Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
16:15 ET Rambus files patent infringement suit against use of its inventions by DDR2 and GDDRx Products (RMBS) 18.29 +0.22: -- Update -- ...
Developing.......
"Exit polls indicating that gay issues and "abortion for sexual convenience" were important for those voting for Bush."
The polling data prior to & just after the election do not
support that POV. Only 21% of the voters polled cited "moral
values" as their main concern for their vote. That means a
subset of that 21% found "gay issues" & "abortion for sexual
convenience" to be important. And that's only part of the
problem with the polling data.
I can assure you that "moral values" was my #1 issue. And it
had absolutely nothing to do with religion, abortion or gay
issues. It had everything to do with Kerry. I found his
morals & ethics shockingly wanting - a belief shared by a
larger % than the MSM will ever admit.
This religious fanatics, gay issues & abortion issue as it is
currently portrayed is a myth that is not supported by known
facts. IMO, it will be another myth that causes the liberal
left to make miscalculations in the future that will hurt the
Democratic party again & again until they "get it". Creating
false perceptions just does not work in the 21st century
thanks to the internet & blogging.
One of the pollsters on the committee that created the exit
poll (the MSM now horribly misinterprets) explains why.......
THIS IS ME PATTING MYSELF ON THE BACK
Cori Dauber
Last night I wrote that "moral values" had to be the most poorly worded polling question in history. Today in the Times, one of the pollsters on the committee what produced the exit poll -- the one who tried to talk the committee out of using the question -- explains [edit: see the post below] why he opposed using the question, and why it's distorting analysis of the election now. I really believe, given some of the post-mortems I've seen, and what they mean for where the Democratic party goes from here (and what they mean for the type of civic -- and civil -- discourse we see in the next few years) that this piece is one of the most important you'll read on the election.
You know, I'm no polling expert, and I don't try to pass myself off as one, but I hang out with enough of them to have picked up a few things. And just from the little I know, it was immediately clear that the conclusions people were jumping to based on the "moral values" question were asking that result to bear a weight it just couldn't hold. Aside from the obvious (that "moral values" could have meant Kerry's values, as a characteristic of leadership) the interpretations also presumed that every voter was a single issue voter, but the poll never asked people if they voted only on the basis of the issue "most important to you."
I'll go back to something I've raised before -- given how reliant political reporters in particular are on polls, how well trained are they in polling and the use of polls?
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
A Question of Values
By GARY LANGER
A poorly devised exit poll question and a dose of spin are threatening to undermine our understanding of the 2004 presidential election.
The news media has made much of the finding that a fifth of voters picked "moral values" as the most important issue in deciding their vote - as many as cited terrorism or the economy. The conclusion: moral values are ascendant as a political issue.
The reporting accurately represents the exit poll data, but not reality. While morals and values are critical in informing political judgments, they represent personal characteristics far more than a discrete political issue. Conflating the two distorts the story of Tuesday's election.
This distortion comes from a question in the exit poll, co-sponsored by the national television networks and The Associated Press, that asked voters what was the most important issue in their decision: taxes, education, Iraq, terrorism, economy/jobs, moral values or health care. Six of these are concrete, specific issues. The seventh, moral values, is not, and its presence on the list produced a misleading result.
How do we know?
Pre-election polls consistently found that voters were most concerned about three issues: Iraq, the economy and terrorism. When telephone surveys asked an open-ended issues question (impossible on an exit poll), answers that could sensibly be categorized as moral values were in the low single digits. In the exit poll, they drew 22 percent.
Why the jump?
One reason is that the phrase means different things to people. Moral values is a grab bag; it may appeal to people who oppose abortion, gay marriage and stem-cell research but, because it's so broadly defined, it pulls in others as well. Fifteen percent of non-churchgoers picked it, as did 12 percent of liberals.
Look, too, at the other options on the list. Four of them played to John Kerry's strengths: economy/jobs, health care, education, Iraq. Just two worked in President Bush's favor: terrorism and taxes. If you were a Bush supporter, and terrorism and taxes didn't inspire you, moral values was your place to go on the exit poll questionnaire. People who picked it voted for him by 80 percent to 18 percent.
Moral values, moreover, is a loaded phrase, something polls should avoid. (Imagine if "patriotism" were on the list.) It resonates among conservatives and religious Americans. While 22 percent of all voters marked moral values as their top issue, 64 percent of religious conservatives checked it. And among people who said they were mainly interested in a candidate with strong religious faith (just 8 percent, in a far more balanced list of candidate attributes), 61 percent checked moral values as their top issue. So did 42 percent of people who go to church more than once a week, 41 percent of evangelical white Christians and 37 percent of conservatives.
The makeup and views of the electorate in other measures provide some context for the moral values result. The number of conservative white Protestants or weekly churchgoing white Protestants voting (12 percent and 13 percent of voters, respectively) did not rise in 2004. Fifty-five percent of voters said abortion should be legal in all or most cases. Sixty percent said they supported either gay marriage (25 percent) or civil unions (an additional 35 percent).
Opinion researchers don't always agree. The exit poll is written by a committee, and that committee voted down my argument against including "moral values" in the issues list. That happens - and the exit poll overall did deliver a wealth of invaluable data. The point is not to argue that moral values, however defined, are not important. They are, and they should be measured. The intersection of religiosity, ideology and politics is the staging ground for many of the most riveting social issues of our day.
The point, instead, is that this hot-button catch phrase had no place alongside defined political issues on the list of most important concerns in the 2004 vote. Its presence there created a deep distortion - one that threatens to misinform the political discourse for years to come.
Gary Langer is the director of polling for ABC News.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Someone needs to clean your clock.
Scumbag
Hey, we all did what we could & in the end America spoke
loudly. I'm happy.
How about you?
I have no argument with Bush at all.
America spoke & your BS was soundly rejected.
"BREAKING> Bush speaks: "Kerry might win electrical college"
Well, you at least got your undisputed election.
It's so true about the hypocrisy of the libs. Any lies from
Bush's past can be falsely used as proof he shouldn't be
President. But when facts about Kerry's treacherous past are
allowed to be ignored because they are from so long ago.
I'm saying that between you & that extremist site you linked,
facts & Bush's words have been intentionally misrepresented
to make it appear that Bush believes that he has a direct
line to God and that God gives him instructions, such as when
to invade Iraq, and that any criticism of him is illegitimate.
Spin it all you want. Your POV about Bush in this instance
isn't reality based. Calling it just another left wing lie
would be more accurate.
BEST NEWS SO FAR TODAY!
Kerry's Pollster: We're Going To Lose
This has got to be disheartening for Democrats. John Kerry's pollster is apparently predicting defeat...
“We simply do not defeat an incumbent president in wartime.”
The quote above is from Mark Mellman. Mark is a Democratic pollster. And he’s very partisan. And he’s been working for Kerry this year.
But Mark is no fool and he has a reputation to maintain.
He explains his reasoning at some length in a column in The Hill this morning. He predicts that Bush will get 51.6% of the two-party vote."
If Matthew Dowd were saying it was over for Bush before it started that would be pretty depressing.
THE HILL:
THE POLLSTERS
Mark Mellman
The uphill fight is impossible to predict now
You, dear reader, have the advantage over me. I am writing this Sunday, before the election takes place. The opportunities for me to look foolish are legion. So I will resist both predictions and triumphalism.
For months, though, I’ve been assessing President Bush’s vulnerability, but win or lose, it is important to acknowledge the daunting challenge Sen. John Kerry faces.
Republicans have been spinning this fact for months and they are right.
