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.
"Sometimes I think it's an exercise in futility to try to talk to these people...but it will soon be over. Or will it? I would hope we don't have to listen to the same old garbage for the next four years...but I am afraid, very afraid."
Yes it is.
No it won't.
Yes we will.
Me too.
Keep up the good work. That's all you can do.
"It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons"
Sorry hawk. When Bush said that, the current intelligence
services at every major country & the info the UN had to date,
would have had them all agree that was a true statement.
I don't even recall Hans Blix calling Bush on the carpet when
he said it. And Bob Woodward said that Tenet told Bush it was
a "slam dunk".
'A Slam-Dunk Case'
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20081840
And it seems Saddam tried to get his hands on some he didn't
produce too.....
Documents Link Saddam To AQ, WMD, Other Terrorists
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20599642
Iraqi Documents Said to Detail WMD and Terrorist Connections
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20599602
CNS News Publishes Iraqi WMD Documents Online
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20630684
Saddam's Possession of Mustard Gas:
http://www.cnsnews.com/specialreports/2004/mustardgas.asp
Saddam's Possession of Anthrax:
http://www.cnsnews.com/specialreports/2004/anthrax.asp
CNSNews.com Publishes Iraqi Intelligence Docs
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200410\NAT20041011a.html
Well, if it is that easy, give me a few proven lies from Bush
on matters of substance* then.
Give me a verbatim quote & the evidence that proves Bush lied.
* Matter of substance - equivalent to;
- Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia whopper, or
- Kerry's lies about war crimes under oath, or
- Kerry's "I met with every member of the UN Security Council" lie, or
- Kerry's lie that the so-called missing explosives as, "The kind used for attacks in Iraq, and for terrorist bombings", or
- Kerry's "Foreign leaders" told me they want me to win the election, or
- Kerry's "unilateral war" lie, or
- Kerry's "Coalition of the bribed & coerced" lie, or
- Kerry's "Bush rushed to war" lie, or
- Kerry's "Bush lied & misled" us into war lie, or
- Kerry's "I've always been consistent" on my position on Iraq lie, or
- Kerry's lies about "The Sampan Cover Up", or
- Kerry's lies about his 1st & 3rd Purple Hearts, or
- Kerry's lies about "No Man Left Behind", or
Etc., etc., etc.,
The Democrats Finally Find Someone Who Buys Their Spin
A partial translation of "Osama bin Laden's" video is here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10079-2004Oct29.html
I said on Kudlow and Cramer this afternoon that reports of bin Laden's speech made it sound as if he had absorbed the Democrats' talking points quite well. Reading the speech, or excerpts thereof, reinforces that thought:
<<<
I am surprised by you. Despite entering the fourth year after September 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you, and therefore the reasons are still there for a repeat of what happened.
>>>
Bush is hiding the truth: a central theme of the Democrats in general, and Michael Moore, their intellectual leader, in particular.
<<<
God knows it did not cross our minds to attack the towers.
<<<
No comment.
<<<
He [Bush] adopted despotism and the crushing of freedoms from Arab rulers and called it the Patriot Act under the guise of combating terrorism. . . .
>>>
It's Ashcroft's fault. Where do you suppose he got that?
>>>
It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American forces would leave 50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him because he thought listening to a child discussing her goat and its ramming was more important than the planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers. This gave us three times the time needed to carry out the operations, thanks be to God. . . .
>>>
This is, of course, pure Michael Moore. Obviously bin Laden has seen Fahrenheit 9/11, or at least heard about it from other terrorists who have seen it. Just as obviously, they approve of Moore's movie.
Do you suppose there are any Democrats honest enough to be embarrassed that Osama bin Laden has enthusiastically adopted their campaign themes?
UPDATE: In one respect, bin Laden failed to follow John Kerry's talking points. Bin Laden knows he is in a war; he said: "O American people, I am speaking to tell you about the ideal way to avoid another Manhattan, about war and its causes and results."
That's "war," w-a-r.
John Kerry, however, can't quite bring himself to acknowledge the war that the terrorists have so unequivocally declared. In his statement today he said: "...we are all united in hunting down and capturing or killing those who conducted that raid and we always knew that that was Osama bin Laden."
Those raids can be such a nuisance.
Thanks to reader Brick Smith for pointing out Kerry's "raid."
Posted by Hindrock
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/008375.php
I'll trust a reformed alcohol abuser over an unrepentant liar
who continues to lie, lie, lie.
Once again, when the facts I provide utterly destroys your
false assertions, you blithely ignore them & resort to Michael
Moore & DNC Talking Points to reframe the debate with more lies
& deceit.
Perhaps you could explain to me what it is like to be
impervious to facts & reality?
Do you really believe that living in an alternate reality
makes you any safer in this global WOT?
I see. Kerry commits treason, lies under oath, ET AL, & his
anti-war activities are so successful that the Ho Chi Minh
City museum that honors Vietnam war protesters features a
photograph of Sen. John Kerry being greeted by the general
secretary of the Communist Party.
His actions caused our POW's to face more torture & had their
imprisonment extended because of his false testimony & acts
of treason.
His actions gave the commies the courage to hang on in the
face of unrelenting losses because they knew they would win
the propaganda war thanks to Kerry's treason & anti-war
activities.
The real question is, how much blood is on Kerry's hands?
I'm still waiting for someone to prove that "Bush lied" about
any matter of substance*. You libs say it like it is true,
but you can't point to one real lie on a matter of substance*.
Give me a verbatim quote & the evidence that proves Bush lied.
* Matter of substance - equivalent to;
- Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia whopper, or
- Kerry's lies about war crimes under oath, or
- Kerry's "I met with every member of the UN Security Council" lie, or
- Kerry's lie that the so-called missing explosives as, "The kind used for attacks in Iraq, and for terrorist bombings", or
- Kerry's "Foreign leaders" told me they want me to win the election, or
- Kerry's "unilateral war" lie, or
- Kerry's "Coalition of the bribed & coerced" lie, or
- Kerry's "Bush rushed to war" lie, or
- Kerry's "Bush lied & misled" us into war lie, or
- Kerry's "I've always been consistent" on my position on Iraq lie, or
- Kerry's lies about "The Sampan Cover Up", or
- Kerry's lies about his 1st & 3rd Purple Hearts, or
- Kerry's lies about "No Man Left Behind", or
Etc., etc., etc.,
Sorry dude. I don't let others frame the debate.
You "duck and dive" my responses that utterly destroy the
actual debate on the real issues. Meanwhile you pick & choose
which DNC Talking Point you will throw out there that changes
the debate & you expect me to follow right along.
Ain't gonna happen.
I'll stick to reality & issues that are based on it.
WOW! You libs complain that diplomacy & appeasement are the
only way to go.
Bush is using diplomacy with N Korea & Iran & you libs bitch
& moan that Bush screwed up by not going to war with them.
Meanwhile, 12 long years of appeasement & diplomacy with Iraq
results in his removal & you bitch & moan there wasn't enough
diplomacy before Bush "rushed" to war.
No wonder you will vote for Kerry. He will do things the way
you prefer. Appeasement & endless diplomacy before he claims
we didn't pass the "Global Test".
And the terrorists will continue to plan our ultimate
destruction in safe & secure from any US intervention.
Ya! That's the ticket!
"The real news is that there are no weapons of mass destruction. Spin it all you want"
That is precisely how the liberal media, Team Kerry & the DNC
have spun it.
It is the Big Lie. Well, it's just one of the Bid Lies.
You don't believe me?
Read this & show me where it says that it's only
about "stockpiles" of WMD's.
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?
Kerry's forgotten Communist-coddling
October 29th, 2004
AMERICAN THINKER
John F. Kerry has a long history of opposing the use of American military force to defend our vital interests. But the presidential campaign has so far virtually ignored his shameful behavior in the 1980s, when President Reagan was defeating Communism not only in Europe, but also much closer to home.
President Reagan took office in January, 1981. The release of the American hostages by Iran resolved only one of the many problems he inherited from the Carter Administration. Soviet troops had invaded Afghanistan. Marxist rebels had seized the nation of Angola in Africa. In Central America, Marxist guerrillas were attacking the El Salvador government and the Sandanistas had taken control of Nicaragua.
