Kerry Can't Answer the SwiftBoat Vets Charges...

...so he intends to attack the messengers in a crass, crude attempt to side-step his past.

Fox's article lays out the Kerry game plan: find a way to get the Swifties discredited, banned, or otherwise silenced - get the media off this story by any means necessary before his liberal media backers are forced into hearing and telling the truth. Kerry's actions prove that the Swifties are making traction against his candidacy, he's called out all the media favors he can. Only Fox, the Washington Times (who ran a very damaging 3 part story on the Swifties and Kerry), and a few others seem to be immune to his threats. The Washington Post ran an anti-Swifty article that didn't even utilize eye-witnesses to the events, it simply regurgitated Kerry campaign allegations and information. The Post reporter refused to speak to anyone in the SwiftBoat Veterans for Truth, including any of over 60 Vets who have first-hand knowledge of the events.

At least Fox mentions this, and ran an uncontested (by Kerry's campaign) interview with John O'Neill. O'Neill very efficiently/convincingly answered all the latest Democratic smear/distraction tactics. Unfortunately for Kerry, this man just exudes integrity and honesty - he is instinctively believable, as opposed to Kerry and all his anti-Swifty operatives. Watching O'Neill with John Hurley (Vietnam Verterans Against the War) was hugely entertaining, Hurley was way out of his league. I personally think O'Neill is in fact telling the truth and is motivated by honor, justice, and deeply felt concern for the future of America. Fox also links to a story in which Bob Dole blasts Kerry for his Vietnam lies and his anti-war betrayals:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,129729,00.html

It's pretty funny that Kerry's campaign didn't join O'Neill on the Hannity and Colmes interview, but not surprising. Kerry keeps pressuring his liberal media operatives to get this story ignored and discredited because nobody believes anything his campaign has to say about his Vietnam record. So he has to have his media allies at the Washington Post and NY Times take over. Their stories on this controversy over the weekend, as I mentioned above, are travesties of journalistic integrity, which is par for the course these days at those papers, and many others.

To me, that means the Swifties have convincingly won round 1.

The bell for the next round has rung with the release of the Swifties new ad: www.swiftvets.com.

The Swifties now move into the area that is even more dear to my heart than Kerry's fraud of a combat tour: What Hanoi John did after his tour. Kerry's 'war criminals' accusations (which by association included my own father), his meeting with NVA leadership - twice - while still a Navy officer, his involvement in a plot to kill 6 US Senators, his willing complicity in NVA propaganda and psy-operations, his despicable medal-tossing/didn't toss/tossed ribbons fiasco, and worst of all the fact that he and all the other anti-war protesting crowd were wrong: The US was RIGHT to protect S. Vietnam - after the Americans left hundreds of thousands and maybe even millions died at the hands of Hanoi John's socialist N. Vietnamese brothers. Nobody will ever know how many for sure; you can bet Dan Rather certainly isn't interested in finding out.

And after that, Bush can talk about Kerry's disgrace of a Senate career - anti-military, anti-intelligence all the way. Possibly at the same time, Bush and his boys/girls need to highlight Kerry's bona-fide contributions to the 9/11 tragedy. In my mind, Kerry's position on the Senate Intelligence Committee leaves him in prime responsibility territory for the intelligence lapses that led to 9/11. In their oversight role the SIC should have seen this coming; they should have seen that the CIA and FBI were becoming seriously risk-averse due to political correctness concerns.

Kerry and the SIC should have ordered SERIOUS investigations into the Islamic terrorist entities on our soil as far back as 1985 instead of hiding behind the Reno/Gorelick 'terrorists as criminals' idiocy and politically correct (but incredibly short-sighted and naive) 'tolerance for Muslim fundamentalist instititutions' foolishness. Kerry and the modern Democrat's belief in 'moral equivalency' was a huge factor in our 9/11 intelligence holes and for once I would like to seem them held accountable for it, especially in the media. The media is so discredited in mainstream America, this would go a long way to put them on the path to respectability again. I know, I know - dream on - but I can't help it sometimes.

Where is the national media outcry with regard to the fact the Kerry missed 85% of all SIC meetings, even after 9/11? Why does the media bury that story in an attempt to help elect a man who contributed to the loss of 3000 of our American brothers and sisters?

Shame on the NY Times, Washington Post, LA Times, CNN, and all who blindly pledge allegiance to liberal democratic ideals at their customer's extreme expense: their lives.

These institutions are a hair's breadth from becoming the mouthpieces of terrorists, and in the case of CNN, already over the edge. CNN reporting in Iraq pre-war is a clear case of lying to their readers - serving as Saddam's American-based propaganda service - in order to protect their 'access'. CNN is still doing this kind of disservice to Americans all over the world, in Cuba, N. Vietnam, and China to name a few places. To CNN, getting the scoop on their competition is more important than the truth.

I personally boycott CNN and I suggest everyone else do the same. Further, I only read the NY Times, LA Times, and Washington Post in order to get an idea of what America's home-grown enemies are doing...no sense looking for 'all the news fit to print'.

Adios MF,

Doug

PS: Sorry about the delay in posts since last week. Found two new bands to practice with, not much time after work anymore.