First, we simply do not defeat an incumbent president in wartime. After wars surely, but never in their midst. Republicans have been spinning this fact for months, and they are correct.
Democrats have spoken often and powerfully about the nation’s economic problems. But by historical standards, they are not that bad. The “misery index” is 7.8 today but was 20.5 when Jimmy Carter was defeated. Economic models of elections show Bush winning 52-58 percent of the vote.
One could simply suggest that the models are off, but there is more to it than that.
These models essentially confirm that the level of economic pain we are now feeling is not commensurate with voting an incumbent president out of office.
Unemployment and inflation are lower than they have been when incumbents have been defeated. Growth is higher than it has been when presidents have been tossed out of office.
The war in Iraq is obviously hurting Bush, but some of these models also incorporate casualty figures as a proxy for war. These models tend to suggest that Bush should win by a large margin. Nearly 50,000 killed in Vietnam did not prevent Nixon’s reelection.
Bush’s approval ratings are also indicative of the difficulties Kerry faces. It is certainly true that the average incumbent who has been reelected has had a much higher job approval rating — 62 percent. Bush’s approval rating is now about 49 percent. Yet the last time an incumbent was beaten — Bush’s father — just 33 percent approved of his performance. When Carter was defeated, he had an approval rating of only 37 percent. On average, incumbents who have been defeated have only had a 38 percent job rating. Bush is 10 points higher than that.
We often point to the fact that a majority of Americans say the country is seriously off on the wrong track. Fifty-two percent hold that view. But when Bush Sr. was defeated, 72 percent thought the country was seriously off on the wrong track.
Only 39 percent give the economy a positive rating, a problem for the incumbent.
Yet in 1992, only about 10 percent were positive about the economy.
Taking all that and more into account, an expert forecasting model suggests that Bush will get 51.6 percent of the two-party vote.
So while Bush faces formidable obstacles, not the least of which is Kerry himself, the senator also faces a strong candidate. Bush is weaker than some other incumbents but much stronger than those who have been defeated.
You soon will know whether Kerry’s appeal was strong enough to overcome the incumbent’s strength. I think I will be smiling broadly. But it has been an uphill fight.
Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has worked for Democratic candidates and causes since 1982, including Sen. John Kerry this year.
http://www.hillnews.com/mellman/110204.aspx
BEST NEWS SO FAR TODAY!
Kerry's Pollster: We're Going To Lose
This has got to be disheartening for Democrats. John Kerry's pollster is apparently predicting defeat...
“We simply do not defeat an incumbent president in wartime.”
The quote above is from Mark Mellman. Mark is a Democratic pollster. And he’s very partisan. And he’s been working for Kerry this year.
But Mark is no fool and he has a reputation to maintain.
He explains his reasoning at some length in a column in The Hill this morning. He predicts that Bush will get 51.6% of the two-party vote."
If Matthew Dowd were saying it was over for Bush before it started that would be pretty depressing.
THE HILL:
THE POLLSTERS
Mark Mellman
The uphill fight is impossible to predict now
You, dear reader, have the advantage over me. I am writing this Sunday, before the election takes place. The opportunities for me to look foolish are legion. So I will resist both predictions and triumphalism.
For months, though, I’ve been assessing President Bush’s vulnerability, but win or lose, it is important to acknowledge the daunting challenge Sen. John Kerry faces.
Republicans have been spinning this fact for months and they are right.
First, we simply do not defeat an incumbent president in wartime. After wars surely, but never in their midst. Republicans have been spinning this fact for months, and they are correct.
Democrats have spoken often and powerfully about the nation’s economic problems. But by historical standards, they are not that bad. The “misery index” is 7.8 today but was 20.5 when Jimmy Carter was defeated. Economic models of elections show Bush winning 52-58 percent of the vote.
One could simply suggest that the models are off, but there is more to it than that.
These models essentially confirm that the level of economic pain we are now feeling is not commensurate with voting an incumbent president out of office.
Unemployment and inflation are lower than they have been when incumbents have been defeated. Growth is higher than it has been when presidents have been tossed out of office.
The war in Iraq is obviously hurting Bush, but some of these models also incorporate casualty figures as a proxy for war. These models tend to suggest that Bush should win by a large margin. Nearly 50,000 killed in Vietnam did not prevent Nixon’s reelection.
Bush’s approval ratings are also indicative of the difficulties Kerry faces. It is certainly true that the average incumbent who has been reelected has had a much higher job approval rating — 62 percent. Bush’s approval rating is now about 49 percent. Yet the last time an incumbent was beaten — Bush’s father — just 33 percent approved of his performance. When Carter was defeated, he had an approval rating of only 37 percent. On average, incumbents who have been defeated have only had a 38 percent job rating. Bush is 10 points higher than that.
We often point to the fact that a majority of Americans say the country is seriously off on the wrong track. Fifty-two percent hold that view. But when Bush Sr. was defeated, 72 percent thought the country was seriously off on the wrong track.
Only 39 percent give the economy a positive rating, a problem for the incumbent.
Yet in 1992, only about 10 percent were positive about the economy.
Taking all that and more into account, an expert forecasting model suggests that Bush will get 51.6 percent of the two-party vote.
So while Bush faces formidable obstacles, not the least of which is Kerry himself, the senator also faces a strong candidate. Bush is weaker than some other incumbents but much stronger than those who have been defeated.
You soon will know whether Kerry’s appeal was strong enough to overcome the incumbent’s strength. I think I will be smiling broadly. But it has been an uphill fight.
Mellman is president of The Mellman Group and has worked for Democratic candidates and causes since 1982, including Sen. John Kerry this year.
http://www.hillnews.com/mellman/110204.aspx
Make sure you read Bill Whittle - "DETERRENCE", Part 1
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20610287
And "DETERRENCE", Part 2
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20611907
Yup, typical tactic of the liberal left. Tell lie after lie
after lie. When you get challenged, attack them personally &
return to telling more lies.
It won't go away even if Kerry manages to win. It will come
out & then what?
"I won't bother to mention all of their lies and deceptions both leading up to the war and after it."
Because you couldn't prove one true if you tried. They are
part of the Big Lie from Team Kerry, the DNC & the Michael
Moore crowd.
I'm sure you never once squealed the lie, "Bush was AWOL", right?
LOL! You use a extremist left wing internet site that twists,
distorts, & lies about practically everything. But to you
they reported it factually & accurately.
You libs are a hoot!
The tile of the article you linked says it all.....
The Life and Crimes of George W. Bush: Coda: The House Rules
http://victoria.indymedia.org/news/2004/09/31103.php
Great point!
The most important election of your lives was held on Tuesday,
November 7th, 2000. You just didn't know it. Neither did I.
What happened on that day led to one man being in the White
House these past four years, rather than the other one.
A FINAL THOUGHT BEFORE THE SHOW
By BILL WHITTLE
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000111.html
On Tuesday, Americans will choose between the conservative hawk from Texas, and the conservative hawk from Massachusetts. Both are running on a platform to strengthen the military and track down terrorists wherever they may live. Draw your own conclusions about who has the most convincing track record in this regard.
I have tried to make clear the reasons I have, and continue to support, President Bush. Despite his many faults, he seems to understand that the only nations serious about this fight are already in the field at our side. We have recovered from budget deficits before. We have been debating abortion and gay rights and all the other lifestyle issues for decades, and these debates will not go away if John Kerry is elected.
I will be able to live with a Kerry Presidency. But what tortures me is the thought that this country is no longer capable of doing hard, dirty work -- that we have reached the point where nothing difficult is attainable because the cost is something less than free.
I believe, from a reading of the history and the very words of the leaders of North Vietnam, that John Kerry was instrumental in convincing them that if they were able to hang on and inflict enough American casualties, eventually we would tire and go home.
