We are the only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism. We find the most intriguing information and bring it together on one page for you.

Home
Articles
Headlines
Links we recommend
Feedback
Link to us
Free email update
About us
What's New & Interesting
Mailing Lists
Intellectual Icons
Submissions













 

John Kerry, “The Raw Deal:" The Senator and his Media Thugs Politicize 9/11
by Doug Schmitz
20 March 2004John Kerry

The Kerry campaign is currently sporting their latest placard, “John Kerry: The Real Deal” for the Massachusetts Senator’s newest anti-Bush smear campaign.


Go ahead, you deluded or dishonest folks who claim George W. Bush has no business discussing or showing the 2001 attacks on America in his advertising.  Go right ahead with your coordinated, contemptuous complaining – paid for in part by foundations and organizations lubricated by Mrs. John Kerry’s ketchup-drenched dollars.

It doesn’t matter now, not after what happened yesterday in Madrid.  Not after the worst terror strike on a Western country since 9/11.  You wish to keep the president from centering his presidential campaign on his stewardship of the War on Terror.  The mainstream American media are all too happy to follow your lead.  Unfortunately, the world’s terrorists just refuse to play along.
— John Podhoretz, New York Post columnist and author of Bush Country: How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insane.

According to a poll conducted last week by the Andreas McKenna Research group, a whopping 60 percent of 800 registered voters surveyed said they thought global terrorists would back John Kerry in this year’s election. 

Moreover, Newsmax.com reported last Saturday that officials of terrorist-friendly North Korea are “stalling negotiations on dismantling their nuclear program, hinting that they hope to get a better deal from the U.S. if a Democrat wins in November.”

This is very telling since Kerry has already proven – much like Bill Clinton and Al Gore did – that he’s nothing more than a spineless enemy appeaser, as evidenced by his daily flip-flops on the war on terror, his voting against every major weapons system, his serial gutting of intelligence and defense spending, as well as his anti-American rants upon returning from his brief stint in Vietnam.

Ironically, the Kerry campaign is currently sporting their latest placard, “John Kerry: The Real Deal” for the Massachusetts Senator’s newest anti-Bush smear campaign.  However, judging from what is only beginning to be unearthed about his willful lies and distortions about the Bush Administration, Kerry has quickly become the “The Raw Deal.”

Just the fact that Ted Kennedy (who accused Bush of “concocting a war in Texas for political gain”) and Howard Dean (who, like Kerry, still shows inane support for Saddam Hussein and confederate flags) both endorse Kerry is actually a testament against Kerry, who has proven every day to be more unfit than ever for the U.S. presidency. 

Consequently, Kerry has now chosen to launch pre-emptive strikes against Bush, choosing instead to take the very low road of Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and Al Gore in their sullied tradition of vintage Democrat gutter politics. 

As Mort Kondracke, editor of Roll Call, observed: “The level of attacks coming from the Democrats so far outweigh anything coming from the Republicans, it’s laughable.”

Because in Kerry’s never-ending crusade to score political points, his media spin-doctors are already willing to aid and abet their most liberal Democrat as he continues his unconscionably politicizing of the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history: 9/11.

KERRY TAKES HOWARD DEAN’S BATON IN INCITING BUSH HATRED
 
 
Without question, Kerry’s sinister anti-Bush media cabal is spewing out their usual leftist propaganda for the Democratic Party, all in the hopes of ousting the man they hate the most – President George W. Bush, who has done more for the war on terror and national security than any of the enemy-appeasing Democrats combined.

As usual, however – and as shown in the following article by the New York Times, which recently endorsed Kerry, Democrats once again take center stage and are showcased as the party of supposedly take-their-word-for-it credibility by the media elite – juxtaposed to The Times’ liberal slant of routinely manufactured GOP improprieties.

In effect, Times reporter Jim Rutenberg actually paints Kerry as the consummate victim, who supposedly felt compelled to “immediately” respond to Bush’s alleged “attack ad:”

The move seemed intended as much to push back against Mr. Bush as it did to signal to Democrats — and potential donors — that Mr. Kerry will not hesitate to respond to attacks, as Democratic candidates have done in past presidential campaigns.

In his latest smear-a-thon against Bush, Kerry repeatedly claims that Bush is “misleading America,” while Kerry is actually the very one who consistently hoodwinks the American people about his pathetic voting record and anti-war background.

