Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) and 66 Democratic cosponsors want to overturn even minimal restrictions on abortion such as parental notice requirements. The bill would also require taxpayer funding of abortions through the various federal health care programs. John Conyers, the would-be Chairman of Judiciary Committee which has jurisdiction over the bill, is an original cosponsor.

Bill of Welfare Rights -- H.J. Res. 29-35: Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) proposes a Soviet-style "Bill of Welfare Rights," enshrining the rights of full employment, public education, national healthcare, public housing, abortion, progressive taxation, and union membership. On some these measures, Rep. Jackson is joined by up to 35 Democratic cosponsors, including would-be Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers.

Additionally, even though Speaker of the House hopeful Nancy Pelosi says different, we can expect endless investigations, charges and tries at impeachment against President Bush over any and every thing they can imagine, mostly to repay Republicans in the childish “tit for tat” “get back” that has been going on between the two parties for several decades now. All while we have troops in harm’s way, an enemy relying on our usual “cut and run” and abandoning an ally in their time of need, waiting patiently to claim victory against our undefeated Military, as did the North Vietnamese when the Democrat controlled Congress of the early 1970’s did much the same as they are now trying to do.

Tom Raum may feel that “GOP losses could spark partisan warfare,” but I see it having gone on for some time now, with no end in sight.

For this reason I will proudly vote on November 7 for any name with an R beside it and hope they remain true to conservative ideals. Better that hope than knowing voting D will place control back in the hands of those who desire the downfall of the America I grew up loving and pledging allegiance to.


NOTE: CLick title to access original AP article.

Thursday, October 19, 2006

Murtha Deserves a Swift Kick

October 19, 2006

Democrats are pulling out all the stops to win back control of Congress. In an email received today, from Jack Murtha through JohnKerry.com, titled, “Give them a swift kick.”

If you don’t notice it, the reference to “swift kick” is a subtle bash of the Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth, the grassroots group that organized to oppose John Kerry’s campaign for President in 2004. As I have said recently, the group is comprised of over 250 Highly Decorated and Honorable Viet Nam Veterans.

Murtha’s email begins:

“Do you believe that a veteran who dares to speak out against the Bush administration forfeits his or her right to be honored for service to America?”

I see no one dishonoring any Veteran for their service, except for John Kerry, Jack Murtha and Wesley Clark, shown in my previous two posts. We see it in their prostitution of the phrase “Swift Boating,” making it derogatory towards the over 250 Veterans mentioned above.

I might ask Mr. Murtha here, “Do you believe that a group of veterans who dare to speak out against the Democratic Party forfeit their right to be honored for service to America?”

The answer is in the effort these men make in trying to convince you that only Democrats are Veterans who have served America. It is in their treatment and denigrating words towards any and all Veterans who oppose them. It is in their stand that only the 4 or 5 Veterans running for Democrat seats have any “moral authority” to speak.

Murtha continues:
“When the so-called "Vets for the Truth" started attacking me, my record, and my right to speak the truth about the war in Iraq, The Patriot Project fought back. They exposed how "Vets for the Truth" had been set up and who was behind the funding of it. (Here's a hint: the group is really run by a man who describes himself as "good friends" with Karl Rove.)
When these scumbags organized a rally here in Pennsylvania, The Patriot Project went to work again.”
(emphasis added)

Here is a prime example of what I said above. The Veterans in the group Vets for the Truth, after before being erroneously linked to the Swift Boat Vets, are “scumbags?” Is this how Mr. Murtha feels Veterans that oppose him should be listed, as “scumbags?”

Tell me, Mr. Murtha, where did your words of do Veterans who speak out forfeit their right to honored for their Military Service? Vets for the Truth were founded by Larry Baily, who served as the former Commanding Officer of Naval Special Warfare Center in Coronado, CA, where Navy SEALs undergo basic and advanced training. He has been awarded the Bronze Star with Combat “V,” the Legion of Merit, two Meritorious Service Medals, and numerous other decorations and awards. He retired from the Navy in 1990 after 27 years Service.

This is the type person Jack Murtha calls “scumbag?”

On the other hand, Murtha has accused active Military of committing “cold blooded murder” in Iraq before any investigations were completed. He did this, not on the internet, not at a press conference nor sitting at a bar with his Congressional cronies, he said it on the Floor of the House of Representatives where it will be forever recorded in the Congressional Record.