I further believe that history shows that the Ayatollah Khomeini had our number in this regard, and I regard the start of this current conflict as the day they overran the US Embassy in Tehran, to which our response was...what?
The murdering, beheading savages who are trying to steal victory from defeat in the American ballot box have seen these lessons of Vietnam, and Iran, and Somalia, and they are -- and have openly said they are -- doing their best to kill as many Americans as they can to win this election for the man they certainly seem to fear less. That tells me something.
We now discover from MEMRI (link here) in a more precise interpretation of Osama bin Laden's recent tape that he was in fact saying that those American states that do not mess with him will be safe, and the implication, of course, is that those that do -- by voting for Bush -- face his retaliation.
Whether or not you are willing to bargain your safety with this man is up to your own individual conscience. Personally, the idea disgusts me, and I think the reason the press has --shockingly! -- declined to mention this is because they know that despite Michael Moore, this is not Spain. I believe the idea of bin Laden dictating American politics is enough to ensure a Bush win. Read the article at MEMRI and draw your own conclusion.
President Bush has already done much to re-program our mortal enemies assumptions about our determination to finish what we start, no matter the cost. Three dangerous enemies have fallen during his watch -- Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. The first two were predicted to cause American streets to run red with blood as the Jihadists took their vengeance upon us. In the three years since 9/11, there have been no terrorist attacks on this country. That is a record to be proud of, and one that deserves the reward of my vote, at least.
I want to finish this fight, now. I don't think our children should have to worry about this five or ten or twenty years from now, when Iran or North Korea has had a chance to spread some nuclear largesse around. I believe a badly wounded enemy is more dangerous than a dead one. I want this fight to be over so that the country can afford to elect someone who panders to everyone and speaks French and can undo all this animosity from Europe with a few well-placed toasts and a conciliatory speech at the UN. The time for that is when this thing is over.
There is much to dislike, and even some to despise, about the current American President. But he means to finish this fight, and by that, I believe he means to finish it by winning.
Afghanistan did not go to the warlords. It went to the polls. There were not one million refugees. Iraq did not produce 10,000 US casualties in house-to-house fighting, nor did it splinter into 3-way civil war as so many predicted. In three months, Iraqis will also go to the polls, and they, by all accounts, will continue their widespread support for secular candidates and repudiation of the extremists that are fighting so hard to terrorize and dishearten them. But the Iraqis are not terrorized. They are signing on for their army and police forces in the face of great danger. We owe those brave men and women something better than "wrong war, wrong place and wrong time."
This is failure?
Not by my standards, it isn't.
So I promised you a final thought, and everything above this point is mere preamble to it. Here it is:
People are telling you that Tuesday will be the most important election of your lives.
That is not true.
The most important election of your lives was held on Tuesday, November 7th, 2000. You just didn't know it. Neither did I.
What happened on that day led to one man being in the White House these past four years, rather than the other one. Whether he has done enough to keep us safe, even if he should lose on Tuesday, remains to be seen. But the fact remains that George W. Bush was Commander in Chief and President when we needed him the most.
I made a mistake when I cast my vote for Al Gore in the most important election of my lifetime. I won't make that mistake again on Tuesday.
Posted by Proteus at October 31, 2004 11:37 PM
Great point!
The most important election of your lives was held on Tuesday,
November 7th, 2000. You just didn't know it. Neither did I.
What happened on that day led to one man being in the White
House these past four years, rather than the other one.
A FINAL THOUGHT BEFORE THE SHOW
By BILL WHITTLE
http://www.ejectejecteject.com/archives/000111.html
On Tuesday, Americans will choose between the conservative hawk from Texas, and the conservative hawk from Massachusetts. Both are running on a platform to strengthen the military and track down terrorists wherever they may live. Draw your own conclusions about who has the most convincing track record in this regard.
I have tried to make clear the reasons I have, and continue to support, President Bush. Despite his many faults, he seems to understand that the only nations serious about this fight are already in the field at our side. We have recovered from budget deficits before. We have been debating abortion and gay rights and all the other lifestyle issues for decades, and these debates will not go away if John Kerry is elected.
I will be able to live with a Kerry Presidency. But what tortures me is the thought that this country is no longer capable of doing hard, dirty work -- that we have reached the point where nothing difficult is attainable because the cost is something less than free.
I believe, from a reading of the history and the very words of the leaders of North Vietnam, that John Kerry was instrumental in convincing them that if they were able to hang on and inflict enough American casualties, eventually we would tire and go home.
I further believe that history shows that the Ayatollah Khomeini had our number in this regard, and I regard the start of this current conflict as the day they overran the US Embassy in Tehran, to which our response was...what?
The murdering, beheading savages who are trying to steal victory from defeat in the American ballot box have seen these lessons of Vietnam, and Iran, and Somalia, and they are -- and have openly said they are -- doing their best to kill as many Americans as they can to win this election for the man they certainly seem to fear less. That tells me something.
We now discover from MEMRI (link here) in a more precise interpretation of Osama bin Laden's recent tape that he was in fact saying that those American states that do not mess with him will be safe, and the implication, of course, is that those that do -- by voting for Bush -- face his retaliation.
Whether or not you are willing to bargain your safety with this man is up to your own individual conscience. Personally, the idea disgusts me, and I think the reason the press has --shockingly! -- declined to mention this is because they know that despite Michael Moore, this is not Spain. I believe the idea of bin Laden dictating American politics is enough to ensure a Bush win. Read the article at MEMRI and draw your own conclusion.
President Bush has already done much to re-program our mortal enemies assumptions about our determination to finish what we start, no matter the cost. Three dangerous enemies have fallen during his watch -- Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. The first two were predicted to cause American streets to run red with blood as the Jihadists took their vengeance upon us. In the three years since 9/11, there have been no terrorist attacks on this country. That is a record to be proud of, and one that deserves the reward of my vote, at least.
I want to finish this fight, now. I don't think our children should have to worry about this five or ten or twenty years from now, when Iran or North Korea has had a chance to spread some nuclear largesse around. I believe a badly wounded enemy is more dangerous than a dead one. I want this fight to be over so that the country can afford to elect someone who panders to everyone and speaks French and can undo all this animosity from Europe with a few well-placed toasts and a conciliatory speech at the UN. The time for that is when this thing is over.
There is much to dislike, and even some to despise, about the current American President. But he means to finish this fight, and by that, I believe he means to finish it by winning.
Afghanistan did not go to the warlords. It went to the polls. There were not one million refugees. Iraq did not produce 10,000 US casualties in house-to-house fighting, nor did it splinter into 3-way civil war as so many predicted. In three months, Iraqis will also go to the polls, and they, by all accounts, will continue their widespread support for secular candidates and repudiation of the extremists that are fighting so hard to terrorize and dishearten them. But the Iraqis are not terrorized. They are signing on for their army and police forces in the face of great danger. We owe those brave men and women something better than "wrong war, wrong place and wrong time."
This is failure?
Not by my standards, it isn't.
So I promised you a final thought, and everything above this point is mere preamble to it. Here it is:
People are telling you that Tuesday will be the most important election of your lives.
That is not true.
The most important election of your lives was held on Tuesday, November 7th, 2000. You just didn't know it. Neither did I.
What happened on that day led to one man being in the White House these past four years, rather than the other one. Whether he has done enough to keep us safe, even if he should lose on Tuesday, remains to be seen. But the fact remains that George W. Bush was Commander in Chief and President when we needed him the most.
I made a mistake when I cast my vote for Al Gore in the most important election of my lifetime. I won't make that mistake again on Tuesday.