Entitled “Kerry, Focus of Attack Ad, Reacts With One of His Own,” Rutenberg should have re-named his March 13 headline: “Kerry, Who Has Consistently Attacked Bush, Reacts With One Of His Own, After Whining Like a Big Cry Baby About Bush’s Alleged Attacks.”

What The Times fails to realize is that there’s nothing wrong with the Bush Administration telling the truth about Kerry’s misleading record, despite the fact that Bush has remained silent all this time.  Kerry continues to lie about and distort Bush’s record – thanks to questionable funding from his very rich wife, Teresa Heinz, heiress to the Heinz ketchup fortune.  Teresa Heinz recently spearheaded Peaceful Tomorrows, a Far Left group of 9/11 families that John and Teresa Heinz Kerry financed – and reportedly coached – to work the media circuit in a feeble attempt to stop Bush’s ads.

Undoubtedly, the Kerrys are getting a lot of free publicity from their Democratic friends in the media, who will likely never expose Kerry’s campaign ties to soft money.

CBS PAINTS KERRY AS VICTIM, BUT BUSH USES KERRY’S OWN QUOTES

Painting Kerry as the poor little victim of Bush’s non-attack ads, NBC Today co-host Ann Curry on March 9 was “taken aback by Bush 'bashing his opponent' about a Senate vote (on intelligence funding) taken nine years ago – as if that is somehow out of bounds,” noted Geoff Dickens of the Media Research Center (MRC).

During a session with Tim Russert, Curry played a clip from Bush about how Kerry pushed for a cut in intelligence funding:

His bill was so deeply irresponsible that he didn’t have a single co-sponsor in the United States Senate.  Once again, Senator Kerry is trying to have it both ways.  He’s for good intelligence, yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services.

Curry later lamented: “An incumbent President bashing his opponent about a bill from nine years ago that never even came to a vote.” 

As if Kerry is above and beyond ever being challenged for his patent dishonesty.

For instance, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on his March 4 Countdown program, practically salivated over a story about a small number of relatives (from Teresa Heinz’s well-financed foundation), who complained about Bush’s use of the 9/11 images.

Quote: ‘It’s as sick as people who stole things out of the place.’ Some firefighters, some families of the victims of 9/11, protesting President Bush’s new campaign ad.

Not surprising, NBC’s liberal host Katie Couric spoke to Bush campaign adviser Karen Hughes on the March 4 Today Show, insinuating that all 9/11 families felt the same way.

But Couric intentionally neglected to mention quotes from a New York Daily News article of 9/11 relatives who support the Bush ads:

One September 11th widow told the [New York] Daily News this morning she was offended by the use of 9/11 images in these ads, saying quote, ‘After three thousand people were murdered on his watch, it seems to me that takes an awful lot of audacity.  Honestly, it’s in poor taste.’  What’s your response to that?” Couric said snidely.

What’s more, NBC Nightly News White House correspondent David Gregory weaved his own liberal, anti-Bush opinions into the following segment about the Bush ads:

This is not the first time Mr. Bush has been accused of using the 9/11 attack for political gain.  In May of 2002 the White House was criticized for allowing congressional Republicans to use a picture of the President on Air Force One speaking to the Vice President just hours after the attacks on New York and Washington.  Political analysts say the President is once again walking a fine line.

As usual in the mainstream media’s collective mindset, Republicans are the unscrupulous ones; it’s never the Democrats, whose unfounded lies and misrepresentations become the bulk of their news coverage – which are typically used against Republicans.  As if Democrats are never to be questioned, second-guessed or challenged on anything they say or do.   

In effect, Democrats like Kerry can level any unsubstantiated charge they want (i.e., Kerry’s calling Republicans “the most crooked, lying group I have ever seen”) and never have to worry about being challenged by their media allies. 

To date, Kerry has never been questioned about his childish rant against the GOP.  But if a Republican had said the same thing, the media elite would be demanding an apology (that they still have never demanded from Kerry).  Now, Hillary Clinton, one of the most dishonest politicians in Washington, is actually backing Kerry’s asinine statement.  So look for Kerry and Hillary’s media buddies to run with this story without challenge).