After his anti-American statements made before Veterans in Miami, Florida were reported, in typical leftist fashion, he whined he was “misquoted.” The words he spoke were, "Every one of our allies think that the United States being in Iraq is more dangerous to world stability and world peace, every one of our allies; Great Britain, every single country... They think it's more, uh, we're more dangerous to world peace than North Korea or Iran. That says something."

When called on it, he claimed to be “citing polling data,” which begs the question, if he doesn’t share that thought, why cite it and why not openly disagree with it when spoken?

Murtha is an un-indicted co-conspirator in the ABSCAM scandal back in the 1980s. Word has it he made a deal for himself to avoid prosecution, but I don’t say that as a fact.

Mr. Murtha too is a decorated Veteran and unlike him, I do not call him a “scumbag.” But, I would also like to point out that merely being a Veteran doesn’t give one a pass on common decency or conduct. Evidence Decorated Veteran Duke Cunningham, a Republican, currently serving time for his misdeeds.

Being a Veteran myself, I find Murtha’s calling other Veterans “scumbags” due to their opposition of him despicable.

It is an outright lie to list millions of Veterans as “scumbags,” “liars,” or whatever because they don’t support Democrat candidates. We share the same right to speak out and support or oppose any candidate we wish. We have the right to speak out publicly without being denigrated, made to look like hacks or given the appearance that we did not serve honorably.

It was John Kerry, who in 1971, said, “The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence…” painting those of us who served in Viet Nam much longer than he did as “baby killers,” “cold blooded killers” and worse.

Murtha categorizing Vets for the Truth as “scumbags” because they oppose his continued service in the House of Representatives is nothing more than a continuation of the lies and deceit that have mislabeled millions of honorable men who served with pride and honor in a far off battlefield.

Murtha ends with:
“I urge you to take a stand against anti-veteran hate groups right now.”

We are, Mr. Murtha. We are organizing and opposing the Party that has lied about us, that supports politicians who have lied about us and who dishonors those serving today with their lies. We are opposing the modern Democratic Party.

Murtha has outlived his usefulness in Congress. His personal agenda’s take precedence over the good of the country and he must go! If you live in Pennsylvania, I urge you to Vote for Diana Irey.


Wednesday, October 18, 2006

Wesley Clark, Getting "Kerry’d" Away

October 18, 2006

A hat tip of thanks to my friend Jeremiah at Jeremayakovka for forwarding me an email from Wesley Clark’s WESPAC-Securing America.

In an article titled Fight Back Against Swift boating, we read Wes Clark’s opening salvo of

“I live by a simple rule. If you wore the uniform, if you served your nation with honor, and especially if you fought and were wounded in battle, then you have earned the right to be treated with respect.”
Neither I nor any Red Blooded American can argue with these words. However, since it appears Wes Clark has taken a page right out of John ‘F’in Kerry’s campaign strategy book, reading either of them saying these words is absurd.

To begin with, simply having worn the uniform of our Brave Military does not automatically qualify one for Public Office. If Military Service is to be considered a prerequisite for being elected we have to wonder why World War Two Veterans, George H.W. Bush and Robert Dole were so heavily opposed in 1992 and 1996 by the Democratic Party in favor of Viet Nam era Draft Dodger, B.J. Clinton.

If Military Service and being Veterans were actually all that important to Democrats we also have to ask why the Gore campaign, in the 2000 debacle of the Florida recounts, worked so diligently to deny Military Absentee ballots over mere technicalities, when it was Al Gore stating, “Every single vote must be counted.” Maybe to them, that doesn’t apply to our Brave Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines serving overseas?

Clark goes on to say,
“That's why I am so outraged that the Republican party has systematically attacked the wartime service and patriotism of veterans who are running for office as Democrats. It is despicable -- the sign of a party more concerned about hanging onto power by any means possible than with giving veterans the respect they have earned.”

If Mr. Clark really finds attacking Veterans as so “despicable,” how does he, Kerry and the rest of the Democrat Party justify their derogatory usage of the term, “Swift Boating?” The Swift Boat Veterans and POWs for Truth, that openly opposed John Kerry’s 2004 campaign for President, have been under constant assault ever since they were noticed. They have been called “hacks,” “a Republican Front Group,” and "dishonest and dishonorable" by RINO Arizona Senator and long time friend of John Kerry, John McCain. In reality they are a group of some 250 highly decorated Viet Nam Combat Veterans, many of whom served with Kerry and felt he was unfit for the highest office in the land.