In order to counter Soviet expansionist policy, President Reagan increased defense spending and began supporting freedom movements that were fighting against Communism. Liberal extremists in the Democratic Party and most of the media elite hated Reagan's new policies. This was especially true about his support of the Contras fighting against the Sandanista government in Nicaragua.
The combative relationship between the President and the Democrat-controlled Congress exploded in October, 1983 when Reagan ordered the invasion of the small island nation of Grenada in the Caribbean. Other Caribbean nations had asked the United States to intervene when Marxists in Grenada's military killed their Prime Minister and toppled the constitutional government. President Reagan did not act until Grenada's new leaders confined American medical students on their campus. It was then that he went on television to tell the American people he had ordered military action to prevent the possibility of a hostage situation similar to what had happened in Iran.
The news media and liberal extremists in Congress openly accused Reagan of lying about the invasion. They cited his long opposition to events in Grenada and ridiculed his belief that the Soviets were actively seeking to develop more client states in our hemisphere. Both Congress and the media said they would investigate. Months passed and there was little if any information about these promised investigations. Like many Americans, I assumed Reagan had told the truth and that the issue was no longer important. I was wrong. There was a reason why the media and Congress dropped this issue.
To this day, most Americans do not know about the documents discovered in Grenada. The CIA, the Defense Department and the State Department made copies of Grenada's government documents and sent 35,000 pounds of them to Washington. The documents were examined and then given to the National Archives in Washington, where they were made available to the news media, scholars and the public.
Guess what? Ronald Reagan was right about more than his decision to invade Grenada. The Soviets were pursuing a plan for expansion through the creation and support of Communist client states in Central America. The documents revealed the connections between the governments of Cuba, Grenada and Nicaragua, together with support of the Marxist guerrillas in El Salvador.
No doubt, some people reading this article are thinking that this is ancient history and doesn't matter any more. They are wrong because there is a scandal here and many of the people involved are still members of Congress and members of the media elite.
It starts with members of Congress paying a visit to the Sandanista leader of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega. They returned with a piece of paper signed by Ortega and once again, proclaimed that he was not a Communist, but a socialist. Several days later, Mr. Ortega made fools of these dupes by flying to Moscow to collect even more Soviet support. You would think that the members of Congress with the signed piece of paper would have been very angry. But not really.
The Democrat-controlled Congress went on to pass the third in a series of amendments called the Boland Amendments. All three of these amendments were worded to prevent the President from supporting the Contras in their fight against Ortega's communist government. Think about this: Congress knew about the Grenada documents. They knew Ortega had gone to Moscow for more Soviet support. And they still wanted to protect a Communist dictatorship from their own President.
In 1990, there were elections in Nicaragua. At the time, the Soviet Empire was crumbling, President Bush had removed General Noriega from Panama, and the Contras had continued to pressure the Nicaraguan government. The Sandanistas agreed to the elections because thought they would win. Our American media conducted polls and said they would win. President Carter, who had had not tried to stop the Sandanistas from taking power, was part of the commission observing the elections.
All the people who had opposed Reagan's policies towards Nicaragua were poised to claim victory. A Sandanista win would prove President Carter was right when he didn't oppose them. It would prove Congress was right when they passed the Boland Amendments. Our media also wanted to be right about refusing to believe President Reagan. But then something unexpected happened when the people of Nicaragua actually got their chance to vote. They threw the Sandanistas out of power because they wanted freedom instead of a Communist dictatorship.
If you think that liberal members of Congress and the media finally admitted they were wrong and Reagan was right, you are dreaming. They did admit that democracy had triumphed. But, in a slant only our media could pull off, they gave credit to President Carter for overseeing a free and fair election.
Why is this important today? Well, there are a few details I haven't mentioned yet. A lot of attention has been given to John Kerry's 1971 Congressional testimony accusing our military of wartime atrocities in Vietnam. There is something else he said. "We can not fight Communism all over the world and I think we should have learned that lesson by now."
In 1985, Senator Kerry was one of the members of Congress who returned from Nicaragua with that worthless signed piece of paper. He then supported the third Boland Amendment. Apparently, not only did John Kerry not want to fight Communism "all over the world," he didn't even want to fight communism in our own backyard.
Senator Kerry voted against the first Gulf War in 1990. President Bush had a UN Resolution and a large coalition that not only included the reluctant French, but several Arab nations. This makes it very difficult to vote for a Kerry who talks about having to pass some kind of global test. If the first Gulf War didn't pass his test, then what would?
President Clinton decided to intervene militarily in Bosnia in 1994, to stop the genocide. There was no UN Resolution and no large coalition of nations. What did John Kerry say?
"If you mean dying in the course of the United Nation's effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."
It is absurd to trust our national security and world security to an organization that is corrupt and controlled by petty, often venal interests. The UN was given the responsibility for not only destroying Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, but also for putting an end to his ability to manufacture them. The UN was responsible for making sure the benefits from the Oil for Food Program went to the Iraqi people. The UN miserably failed at both.
While Kerry did vote to give the President George W. Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq, it is important to realize that failure to support the President would have been political suicide for a presidential candidate. And when Senator Kerry voted against the $87 billion to support our troops, it is just as important to wonder if he was more worried about John Dean's anti-war rhetoric than the safety of our troops.
Today, candidate Kerry says that he'll be strong on national defense, that he'll win the war in Iraq, and that he'll win the war against terrorism. The time to be strong on national defense did not start on 9-11. I worry that a President Kerry could declare the war in Iraq unwinable, withdraw unilaterally, and leave behind a terrorist controlled nation with a wealth of oil next door to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
A man who said we couldn't fight Communism all over the world is not likely to seek victory against international terrorism. After 9-11, it's almost certain that if terrorists are not forced to run from us, they surely will come after us.
All I do is attack. LOL! Apparently reading comprehension
isn't your strong suit.
"Did S. H. attack us on 911?"
What does that have to do with the reason SH was removed?
Why don't you explain to me how this was unenforceable (see
link below)? If you can't make the entire document 100%
unenforceable, removing SH was legal & justifiable.
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-15UNResolution687.asp
Liberal Media Distortions
LaShawn Barbour blog
Rathergate tops the chart at #1. From the Media Research Center:
The Ten Worst Media Distortions of Campaign 2004
1. Dan Rather’s Forgery Fiasco
2. Ignoring, Then Attacking, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
3. Pounding the Bush National Guard Story
4. Spinning a Good Economy into Bad News
5. The Networks’ Outrageous Convention Double-Standard
6. Swooning Over Edwards’ Image, Ignoring His Liberalism
7. CBS’s Byron Pitts Promotional Kerry Coverage
8. CBS Promotes Fears of a New Military Draft
9. Misrepresenting the 9/11 Commission on Iraq/al-Qaeda Links
10. Equating New Terrorism Warning to LBJ’s “Gulf of Tonkin”
Rathergate … CBS News had to appoint an outside two-member investigating committee to find out how and why
a) Dan Rather aired a hatchet job on President Bush based on forged documents that CBS was warned about and
b) CBS Producer Mary Mapes coordinated with senior Kerry adviser Joe Lockhart concerning the discredited source of those documents.
The Attack On The Swift Boat Vets … Last spring, over 250 Vietnam War contemporaries, including veterans who served with him when he was a Swift Boat commander and his entire chain of command, came forward to publicly challenge Kerry’s version of Vietnam and his anti-war activities. After being ignored for several weeks the media turned on these honorable men with a vengeance, rather than give them a shred of credibility.
Good Economic Numbers = Bad News? … When Bill Clinton ran for re-election in 1996, unemployment was at 5.2 percent, inflation 3 percent, and economic growth 2.2 percent. Today, as Bush stands for re-election, unemployment is at 5.4 percent, inflation 2.7 percent and economists’ consensus forecast for economic growth this quarter is 3.7 percent. Coverage of the Clinton economic data was overwhelmingly favorable (35 positive, 6 negative stories). Under Bush, it’s literally reversed to 6 positive, 38 negative.
Numbers don’t lie. Bias is the only explanation.
October Surprise?
The Truth Behind Kerry's Military Discharge. What's Kerry Hiding?
HUMAN EVENTS - LT COL BUZZ PATTERSON
"I have nothing to hide. I want you to ask me questions."