Posted by Proteus at October 31, 2004 11:37 PM
Here is the "giveaway" from the Kerry Kamp.
Kerry spokesman David Wade did not reply when asked if Mr.
Kerry was other than honorably discharged before he was
honorably discharged.
Kerry's Discharge Is Questioned by an Ex-JAG Officer
BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB - Special to the Sun
November 1, 2004
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/4040
A former officer in the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps Reserve has built a case that Senator Kerry was other than honorably discharged from the Navy by 1975, The New York Sun has learned.
The "honorable discharge" on the Kerry Web site appears to be a Carter administration substitute for an original action expunged from Mr. Kerry's record, according to Mark Sullivan, who retired as a captain in the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps Reserve in 2003 after 33 years of service as a judge advocate. Mr. Sullivan served in the office of the Secretary of the Navy between 1975 and 1977.
On behalf of the Kerry campaign, Michael Meehan and others have repeatedly insisted that all of Mr. Kerry's military records are on his Web site atjohnkerry.com, except for his medical records.
"If that is the case," Mr. Sullivan said, "the true story isn't what was on the Web site. It's what's missing. There should have been an honorable discharge certificate issued to Kerry in 1975, if not earlier, three years after his transfer to the Standby Reserve-Inactive."
Another retired Navy Reserve officer, who served three tours in the Navy's Bureau of Personnel, points out that there should also have been a certified letter giving Mr. Kerry a choice of a reserve reaffiliation or separation and discharge. If Mr. Meehan is correct and all the documents are indeed on the Web site, the absence of any documents from 1972 to 1978 in the posted Kerry files is a glaring hole in the record.
The applicable U.S. Navy regulation, now found at MILPERSMAN 1920-210 "Types of Discharge for Officers," lists five examples of conditions required to receive an honorable discharge certificate, four required to receive a general discharge "not of such a nature as to require discharge under conditions other than honorable," and seven for "the lowest type of separation from the naval service. It is now officially in all respects equivalent to a dishonorable discharge."
Kerry spokesmen have also repeatedly said that the senator has an honorable discharge. And there is indeed a cover letter to an honorable discharge dated February 16,1978, on the Kerry Web site. It is in form and reference to regulation exactly the same as one granted Swiftboat Veterans for Truth member Robert Shirley on March 12, 1971, during a periodic "reduction in force (RIF)" by the Naval Reserve. The only significant difference between Mr. Kerry's and Mr. Shirley's is the signature information and the dates. In a RIF, officers who no longer have skills or are of an age group the Navy wishes to keep in reserve are involuntarily separated by the Navy and given their appropriate discharge. This is a normal and ongoing activity and there is no stigma attached to it.
Kerry spokesman David Wade did not reply when asked if Mr. Kerry was other than honorably discharged before he was honorably discharged.
"Mr. Meehan may well be right and all Mr. Kerry's military records are on his Web site," Mr. Sullivan said. "Unlike enlisted members, officers do not receive other than honorable, or dishonorable, certificates of discharge. To the contrary, the rule is that no certificate will be awarded to an officer separated wherever the circumstances prompting separation are not deemed consonant with traditional naval concepts of honor. The absence of an honorable discharge certificate for a separated naval officer is, therefore, a harsh and severe sanction and is, in fact, the treatment given officers who are dismissed after a general court-martial."
With the only discharge document cited by Mr. Kerry issued in 1978, three years after the last date it should have been issued, the absence of a certificate from 1975 leaves only two possibilities. Either Mr. Kerry received an "other than honorable" certificate that has been removed in a review purging it from his records, or even worse, he received no certificate at all. In both cases there would have been a loss of all of Mr. Kerry's medals and the suspension of all benefits of service.
Certainly something was wrong as early as 1973 when Mr. Kerry was applying to law school.
Mr. Kerry has said, "I applied to Harvard, Boston University, and Boston College. I was extremely late. Only BC would entertain a late application."
It is hard to see why Mr. Kerry had to file an "extremely late" application since he lost the congressional race in Lowell, Mass., the first week of November 1972 and was basically doing nothing until he entered law school the following September of 1973. A member of the Harvard Law School admissions committee recalled that the real reason Mr. Kerry was not admitted was because the committee was concerned that because Mr. Kerry had received a less than honorable discharge they were not sure he could be admitted to any state bar.
The fact that Mr. Kerry had cancelled his candidacy for a Congressional seat in 1970 in favor of Father Robert Drinan cannot have hurt Mr. Kerry's admission to Boston College. The Reverend Robert Drinan's previous position was dean of the Boston College Law School.
Given this, it is likely that a legal review took place that effectively purged Mr. Kerry's Navy files and arranged for the three-year-late honorable discharge in 1978. There were two avenues during the 1977-1978 time period. This could have been under President Carter's Executive Order 11967, under which thousands received pardons and upgrades for harsh discharges or other offenses under the Selective Service Act. Or it might have merged into efforts by the military to comply with the demands of the 1975 Church Committee. Mr. Sullivan was personally involved in the 1976 and 1977 records review answering Senator Kennedy's demands to determine the scope of any counterintelligence abuses by the military.
In the Foreign Surveillance Act of 1977, legislation introduced by Mr. Kennedy to enforce the findings of the Church Committee, there is language that literally describes the behavior of Mr. Kerry. The defined behavior that could no longer be subject to surveillance without warrants includes: "Americans having contact with foreign powers in the case of Americans who were active in the protest against U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Some of them may have attended international conferences at which there were representatives of foreign powers, as defined in the bill, or may have been directly in communication with foreign governments concerning this issue."
One of Mr. Kerry's first acts of office as he entered the Senate on January 3, 1985, was making sure what was still in the Navy files. A report was returned to Mr. Kerry by a Navy JAG on January 25, 1985, and appears on the Kerry Web site. There is an enclosure listed that may have contained a list of files, according to David Myers, the JAG who prepared it, that is not on Mr. Kerry's Web site. It could have provided an index for all of Mr. Kerry's Navy files.
All officials with knowledge of what specifically happened in Mr. Kerry's case are muzzled by the Privacy Act of 1974. The act makes it a crime for federal employees to knowingly disclose personal information or records.
Only Mr. Kerry can do that. As of this writing, Mr. Kerry has failed to sign a Standard Form 180 giving the electorate and the press access to his Navy files.
November 1, 2004 Edition > Section: National > Printer-Friendly Version
http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=4040
Here is the "giveaway" from the Kerry Kamp.
Kerry spokesman David Wade did not reply when asked if Mr.
Kerry was other than honorably discharged before he was
honorably discharged.
Kerry's Discharge Is Questioned by an Ex-JAG Officer
BY THOMAS LIPSCOMB - Special to the Sun
November 1, 2004
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/4040
A former officer in the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps Reserve has built a case that Senator Kerry was other than honorably discharged from the Navy by 1975, The New York Sun has learned.
The "honorable discharge" on the Kerry Web site appears to be a Carter administration substitute for an original action expunged from Mr. Kerry's record, according to Mark Sullivan, who retired as a captain in the Navy's Judge Advocate General Corps Reserve in 2003 after 33 years of service as a judge advocate. Mr. Sullivan served in the office of the Secretary of the Navy between 1975 and 1977.
On behalf of the Kerry campaign, Michael Meehan and others have repeatedly insisted that all of Mr. Kerry's military records are on his Web site atjohnkerry.com, except for his medical records.
"If that is the case," Mr. Sullivan said, "the true story isn't what was on the Web site. It's what's missing. There should have been an honorable discharge certificate issued to Kerry in 1975, if not earlier, three years after his transfer to the Standby Reserve-Inactive."