The Republican Party did not fund them nor direct them; they were a true grassroots movement, solely to oppose the election of Kerry. While it is true that a wealthy Republican from Texas made a generous initial donation to get them started, once the public started taking notice of the group, who else would we expect to make donations to them? Surely George Soros or Michael Moore wouldn’t be expected to donate money to an anti-Kerry group.

After the initial donation, they were funded by hundreds of people, maybe even more, like me. Those of us that were active on their discussion board answered the call and gave what we could.

I ask you, Mr. Clark, where is the respect you claim all Veterans are due for this group of highly decorated and honorable Veterans? Why is it that Veterans who oppose yours and Kerry’s small band of Veterans are attacked, denigrated and ridiculed for voicing their “freedom of speech?” Did we not also earn the right to support or oppose those we see fit?

Since the candidates Clark is supporting in this email are not from my state, I see no need to address their suitability for Public office that is best left to the voters in their states. I do not see a need to identify just who Wesley Clark is and what he has stood for before anyone donates money to him under what could possibly be a false pretense.

Wesley Clark, failed hopeful candidate for the Presidency in 2004, is a retired four star General, having served in the United States Army. Under the Clinton administration, he was NATO Commander when President Clinton intervened in Bosnia and Kosovo. A long time friend of fellow Little Rock, Arkansas resident, B.J. Clinton, Clark has been referred to as “a horse’s ass” by an unidentified pentagon official.

While serving as the Supreme Allied Commander in the Kosovo Bombings, Mr. Clark is reported to have attempted bombing the CNN bureau in Belgrade and ordered the British General Michael Jackson to engage Russian troops in combat at the end of the war, leading to the reply of, "I'm not going to start World War III for you." During this time the Chinese embassy was bombed, accidentally of course. It is possible that this could have contributed to his being fired from his Command by the Clinton administration.

Retired General Hugh Shelton, when asked about the firing of Clark, replied in part,
“I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. . . ."

Returning to Clark’s emailing,
“If there is one lesson we learned from the 2004 presidential race, it is that when the Republicans question your patriotism, you have to hit back -- hard.”
“That's why I'm asking you to support four candidates who have become the latest victims of the Republican "Swift Boat" tactics.”

Clark, like Kerry and other Democrats, think stating “Swift Boating” as a despicable act might exonerate their own lack of integrity or Service, even if once in uniform. In reality, “Swift Boating” refers to “revealing a truth a politician would prefer remain hidden.” What they also try to hide in claiming the Swifties are a “Republican Front Group,” is that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth spokesman during the campaign, John O’Neill, is a lifelong Democrat!

Receiving this email and several others from the likes of Kerry, Pelosi, Murtha and more, it is clearly apparent to me that the Democrats have no regard for Veterans, other than the small handful running for Democrat seats. “Hitting back hard” at Veterans while crying that your “Veterans” are being “attacked,” and stating, ”If you wore the uniform … then you have earned the right to be treated with respect,” is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Americans, especially us Veterans, have every right to "question any candidates Patriotism," Mr. Clark. Redefining the word to fit the leftist agenda of "surrender at all costs," does not make one Patriotic.

Former Military have equal rights in running for office as we all do, but running based on the wearing of a uniform is not what the majority of America wants. We want to hear and see what you stand for, not how you can exaggerate Military Service.

I am left with a final question for Mr. Clark. What it is like to be the only General officer in the history of our country to be fired by the only Draft Dodger to be elected in the history of our country?


Tuesday, October 17, 2006

John Kerry - Millions of Dollars, Thousands of Lies

His latest misleading plea:

From: "John Kerry" Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: LewWaters@I'llnevertell.com
Subject: Millions of Dollars. Thousands of Lies.
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 16:26:52 -0500

Dear Lew,

Shame on us if we don't stop these disgraceful character-assassins right in their tracks.

At the last-minute, shady, unaccountable attack groups are springing up with millions of dollars to spend spreading lies to smear veterans who speak the truth.

If you've been looking for a powerful way to fight back, you just found it.

The Patriot Project is prepared to do what these anti-veteran hate groups fear the most: tell the truth about who they are, where their money comes from, and what they're trying to do to men and women who have risked their lives for our country.

Support the Patriot Project now!

Freedom of speech and the right to dissent are cornerstones of our democracy. Truth is the American bottom line. The Patriot Project will defend all men and women, regardless of party or affiliation, who are attacked or defamed and whose patriotism is questioned simply because they speak truth to power and exercise their rights as Americans. You've got to help get the message out about these despicable attacks.