--John Kerry, Reuters, August 3, 2004
The only 180 John Kerry hasn't accomplished in his litany of flip-flops throughout his campaign is Standard Form 180, the paperwork necessary for the complete release of his military records from the Department of Defense repository.
The Kerry campaign and website continue to claim he has released all military records. In fact, they've released the few documents painting the senator in a favorable light. There are at least 100 pages, promising to be much more revealing, still unseen. Kerry controls their release. All he has to do is sign the Form 180. To date, he has refused.
It goes without saying the main stream media isn't clamoring for him to comply although they hounded President George Bush relentlessly to release his Air National Guard records. Bush, by the way, did the right thing--he signed his Form 180. Kerry has made his naval service the focal point for his election. Shouldn't we expect the war hero to open his military service to America?
Where is the outrage (I ask tongue-in-cheek)? Where is the objective journalism? More realistically, what is Kerry hiding?
Thomas Lipscomb writing for the New York Sun and Geoff Metcalf of NewsMax.com have been pursuing Kerry's military record irregularities and his refusal to authorize their release tirelessly. Without Kerry's assistance, however, it will take a critical and very timely leak or we will never know the truth behind Kerry's military service in time for it to make the difference.
With true patriotism and integrity, John O'Neill and the Swifties have proven beyond any doubt that Kerry lacks the character and moral fiber to be the leader of our men and women in uniform. (As an aside, I've been touring the country with John O'Neill over the last several weeks, and I've never met a finer human being.)
The final element in Kerry's absolute failure to meet the standards our military deserves in a commander-in-chief, in this retired officer's opinion, is in the factual nature of Kerry's discharge (although I would love for some resourceful citizen find a way to republish and distribute Kerry's radical, anti-American tome The New Soldier -- which my publisher Regnery Publishing has offered to do for free -- and hand it out at the polls on November 2).
As for every veteran, the truth will be found the form DD214, the official Department of Defense document of release from military obligation given to Kerry when he exited military service on July 1, 1972. It is conspicuously absent from the documents released so far. Everyone serving in the military receives a DD214 the day they separate or retire from service. My suspicion along with a growing number of military personnel is that Kerry received an "other than honorable" discharge in the early 1970s as a consequence of his vehement anti-US, anti-military activities with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and his potentially treasonous tête-à-têtes with North Vietnamese Communist officials in Paris. If not, let him release his records. If so, America should demand the release.
Kerry's activities during his post-war political resume building efforts are expressly prohibited by the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 104, Part 904; the United States Code Title 18, Section 953 (18 USC Sec. 953); and, arguably, the Constitution, Article 3, Section 3. In fact, the Constitution's 14th Amendment, Section 3 declares, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President . . . (who has) engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." In another time and another place, at a minimum, Kerry would have faced courts martial. In another time and another place, Kerry would be breaking big rocks into little rocks at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, the military penitentiary. Today, he stands on the brink of election as the leader of the free world.
Kerry has built an entire career based solely on four months in Vietnam and two years of post-war protesting. For a politician to have built so much on, and been so successful with, a foundation consisting largely of self-promotion, lies, and unpatriotic (some say treasonous) endeavors is utterly fantastic and extremely tenuous. And the Dems know it--ergo, the refusal on the part of the Kerry campaign to release the entirety of his military service records.
With what we do know, Kerry's paperwork doesn't pass the smell test. The few records so far released by his campaign identify FOUR "honorable" discharge dates (every other military member I know, myself included, received one). Kerry's released documentation notes discharges of January 3, 1970, February 16, 1978, July 13, 1978, and, most peculiarly, March 12, 2001. He has as many discharge dates as months he spent in Vietnam. In my twenty years in the Air Force and through the thousands of people I came to know and serve with, I have never heard of anyone in the military having more than one DD 214 with one discharge date. Kerry, according to his own campaign, has at least four.
There are five potential classes of discharge: Honorable, General, Other than Honorable, Bad Conduct, and Dishonorable. Why does it matter? It's the sum total of one's military service boiled down in a phrase. Most employers require former military members to attach their DD214 to their employment application. Anything other than "Honorable" is seen as a character flaw. Bad Conduct and Dishonorable obviously are causes for additional concern.
Because Kerry is submitting his employment application to the American people and might become our military's next commander in chief, we may be asking our troops to support a man who held himself to lower standards than he would demand from our 2.3 million in uniform. (This is precisely what happened under Bill Clinton's stewardship when the military prosecuted servicemen for sexual infidelity and harassment while the commander-in-chief was committing similar crimes in the Oval Office). In fact, if a former military member applies for employment with defense related industry, he is required to sign and submit Form 180. Kerry, seeking to be CEO for our nation's defense, has refused.
Here's the crux of the confusion. On February 18, 1966, Kerry obligated himself to a six-year commitment to the Navy, and to the tenets of the military judicial system, with an expiration date of July 1, 1972. On January 3, 1970, Kerry asked for, and was granted, an early transfer from his active duty service to the Naval Reserve. As a reservist, he was still under oath as a commissioned officer and subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He still carried a military ID card and was still a member of the U.S. armed forces. Kerry's service commitment came to an end, as scheduled, in July, 1972. As such, a DD Form 214 with a discharge status was due.
Kerry's "honorable" discharge, though, doesn't come until February 16, 1978. Why? Possibly because President Jimmy Carter, through Proclamation 4483, granted a full and complete pardon to all military personnel who committed offenses and violations of the Military Selective Service Act during the Vietnam War. He pardoned deserters, draft dodgers and those who went absent without leave (AWOL).
Interestingly, Kerry's honorable discharge letter from the Department of the Navy, dated February 16, 1978, notes that Kerry's discharge was taken "by direction of the President" and "with the approved recommendations of a board of officers convened under the authority of reference [10 USC Sec. 1163] to examine the official records of officers of the Naval Reserve.." This is extremely unusual. Review boards are not convened for discharges and certainly not "by direction of the President." The "authority of reference," 10 USC Sec. 1163, refers to "the grounds for involuntary separation from the service." What was being reviewed, then, was Kerry's involuntary separation from the service or, more likely, the disposition of his service.
This simply would not have occurred if Kerry's discharge in 1972 had been "honorable." Why did Kerry's discharge meet a board? In all likelihood, he sought relief to improve his status of discharge from "dishonorable" or "less than honorable" to "honorable." If he signed his Form 180, we'd know. If he'd release his DD214 from 1972, we'd know.
Finally, and most bizarre of all of Kerry's military records so far released is a DD 215, "Correction to DD Form 214," initiated for John Forbes Kerry on March 12, 2001. Among other things, the new form changes Kerry's official US Navy separation date to March 1, 1970! As noted earlier, he wasn't eligible for discharge until July, 1972, and was so. Why, then, the new document in 2001? Why, 29 years later, is there the need to correct or change the record?
Here's why. By moving Kerry's discharge date to early in 1970, all of Kerry's post-Vietnam activities would be theoretically exempt from military justice. By moving his discharge date to March of 1970, Kerry's meeting with the enemy, North Vietnamese Communists in Paris in May of 1970, would be exempt. His joining the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) in June of 1970 and his radical, anti-war anti-government activities that followed would be exempt. The Winter Soldier Investigation in January, 1971, and Kerry's infamous testimony to Congress in April, 1971 would be exempt. His arrest for his protest activities in May, 1971, would be exempt. His attendance at a VVAW meeting in Kansas City where the assassination of several prominent and hawkish U.S. senators was discussed and voted on would be exempt.
Democratic presidential candidate Kerry has spent 35 years building a political career on four months in Vietnam. Apparently, he has spent 35 years covering up his post-war activities while still a member of the U.S. Navy many of which seem to be clear violations of the Constitution, US Codes, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Now, he stands on the verge of becoming our commander-in-chief, responsible for the stewardship of 2.3 million men and women in uniform. A former serviceman who won't come clean on his own record intends to command our forces and enforce the standards of military justice. We've been down this path before. America deserves to know. Our troops certainly deserve to know.
All it would take is for him to sign the Form 180.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-buzzcut.php?range=10%2F24%2F2004+-+10%2F30%2F2004
"Should we charge George Bush with treason for his meeting with the Bin Laden and the Saudi Royal family? Should we charge him with treason for taking money from the Bin Laden family?"