Another retired Navy Reserve officer, who served three tours in the Navy's Bureau of Personnel, points out that there should also have been a certified letter giving Mr. Kerry a choice of a reserve reaffiliation or separation and discharge. If Mr. Meehan is correct and all the documents are indeed on the Web site, the absence of any documents from 1972 to 1978 in the posted Kerry files is a glaring hole in the record.
The applicable U.S. Navy regulation, now found at MILPERSMAN 1920-210 "Types of Discharge for Officers," lists five examples of conditions required to receive an honorable discharge certificate, four required to receive a general discharge "not of such a nature as to require discharge under conditions other than honorable," and seven for "the lowest type of separation from the naval service. It is now officially in all respects equivalent to a dishonorable discharge."
Kerry spokesmen have also repeatedly said that the senator has an honorable discharge. And there is indeed a cover letter to an honorable discharge dated February 16,1978, on the Kerry Web site. It is in form and reference to regulation exactly the same as one granted Swiftboat Veterans for Truth member Robert Shirley on March 12, 1971, during a periodic "reduction in force (RIF)" by the Naval Reserve. The only significant difference between Mr. Kerry's and Mr. Shirley's is the signature information and the dates. In a RIF, officers who no longer have skills or are of an age group the Navy wishes to keep in reserve are involuntarily separated by the Navy and given their appropriate discharge. This is a normal and ongoing activity and there is no stigma attached to it.
Kerry spokesman David Wade did not reply when asked if Mr. Kerry was other than honorably discharged before he was honorably discharged.
"Mr. Meehan may well be right and all Mr. Kerry's military records are on his Web site," Mr. Sullivan said. "Unlike enlisted members, officers do not receive other than honorable, or dishonorable, certificates of discharge. To the contrary, the rule is that no certificate will be awarded to an officer separated wherever the circumstances prompting separation are not deemed consonant with traditional naval concepts of honor. The absence of an honorable discharge certificate for a separated naval officer is, therefore, a harsh and severe sanction and is, in fact, the treatment given officers who are dismissed after a general court-martial."
With the only discharge document cited by Mr. Kerry issued in 1978, three years after the last date it should have been issued, the absence of a certificate from 1975 leaves only two possibilities. Either Mr. Kerry received an "other than honorable" certificate that has been removed in a review purging it from his records, or even worse, he received no certificate at all. In both cases there would have been a loss of all of Mr. Kerry's medals and the suspension of all benefits of service.
Certainly something was wrong as early as 1973 when Mr. Kerry was applying to law school.
Mr. Kerry has said, "I applied to Harvard, Boston University, and Boston College. I was extremely late. Only BC would entertain a late application."
It is hard to see why Mr. Kerry had to file an "extremely late" application since he lost the congressional race in Lowell, Mass., the first week of November 1972 and was basically doing nothing until he entered law school the following September of 1973. A member of the Harvard Law School admissions committee recalled that the real reason Mr. Kerry was not admitted was because the committee was concerned that because Mr. Kerry had received a less than honorable discharge they were not sure he could be admitted to any state bar.
The fact that Mr. Kerry had cancelled his candidacy for a Congressional seat in 1970 in favor of Father Robert Drinan cannot have hurt Mr. Kerry's admission to Boston College. The Reverend Robert Drinan's previous position was dean of the Boston College Law School.
Given this, it is likely that a legal review took place that effectively purged Mr. Kerry's Navy files and arranged for the three-year-late honorable discharge in 1978. There were two avenues during the 1977-1978 time period. This could have been under President Carter's Executive Order 11967, under which thousands received pardons and upgrades for harsh discharges or other offenses under the Selective Service Act. Or it might have merged into efforts by the military to comply with the demands of the 1975 Church Committee. Mr. Sullivan was personally involved in the 1976 and 1977 records review answering Senator Kennedy's demands to determine the scope of any counterintelligence abuses by the military.
In the Foreign Surveillance Act of 1977, legislation introduced by Mr. Kennedy to enforce the findings of the Church Committee, there is language that literally describes the behavior of Mr. Kerry. The defined behavior that could no longer be subject to surveillance without warrants includes: "Americans having contact with foreign powers in the case of Americans who were active in the protest against U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Some of them may have attended international conferences at which there were representatives of foreign powers, as defined in the bill, or may have been directly in communication with foreign governments concerning this issue."
One of Mr. Kerry's first acts of office as he entered the Senate on January 3, 1985, was making sure what was still in the Navy files. A report was returned to Mr. Kerry by a Navy JAG on January 25, 1985, and appears on the Kerry Web site. There is an enclosure listed that may have contained a list of files, according to David Myers, the JAG who prepared it, that is not on Mr. Kerry's Web site. It could have provided an index for all of Mr. Kerry's Navy files.
All officials with knowledge of what specifically happened in Mr. Kerry's case are muzzled by the Privacy Act of 1974. The act makes it a crime for federal employees to knowingly disclose personal information or records.
Only Mr. Kerry can do that. As of this writing, Mr. Kerry has failed to sign a Standard Form 180 giving the electorate and the press access to his Navy files.
November 1, 2004 Edition > Section: National > Printer-Friendly Version
http://www.nysun.com/pf.php?id=4040
They'll Do Anything
Why Democrats and the media think they're entitled to do whatever it takes to win this election.
by Fred Barnes
WEEKLY STANDARD
THE SCARIEST THING about this election is not the prospect of a contested outcome with no winner declared for weeks, just as in 2000. No, the most scary thing is the sense of entitlement that many Democrats and their allies have about tomorrow's election. It goes like this: Bush stole the presidency four years ago, then proceeded to act as if he had a mandate, so now we're entitled to do whatever it takes to defeat him, to say whatever we want.
You see it in the bumper stickers that call for the "re-defeat" of President Bush. You see it in the destruction of Bush yard signs and posters all across the country. You see it in the harassment, at least in blue states, of anyone wearing a Bush pin or button. You see it in the hatred of Bush by his opponents, who think they're only venting righteous indignation.
You see it in the religious bigotry against the president, a born-again Christian, and against his conservative Christian supporters. Without any evidence, Bush's opponents accuse him of believing that he has a direct line to God and that God gives him instructions, such as when to invade Iraq, and that any criticism of him is illegitimate. You see the bigotry as well in the belittling of Christians who support Bush as if their political views have no standing or worth because they may have been influenced by their religious faith.
You see it in the now exposed plans of Democrats to claim intimidation of minority voters even if no intimidation actually occurs. You see it in the voter registration efforts by Democrats that have made the number of people on the voting rolls in some jurisdictions larger than the voting age population. You see it in the plans of Democratic lawyers to file lawsuits all over the country, challenging the outcome unless Bush is defeated.
You see that same sense of entitlement in elements of the national media--especially CBS News--who jettison the normal rules of journalism when Bush is the target. CBS not only rushed out with forged documents to torpedo the Bush campaign in September, the network intended to take another bite at Bush two days before the election by airing a dubious story about stolen explosives in Iraq. Would CBS have dared to do this against any other public figure but Bush? No.
And you see it in the victimization that is claimed for John Kerry. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Anything they say about Kerry is automatically a smear and thus doesn't have to be examined or even considered. And Kerry has no obligation to answer questions about his Vietnam experience, though he's played it up in the campaign. Bush's record in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war, however, is fair game.