In yet another example of leftist media bias, when Kerry recently threatened to send his lynch mob of liberal lawyers down to Florida the day after the November election to challenge the results (if they aren’t to his liking), the media elite has already ignored Kerry’s duplicity in his premeditated, Gore-style hijacking of the Florida electorate.

Again, if a Republican had made the same threat, the media elite would be accusing them of trying to “steal the election,” even though the media elite ignored revelations that Gore was accused of voter fraud in preventing over 10,000 military votes from arriving in the U.S. because Gore knew they’d likely be Republican votes for Bush.  Now, Kerry wants complete control over the Florida election results – and the media elite could care less.

KERRY’S SECRET CASH COW – THE HEINZ KETCHUP FORTUNE

Accordingly, Teresa Heinz recently told NPR that if need be, she would find a way to circumvent campaign finance laws beyond her allotted $2,000 donation, warning that she wouldn’t be averse to squeezing her multi-billion dollar ketchup bottle to repel what she perceives as Bush’s “personal attacks.”  But don’t look for CNN, The Times or Dan Rather to expose the Kerry’s financial treachery. 

Heinz’s planned political heist is reminiscent of the recent antics of billionaire George Soros.  A staunch Democrat and self-professed Bush-hater, Soros vowed – and even said he’d make it his mission in life – to go completely broke, if it meant defeating Bush this fall.  But the media elite has once again looked the other way on this one.

Moreover, the leftist media still covered for Kerry when he tried to politicize Bush’s recent visit to a New York City memorial ceremony.  In fact, the MRC said ABC’s Charles Gibson used Bush’s visit to parrot liberal complaints about 9/11 images in the Bush ad: “Gibson claimed the ad had “ignited” controversy and debate but didn’t tell viewers that the complaints were from a small group of liberals and a pro-Kerry union.”

Kerry has also been trying to make political hay out of Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe’s bogus AWOL charge that Bush was absent during some of his service in the National Guard.

According to a March 7 article in the UK Telegraph, in a Bill Clinton-like draft-dodging move, Kerry was actually the one trying to avoid his military responsibilities.

UK Telegraph’s New York reporter Charles Laurence wrote that Kerry tried to defer his military service for a year, according to a newly rediscovered newspaper article in a Harvard University newspaper:

"He wrote to his local recruitment board seeking permission to spend a further 12 months studying in Paris, after completing his degree course at Yale University in the mid-1960s,” Laurence reported.

"The revelation appears to undercut Sen. Kerry’s carefully-cultivated image as a man who willingly served his country in a dangerous war - in supposed contrast to President Bush, who served in the Texas National Guard and thus avoided being sent to Vietnam."

Laurence added that when the Telegraph tried to contact Kerry headquarters to give the Massachusetts Senator a chance to confirm or deny the story, their phone calls were never returned.

Definitely, Kerry has the willing accomplices of The Times, CNN and Dan Rather, as well as other media elite, to do his propagandizing in a calculated effort to try to take out Bush this fall.  But then again, that’s all the Left has going for them – blatant lies, distortions and dirty campaign tricks as they try to slant public opinion against Bush.

In other words, Kerry can run on his trumped-up record, but Bush cannot run on his admirable success in winning two separate wars? – that has been the defining moment of his presidency.  But to the media elite, Bush is being political and Kerry is not.

KERRY CALLED FOR WMD HUNT IN 2002; CNN CALLS IT “FRUITLESS”

Speaking of media leftists running damage control for the Democrats, although Kerry declared in 2002 that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and needed to be stopped, a CNN promo for an upcoming interview with U.S. enemy Hans Blix, said: “What does he think about our fruitless search for WMDs?”  By editorializing even its promos, CNN displays their utter contempt for Bush – and favor for Kerry.

In the long run, it’s Bush who constantly has to defend himself, while the Democrats get the mikes, the sound bites, the air time and the prominent news coverage, as leftist portals like CNN treat their fellow Democrats as royalty, as well as trustworthy news sources.

For example, CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield started one of her March 13 segments by suggesting that Bush and the Republicans were “attacking” Kerry, while the Democrats only wanted answers about Bush’s supposed “credibility” problem.  Apparently, CNN believes that their beloved Democrats’ proven lack of credibility can never be questioned. 