LOL! Michael Moore is your choice for your version of reality?
Why am I not surprised?
"I heard the testimony and none of it was false"
Read it & weep. Then admit you were completely wrong.
CITIZEN KERRY
....This particular article, explains how much of the
supposed atrocities were pure theatre.....
....all those horrific accounts of rape, torture, arson
and slaughter that the VVAW had recorded in Detroit seemed
to evaporate once the real investigation demanded by
Senator Hatfield began. As recounted in Guenter Lewy's
1978 book “America in Vietnam,” few witnesses agreed to
talk with military investigators, even after being assured
that they would not be asked about their own crimes. Many
of those who did permit interviews turned out never to
have been in combat. Some of the most gruesome claims came
from men who were imposters using the names of real
Vietnam veterans. One Marine who had been in combat
eventually told investigators that a member of the Nation
of Islam had helped prepare his statement, and admitted
that he had never witnessed any of the atrocities he had
testified to in Detroit. In the end, the Navy was unable
to verify any of the hundreds of war crimes alleged by the
Winter Soldier Investigation. Neither has anyone else
during the 33 years since, including journalists,
historians, and military and Congressional investigators.....
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20089797
....He became an antiwar activist. Sure, lots of Americans
ended up opposing the Vietnam War, but Kerry did so by
becoming the respectable face of Vietnam Veterans Against
the War, a group whose stock in trade was accusations that
American servicemen had committed war crimes. These claims
came in the form of "confessions" from men, some of whom
turned out not even to be veterans--and Kerry repeated
them in sworn testimony before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee in April 1971.....
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20073837
Of much greater import is Kerry's eloquent Winter Soldier
testimony before Congress in 1971, which launched his
political career. Kerry based his testimony on the statements
of about 150 supposedly highly-decorated veterans at the
Winter Soldier Rally in Detroit, who made claims of
committing horrible atrocities in Vietnam. He told Congress
that the U.S. "murdered over 200,000 Vietnamese per year," a
statement which the present Kerry campaign has gone to great
lengths to distance itself from.
The Detroit claims were duly investigated and found
wanting. It turned out that most of the claimants were
phonies who had never been in the military. Some used
stolen names of actual veterans; others refused to comply
with investigators. So Kerry tarred his fellow vets as war
criminals based on trumped up, unsubstantiated charges, in
order to thrust his name into the spotlight.
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20050213
.....John Kerry was given a chance to take this course last Sunday by Tim Russert on Meet the Press, but the presidential candidate refused to seize it. Instead, Kerry tried to have matters both ways: He distanced himself from his 1971 statements regarding atrocities in the Vietnam War while insisting that his charges were essentially accurate.
It so happens, however, that they were not accurate or
even remotely close to accurate, and the fact that Kerry
still won't repudiate what he said means it remains a
serious issue......
.....Kerry spoke at length before the committee, and his
testimony is full of such lurid claims......
Russert: "But, senator, when you testified before the
Senate, you talked about some of the hearings you had
observed at the Winter Soldiers meeting and you said that
people had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads,
taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and
on and on. A lot of those stories have been discredited,
and in hindsight was your testimony . . ."
Kerry: "Actually, a lot of them have been documented."
Russert: "So you stand by that?"
Kerry: "A lot of those stories have been documented. Have
some been discredited? Sure they have, Tim......
In other words, Kerry believes his language in 1971 was "a
little bit excessive," "a little bit over the top," and
might have been phrased "more artfully." But on the other
hand his statements were "honest," he's "proud" of his
position at that time and he's "not going to walk away"
from his fundamental thesis regarding the grotesque nature
of U.S. conduct. Indeed, "a lot of those stories have been
documented."
Actually, many of the atrocity stories that Kerry and many
others peddled in the early '70s were discredited even at
the time by such journalists as Neil Sheehan, James Reston
and William Overend. Others were eventually debunked in
such books as America in Vietnam, by well-known historian
Guenter Lewy (1978) and Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam
Generation Was Robbed of its Heroes and History, by B.G.
Burkett and Glenna Whitley (1998).....
As Lewy points out, for example, when the Naval Investigative Service tried to probe allegations made at the Winter Soldier Investigation, "many of the veterans, though assured that they would not be questioned about atrocities they might have committed personally, refused to be interviewed. One of the active members of the VVAW told investigators that the leadership had directed the entire membership not to cooperate with military authorities."
"One of the stories told and retold was that of prisoners pushed out of helicopters in order to scare others into talking," Lewy writes. "It is, of course, possible that some American interrogators engaged in this criminal practice, though not a single instance has been confirmed . . . But the most damaging finding consisted of the sworn statements of several veterans, corroborated by witnesses, that they had in fact not attended the hearing in Detroit. One of them had never been to Detroit in all his life. He did not know, he stated, who might have used his name."
Lewy does not deny that "incidents similar to some of those described at the VVAW hearing" occurred. They do in every war, and Lewy carefully discusses a number of them. "We know that hamlets were destroyed, prisoners tortured, and corpses mutilated," he writes, "Yet these incidents either (as in the destruction of hamlets) did not violate the law of war or took place in breach of existing regulations. In either case, they were not, as alleged, part of a 'criminal policy.' The VVAW's use of fake witnesses and the failure to cooperate with military authorities and to provide crucial details of the incidents further cast serious doubt on the professed desire to serve the causes of justice and humanity."
And he adds: "Most soldiers in Vietnam did not kill prisoners or intentionally shoot unarmed villagers. Violations of the law of war in this regard were committed by individuals in violation of existing policy. With the exception of rare cases, no orders were issued to commit atrocities . . ."
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20065808
Kerry-Linked Anti-War Group Can't Bury Deceit
....While many former Vietnam veterans support the
candidacy of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry,
there is no sign of the man who appeared with Kerry on a
nationally televised news program in 1971 to allege
widespread atrocities by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam.
That man, Al Hubbard, remains out of the spotlight,
perhaps because the war record he touted in directing a
prominent anti-war group that included Kerry, was
fabricated. Hubbard's deceit, which he later admitted.....
...Meet the Press host Lawrence Spivak introduced Hubbard
as a former decorated Air Force captain who had spent two
years in Vietnam and was wounded in the process.....
....Hubbard's falsehoods were not confined to his military
rank, Overend told CNSNews.com . Hubbard "had no record of
any service in Vietnam ..." Overend said.....
....B. G. Burkett, author of Stolen Valor and a military
researcher, told CNSNews.com that Hubbard's type of deceit
was widespread among people associated with VVAW.
Burkett's book documents false testimonies and reveals
that many of the men who worked with VVAW and other anti-
war groups who had alleged war atrocities during the
Vietnam War had either lied about their background or had
claims that were unverifiable.
According to Burkett, the Pentagon investigated the VVAW's
Winter Soldier allegations and discovered that some of the
U.S. Marines listed by VVAW as having testified in Detroit,
"could prove that they had never been in Detroit and did
not testify at that event."
Burkett is critical of Kerry for never having addressed
the issue of whether VVAW and the anti-war movement relied
on impostors or phony servicemen. "He presented this
ragtag bunch of bums as your standard honorably discharged
Vietnam vet and I think nothing could be further from the
truth. They weren't," Burkett said.....
"I heard the testimony and none of it was false"
.....Let's put things in perspective. Some three million men served in Vietnam. Since the logistics tail of U.S. forces is fairly large, only about 25 percent, or 750,000, served in combat units. If we add up all of the atrocities, both proven and alleged, and multiply them by two as a hedge against under-reporting, the percentage of American combat soldiers who might have committed atrocities (in Vietnam) is still less than 1 percent of the total. I doubt that many armies in history could match that record......
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20544354
"I heard the testimony and none of it was false."
Kerry told Congress under oath that the U.S. "murdered
over 200,000 Vietnamese per year," a statement which the
present Kerry campaign has gone to great lengths to distance
itself from......
In sworn testimony before Congress in 1971, Kerry said that Americans had committed atrocities in Vietnam that "were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.".....
Prove that this actually happened. Kerry, Fonda & the liberal
left were completely against the Vietnam war. If what Kerry
said was true, investigative journalists should have logged
thousands of stories confirming Kerry's allegations.
You should be able to provide substantial credible evidence
to support this with ease.