And you see the feeling of entitlement in comments by the Democratic candidates and their backers, who seem to feel they're free to say anything they want about Bush and Vice President Cheney. So we get the targeting of Mary Cheney as a lesbian and the criticism of Laura Bush for having worked in jobs that weren't real jobs. And when anyone accuses Democrats of debasing the campaign, the answer is always: it's Bush's fault. Bush is hardly without fault, but the shabby style and substance of this campaign is the fault of his opponents.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
They'll Do Anything
Why Democrats and the media think they're entitled to do whatever it takes to win this election.
by Fred Barnes
WEEKLY STANDARD
THE SCARIEST THING about this election is not the prospect of a contested outcome with no winner declared for weeks, just as in 2000. No, the most scary thing is the sense of entitlement that many Democrats and their allies have about tomorrow's election. It goes like this: Bush stole the presidency four years ago, then proceeded to act as if he had a mandate, so now we're entitled to do whatever it takes to defeat him, to say whatever we want.
You see it in the bumper stickers that call for the "re-defeat" of President Bush. You see it in the destruction of Bush yard signs and posters all across the country. You see it in the harassment, at least in blue states, of anyone wearing a Bush pin or button. You see it in the hatred of Bush by his opponents, who think they're only venting righteous indignation.
You see it in the religious bigotry against the president, a born-again Christian, and against his conservative Christian supporters. Without any evidence, Bush's opponents accuse him of believing that he has a direct line to God and that God gives him instructions, such as when to invade Iraq, and that any criticism of him is illegitimate. You see the bigotry as well in the belittling of Christians who support Bush as if their political views have no standing or worth because they may have been influenced by their religious faith.
You see it in the now exposed plans of Democrats to claim intimidation of minority voters even if no intimidation actually occurs. You see it in the voter registration efforts by Democrats that have made the number of people on the voting rolls in some jurisdictions larger than the voting age population. You see it in the plans of Democratic lawyers to file lawsuits all over the country, challenging the outcome unless Bush is defeated.
You see that same sense of entitlement in elements of the national media--especially CBS News--who jettison the normal rules of journalism when Bush is the target. CBS not only rushed out with forged documents to torpedo the Bush campaign in September, the network intended to take another bite at Bush two days before the election by airing a dubious story about stolen explosives in Iraq. Would CBS have dared to do this against any other public figure but Bush? No.
And you see it in the victimization that is claimed for John Kerry. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth? Anything they say about Kerry is automatically a smear and thus doesn't have to be examined or even considered. And Kerry has no obligation to answer questions about his Vietnam experience, though he's played it up in the campaign. Bush's record in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war, however, is fair game.
And you see the feeling of entitlement in comments by the Democratic candidates and their backers, who seem to feel they're free to say anything they want about Bush and Vice President Cheney. So we get the targeting of Mary Cheney as a lesbian and the criticism of Laura Bush for having worked in jobs that weren't real jobs. And when anyone accuses Democrats of debasing the campaign, the answer is always: it's Bush's fault. Bush is hardly without fault, but the shabby style and substance of this campaign is the fault of his opponents.
Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.
© Copyright 2004, News Corporation, Weekly Standard, All Rights Reserved.
No, I never agreed to do any such thing.
Yes, it's an excellent ad.
The guy who produced,David Zucker, it is a Hollywood
producer/director. His pals in Tinseltown are mad at him.
-----------
A Letter from Steve Moore:
David Zucker was just another Hollywood liberal until, as he puts it, he “got mugged on 9/11.”
When you see this TV ad, I think you’ll agree it is hilarious, and drives home the “no laughing matter” point that John Kerry’s waffling on key policy issues could be devastating to our country.
In the ad, as a bomb squad tries to defuse a bomb, the narrator delivers the key message:
“THERE’S NOTHING WRONG WITH A LITTLE INDECISION
. . . AS LONG AS YOUR JOB DOESN’T INVOLVE ANY RESPONSIBILITY.”
If adequately funded, this ad could make a real difference – I think it’ll be looked back upon as one of the most decisive TV ads ever run.
You may have seen me on the various TV talk shows or otherwise heard of the Club for Growth (It's one of the largest and most effective political organizations in the country).
We agree with Ronald Reagan that our government is "too big and spends too much."
http://www.clubforgrowth.net/
If they even knew 1/2 half of what they intentionally ignore
about Kerry, they would puke.
But their blind hate consumes them. For most of the folks
here, they are voting against Bush, regardless of facts or
reality.
The Dems could run a convicted felon (which Kerry should be)
& they'd vote for him.
JMHO
"Who is he? What is his background?"
What difference would it make? What I posted from him is a
sad fact about America today & you are part of the problem
because you buy into their BS, lock stock & barrel. Then you
run around spewing their BS as though it was true.
But since you asked, here it is........
Biography
I, WILLIAM J. DYER, was born on November 26, 1957, in Lamesa, Texas. There's some dispute over whether Winston Churchill did or did not actually say this, but regardless of its source, I agree with the famous quote that "[a]ny man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains." (Well, maybe 35; certainly 40.) So do the math and you'll intuit my politics.
The State Bar of Texas granted me Bar Card No. 06321100 and an accompanying license to practice law on November 24, 1980. I continue to "practice" despite having gotten it right from time to time. My detailed professional résumé appears on the website of the firm where I'm "of counsel" and perhaps some other places on the Internet. However:
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER! — a/k/a — "Laying a bulletproof basis for my prospective 'Me no Alamo!' defense if anyone ever sues me about anything having to do with this website!"
In contrast to the résumé linked above and the commerical law firm website of which that résumé is a part, this weblog is not intended to solicit or advise clients, nor for any other commercial purpose. Nor is this weblog in any way connected with my ongoing practice of law.
Any legal opinions or information that I may publish on the BeldarBlog weblog should be considered to be exclusively for purposes of entertainment. No reader of this website should ever rely upon any legal opinions or other information published here — not even just a little bit! If you need legal advice or information that you can rely upon, I strongly recommend that you consult directly — in person preferably, or at a minimum by telephone, and not over the Internet — with a lawyer duly licensed to practice law in the state (or territory or country) where you live.
I'm a lawyer, but I am not your lawyer, okay? I don't even pretend to be as careful in what I may spout off with here as any lawyer must be in advising and representing real clients. I obviously think I'm pretty smart, and I'll do my best to be right and not to mislead or lie; but nothing here should ever be assumed to represent the position of any of my clients, or my firm's clients, or of any other lawyers with whom I may practice.
And please don't send me any confidential information — there's no attorney-client relationship between us and it will not be protected by attorney-client privilege!
Besides: What's any jury going to do as soon as they're told you relied on a weblog from a lawyer who called himself "Beldar"?
Miscellaneous other stuff
Stuff I've written here is © 2003-2004 by William J. Dyer. However, visitors are welcome to quote, especially with links, or make other "fair use" of anything here to which I have rights. My hope and belief is that anything from another source which I have quoted, displayed, or used here is public-domain, but I encourage anyone who thinks otherwise to contact me with any claim of infringement, invasion of privacy, or so forth. Unless otherwise advised, I'll assume that anyone who emails me is speaking "on the record" and doesn't mind my posting here what they've emailed.
The name "Beldar" probably belongs to General Electric, NBC, "Saturday Night Live," or someone connected to them; I make no claim to it myself, and I have no intent to harm them nor to profit personally from its joking and satirical use on this blog.
Whence "Beldar"?
"Beldar" is a nickname that goes back to my college days when, during the Fall 1978, I was part of the "Fingquo" pledge class of the Alpha Tau chapter of the Kappa Kappa Psi service fraternity of the Longhorn Band at the University of Texas at Austin.