In Pennsylvania, conservative front groups are attacking proud Marine Jack Murtha, Iraq War veteran Patrick Murphy, and Admiral Joe Sestak for daring to question George Bush's dismal course in Iraq.

In California's 4th District, they've started a negative whisper campaign against Lt. Colonel Charlie Brown, a decorated Vietnam and Gulf War veteran.

And all around the country, the "Economic Freedom Fund" and the ill-named "Americans for Truth on Issues" -- both funded by millions of dollars from Robert Perry, who also gave the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" over $4 million in 2004 -- are attacking outstanding individuals like Vietnam veteran Leonard Boswell in Iowa.

You can help expose them, uncover their lies, and take away their power to ravage the records of veterans. We know their old playbook. It's the playbook that rushed us into a disastrous war in a cynical effort to claim the American flag as the exclusive property of one ideology. It's wrong -- and we will not allow the truth to lose to a lie ever again.

Support the Patriot Project now!

Give your immediate support to the Patriot Project, which is working round the clock to make sure no veteran stands alone in the face of attacks on his or her service to America.

We owe it to the veterans facing these attacks to fight back with everything we've got. Let's do it.


John Kerry

P.S. In addition to providing urgently needed financial support, you can be part of the Patriot Project's high-alert network. I urge you to sign up today.

Kerry has little room to speak as this. Has he and others forgotten:

They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.


We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum....We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.


"The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence….."

"..there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America….."

Kerry still has never recanted nor apologized to the 2.5 million of us who served in Viet Nam for these slanderous words of his in 1971. In fact, according to John Hurley, then director of the group, Veterans for Kerry, during his failed 2004 bid for the Presidency, he "STANDS BEHIND THOSE CLAIMS STILL!!!"

More recently, Kerry has said of the troops:

"And there is no reason ... that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs,"

And today, Kerry sends out words of "spreading lies to smear veterans?"

In this email, he mentions current candidates being "attacked" by "anti-veteran hate groups" and "conservative front groups" and then mentions the SBVT.

What people should realize is that ones like Murtha and Kerry were and are opposed by Decorated Combat Veterans. In his defense of his handful of "veterans," Kerry engages in the very slander against even more Veterans he supposedly is defending.

As we Veterans know, he has no honor, no conscience and keeps proving it is he that is actually "anti-Veteran."

Yes, Mr. Kerry, those of us who served honorably in Viet Nam know all too well about those who "spread lies smearing Veterans."


Monday, October 16, 2006

Culture of Corruption?

October 16, 2006

As we have been frequently hearing from the Democratic Party, it is Republicans that are guided by a “Culture of Corruption” within Congress. In their “no-holds barred” drive to reclaim Congressional Power, they have jumped on the chance to smear all Republicans over corrupt acts committed by a few.

Calls go out for resignations, investigations, impeachment and censuring of top Republican leaders every time one is even remotely found to be acting untoward in any manner. Be it a sex scandal where no actual sex took place, bribes or just improper conduct, Democrats are having a heyday painting the Republicans as “Corrupt to the Bone.”

No doubt, the Republicans have some bad apples, as has been witnessed by recent events. Congressman Bob Ney, (R. Oh.) has pled guilty in the Abramoff scandal. Tom Delay (R. Tx.) is facing investigations, possible indictments and trials in Texas, after resigning from the House, “Duke” Cunningham (R. Ca.) has been sentenced to 8 years for his receiving at least $2.4 million in bribes and underreporting his income for 2004, and Mark Foley (R. Fl.) also resigned and committed himself for treatment of alcoholism after it was discovered he was emailing and instant messaging inappropriately with pages aged 16 and 17.

Democrats have been using all of this to show how corrupt the Republicans are and why they deserve to be ousted in this year’s election, hopefully, returning the Democrats to Political Power. Politicizing the War on Terror hasn’t been enough for them, so they must play this angle too.

However, voters need to know that although there is corruption in Congress, it is not restricted to Republicans.

Before I go further, let me say that I advocate removing ALL corrupt Politicians regardless of party. Democrat, Republican, Independent, doesn’t matter to me, corrupt is corrupt and they need to go!

In April 2006, Representative John Conyers (D. Mi.) was accused of using Congressional Staffers, on government time and payroll, to baby-sit his children, as well as ordering staffers to work on campaigns.

