continued from prior post.........
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,” Brinkley wrote.
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
bushcountry.org |