But with Bush and the GOP – which CNN obviously loathes, it’s fair game, without any objectivity, fairness or balance.  No wonder Fox News is number one in the ratings.  People are sick and tired of the Dan Rathers of the news industry that repeatedly distort and tilt the news in the Democrats’ favor, while always finding fault with Republicans.

For instance, on last Thursday’s NBC Nightly News, Tom Brokaw blathered: “The Bush-Cheney campaign is out tonight with its first ad attacking Kerry by name.  The new ad, which will begin airing tomorrow in 18 battleground states, calls Kerry quote, ‘wrong on taxes, wrong on defense.’  A radio version of the ad will also run in select markets.”

According to the MRC, Brokaw avoided portraying Kerry as the one who made a baseless allegation about criminal conduct.  Instead, Brokaw highlighted how Kerry, standing in front of a group of U.S. Senators, “lit into what he called ‘Republican hit squads’ specializing in ‘trying to destroy people.’

“The previous day, a wireless mike that Kerry was wearing picked up his comment that his opponents are quote, ‘the most crooked, lying group I have ever seen.’  And Kerry won’t take that back.”

(In another classic, Clinton-style pathological flip-flop, Kerry on Monday morning hypocritically accused Bush of not supplying our troops with body armor, when it was Kerry who voted against sending it to Iraq.  Bush had already included the request for body armor in the $87 billion earmarked for Iraq, which Kerry also voted against.)

KERRY KNEW ABOUT 9/11 BOSTON HIJACKING PLAN YET DID NOTHING

Speaking of Kerry’s apathy concerning the war on terror, according to Washington investigative reporter Paul Sperry, Kerry often boasts how he “sounded the alarm on terrorism years before 9/ 11,” referring to his 1997 book, The New War.

But Kerry didn’t blast it when it really counted, Sperry wrote – four months before the hijackings, when he was hand-delivered evidence of serious security breaches at Logan International Airport, with specific warnings that terrorists could exploit them:

"Former FAA security officials say the Massachusetts senator had the power to prevent at least the Boston hijackings and save the World Trade Center and thousands of lives, yet he failed to take effective action after they gave him a prophetic warning that his state’s main airport was vulnerable to multiple hijackings,” Sperry wrote in the March 15 edition of the New York Post.

Again, as Kerry continues to accuse Bush of “misleading America” into the war in Iraq, the Kerry media cabal has flatly refused to expose Kerry’s treasonous dereliction of duty in responding to a tip that could have prevented the hijackings at Logan International Airport.  Much like Clinton’s fear of racial profiling, Kerry did nothing as well.

KERRY REFUSES TO APOLOGIZE FOR HOWARD DEAN-STYLE GAFFE
 
While Kerry continues his unsubstantiated charges against the Bush Administration, his media friends will not likely investigate his phony claims.

Still refusing to disavow his hypocritical remark about “the most crooked, lying” Republicans – a comment he made in front of his fellow partisan Democratic Senators, Kerry arrogantly said: “I have no intention whatsoever of apologizing for my remarks.  I think the Republicans need to start talking about the real issues before the country.”

But isn’t this exactly what Kerry is avoiding?  Kerry’s the one who’s running from the truth.  Kerry’s the one on the defensive, with his media attack dogs ready and willing to go for the Republican jugular, without questioning Kerry’s positions on the real issues.

As a result, Kerry’s arrogance continues to show no bounds, especially concerning Kerry’s alleged support from brutal despots.  (In his 1997 book, Kerry called terrorist leader Yasser Arafat a “role model” and a “statesman.”)   

Last Monday, Kerry told reporters in Florida that he had supposedly met with foreign leaders who privately endorsed him, releasing another lie – and tickling the ears of the salivating, anti-Bush media elite:

“I’ve met with foreign leaders who can’t go out and say this publicly,” Kerry claimed.  “But, boy, they look at you and say: ‘You’ve got to win this.  You’ve got to beat this guy.  We need a new policy.’  Things like that.”

Unlike the consecutive censoring coming from the Kerry-friendly media, the Washington Times reported last Friday that Kerry “refused to provide any information to support his assertion earlier this week that he has met with foreign leaders who beseeched him to prevail over President Bush in November’s election.”