BTW, I am certain both are absolute lies that painted every
soldier a war criminal & cause them to be spin on, called "baby
killers" & worse.
IN THE BULLPEN BLOG
Friday, October 29, 2004
Interview with Troy Jenkins
Filed under: Politics and War — Chad Evans @ 1:49 am
:: InTheBullpen.com Exclusive ::
I recently had the pleasure to discuss the newly found Vietnam documents with Troy Jenkins, a researcher for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who personally found the documents within The Vietnam Archive at Texas Tech University. As a former student of Texas Tech University and one who has visited the Archive, I can attest that Jenkins finding these documents was no small task.
Troy Jenkins Bio:
I recently retired from the US Navy as a CTIC (Cryptologic Technician Interpretive Chief Petty Officer). For short: A Chief. Navy Linguist with Russian and Spanish background. I personally served with Senator Kerry on the US/Russia Joint Commission on POW/MIAs from 1994 to 1998. Senator Kerry was MIA during my whole tour with the POW/MIA office to let you know some of my motivation in getting involved.
Evans: First off, what are your affiliations? Are you a member of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth?
Jenkins: I Joined the Swift Vets site in August of this year after being disgusted by the media’s ignorance of “Official Navy Documents” and the speech given by former President Clinton at the DNC. At the time I did the research in the Vietnam Archives, I was a consultant for the Swift Vets. They paid my Hotel, Airfare, rental car and copying fees. I am too young to actually be a member of the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth, however I am obviously a supporter.
Evans: Are you working for any type of political campaign? Are you a registered Republican, Independent or Democrat? Who have you casted your last five presidential ballots for?
Jenkins: I do not work for any political campaign, but consider myself a lifelong Republican. I voted for Ronald Reagan, Bob Dole and Bush senior.
Evans: When you entered The Vietnam Archive, what exactly were you looking for? Did you know where to find it? How long did it take you to find the information?
Jenkins: I had wanted to go to the Vietnam Archives back in early September to look into Admiral Zumwalt’s personal files but didn’t have the appropriate time or finances to do so. My original intent was to see if Admiral Zumwalt had the mysterious missing paperwork for John Kerry’s Silver Star. The online working aids had a match for John Kerry and Silver Star but it turned out to be someone else. While I was there I came across a box full of anti-war material and began rummaging through it to amuse my curiosity. One thing that constantly side tracks me is more info. It’s in my nature because of my 20 years in Intelligence work. I flew down to Lubbock on a Tuesday and planned to stay until Thursday to complete my search. However, finding the volumes and volumes of material in the Douglas Pike collection made me stay a couple of days more. I had to call the Swift Vets to ask for additional help in going through the files and they sent an additional person on Thursday. He left on Saturday morning and I left in the afternoon. We were going through the material quickly and copying files of interest.
Evans: What was your reaction when you found these three documents? Did you expect to find something similar based on previous beliefs or pre-existing ideas or were you surprised?
Jenkins: What initially caught my attention to the captured documents was the cover page. It was from the CDEC – Document Exploitation Cell. Most of the material in the box was old newspaper clippings and brochures. But this was totally different. As I began to read the document, I got a gut feeling that this was serious. I began to put my analytical tools to use and carefully read the documents attached. Once I had determined this to be valid intell, I had the material copied. This was not my original intent to find this information but I brought it to the attention of the Swift Vets as an important accidental find.
Evans: In your opinion, what is the most important revelation that has already been or should be made concerning the documents?
Jenkins: The fact that this material was from the VC and had been captured “in country” was the most important to me. The details to which the Communists were directing U.S. protests and anti-war movements was absolutely astonishing. This wasn’t something I was reading in a history book – this was their own words.
Evans: Were there other documents that you found that have not been revealed by any member of the media thus far? If so, which ones and what do they contain?
Jenkins: I have a stack of approximately 175 papers that are all relevant to the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and closely associated anti-war groups. Many of these papers are complimentary to the previously released documents, some are unique – my secret.
Evans: Was there anything else you were looking for specifically that you were unable to find?
Jenkins: I was disappointed in not finding the still missing Silver Star paperwork. We have searched the Naval Archives in Washington D.C. and the Vietnam Archives in Lubbock with no luck so far. My guess would be that Senator Kerry has a copy which has not been released to date.
Evans: What type of contact was made with The New York Sun and World Net Daily?
Jenkins: Jerome Corsi received a copy of the documents (as he would be an expert on the time period) and authored the articles in World Net Daily. I called Thomas Lipscomb (New York Sun), who had worked with me in the past on other articles – “Did Kerry Write Own Report of Disputed Clash?” and “Mystery Surrounds Kerry’s Navy Discharge". I had known that Lipscomb was very demanding and accurate in his reporting. He is well respected as a journalist.
Evans: Why were these two media organizations/newspapers contacted over other higher profile publications? Was there an effort made to contact higher profile publications? If so, what was the response?
Jenkins: I really can’t answer the question as to why other media didn’t pick up the stories (above my paygrade), other than to say I went with respectable writers, Corsi and Lipscomb.
Evans: Assuming you have publicized your efforts to try to show that there was at minimal some collusion between the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, what is your main reason for doing this?
Jenkins: I’ll revert to my revulsion of the media and Clinton’s speech at the DNC (specifically the SEND ME). I know, I was there when Kerry was suppose to be working on the POW/MIA issue. I don’t like it when I hear incompetency by the media or outright lies by public figures. My whole role in this was to set the record straight through the documentation. Whether this fell out on the Swifties side or Kerry’s side, I’ve always maintained that when I reached my conclusion – it was coming out.
Evans: What is your main purpose for wanting to expose the otherwise hidden truths from the Vietnam War?
Jenkins: I don’t really have other purposes except that I’ve met so many Vietnam Veterans now that I want to help set the record straight; as many of us have been given a one-sided story through history books and public figures.
Evans: Will you and other Vietnam Veterans ever be able to forgive John Kerry for his 1971 Senate Testimony?
Jenkins: I couldn’t possibly speak for the Vietnam Veterans, but my own experiences with the Senator leave me no doubt that he is unfortunately a hollow person. He could be many things as a President, but I’m convinced none would be good for our country.
Evans: Why is this presidential election the first time that such a large group of Vietnam Veterans have banded together to strike out against a candidate?
Jenkins: The obvious answer is that this is the first candidate to run on his Vietnam record. At least he did until the Swift Vets challenged his record.
Evans: Do you and your fellow [ed. the] Vietnam Veterans have anything to gain by getting this information out in the open?
Jenkins: I know that the truth will be gained. So much of John Kerry has been hidden and manipulated from the American public. I don’t believe any of us can yet say we know what John Kerry is about. What does he truly believe? I think it unfair to the voters that John Kerry hasn’t been given the same scrutiny as the current President. Yet, if I found information about Bush – I would publicize that as well.
Evans: Is there anything you would like to add?
Jenkins: Thanks for the opportunity to address your fans.
There you have it. I learned much from this brief interview with Mr. Jenkins and found him to be very helpful in trying to decipher how the documents were found and what his intentions were. Through several emails, I found Jenkins to be exremely personable and it was a pleasure in interviewing him.
It is my personal opinion that the best thing that has come out not only with the recent documents but with the advertisements and documentaries concerning the Vietnam War in this election cycle is that it gives Americans another side to what is written in our textbooks. As someone who considers himself a closet historian, I had neglected the Vietnam War era and believed the protrayals found in the movies and just glossed over by history professors.
While the Vietnam War tends to be a sore subject for this nation, we must not forget the heroic deeds as well as the lives that were given by so many. We must also begin to think for ourselves and do our own research to find the truths of an era that has shaped our nation. Thankfully, people like Troy Jenkins and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have shared their stories with all of us and I hope they continue to. We must learn from history and the truth must be shed in order to both move on as well as not repeast mistakes, for we all make them.
Again, I thank Mr. Jenkins for his time and his candor. Much can be learned from people willing to do the grunt work of research. I await word as to what was in the other documents Jenkins copied, but until that happens, it will just be his secret.
http://www.inthebullpen.com/archives/2004/10/29/interview-with-troy-jenkins/
You are welcome.
It is quite telling when you present overwhelming credible
evidence to support your POV & the other guy squeals "LEIS
ALL LIES" & attacks you personally.