Allan Mollohan (D. WV.) the ranking Democrat on the House Ethics Committee is under investigation for a 1,000 percent increase in his assets over 4 years. It is alleged that his disclosure forms between 1996 and 2004 contain 260 omissions or undervaluation of his assets.

In regards to the Abramoff scandal of the lobbyist bribing public officials, records show it hasn’t only been Republicans receiving excess amounts of funds from Abramoff. Among the biggest beneficiaries were Capitol Hill's most powerful Democrats, including Thomas A. Daschle (S.D.) and Harry M. Reid (Nev.), the top two Senate Democrats at the time. Several other Democrats received funds from Jack Abramoff but all claim their funds were legitimate while Republicans receipt of funds weren’t.

Of course, one of the biggest scandals that never went anywhere was semi-excused was that of Ted Kennedy’s (Ma.) auto accident, possibly from driving drunk, at Chappaquiddick, Ma. That resulted in the death of then 28 year old Mary Jo Kopechne. Senator Kennedy has remained in office since that accident in 1969.

Currently, Senator Harry Reid, (D. No.) leading the charge of Corrupt Republicans, is coming under fire for some land sales in Nevada that netted him some $1.1 million on land he claimed to not have owned for the previous 3 years. As more evidence of impropriety is revealed in this deal, he has chosen to use the Hillary Clinton defense of, “A Republican Smear Campaign.”

Speaking of the junior Senator from New York, her hands are not exactly clean either. In August of 2000, she is reported to have under reported funds raised at a lavish fund raiser by some $800,000. Earlier in her career, she invested $1,000 in cattle futures only to reap a $100,000 return within one year. Several economists have said that the chances of earning such returns legally were one in 250 million.

For some reason, little is heard of these matters within our more Liberal Press and reports that do leak out seem to be swept under the rug or hushed up, fast. This is by no means a complete list of known problems within Congressional members of either party, just the tip of the iceberg.

Still, one has to wonder how one party can call the other so corrupt before they even clean their own house?

Corruption costs us all, in money, esteem and credibility. No one deserves a pass when it comes to corruption and any really corrupt should be removed, not allowed to pay a small fine and continue sitting in Congress, provided they are Democrats.

Democrats are correct about a “Culture of Corruption,” but it hardly confined to Republicans. Democrats need to first look in the mirror and clean their own act up first.

Maybe then we could hear why former Democrat President pardoned 140 convicted felons, including drug dealers, tax evaders, his own brother Roger on a drug charge and 16 members of FALN, a violent Puerto Rican nationalist group that set off 120 bombs in the United States, on his last day in office.


John Murtha Disgusted and So Am I

October 16, 2006

In as disrespectful of an email I have ever received or words even heard from one of these looney left Democrats, today I received one from John Murtha, (D.Pa.) that begins, “Those guys in the White House and their Republican buddies in Congress are telling us to sit down, shut up and 'stay the course' - well, I'm not going to.”

Those guys?”

No one is telling anyone to “sit down” or “shut-up” from the administration. We bloggers are telling leftists interfering with the War on Terror that, but it isn’t coming from the administration.

I have previously addressed Murtha’s misguided stance on the War on Terror, but it appears it will need to be again. Jack Murtha, Ridiculous, Murtha Just Can’t Keep His Mouth Shut. He uses the slogan “stay the course” as if it were something bad. Sorry, but it means to complete the mission, to get the Iraqis and Afghani’s started on setting up their own Democracy and defense against the radical terrorists hell-bent on world domination.

As we all know, Democrats love catchy slogans and use them effectively, even if improperly.

Murtha goes on to say, “Everyone wants a stable Iraq, but victory is a goal not a strategy. Democrats are united behind the fight against terrorism. Democrats are united behind our troops. Democrats are united behind a strong America. Now, let's show them that Democrats are united behind winning this election.”

So, Murtha thinks Democrats are “united behind the fight against terrorism?” Does Representative Murtha forget his own calls for “redeployment to Okinawa?” In this same email, he calls Iraq a “quagmire.” He adds, “We need to take control of our destiny in Iraq, and a Democratic majority is the only hope for that.”

Destiny?” I was unaware of any American “destiny” in Iraq. In a November 17, 2005 article, Representative Murtha said, “It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America…” Nearly a year later and close to mid-term elections and his view is changed to “America’s Destiny” in Iraq? Shouldn’t any “destiny” in Iraq be left to the Iraqi people, as President Bush is attempting to do, even with all the constant undermining from Democrats like Murtha?