According to Senate records and his own published schedules, Kerry has made no official foreign trips since January 2003.  In fact, the Washington Times also reported “an extensive review of Kerry’s travel schedule domestically revealed only one opportunity for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to meet with foreign leaders here.”

Moreover, aides and supporters of Kerry added that “providing names of the leaders or their countries would injure those nations’ ongoing relations with the current Bush Administration.”

But when has Kerry ever worried about supporting our nation before, especially if it meant getting one up on the Bush Administration – regardless of whether or not it jeopardized our national security?

During a March 14 town hall meeting in Bethlehem, Pa., audience member Cedric Brown accused Kerry of lying about seeking support from these so-called foreign leaders.  Kerry immediately flip-flopped, claiming that he was actually talking about our U.S. allies.  Kerry flatly refused to name names.  Don’t expect his media buddies to ask him.  But you can bet that if Kerry were a Republican, they would be demanding that he spill the beans. 

Kerry also had the audacity to tell Brown that it wasn’t any of his business to know, when, in fact, as a U.S. senator getting paid by our tax dollars, it certainly is our business to know whom our politicians are meeting – especially if these supposed leaders Kerry claimed to have met with are from terrorist-friendly states.  Interestingly, France is already hoping Kerry wins, as well as the president-elect of Spain’s Socialist Party.

General Colin Powell told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace that “if [Kerry] feels it is that important an assertion to make, he ought to list some names.  If he can’t list names, then perhaps he should find something else to talk about.” 

In a typical Democrat style of avoiding questions when caught in a lie, Kerry went as far as demanding to know if Brown voted for Bush – as if that mattered.  Imagine what the media elite would do to Bush if he insulted an audience member the same way Kerry did.

The truth is, Kerry never met with any foreign officials, according to official Senate travel records kept by the travel secretary.  But because Kerry was caught in yet another one of his patent lies, he turns the tables in a Clinton-style maneuver and attacks an innocent audience member who had the guts to stand up to Kerry’s daily prevarications.

The media elite will also try to slant Kerry’s Howard Dean-like meltdown in his favor – especially when he outright lied to Brown about meeting with the foreign leaders Kerry claimed were supporting him.

Our country simply cannot take another eight years of a Bill Clinton-style liar like Kerry.  And we simply should not tolerate the leftist media’s irresponsibility in not exposing him.  A fatal flaw has been exposed in Kerry’s latest lie about supposedly meeting with foreign leaders and his media friends will do whatever it takes to repair the damage.  We should expect honesty out of leaders, as well as the mainstream media.

REUTERS LABELS BROWN AS A “PERSISTENT REPUBLICAN

In stark contrast, Reuters Political Correspondent John Whitesides, in his March 14 story, referred to Brown, who challenged Kerry, as a “persistent Republican,” who “demanded at a town hall meeting to know who the leaders were.”  Whitesides also labeled Brown as a “registered Republican,” further insinuating that, because Brown is a Republican, he had no right to expect the truth from Kerry.  But these same media elites continue to treat Democrats like Kerry with favoritism.

Still another story that has never seen the light of day from the pro-Democrat media comes from presidential biographer Douglas Brinkley, author of the Kerry biography, Tour of Duty, which supposedly chronicles Kerry’s Vietnam War exploits.

According to Brinkley, Kerry attended a meeting of fellow members of VVAW.  In the November 1971 meeting in Kansas City, Kerry allegedly heard about a plot to assassinate pro-Vietnam War U.S. Senators.

Brinkley said in his book that if it turns out that Kerry knew of the treasonous plan, he had an obligation to go to the authorities:

"The question is: did Kerry quit [VVAW] before Kansas City or did he quit after Kansas City,” Brinkley recently told WABC Radio’s Steve Malzberg.  “If he quit after Kansas City, that means he clearly knew about this assassination plot against the Senators and never went to the authorities.

What’s more, Kerry claimed he submitted an official letter of resignation to the VVAW just days before the Kansas City meeting.  But two Vietnam veterans who attended the meeting told the New York Sun on March 12 that Kerry was definitely at the meeting.

Meanwhile, per Kerry’s Clinton-like modus operandi, copies of his resignation letter are nowhere to be found.  In addition, because Kerry resigned after the meeting, he already would have known about the alleged murder plot.