When libs form inflexible opinions based on discredited
assertions from the Michael Moore crowd, Team Kerry & the
DNC, you have pretty clear evidence that they have no use for
facts or reality. They are Kool Aid drinkers living in an
alternate reality.
I'm so glad I'm not like them. I could not in clear
conscience defend Kerry with lies, misinformation &
propaganda just to justify my political ideology.
Kerry's Afghan Amnesia
By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 29, 2004; Page A23
In the 1990s, Afghanistan was allowed to fall to the Taliban and become the global center for the training, indoctrination and seeding of jihadists around the world -- including the mass murderers of Sept. 11, 2001. This week, just three years after a two-month war that destroyed the Taliban, Afghanistan completed its first free election, choosing as president a pro-American democrat enjoying legitimacy and wide popular support.
This represents the single most astonishing geopolitical transformation of the past four years. (Deposing Saddam Hussein ranks second. The global jihad against America was no transformation at all: It existed long before the Bush administration. We'd simply ignored al Qaeda's declaration of war.) But perhaps even more astonishing is how this singular American victory has disappeared from public consciousness.
Americans have a deserved reputation for historical amnesia. Three years -- an eon -- have made us imagine that the Afghan war was easy and foreordained.
Easy? In 2001, we had nothing there. What had the Clinton administration left in place? No plausible military plan. Virtually no intelligence. No local infrastructure. No neighboring bases. The Afghan Northern Alliance was fractured and weak. And Pakistan was actively supporting the bad guys.
Within days of Sept. 11, the clueless airhead president that inhabits Michael Moore's films and Tina Brown's dinner parties had done this: forced Pakistan into alliance with us, isolated the Taliban, secured military cooperation from Afghanistan's northern neighbors, and authorized a radical war plan involving just a handful of Americans on the ground, using high technology and local militias to utterly rout the Taliban.
President Bush put in place a military campaign that did in two months what everyone had said was impossible: defeat an entrenched, fanatical, ruthless regime in a territory that had forced the great British and Soviet empires into ignominious retreat. Bush followed that by creating in less than three years a fledgling pro-American democracy in a land that had no history of democratic culture and was just emerging from 25 years of civil war.
This is all barely remembered and barely noted. Most amazing of all, John Kerry has managed to transform our Afghan venture into a failure -- a botched operation in which Bush let Osama bin Laden get away because he "outsourced" bin Laden's capture to "warlords" in the battle of Tora Bora.
Outsourced? The entire Afghan war was outsourced. How does Kerry think we won it? How did Mazar-e Sharif, Kabul and Kandahar fall? Stormed by thousands of American GIs? They fell to the "warlords" we had enlisted, supported and directed. It was their militias that overran the Taliban.
"Outsourcing" is a demagogue's way of saying "using allies." (Isn't Kerry's Iraq solution to "outsource" the problem to the "allies" and the United Nations?) And in Afghanistan it meant the very best allies: locals who had a far better chance of knowing which cave to storm without getting blown up. As Kerry himself said on national television at the time of Tora Bora (Dec. 14, 2001): "What we are doing, I think, is having its impact and it is the best way to protect our troops and sort of minimalize the proximity, if you will" -- i.e., not throwing American lives away in tunnels and caves in alien territory. "I think we have been doing this pretty effectively and we should continue to do it that way."
Now, as always, the retroactive military genius says he would have done it differently. Yet in the same interview, when asked about how things were going overall in Afghanistan, he said, "I think we have been smart; I think the administration leadership has done it well and we are on the right track."
Once again, the senator's position has evolved, to borrow the New York Times' delicate term for Kerry's many about-faces.
This election comes down to a choice between one man's evolution and the other man's resolution. With his endlessly repeated Tora Bora charges, Kerry has made Afghanistan a major campaign issue. So be it. Whom do you want as president? The man who conceived the Afghan campaign, carried it through without flinching when it was being called a "quagmire" during its second week and has seen it through to Afghanistan's transition to democracy? Or the retroactive genius, who always knows what needs to be done after it has already happened -- who would have done "everything" differently in Iraq, yet in Afghanistan would have replicated Bush's every correct, courageous, radical and risky decision -- except one. Which, of course, he would have done differently. He says. Now.
letters@charleskrauthammer.com
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
"OBL had nothing to do with S.H."
Ah yes, another in the long line of Big Lies from the lunatic left.....
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=4424836
"they were trying to destroy the young war hero"
Kerry is lucky he didn't get charged with treason.
He did meet twice with the enemy, with out the knowledge or
permission of the government. Kerry accepted the enemies
terms for a peace plan, then came to America & publicly told
the President to accept them.
And let's not forget his horrific, intentionally false
testimony of war crimes given under oath.
If all Kerry got was a dishonorable discharge, he got off
easy.
"What took place on September 11 was but the opening salvo of
the global war on America and that our Lord willing, the
magnitude and ferocity of what is coming your way will make
you forget all about September 11," the man, whose face is
covered by a headdress, warns in the video. "After decades of
American tyranny, now it's your turn to die..... He goes on
to warn of an upcoming horror: "The streets will run with
blood," and "America will mourn in silence" because they will
be unable to count the number of the dead".
TERROR TAPE WARN OF BUSH, CHENEY CONSEQUENCE; ABC WITHHELD PORTIONS FROM CIA
**Exclusive**
ABCNEWS withheld portions of an alarming new al Qaeda videotape which warns the next terror attack will dwarf 9/11 from the CIA when they submitted the video for analysis, a top federal source tells the DRUDGE REPORT.
The CIA and FBI late Wednesday authenticated the tape, federal sources tell DRUDGE. ABCNEWS has been informed of the government's standing.
"What took place on September 11 was but the opening salvo of the global war on America and that our Lord willing, the magnitude and ferocity of what is coming your way will make you forget all about September 11," the man, whose face is covered by a headdress, warns in the video. "After decades of American tyranny, now it's your turn to die."
ABCNEWS submitted portions of the video threat to the FBI and CIA on Monday for analysis, top government sources tell DRUDGE, after obtaining the tape from a source in Pakistan.
A top goverment source said from Washington that ABC withheld the final 15 minutes of the tape from the CIA -- the portion of the tape where the man warns of retribution for Americans electing Bush and Cheney.
MORE
"You are guilty, guilty, guilty. You're as guilty as Bush and Cheney. You're as guilty as Rumsfeld and Ashcroft and Powell...," the man states.
He goes on to warn of an upcoming horror: "The streets will run with blood," and "America will mourn in silence" because they will be unable to count the number of the dead.
"People of America, that was the verdict now for the sentencing: as participants and partners in the crimes of the regime, you too shall pay the price for the blood that has been spilled."
One ABC source, who demanded anonymity, said Thursday morning, the network was struggling to find a correct journalistic "balance" before airing any story on the video.
"This is not something you just throw out there while people are voting," the ABC source explained.
http://www.drudgereport.com/abct2.htm
"How much blood is enough for you people in another country? We just bleed and bleed for what?"
Perhaps you forgot about 9/11?
And don't give me that tired old line that Saddam was not
directly tied to 9/11. He was a real threat with the unique
combination of being a rouge dictator who refused to give up
his WMD programs. He had numerous ties to many terrorist
groups, including Al Qaeda. Saddam funded, supported, trained
& harbored terrorists.
And Saddam absolutely corrupted your favorite institution,
the UN. And along with that he bought off the governments of
France, Russia, China, Germany ET AL. I'm sure his bribes are
evidence his absolute innocence. No doubt it is proof of
Bush's corruption, 'eh?
After 9/11 countries like Iraq became a critical part of the
global war on terror. And that means more than just OBL & Al
Qaeda.
Feel free to cling to your version of reality. You are no
more safe there thant the rest of us here in the real world.
Before you spout the next Big Lie.... Yes Saddam did have ties to terrorism........
Case Closed
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19506425
The Saddam-Osama Memo (cont.)
A close examination of the Defense Department's latest statement
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19524655
Saddam Funded Terrorists - Duelfer Report
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20644771
The 9/11 Commission and the Connection
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20318974
The SENATE INTELLIGENCE Committee & the links between Iraq
and al Qaeda; Saddam & Terrorism....