Hearing Murtha claim “Democrats are united behind our troops,” made me almost spit all over my monitor screen. Did Mr. Murtha forget saying, “We have to bring them [the troops] home before they kill more babies.” (June 2006) Or, has, "there was no firefight, there was no IED(improvised explosive device) that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood,” slipped his memory?

Has the words, "And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs," spoken by Senator John Kerry (D. Ma.) slipped his mind as well?

Perhaps he doesn’t recall Senator Dick Durbin’s words, “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have happened by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”

After the deaths of Uday and Qusay Hussein, Representative Charles Rangle (D. NY.) said, "We have a law on the books that United States should not be assassinating anybody." Or troops killing animals like Saddam’s sons in a firefight could hardly be described as “assassination,” except by a Democrat opposed to President Bush.

Judging by statements as this and others, it hardly appears Democrats are “united behind our troops.”

Every Democrat administration in the last 3 decades has gutted our Military Forces and denied them needed weapons upgrades. Acts of terrorism are treated as mere crimes. Programs designed to ferret out information on possible future attacks have been opposed and fought against, leading Senate minority leader, Harry Reid (D. Nv.) to boast, "We killed the Patriot Act," in December of 2005. This hardly the picture of being “united for a strong America.”

Murtha adds in the email, “It has become increasingly clear that the only thing we're going to get out of the White House and the Republicans in Congress are rosy scenarios and political slogans.”

No, Mr. Murtha, we have been getting truthful reports leading the Democrats to also complain that President Bush is a “fearmonger.” In a September 1, 2006 blog entry at the Huffington Post, Murtha stated about Bush and Rumsfeld, “drew inflammatory parallels between Nazism and today's war in Iraq designed only to provoke unreasonable fear in the hearts of Americans.” Since the outset of the War on Terror, President Bush has consistently stated it was going to be a long and hard fight, possibly covering generations. Doesn’t sound like a “rosy scenario” to me.

Murtha next said, “Our troops deserve answers, not spin.”

No, Mr. Murtha, they deserve our support and admiration. They do not deserve to be used as pawns by the Democrats trying desperately to use them to bash President Bush and Republicans and regain political power in Washington D.C. They deserve the best equipment, best food and our praise. They deserve to feel America is behind their mission to squelch terror and give the Iraqis a decent fighting chance to attain the freedoms we enjoy.

What they don’t need is Democrats using every ploy they can, demonizing our troops when they feel they can get away with it and claiming they Support the Troops.

Is it any wonder that our Troops usually vote majority Republican, leading Democrat hopeful Al Gore’s failed Presidential Campaign to work diligently to deny Military absentee ballots in the 2000 Presidential election recounts in Florida?

Mr. Murtha, your words fall on deaf ears. Your previous words and actions speak for themselves and even though you may be a decorated veteran yourself, you sir are no friend of the troops.


UPDATE: More about Murtha's shenanigans at Murtha Must Go

Sunday, October 15, 2006

John Kerry’s Never Ending Campaign

October 15, 2006

Voters wondering whether or not Senator John Kerry (rumored to have once served in Viet Nam) will once again try for the Presidency need only go back and look at his actions since his embarrassing defeat in 2004. There is no mystery as to whether or not he will run again, he never stopped running.

In his 2004 concession speech before the entire world, addressing his talking to President and Mrs. Bush, he stated, “We had a good conversation, and we talked about the danger of division in our country and the need -- the desperate need for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together.”

Before his defeat, his campaign was filled with the usual rhetoric of “wrong war, wrong time, wrong place.” Bolstering his anti-Bush stance, we had the likes of another defeated Democrat hopeful, Al Gore, screeching that Bush, “betrayed this nation, he played on our fears.” Nearly everything they had to say was something negative about President Bush and very little about what they would offer. In today’s overblown mudslinging known as an “election,” this hasn’t become uncommon. But, what of Kerry’s eloquent concession, “the danger of division in our country and the need -- the desperate need for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together?”

Before the election was even over, Kerry’s supporters launched a vicious lawsuit against the makers of the film, “Stolen Honor,” POWs speaking their case about Kerry’s 1971 actions with the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Recently, they withdrew their suit when it appeared they would have to be deposed and links to the Senator might be exposed as well as the Senator might have to make his Military Records public, not hiding them with 3 friendly news hounds.

Addressing the actions of the Swift Boat Veterans for truth, the group of decorated Viet Nam Veterans largely responsible for his defeat in 2004, Kerry claimed, “I’m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other.”