Beginning in January of 1978, the then-new network TV comedy show "Saturday Night Live" had started running a series of skits, inspired by Dan Ackroyd, about "the Coneheads" — a family of aliens from the distant planet Remulak who had badly muffed their pre-invasion mission by crashing into Lake Michigan. Ackroyd's character, the father in the Conehead family, was named "Beldar." The skits were quite popular (and eventually, perhaps inevitably, spun off "The Coneheads" movie in 1993).
Anyway, one night after band practice, my pledge brothers and I were brainstorming ideas for a series of comedy skits — all of which were knock-offs from current SNL skit themes — in order to entertain our brethren at the next chapter meeting. Having been pre-lubricated with our own "mass quantities of beer," we quickly decided that we needed our own "Coneheads" skit. While we figured out which of us would play each of the Conehead characters from SNL, one of my pledge brothers, struck with a fit of inspiration, suddenly pointed at me, shouted my name, and then morphed and slurred and mangled it to fit our skit needs: "Hey — Bill Dyer, Bill-Dyer, Bell-Duhr ... BELDAR!" The resulting skit was far too sexually graphic and profane to ever appear on network TV or even to be repeated here! But it was considered a big hit, and my new nickname instantly spread and, indeed, stayed with me throughout the rest of my Longhorn Band days at UT.
More anecdotal and biographical details — appropriately massaged, spun, and sanitized — are (perhaps) scattered throughout the blog.
http://beldar.blogs.com/about.html
And he tried to stop the military vote from overseas, but
Republicans made a big stink, so he backed down.
"bush went to war with iraq for his daddy and the payback for the the defense industry."
Based on what credible evidence?
Why is it you libs float tin foil hat conspiracy theories,
but state them as though they were fact.
OK, OK. Your political leaders, like Kerry & Dean & Gore &
Kennedy, ET AL, all do that too.
But why do you libs continue to drink their Kool Aid when you
know they are all bogus lies?
Once again, all you provide is your severely flawed personal
opinion stated as if it were fact.
And like all of your false assertions about Bush, they lack
one major item; credible evidence.
The only reason you see me as a, "right wing ideologue",
is that I shot down your lies about Bush with irrefutable
facts.
Since that proves absolutely nothing bout my political
ideology, what evidence can you show that I am a "right
wing ideologue"?
None, I'm sure.
Based on what evidence?
Something Michael Moore made up himself, then told you it
really happened?
Show me any credible evidence of any serious wrong doing by
Bush in the TANG.
MALFEASANCE, AND SINS OF OMISSION
By Geoff Metcalf
October 31, 2004
NewsWithViews.com
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing!" -- Edmund Burke
Notwithstanding routine protestations to the contrary, America's mainstream media is on a 'Jones' to undermine a President in wartime, and collude with leftists to assist a candidate, who not only gave aid and comfort to the enemy 30 years ago, but also was their pawn.
New documented archive evidence proves that John Kerry was either a knowing co-conspirator with the communist Vietnamese (while he was still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice), OR he was a "useful idiot". Regardless of which of the available options is true, he is certainly 'Unfit for Command'...at ANY level.
CBS was quick (premature articulation?) to pick at a phony scab sparked by fabricated documents. Political and personal bias synthesized to conspire with CBS to create a critical self-inflicted wound. Dan Rather says, 'Whoops!'....Kinda.
The New York Times (reportedly beating CBS to the punch) splashed a bogus story about 380 tons of missing Iraqi munitions. When NBC and an Army officer directly involved refute the bogus claim, the graying lady looks at her shoes (possibly seeing the reflection of Jason Blair) and shuffles her feet.
Meanwhile, a for real blockbuster story languishes beyond the view or attention of most Americans because 'it might be too controversial and influence the election'? Huh!?!?
I recently interviewed Dr. Jerome Corsi (co-author of 'Unfit for Command') and Scott Swett (founder of www.wintersoldier.com) and learned they can't get ANY big time media (including the presumed defenders of the truth at Fox News) to touch the product of their documented research?
Et tu Rupert? Maybe Fox was too busy with lawyers and cost benefit analysis of protecting their Marquee product...or have finally become intimidated my name callers?
Regardless of the reason, Fox News is as guilty of this sin of omission as the mainstream media they routinely vilify.
Newly discovered documents (hiding in the ocean of data in archives) reveal a very direct and symbiotic link between John Kerry and the Vietnamese communists. No wonder the POW community is outraged (www.stolenhonor.com).
This stuff 'should' overshadow
* Questions about Kerry's hyperbolized daring do in Vietnam
* His 'revised' DD 214
* His multiple Silver Star citations
* His alleged less than honorable discharge and subsequent Carter/Clinton do-over...
* Or even his billionaire heiress du jour's piles of money and abrasive verbiage.
This is HOT...and the media (even the once dependable Fox News) is too chicken excrement/scared spitless to even try to discredit it?
The documents from 1971 were found in the Texas Tech Vietnam archives in Lubbock, Texas.
They reveal the Vietnamese communists were not just 'talking' but were in fact guiding and directing the American antiwar movement. They used meetings in Paris between their delegation to the Paris Peace talks and American antiwar activists to direct (not advise) efforts in the U.S.
In the summer of 1970 John Kerry reportedly met with Madame Binh, the Viet Cong's chief negotiator in Paris. He subsequently returned to the U.S. to push for Madame Binh's '7-Point Peace Plan'. He made his pitch in Washington. D/C. in July 1971.
Kerry didn't use the Binh 7-Point Plan as a 'guideline' for his recommendations...he used (and implemented it) as an Operations Order...complete with Surrender, Admission of Guilt, Reparations, the whole magilla.
[Read: Hanoi's American Puppets?]
http://ice.he.net/%7Efreepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=puppets
Everything Madame Binh instructed Kerry to do, he DID. He did so either as a complicit co-conspirator, or as a 'useful idiot'...you decide.
CBS, CNN, The New York Times et al seem to have to compunction about reporting on fabricated urban legends if or when it is in consonance with their preconceived views, opinions and prejudices. However, if or when corroborated documentation, which is irrefutable, emerges that undermines their biased agenda, the silence is deafening.
Corsi and Swett have tried to share the details and documentation of the story with EVERYONE in the media...and with the exception of some talk radio and Internet venues... this story is anathema. Why?
PLEASE check out www.wintersoldier.com for the documentation and contact everyone you can to ask WHY is this significant information being denied the American people?
Ask:
CBS evening@cbsnews.com
NBC nightly@nbc.com
ABC peterjennings@abc.com
CNN www.cnn.com/feedback
FOX hannity@foxnews.com oreilly@foxnews.com
MSNBC joe@msnbc.com imus@msnbc.com
The New York Times executive-editor@nytimes.com managing-editor@nytimes.com
The Washington Post ombudsman@washpost.com
And your elected members of Congress.
John Kerry should not be elected to ANYthing...Ambrose Bierce once observed, "The hardest tumble a man can make is to fall over his own bluff." Amen!
© 2004 Geoff Metcalf - All Rights Reserved
http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf114.htm
MALFEASANCE, AND SINS OF OMISSION
By Geoff Metcalf
October 31, 2004
NewsWithViews.com
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing!" -- Edmund Burke
Notwithstanding routine protestations to the contrary, America's mainstream media is on a 'Jones' to undermine a President in wartime, and collude with leftists to assist a candidate, who not only gave aid and comfort to the enemy 30 years ago, but also was their pawn.
New documented archive evidence proves that John Kerry was either a knowing co-conspirator with the communist Vietnamese (while he was still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice), OR he was a "useful idiot". Regardless of which of the available options is true, he is certainly 'Unfit for Command'...at ANY level.
