SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: stockman_scott who wrote (54123)8/25/2004 6:28:59 PM
From: T L Comiskey  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
*** Ron Paul Commentary ***

9-11 Commission Charade

The 9-11 Commission report, released late last month, has disrupted the normally quiet Washington August. Various congressional committees are holding hearings on the report this week, even though Congress is not in session, in an attempt to show the government is “doing something” about terrorism in an election year. The Commission recommendations themselves have been accepted reverently and without question, as if handed down from on high.

But what exactly is going on here? These hearings amount to nothing more than current government officials meeting with former government officials, many of whom now lobby government officials, and agreeing that we need more government! The current and past architects of the very bureaucracy that failed Americans so badly on September 11th three years ago are now meeting to recommend more bureaucracy. Why on earth do we assume that former government officials, some of whom are self-interested government lobbyists, suddenly become wise, benevolent, and politically neutral when they retire? Why do we look to former bureaucrats to address a bureaucratic failure?

The 9-11 Commission report is several hundred pages worth of recommendations to make government larger and more intrusive. Does this surprise anyone? It was written by people who cannot imagine any solution not coming from government. One thing you definitely will not see in the Commission report is a single critique of our interventionist foreign policy, which is the real source of most anti-American feelings around the globe.

The Commissioners recommend the government spend billions of dollars spreading pro-US propaganda overseas, as if that will convince the world to love us. What we have forgotten in the years since the end of the Cold War is that actions speak louder than words. The US didn't need propaganda in the captive nations of Eastern Europe during the Cold War because people knew us by our deeds. They could see the difference between the United States and their Soviet overlords. That is why, given the first chance, they chose freedom. Yet everything we have done in response to the 9-11 attacks, from the Patriot Act to the war in Iraq, has reduced freedom in America. Spending more money abroad or restricting liberties at home will do nothing to deter terrorists, yet this is exactly what the 9-11 Commission recommends.

Our nation will be safer only when government does less, not more. Rather than asking ourselves what Congress or the president should be doing about terrorism, we ought to ask what government should stop doing. It should stop spending trillions of dollars on unconstitutional programs that detract from basic government functions like national defense and border security. It should stop meddling in the internal affairs of foreign nations, but instead demonstrate by example the superiority of freedom, capitalism, and an open society. It should stop engaging in nation-building, and stop trying to create democratic societies through military force. It should stop militarizing future enemies, as we did by supplying money and weapons to characters like Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. It should stop entangling the American people in unholy alliances like the UN and NATO, and pledge that our armed forces will never serve under foreign command. It should stop committing American troops to useless, expensive, and troublesome assignments overseas, and instead commit the Department of Defense to actually defending America. It should stop interfering with the 2nd amendment rights of private citizens and businesses seeking to defend themselves.

More than anything, our federal government should stop deluding us that more government is the answer. We have far more to fear from an unaccountable government at home than from any foreign terrorist.

house.gov



To: stockman_scott who wrote (54123)8/25/2004 8:15:41 PM
From: T L Comiskey  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 89467
 
"I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," said John E. O'Neill in a conversation that was taped by the former president's secret recording system. The tape is stored at the National Archives in College Park, Md."

Swift Boat Writer Lied on Cambodia Claim

55 minutes ago

By ELIZABETH WOLFE, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The chief critic of John Kerry (news - web sites)'s military record told President Nixon in 1971 that he had been in Cambodia in a swift boat during the Vietnam War — a claim at odds with his recent statements that he was not.










"I was in Cambodia, sir. I worked along the border," said John E. O'Neill in a conversation that was taped by the former president's secret recording system. The tape is stored at the National Archives in College Park, Md.

In an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday, O'Neill did not dispute what he said to Nixon, but insisted he was never actually in Cambodia.

"I think I made it very clear that I was on the border, which is exactly where I was for three months. I was about 100 yards from Cambodia," O'Neill said in clarifying the June 16, 1971, conversation with Nixon.

Chad Clanton, a spokesman for the Democratic presidential candidate, said the tape "is just the latest in a long line of lies and false statements from a group trying to smear John Kerry's military service. Again, they're being proven liars with their own words. It's time for President Bush (news - web sites) to stand up and specifically condemn this smear."

O'Neill served in Vietnam from 1969-70 and says in a recent book that he took command of Kerry's swift boat after the future Massachusetts senator returned home from the war.

O'Neill has emerged as a leading figure in the attacks on Kerry's war record. He is co-author of "Unfit for Command," which accuses Kerry of lying about his record, and is a member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has aired two television commercials harshly critical of Kerry.

In the book, O'Neill wrote that Kerry's accounts of having been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve of 1968 "are complete lies."

"... Kerry was never ordered into Cambodia by anyone and would have been court-martialed had he gone there," he wrote. O'Neill wrote that the Navy positioned its own craft along the border area to make sure no American vessels strayed across the border from Vietnam.

In an interview Sunday on ABC's "This Week" O'Neill said: "Our boats didn't go north of, only slightly north of Sedek," which he said was about 50 miles from the Cambodian border.