In an April 2006 email Kerry sent out, he says, “the President and his administration remain frozen in place, boxed in by George W. Bush's stubborn refusal to admit that he has America on the wrong course in Iraq. The President seems content to endlessly wait for various political factions in Iraq to get their act together.”

In a June 2006 email he sent out, he claims, “President Bush wants to stumble along, perpetuating his mistakes for the remainder of his time in office.” He adds, “And, instead of statesmanship, the president's top advisor, Karl Rove, is worrying that the war has put voters in a "sour mood" for the 2006 elections.”

In yet another June 2006 email he sent out, he whines, “The Republicans think they can sneak President Bush and Vice President Cheney in and out of these states under cover of darkness, and that vulnerable Republican candidates will pick up GOP special interest campaign dollars -- not Bush-Cheney baggage.”

In a June 2006 interview, Kerry said, "We were misled, we were given evidence that was not true," Kerry said. "It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote [for it]."

By July of 2006, after submitting a timetable for Troop withdrawals from Iraq fighting the War on Terror, the Senator stated, “Half the names on the Vietnam Wall are there because politicians in Washington were too proud to admit a mistake, so they kept sending young men to stay a course they knew was not working. "Stay the course" is not a strategy for victory in Iraq and the war on terror. This administration is wrong.”

In an August 2006 email, once again, the Senator bleats, “George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove should know better, but it's no surprise they don't. For almost five years now, every time they've got their backs to the wall politically, they play ‘the fear card.’"

In a September 2006 speech, he stated, “This is the reality of the world today -- a world more dangerous because of the Bush blunders and a challenge far more complicated than the gruff Cheney sound bites.” Also said was, “Let the President give his speeches attacking the patriotism of his fellow Americans. Let him play the politics of fear. As Democrats, we choose to offer a real plan to attack the terrorists and free Americans from fear.”

We still wait just what this “plan” is he is always speaking of.

Looking back on the Senators words, speech’s and statements since his embarrassing loss, once would be hard pressed to find anything supportive of President Bush or seeking “common ground,” and “unity.” It would appear he is intent still on just the opposite, further dividing an already divided nation, as he did in his anti-Vietnam War protests and speeches.

His rhetoric even brought him to state, in a failed what I hope was intended to be a joke, “I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone,” on the Bill Maher TV program just this month.

Even today, October 15, on Fox news’s Fox news Sunday with Chris Wallace, some of his statements were:

“I think the administration… they're living in a world of make-believe, Chris. They're living in a complete fantasy with respect to the foreign policy they put in place.

It is a failure. It's a failure in Afghanistan where they have a sort of cut-and-run policy of not completing the job.”

“The United States of America is less safe, and the six-party talks have been a cover to get away from the idea, because George Bush and Dick Cheney decided ideologically in 2002 they would break off the oil trade, they would not build the nuclear reactors, they would not keep the framework that had been agreed on [by the Clinton Administration and former Democrat President, Jimmy Carter], and from that moment on, it's been downhill with North Korea.”

From a video clip, “When George W. Bush turned his back on diplomacy, Kim Jong Il turned back to making bombs, and the world is less safe today because a mad man has the Bush bomb.”

“He [Bush] now has made every mistake possible so he has isolated our troops, isolated America. This is a civil war. He even continues to mislead Americans about Iraq being the center of the war on terror. It is not now and it hasn't been the center.”

Yet, in his 2004 concession speech, he also stated, “Now, more than ever, with our soldiers in harm's way, we must stand together and succeed in Iraq and win the war on terror.”

As can be clearly seen, Senator Kerry is still campaigning, he’s never stopped. His words in his concession speech were just more political pandering and maneuvering. His words then are as hollow as anything he has ever said.

In typical Kerryesque fashion, he speaks with no regard to what he has said before and if this is an example of his desiring to seek “desperate need for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together,” I’d really hate to see what his idea of dividing the populace is.

Make no mistake about it. He never stopped running for President and has continually engaged in the same slanderous mudslinging he did throughout his failed 2004 campaign.

He lost then, he must lose again, for the good of America.


Thursday, October 12, 2006

Kerry Hitches Fading Star to Falling Star

October 12, 2006

In today’s donation begging email from Senator John Kerry (who is believed to have once served in Viet Nam), Falling Star, John Laesch, running for Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert’s seat in the House, is added to the “October slate of veterans running for Congress.” Democrat Veterans, that is.