But, as usual, the American people don’t know a thing about this latest skeleton coming out of Kerry’s closet because the media elites are either keeping it under raps, or just don’t care to compromise any slim chance Kerry might have of beating Bush this fall. 

KERRY, PROUD RECIPIENT OF “SPECIAL INTEREST” MONEY

Speaking of another of Kerry’s many skeletons his media companions refuse to drag out of his closet is his rhetoric about stopping “special interest” money from flowing in political campaigns, especially since Kerry’s own pockets are lined with soft money.

In his New Hampshire victory speech, Kerry blathered, “I have a message for the influence peddlers, for the polluters, the HMOs, the big drug companies that get in the way, the big oil, and the special interests who now call the White House their home: We’re coming.  You’re going.”

But according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), last year Kerry accepted more money from lobbyists than any other senator; Kerry also just happens to be the wealthiest politician in Washington, whose wife, Teresa, once again, is heiress to the Heinz ketchup empire’s multi-billion dollar fortune’s money belt. 

The CRP added that Kerry also received more than half a million dollars from the health care industry, with many financial firms giving well over $3 million.  In an interesting side note, Kerry also just happens to sit on the Senate Finance Committee.  But, of course, Dan Rather or CNN won’t be telling you that.

Once again, in the leftist media, Democrats come out the big winners in the White House press corps jackpot, while Republicans and conservatives end up on the losing end, simply because they aren’t in the same political and ideological camp.   

In fact, Republicans are routinely the ones who are undermined and negatively portrayed, while Democrats are continually depicted as credible news sources that can never be questioned or second-guessed on any erroneous comments they make.

By all intents and purposes, media elitists like Dan Rather and CNN are no longer journalists – they’re propagandists for the Democratic Party, who are all too willing to do whatever it would take to get a Democrat back in the White House.  That’s because the media elite ignores anything that would be detrimental to the Democrats. 

(For example, when Kerry recently claimed that he wouldn’t mind being referred to as “the second black president,” the mainstream media ignored it.  But if a Republican had uttered such racism, it would have been splashed all over the evening news – much like the media elite’s savage witch-hunt of Trent Lott.  But, in the same vein, known racist Democrats Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings still get free passes from the media elite.)

KERRY’S MEDIA PALS IGNORE HIS BOGUS CHARGES AGAINST GOP, U.S.

In fact, Kerry’s not-so-off-the-cuff comment, where he referred to “the Republican attack machine,” was meant to be the typical bone for his leftist media friends to fetch.  Kerry probably figured that if he continued to lie about Bush and Republicans, his media thugs would keep the attention off his irresponsible carpet-bombing conspiracy theories and onto his daily, amplified fabrications about Bush.  To Kerry, the end justifies the means.

One such bogus charge Kerry once leveled against his own U.S. comrades that the mainstream media have yet to report is his claim that his fellow soldiers 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 Genghis Khan...”  In a particular note of hypocrisy, Kerry later admitted he never witnessed it, with the media elite still remaining silent.  Again, if he were a Republican, the partisan press would have mercilessly vilified him.

Upon returning safely onto U. S. soil, Kerry, in 1971, immediately formed Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), a group of embittered, anti-U.S. veterans that had been marshalling around Kerry’s canard.  In fact, Kerry had repeated these same lies on Meet the Press, with supposed Vietnam veteran Al Hubbard, who was later discovered to be a total fraud, having never once served in Vietnam.  Nonetheless, Kerry had never disavowed these false charges he leveled against his fellow soldiers, as well as the U.S.

But while Kerry viciously accuses anyone who dares to challenge him as coming from the “Republican attack squads,” there are others who have been legitimately scarred by Kerry’s shameful treason against our country. 

DAUGHTER OF VIETNAM VET: KERRY CAUSED DEATHS OF GOOD MEN

Case in point: Laura Bartholomew Armstrong, daughter of Lt. Col. Roger J. “Black Bart” Bartholomew, a First Air Cavalry rocket artillery helicopter pilot who was killed in Vietnam on Thanksgiving Day 1968, when she was eight years old.

In a March 1 Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, Armstrong, a former journalist with a military newspaper and a U.S. Marine widow, said she was appalled by Kerry’s latest assertions that Bush “has reopened the wounds of Vietnam,” when Kerry has been the one to play the Vietnam card for his own political opportunism:

“For months, “Armstrong wrote, “I’ve heard President Bush talking about the present, while Mr. Kerry and the media want to focus on the past.  I think we need to see the whole picture.