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20304721
Documents Link Saddam To AQ, WMD, Other Terrorists
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20599642
Iraqi Documents Said to Detail WMD and Terrorist Connections
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20599602
CNS News Publishes Iraqi WMD Documents Online
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20630684
Leaked Iraqi intelligence documents connect Saddam Hussein to prominent terror leaders, including Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Osama bin Laden. Only question is, when will John Kerry change his stump speech?
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20644865
Possible Saddam-Al Qaeda Link Seen in U.N. Oil-for-Food Program
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20541250
Oil-for-Food IS the Smoking Gun
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20649169
An Intelligent Democrat . . .
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19569702
Putin: Saddam Planned Terrorism In US
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20239484
Saddam's Lawyer Met With Osama In Baghdad
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20651004
Here's 9/11 Commission Chair Thomas Kean during the press conference for the release of the commission'a final report today: There is "no question in our minds that there was a
relationship between Iraq and al Queda."
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20339152
Americans who still believe Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorists in general or al Qaeda in particular should visit husseinandterror.com
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20664538
The Connection
From the June 7, 2004 issue: The collaboration of Iraq and al Qaeda.
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20176813
Enemies Together
Clinton was right: Saddam and al Qaeda had numerous connections
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20244200
9/11 Commission Report: Iraq
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20340149
Saddam and bin Laden: Alliance of Evil
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20325667
The Story of Salmon Pak
http://edwardjayepstein.com/2002question/salmanpak.htm
Saddam, Al-Qaeda Linked Through Al-Zarqawi
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20172730
One major newspaper gets it right:Al Qaeda, Iraq--and war
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20239242
The Clinton View of Iraq-al Qaeda Ties
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19619772
More Connections
Two new members of the Iraqi interim government insist that Saddam and al Qaeda were linked.
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20191567
Saddam & Al Qaeda links?
Case Closed
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19506425
Found: A Smoking Gun
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19793282
Missing Links Found
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19534084
Saddam's Ambassador to al Qaeda
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19834579
Saddam's Files
New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20172110
It is interesting that many who criticize Bush for
not "connecting the dots" before Sept. 11 are also
criticizing those who connect the dots on Iraq-Al Qaeda ties
The 'Bush lied' crowd is way off base
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20201301
Wouldn't This Be Collaboration?
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20312392
The Saddam-Osama Memo (cont.)
A close examination of the Defense Department's latest statement
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19524655
Iraqis, Seeking Foes of Saudis, Contacted bin Laden, File Says
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20273531
The 'Bush Lied' folks can't be taken seriously
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20316069
Butler Report: Bush Didn't Lie!
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20316217
U.S., world clearly are safer
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20318937
"A Little Literary Flair"
From the July 26, 2004 issue: Joe Wilson wasn't a truth-teller
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20323044
Sixteen Truthful Words
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20323089
Evidence Iraq Had Deal To Buy Uranium From Congo: Butler Report
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20309003
The Yellowcake Con
The Wilson-Plame "scandal" was political pulp fiction
http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20315956
"Find any WMD yet?"
Actually that is THE BIG LIE perpetrated by the DNC, Kerry &
his surrogates, plus the liberal media & you......
"Stockpiles" of WMD's weren't necessary to justify the
removal of Saddam as we both know. The difference between you
& I is that you are willing to lie & distort for political
reasons.
Duelfer Report: Saddam Planned to Restart WMD Programs
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20611962
The Report That Nails Saddam
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20622263
the real news in the report of Iraq Survey Group head Charles Duelfer..... makes it plain that George W. Bush had good reason to go to war in Iraq and end the regime of Saddam Hussein....
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20623841
More on the ISG Report
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20615946
Inspections + Verification
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20620056
Duelfer Report Shows Kerry Doctrine to be a Sham
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20616595
Saddam Crazy Like A Fox
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20619450
The release of the Duelfer report is actually bad news for Kerry
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20620010
The Reality of Saddam’s Threat
The U.S. could not have delayed dealing with Saddam Hussein
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20308905
Evidence Iraq Had Deal To Buy Uranium From Congo: Butler Report
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20309003
The New Groupthink
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20308603
Four Facts and Five Conclusions
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20316069
The 'Bush Lied' folks can't be taken seriously
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20316069
Butler Report: Bush Didn't Lie!
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20316217
U.S., world clearly are safer
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20318937
AN ENIGMA WITHIN THE LIES
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20324865
Saddam did have WMD plans says inspector
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20104877
Kay stated, "I must say I actually think Iraq -
what we learned during the inspections - made Iraq a more
dangerous place potentially than in fact we thought it was
even before the war".....
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19735063
How long do you let... material breach, deception and
denial go on before you risk with the kind of surprise
that I could never fully and 100 percent predict?
- Transcript of Tenet address on WMD INTELLIGENCE
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19774372
Investigative Report
Saddam's WMD Have Been Found
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20106309
Sarin, Mustard Gas Discovered Separately in Iraq
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20136948
Clinton defends successor's push for war
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20295445
So Where's the WMD? Anti-Bush partisans aren't listening to what David Kay is saying
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19750248
Iraq Survey Chief: More WMD Found
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20273691
Joe Wilson flip-flop: Wilson now says Iraq DID seek uranium from Niger, Africa
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20081121
Pesticides, Precursors, and Petulance Revisited
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20150576
biological weapons - Transcript of Tenet address on WMD INTELLIGENCE
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19774132
chemical weapons - Transcript of Tenet address on WMD INTELLIGENCE
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19774179
Mobile WMD Labs - Transcript of Tenet address on WMD INTELLIGENCE
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19774161
UAV's - Transcript of Tenet address on WMD INTELLIGENCE
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19774091
the nuclear issue - Transcript of Tenet address on WMD INTELLIGENCE
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19774112
Kay says Iraq war was ‘prudent’
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19740663
Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19729599
Clinton believed Iraq had WMD
Fri 9 Jan 2004
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19674178
"It Was Never About a Smoking Gun,"
by David Kay
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19734282
Bill Clinton on Bush's Iraqi WMD claims:
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19734299
Key Excerpts from David Kay's Testimony to the SENATE Armed Services Committee
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=19757747
Nothing To Do With the Truth
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20553887
No Terrorism in Iraq Before the War?
http://dev.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=20532815
"Find any WMD yet?"
Back to the Big Lie are we now? Well I see it's just one of
the Big Lies.....
The Gulf War Cease Fire Agreement - AKA - UN Resolution #687,
was a ZERO Tolerance policy. That meant Saddam had to;
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?
Text of UN Resolution 687
http://www.dalebroux.com/assemblage/2002-11-15UNResolution687.asp
Hat tip to unclewest
Kerry’s Dishonorable Discharge
28 October 2004
By Earl Lively
There is overwhelming evidence that John Kerry got a dishonorable discharge from the Navy, and that, as a result of such discharge, he was stripped of all of his famous but questionable Navy awards and medals. And the kicker? The evidence is on his website!
Kerry’s oh-so-clever handlers evidently depended on the ignorance of the public and the press about military records when they posted his 1978 “Honorable Discharge from the Reserves” on his site as part of a carefully selected partial release of his Navy records (the Navy says it is still withholding about 100 records). However, one diligent reporter, Thomas Lipscomb of the New York Sun, saw through the scam and exposed it in a story on October 13.
Predictably, the major media has shunned the story.
What Mr. Lipscomb noticed (and I overlooked when I first read the document) was the date of the posted discharge, Feb. 16, 1978. This was six years after Kerry’s six-year (1966-1972) commitment to the Navy ended. The anti-war detractor of our military did not re-up for another six-year term in 1972, so why the delay of his discharge? The only logical conclusion is that the 1978 honorable discharge was a second discharge given to replace an earlier undesirable discharge.
I was a colonel assigned as Director of Operations of Headquarters, Texas Air National Guard when George W. Bush was a lieutenant in the Air Guard. Since 1999, I have been besieged by the media, from the London Guardian to CBS’s Sixty Minutes, NBC, the Boston Globe, and others, with allegations and questions about Lt. Bush's service in and discharge from the Texas Air National Guard and USAF. I recently appeared on Fox & Friends twice to shoot down CBS’s phony memos about Lt. Bush and allegations about his discharge.
In the interest of fairness and equal time, it is time that scrutiny of John Kerry's discharge(s) is demanded.