With the addition of 32 year-old Laesch, they now claim another “veteran” to their ranks of the “fighting dems.” Laesch is billed as “served as an intelligence analyst in Bahrain, monitoring terrorist activity and analyzing foreign political and military structures, winning numerous citations and meritoriously rising 5 ranks within 3 years...” Sounds pretty impressive and he, Kerry and supporters have no problem billing him as capable of unseating long time sitting Dennis Hastert.

Laesch himself says, “As your next congressman, I will rely on my military experience and expertise in the region to open a meaningful discussion in Congress on the Iraq War.”

This claim is right out of the John ‘F’in Kerry handbook of exaggerating your Military Service for political gain. I will not disparage Laesch’s service, no need to. But, let’s look at his claims of his “Military experience” and “expertise.”

“served as an intelligence analyst in Bahrain, monitoring terrorist activity and analyzing foreign political and military structures”

In his own blog on his site he also says in regards to President Clinton’s 1998 Cruise Missile attack on Afghanistan in an effort to get Osama Bin Laden, “My first job was to make sure that a cruise missile route from a sea-based platform would have clear sailing over Pakistan and all the way to Afghanistan.” I find that claim to be a pretty high order for an enlisted analyst.

While enlisted and NCOs (non-commissioned officers, or sergeants) perform the back bone of most work within the Military, Intelligence is usually entrusted to Commissioned Officers, with enlisted doing some, not all, of the grunt work in analyzing and the Officer overseeing and finally approving what they analyze and present.

Further into the same article on his blog, we read, “I want to underscore that I was an Iranian analyst instead of a counterterrorism analyst.” Oh? But, he makes claims of so much “experience” and “expertise” in fighting terrorism.

“winning numerous citations and meritoriously rising 5 ranks within 3 years”

Odd that “numerous citations” are listed nearly everywhere he is supported, but not one citation is ever shown. Were these “citations” actually “letters of commendations,” medals, or simply yearly EERs (enlisted efficiency reports)? It would be nice to see them since they are so prominently listed in his qualifications. Is it just me, or do we see a pattern here of making claims of Military Service by another Democrat with no revelation into their actual record?

However, this “meritorious rising of 5 ranks within 3 years” is most laughable of all. Achieving the rank of E-5 within 3 years is about normal. During Viet Nam, I was promoted to the permanent rank of E-5 upon completion of my 17th month of Army Service, the minimum time mandated. Prior to that, I was given the temporary rank of “acting Sergeant E-5” while receiving the pay of an E-4 still. All the responsibility, but none of the pay.

Unlike John Kerry, I imagine Laesch’s 3 years of service was honorable and he performed his duties with normal ability. I don’t see any need to exaggerate his service other than to give the impression of a greater expertise than he actually holds. Again, right out of the John Kerry handbook of grabbing political power.

John Laesch is well within his legal and constitutional right to run for any office he desires. Voters in Illinois will decide if he is qualified for office or not. However, voters are entitled to the truth of his qualifications without exaggerations of Military Service.

John Kerry seems to be pushing this notion of the “fighting dems,” a small group of former Military Service members running for office as Democrats. They are billed as if they are the only former Service members or Veterans holding any “moral authority” to speak out or comment on the War in Iraq.

Naturally, each and every one of these “fighting dems” support Kerry’s “cut and run” philosophy of tactical retreat from a war we are actually winning, again.

Kerry, obviously a narcissist who can’t get past his own pitiful performance that cost him the 2004 election to the Presidency, is once again latching on to those who he hopes will build up his own minimal service, before returning to the country to head the anti-war effort in the late 1960’s and early 1970’s. I imagine Kerry thinks he actually matters to the citizens of the country.

Laesch, on the other hand, seems to think he stands a chance running to unseat Hastert with the qualifications of exaggerated Military service and currently being a carpenter.

John, look back on your mentors past. Exaggerated service claims come back to bite you. Bragging about your service gets one nowhere, especially with other Veterans. We see right through you and beyond.

If you are serious about running for the House, better distance yourself from the likes of loser Kerry and stick to the issues. Going on Hardball and making false claims about exaggerated scandals of disgraced former Representative Foley “sexually abusing” a page and Hastert covering up for him may sound good and get applause in DailyKos or Democratic Underground, but undecided voters will just laugh, as they seek someone who will actually stand on values.

Kerry’s star is fading, yours is falling. Enjoy the limelight while it lasts.