“As the kid of a real war hero who did not come back, I’d like to comment not on Kerry’s service, but his post-service activities.  Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Mr. Kerry’s organization of choice when he returned from his shortened tour of duty in Vietnam (and his springboard to fame), was known to me even as a child.  The organization, while providing a place for angst-ridden vets to land after coming home, had an awful effect on those of us who lost our fathers.

“It was bad enough to hear our dads criticized by those who hated the military, but to hear vets allege rampant war crimes and call their fellow soldiers evil before all the world really twisted the knife.  Mr. Kerry led the way, proud in the company of Jane Fonda and others we believed had caused the deaths of good men.  This group’s testimony tarnished honorable actions.  After taking the oath to preserve and protect, they grandstanded, throwing service awards in a show of defiance that diminished each sacrifice.”

Despite Kerry’s outright fabrications about Vietnam, as well as Iraq, Kerry knows that his leftist media pals won’t hold him accountable for his slanderous gaffes.  Rather, Kerry’s malicious canards will continue to go under-reported, unchallenged (and taken as gospel), as his daily anti-Bush rants become fodder for his media buddies’ news menus.
 
For instance, while Democrats like Kerry supposedly fear a “right-wing” takeover of the courts, they systematically filibuster every judicial nominee by getting their own leftist judicial activists who legislate from the bench – as in the recent passage of Massachusetts’ abominable and oxymoronic legalization of “gay marriage.” 

Moreover, while Kerry and Howard Dean supposedly fear the “right-wing” control of the media, liberals already control CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, NPR, The Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Chicago Tribune, Time and Newsweek magazines. 

What’s more, the Left also has their fair share of leftist writers who crank out pages and pages of lies and Bush-hating, leftist propaganda from the likes of Al Franken, Michael Moore, Jim Hightower, Paul Krugman, Joe Conason, Molly Ivins, Mark Green, David Corn and Martha Nussbaum.  Definitely, the liberal voice is continually being heard.

But whenever the truth does come out about Kerry’s miserable voting record and anti-American stance that likely had cost ten of thousands of innocent lives in Vietnam, he screams about a phantom, non-existent “vast right-wing conspiracy.”  Since Kerry cannot handle the truth, he openly slanders anyone who confronts him with the truth.

KERRY MORE INTERESTED IN WAR WITH BUSH THAN WAR ON TERROR

Clearly, Kerry is far more interested in waging his partisan war of words against Bush than he is about fighting the war on terror.  Kerry, in the end, is a fraud with absolutely no character or integrity, as he’s proven time and again when he slandered our country and our soldiers after asking to leave early from Vietnam.  Truth be told, Kerry has become an antiquated political opportunist who cares more about photo ops than he does about honorably serving and protecting our country from our enemies.

That’s because Kerry and other partisan Democrats forget about 9/11 and want to sweep it under the rug like it never happened.  As a result, Kerry’s media cohorts act as if he and rest of the Democrats always should have the final say on everything political – and care nothing about getting to the truth behind why we fight the war on terror in the first place.

Instead of running PR, the media elite needs to expose Kerry for the immature smear-monger he is and stop parroting his unsubstantiated allegations for their nightly vitriol.  Kerry needs to quit playing his dog-eared Vietnam War card and start talking about the real issues.  Because as it stands right now, the American people don’t really know his positions on anything, especially Iraq, because of his serial flip-flopping and waffling.

Once more, Kerry needs to stop running at the mouth, quit dropping his little F-bombs of sophomoric conspiracy theories to his friends in the media and start cleaning up his act.  In fact, Kerry’s own Web site is currently riddled with vulgar anti-Bush obscenities. 

How’s that for mature leadership for our country in the face of continued global terrorism?  But the mainstream media had a field day when Bush called New York Times leftist reporter Adam Clymer an a—hole.  Now they disingenuously ignore Kerry’s gaffe.

But when it’s all said and done – and Kerry’s finished making a complete fool of himself in his anti-U.S. rants against the war on terror, it will take another four years of Bush’s honorable military leadership to repair the damage done by Kerry and the rest of the traitors from the Clinton Administration, who never responded to the terrorist threat – and who continually ignored the very terrorist cells that attacked us on 9/11.