Kerry's campaign has acknowledged that he may not have been in Cambodia on Christmas Eve of 1968, as he has previously stated. The campaign says Kerry does recall being on patrol along the Cambodia-Vietnam border on that date, although it's unclear if he crossed into Cambodia.

Referring to the tape of the Oval Office meeting with Nixon, O'Neill criticized Kerry for making claims, including in the Senate, that he was in Cambodia.

"I've never represented on the floor of the Senate, or told people 50 times like John Kerry did that I was in Cambodia. That never happened. And I don't think he was ever there either," O'Neill said.

The snippet of taped conversation surfaced after more than a week of controversy surrounding claims that Kerry lied about his actions in a war in which he won five military medals. The Democrat and his allies have vigorously attacked such claims as a smear, laboring to undermine the charges as well as cast doubt on the men who are making them.

For his part, Kerry accused the swift boat group of being a "front group" that was doing Bush's dirty work.

The Bush campaign denies any involvement with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

___



Associated Press writer Jennifer C. Kerr contributed to this report.



To: stockman_scott who wrote (54123)8/25/2004 10:20:14 PM
From: denizen48  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 89467
 
Do you know whether anything happened to AirAmerica.com's radio program today? The web site won't come up.



To: stockman_scott who wrote (54123)8/26/2004 10:11:56 AM
From: longnshort  Respond to of 89467
 
Swift Vets: Real Men Confront the Left

August 26, 2004

by Christopher G. Adamo

Of far greater significance than the firestorm surrounding John Kerry’s ostensible “war record,” every detail of which is being credibly contested by the organization “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,” is the manner in which the Kerry camp and its allies in the liberal media are attempting to respond.

Their predictable and reprehensible actions serve as examples of how political war has been waged against traditional America, by the left, over the past four decades. Conversely, the Swift Boat veterans, despite being vastly outnumbered and out funded, are nonetheless winning the day, and thus stand as an example to conservatives of how to confront and overcome the liberal leviathan.

To begin with, the Swift Vets have done nothing but simply bring forth the facts, albeit in the face of enormous attempts to undermine and ultimately, silence them. But rather than engage them in direct debate (always a dangerous prospect for the intellectually vacant forces on the left), their opponents have, in the typical and cowardly fashion of bullies, threatened to sue them, along with any TV station that chooses to run their ads.

Furthermore, the Kerry campaign has officially filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission, contending that the federal government should forbid the ads from being run. This from the people who champion every form of “free speech and expression,” as long as it is limited to kiddie porn and taxpayer funded blasphemy. Surely, the truth has become an enemy to these people.

Nevertheless, the Swift Vets press on, and the liberal attack machine, despite its malignant efforts, has proven to be completely ineffectual at stopping them. Perhaps the most desperate, most vicious, and therefore the most telling incidents was one that occurred last week on the TV show “Crossfire,” hosted by Robert Novak. There, former Clinton cronies James Carville and Lanny Davis directly faced John O'Neill, co-author of “Unfit for Command,” the Swift Vets’ book detailing the flagrant deficiencies of Kerry’s wartime (and post-war) activities.

Faced with the consistent points made by O’Neill, Carville and Davis continually interrupted with rude hysterics, in a brazen effort to prevent O’Neill from successfully verbalizing his case. This they immediately followed with accusations that O’Neill wasn’t answering their “questions.” But rather than making them appear victorious, the antics of Carville and Davis embodied all of the courage and bravado of a couple of noisy toy poodles. In Novak’s words, it was Carville’s “most disgraceful performance on this show.”

Ditto, for “Hardball” host Chris Matthews, a few days later. Clearly, Matthews exists among the realm of deluded media types who believe that dominance of the microphone somehow equates to holding the moral and intellectual high ground. Matthews was equally cowardly and disgraceful in his treatment of conservative author and columnist Michelle Malkin.

During his “interview” of Malkin, Matthews repeatedly and deliberately mischaracterized her assertions regarding the Kerry controversy, while refusing to allow her to clarify her position. Most pathetic of all was Matthews’ feeble attempt at justifying his behavior as the “pursuit of truth” in a statement he later posted on his website.

But for sheer absurdity, nothing surpasses Kerry’s contention that, on account of his four months of “service” in Vietnam, his actions should somehow be considered above question or criticism (a notion that is in no way supported by Kerry or his minions in their own treatment of the Swift Vets). According to such thinking, Timothy McVeigh ought to be walking the streets today as a free and honored citizen, having “faithfully served” in the first Gulf War (and for considerably longer than four months).

In stark contrast to all of the liberal caterwauling, consider the qualities of old-fashioned American masculinity personified by the Swift Boat Veterans... qualities that used to be respected as “mainstream”, and need to be once again. These courageous veterans display an unwavering resolve to confront their opposition, regardless of the cost, in a manner that could never be emulated by the likes of Matthews, Carville, Davis, or Kerry.

Liberalism has never flourished except by the total suppression of its opposition. No amount of falsehood and propaganda, irrespective of the venom with which it is presented, will ever be sufficient to negate the existence of facts, once they are known. Likewise, all of the petty tantrums of the left simply cannot prevail when determined and heroic men like the 254 members of “Swift Boat Veterans for Truth” decide to make a stand.

Christopher G. Adamo