CBS was quick (premature articulation?) to pick at a phony scab sparked by fabricated documents. Political and personal bias synthesized to conspire with CBS to create a critical self-inflicted wound. Dan Rather says, 'Whoops!'....Kinda.
The New York Times (reportedly beating CBS to the punch) splashed a bogus story about 380 tons of missing Iraqi munitions. When NBC and an Army officer directly involved refute the bogus claim, the graying lady looks at her shoes (possibly seeing the reflection of Jason Blair) and shuffles her feet.
Meanwhile, a for real blockbuster story languishes beyond the view or attention of most Americans because 'it might be too controversial and influence the election'? Huh!?!?
I recently interviewed Dr. Jerome Corsi (co-author of 'Unfit for Command') and Scott Swett (founder of www.wintersoldier.com) and learned they can't get ANY big time media (including the presumed defenders of the truth at Fox News) to touch the product of their documented research?
Et tu Rupert? Maybe Fox was too busy with lawyers and cost benefit analysis of protecting their Marquee product...or have finally become intimidated my name callers?
Regardless of the reason, Fox News is as guilty of this sin of omission as the mainstream media they routinely vilify.
Newly discovered documents (hiding in the ocean of data in archives) reveal a very direct and symbiotic link between John Kerry and the Vietnamese communists. No wonder the POW community is outraged (www.stolenhonor.com).
This stuff 'should' overshadow
* Questions about Kerry's hyperbolized daring do in Vietnam
* His 'revised' DD 214
* His multiple Silver Star citations
* His alleged less than honorable discharge and subsequent Carter/Clinton do-over...
* Or even his billionaire heiress du jour's piles of money and abrasive verbiage.
This is HOT...and the media (even the once dependable Fox News) is too chicken excrement/scared spitless to even try to discredit it?
The documents from 1971 were found in the Texas Tech Vietnam archives in Lubbock, Texas.
They reveal the Vietnamese communists were not just 'talking' but were in fact guiding and directing the American antiwar movement. They used meetings in Paris between their delegation to the Paris Peace talks and American antiwar activists to direct (not advise) efforts in the U.S.
In the summer of 1970 John Kerry reportedly met with Madame Binh, the Viet Cong's chief negotiator in Paris. He subsequently returned to the U.S. to push for Madame Binh's '7-Point Peace Plan'. He made his pitch in Washington. D/C. in July 1971.
Kerry didn't use the Binh 7-Point Plan as a 'guideline' for his recommendations...he used (and implemented it) as an Operations Order...complete with Surrender, Admission of Guilt, Reparations, the whole magilla.
[Read: Hanoi's American Puppets?]
http://ice.he.net/%7Efreepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=puppets
Everything Madame Binh instructed Kerry to do, he DID. He did so either as a complicit co-conspirator, or as a 'useful idiot'...you decide.
CBS, CNN, The New York Times et al seem to have to compunction about reporting on fabricated urban legends if or when it is in consonance with their preconceived views, opinions and prejudices. However, if or when corroborated documentation, which is irrefutable, emerges that undermines their biased agenda, the silence is deafening.
Corsi and Swett have tried to share the details and documentation of the story with EVERYONE in the media...and with the exception of some talk radio and Internet venues... this story is anathema. Why?
PLEASE check out www.wintersoldier.com for the documentation and contact everyone you can to ask WHY is this significant information being denied the American people?
Ask:
CBS evening@cbsnews.com
NBC nightly@nbc.com
ABC peterjennings@abc.com
CNN www.cnn.com/feedback
FOX hannity@foxnews.com oreilly@foxnews.com
MSNBC joe@msnbc.com imus@msnbc.com
The New York Times executive-editor@nytimes.com managing-editor@nytimes.com
The Washington Post ombudsman@washpost.com
And your elected members of Congress.
John Kerry should not be elected to ANYthing...Ambrose Bierce once observed, "The hardest tumble a man can make is to fall over his own bluff." Amen!
© 2004 Geoff Metcalf - All Rights Reserved
http://www.newswithviews.com/metcalf/metcalf114.htm
"get used to it.."
Sorry, I refuse to get used to propaganda spewed by our
leading politicians & our MSM that slander a sitting
President.
You are content with it now because you side is doing the
spewing. I bet you will squeal like a stuck pig if it ever
happened to to your John Boy.
Yup! They know the facts destroy their propaganda, so they
ignore the facts & faithfully recite the Talking Points.
Interesting snippet from Beldar blog.
Digging into Jack and Jeri Ryan's marital sex life ought to embarrass the mainstream media. But failing to dig into John Kerry's military records ought to embarrass them more.
If John Kerry is elected, he will take office with unplumbed secrets that directly relate to his fitness to be President, and that the mainstream media have willfully and consistently ignored. And that pernicious conspiracy of silence, friends and neighbors, is a long-term threat to our democracy that won't be eliminated or even much affected by Tuesday's poll results. It's a problem that in fact we can't reasonably expect our elected officials to solve. It can only be solved by an outraged American public — one that's mad as hell at the mainstream media, and that won't put up with it anymore.
http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2004/10/politicians_sec.html
Interesting snippet from Beldar blog.
Digging into Jack and Jeri Ryan's marital sex life ought to embarrass the mainstream media. But failing to dig into John Kerry's military records ought to embarrass them more.
If John Kerry is elected, he will take office with unplumbed secrets that directly relate to his fitness to be President, and that the mainstream media have willfully and consistently ignored. And that pernicious conspiracy of silence, friends and neighbors, is a long-term threat to our democracy that won't be eliminated or even much affected by Tuesday's poll results. It's a problem that in fact we can't reasonably expect our elected officials to solve. It can only be solved by an outraged American public — one that's mad as hell at the mainstream media, and that won't put up with it anymore.
http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2004/10/politicians_sec.html
"Why do you have this obsession with Michael Moore?"
Because you spout his propaganda as if it were fact.
"GWB was dishonest with the American public about Iraq, and he is incompetent."
Case in point. That is straight out og the Michael Moore &
Team Kerry propaganda book.
You parrot their propaganda, but you cannot produce any
credible evidence to support it. And neither can Michael
Moore or Team Kerry.
You would think that sooner or later some of you folks would
get tired of being provided evidence that proves they lied &
accept the reality that they have been lying to you about
almost everything.
But no! In the face of overwhelming evidence of their lies,
you continue to spew the party line.
And you are convinced I'm nuts & Bush is the liar.
Go figure.
I know exactly what "pre-emptive" means. It has absolutely
nothing to do with the removal of Saddam.
Why do you insist on ignoring the reality of the Gulf War
Cease Fire Agreement?
Text of UN Resolution 687 (AKA - The Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement)
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-15UNResolution687.asp
The Gulf War CEASE FIRE Agreement was a ZERO Tolerance
policy. That meant Saddam had to unconditionally;
1) Completely eliminate every aspect of his WMD PROGRAMS (not
just "stockpiles"). This included provisions for the complete
destruction of all offensive weapons. This had to be done in
a completely verifiable manner to UN Inspectors.
2) Saddam had to completely eliminate every tie to terrorists
(internal & external).
3) Saddam had to completely halt his crimes against humanity.
4) Saddam had to make full reparations to Kuwait, ET AL.
Now this was the short & sweet version. There were absolutely
no provisions that allowed any deviation from each explicit
requirement. It meant 100%, unconditional compliance. Every
single UN Resolution, including Resolution 1441 was
irrevocably tied to #687.
Saddam spent more than 12 years in utter defiance of every
one of the above requirements before Bush's so-called "rush
to war". You know, where "Bush lied & misled" America
into a "unilateral", "illegal" war to take over their oil for
his Big Oil cronies?