In the end, leftists like Kerry don’t want to take responsibility for Clinton’s failure to keep his promises to go after the terrorists for: The 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed 6 and injured 1,000; the 1993 Mogadishu firefight that killed 18 U.S. soldiers; the 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist attack on the federal building by American extremists that killed 168, wounding several hundred others; the 1995 Saudi Arabia car bomb that killed 5 U.S. military personnel; the 1996 Khobal Towers bombing that killed 19 U.S. soldiers, wounding 515; the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 231 citizens, 12 Americans and injured 5,000; the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen that killed 17 U.S. sailors, wounding 39.

(This is why Kerry has been silent about the recent terrorist attacks in Spain because he knows he’ll have to defend his crusade against the war in Iraq, which will further expose him as a fraud.  This is especially true since there now is a reported link with Al-Quaeda, which he and his other partisan Democrats previously denied with Iraq.)

Yet, neither Kerry – nor his mainstream media allies – has ever held Clinton personally accountable for any of these terrorist attacks perpetrated against the U.S. that happened on Clinton’s watch.  In effect, Clinton could have prevented 9/11.

Paradoxically, if elected president, Kerry said he would relegate possible terrorist attacks to local law enforcement, just like Clinton did.  But where was the media elite when Clinton promised, after every terrorist attack, to go after Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden (of which Clinton had three opportunities to capture but didn’t) and Al-Quaeda?

KERRY TELLS BUSH TO “BRING IT ON,” BUT CANNOT TAKE THE HEAT

CK Rairden, editor of the Washington Dispatch, wrote in his Feb. 23 column: “Kerry had stated ad nauseam that he was ready for any national security questions with a “bring it on” mantra that now appears to be nothing more than an applause line.”  Actually Bush said “Bring 'em on.”

As General Colin Powell said, Rairden added that Kerry should quit playing political games and start acting like a man by either putting up or shutting up:

“America is at war, and the Kerry campaign would serve itself better to prepare answers, not excuses and victimization.  The Bush campaign telegraphed their strategy to question John Kerry’s long congressional voting record, and Kerry invited it, stated that he was prepared for it by delivering his signature applause line at every stop on the stump.  “Bring----It----On.”  The invitation has been accepted.  The Bush team is ready to “bring it,” Rairden wrote.

But as long as Kerry’s left-wing colleagues keep covering for him by not holding his feet to the fire – like they do with Bush on a daily basis, don’t expect Kerry or any other partisan Democrat to be open and honest about anything he or she says or does. 

Just as thousands of grieving Spanish voters recently handed over their U.S.-allied government to their enemy-appeasing Socialist Party, Democrats now seem to want to do the same here in the U.S. by giving our government over to the likes of Communist-friendly John Kerry, who seems to have an affection for terrorists.

In the end, Kerry shouldn’t be lusting after the White House; based on his faulty record and lack of commitment to telling the truth, he should be running for the president of his beloved U.N.

A blogger this Monday on the MRC Web site had this to say about the enemy-appeasing Kerry: “The terrorists won the Spain election.  The Socialists there haven’t the courage and strength for the fight; neither does our “socialists,” the Lefties of this nation.  So if Kerry wins, Al Quaeda wins here, too.  And the fight is lost.”

(While the fight is far from lost, this serves as an example of how Americans are beginning to seek out other alternative news sources to get the rest of the story they aren’t getting from the pro-Democratic media.)

Now that Spain’s incoming prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero (who wants Kerry to win the November election), has vowed to pull out Spanish troops from Iraq (thereby further jeopardizing our allied relationship with Spain), look for Kerry to promise to do the same with U.S. troops, if elected (God forbid!) – and all with the unquestionable and unwavering support of his media sycophants.

Most likely, if it means putting Bush in a bad light, Kerry’s media thugs are already drooling over this one.

Doug Schmitz is a conse
rvative columnist who regularly contributes to Etherzone.com, BushCountry.org and has been a guest columnist for Accuracy in Media (www.aim.org.). © Doug Schmitz.  All Rights Reserved.

Email Doug Schmitz

Send this Article to a Friend