Senator Kerry has said that his medal certificates were reissued because he lost them (and his dog ate his homework, I suppose). Rewards are certified in one’s permanent personnel record jacket. If you lose a medal, you can get a replacement medal if your records show the award. The only way awards would have to be reissued is if they were rescinded and deleted from your records. And this narrows the possibilities down toward a dishonorable discharge, rather than a lesser form of undesirable discharge. As Mr. Lipscomb noted, “There is one odd coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was dishonorably discharged. … (W)hen a dishonorable discharge is issued, all pay benefits, and allowances, and all medals and honors are revoked as well. And five months after Mr. Kerry joined the U.S. Senate in 1985, on one single day, June 4, all of Mr. Kerry's medals were reissued.”
The experience of my thirty-plus years in the Navy, U.S. Air Force, and Air National Guard tells me that the late-issued honorable discharge was obviously a cover-up whitewash. Ditto for the re-issuance of Kerry's medals shortly after he became a member of the "Ol' Boys Club" in the Senate.
One of the top dogs in that club, Sen. John Warner, has amnesia about "any representation" about Kerry receiving a less than honorable discharge, even though he was Nixon's Secretary of the Navy when Kerry delivered his diatribe against the Navy and other services in the Senate in April, 1971. In May of 1970, Kerry conferred with the Viet Cong in Paris, and in July of 1971, he demonstrated in Washington to sell their peace proposal—while he was in the Naval Reserve. This variety of amnesia is common among Republicans asked to stand up and testify to Democrat crimes and injustices (see the GOP Senators' "support" of the House impeachment prosecutors).
The Nixon/Ford presidency gave way to Democrat President Jimmy Carter in 1977, which tends to explain the six-year delay in getting the revised discharge. Mr. Lipscomb adds some insight:
“Mr. Carter's first act as president was a general amnesty for draft dodgers and other war protesters. Less than an hour after his inauguration on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it. By the time it became a directive from the Defense Department in March 1977 it had been expanded to include other offenders who may have had general, bad conduct, dishonorable discharges, and any other discharge or sentence with negative effect on military records. In those cases the directive outlined a procedure for appeal on a case by case basis before a board of officers. A satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or an honorable discharge.”
A document on Kerry’s website is a form letter from W. Graham Claytor, Carter’s Secretary of the Navy, which grants his Honorable Discharge. .http://www.johnkerry.com/pdf/jkmilservice/Honorable_Discharge_From_Reserve.pdf .
Secretary Claytor’s letter says that this action to award an Honorable Discharge Certificate is taken in accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, Sections 1162 and 1163, which deal with grounds for involuntary separation of a reserve officer and provide for the action of “a board of officers” to examine an officer’s records and review previous actions. Obviously, this was the aforementioned board for appeal resulting from President Carter’s executive order.
Unless Lt. Kerry had previously received an undesirable discharge, he had nothing to appeal and would not have come before this board.
When he became a Senator in 1965, his clout as a senator got his medals back, even though Reagan was president, but the restoration of the medals was one more piece of evidence, as Mr. Lipscomb noted, that his previous discharge was dishonorable.
The Navy is stonewalling Freedom of Information Act requests by Judicial Watch for the rest of Kerry's records—not surprising, because ever since the Tailhook flap, the Navy has had a P.C. virus. Feminist Rep. Patricia Schroeder (Dem-CO) figuratively castrated the Navy's top brass, and the Navy cringed from political correctness. Pressure and morale at the top was so low that a Chief of Naval Operations committed suicide. The Navy doesn't want to admit that it succumbed to political pressure to restore honors stripped from a discredited turncoat. In hiding the truth, the Navy Department dishonors even the lowest-ranking sailor who ever swabbed a deck.
It is time for those who care about the truth, and about the integrity of our electoral system, to demand all of the facts hidden in the records of the man who may be elected President.
Earl Lively
Colonel, USAF (Ret.) / Texas ANG Phone: 214-361-8900 lively1@gte.net
Thomas Friedman is just like you..... and a lot of libs.....
OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY BLOG
Thomas Friedman: A Hole in the Head
Thomas Friedman's latest column, "A Hole in the Heart," argues that the nation and the world are exceedingly polarized and that it's largely President Bush's fault.
"I have been struck by how many foreign dignitaries have begged me lately for news that Bush will lose. This Bush team has made itself so radioactive it glows in the dark. When the world liked Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, America had more power in the world. When much of the world detests George Bush, America has less power. People do not want to be seen standing next to us. It doesn't mean we should run our foreign policy as a popularity contest, but it does mean that leading is not just about making decisions - it's also the ability to communicate, follow through and persuade."
Friedman is a bright and learned man. I'm stupified by the ahistoricism of that paragraph.
When exactly was it that the world liked Ronald Reagan? Certainly, not while he was in office. Remember all the protests about his plan to put Pershing II's into Europe? The controversy over Star Wars? The business about him being a stupid cowboy?
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, was wildly popular in Europe. But how exactly did that translate into U.S. power? He was unable to secure UN backing for Kosovo and a myriad of other military operations, having instead to go it alone or with coalitions of the willing. The good will toward Clinton didn't exactly translate into freedom from terrorism, either, as al Qaeda formed and perpetrated numerous attacks on American targets under his watch.
"The second thing that is necessary to heal the hole in the world is a decent Iraqi election. If such an election can be brought off, the Europeans, the Arabs and the American left will have to rethink their positions. I know what I am for in Iraq: a real election and a decent government. The Europeans, the Arabs and the American left know what they are against in Iraq: George Bush and his policies. But if there is an elected Iraqi government, it could be the magnet to begin pulling the moderate center of the world back together, because a duly elected Iraqi government is something everyone should want to help."
I would point out that, were Al Gore or John Kerry president, there would be absolutely no question about the outcome of the next Iraqi election. Saddam Hussein would have won 100% of the votes. Again.
"Since you control the truth squad"
No, I just try to get to the truth, no matter the outcome.
When I find it, I am able to make informed conclusions that
are reality based. And as time & events unfold, I'm willing
to reassess my opinion based on all of the facts.
I do not drink the Kool Aid from some political party. And
the last thing I want is a politician with a life long
history of easily documented horrific lies.
Geeze! You'd think this was some foreign concept or something!
"I am pretty tired of this argument."
I don't understand. You just make stuff up or parrot DNC
Talking Points. That requires almost no effort whatsoever.
You don't have to be concerned with facts or reality. Just
spew what ever you want.
I wish I had it so easy. It's a lot harder when facts,
reality & accuracy mean something to you.
I don't get it. Perhaps your conscience is weighing you down?
Thank you for your honest reply.
At least I know that like Kerry, you can justify telling the
most horrific lies, no matter the consequences, as long as
you believe that your lies are for some greater good. And
when you are proven wrong, you too, like Kerry, can freely
lie some more & slander those who force you to face reality,
because it is all for that greater good.
After all, we absolutely agree that an unrepentant liar can
always be trusted to do the right thing, don't ya know?
FWIW, that is a load of self serving BS. If you have to tell
lies that cause real harm, your so-called greater good may
not be all that great. In fact you are quite likely dead
wrong.
And believe me, Kerry's anti-war lies were dead wrong.
So tell me, what exactly bothers you so much that you want
that article kept from the public?
Are you afraid that someone might learn something that the
liberal media has intentionally failed to objectively report
for more than 30 years?
Does the reality that your party voted overwhelmingly to
nominate a despicable, unrepentant liar with no morals or
ethics to run for POTUS?
Please tell me specifically why you want to repress this
person's free speech?
The truth really does hurt, doesn't it?
And I thought liberals were so pro free speech, particularly
when it it true.
"i asked if you could prove if kerry caused millions to die"
When you are done reading the evidence I gave you, you can
apologize.
What is your point. That was a truthful statement based on
current intelligence.
Or are you calling John Kerry, Clinton, Gore, Edwards all
liars too.
And just about everybody who looked at the existing evidence
available on Saddam too.
Or are you redefining the meaning of the word lie?
So your faulty opinion somehow justifies Kerry's horrific
lies about fictitious war crimes, his treasonous acts of
meeting with the enemy & his anti-war activities that
included a plot to assassinate US Senators, ET AL?
And you will vote for him to be President too I'm sure.
Go figure.