Courtesy of the Red, White and...Red

Today will be written in the annals of American history as the day America saved herself from utter disaster. No longer will conservative thought be categorized as "right wing extremism," it is mainstream America. Today is a day we can breathe deeply and rest assured that our future is that much brighter with a man of character and integrity in the office for four more years. But we cannot get comfortable; our work has only just begun. There are yet more issues to fight and more plans to move forward. We cannot relax or relent in our pursuit of making this great country even greater.

We've experienced the unparalleled victory of gaining control of the House, Senate, White House and soon to be Supreme Court. We've ousted the Senate Minority Leader for the first time in 50 years. Most importantly, we've squashed the attempts to defile the memory and service of Vietnam Veterans and current servicemen--they have been vindicated. America is proud of them and won't let the likes of John Kerry and Michael Moore sling their name through the mud.

But now is when we must get our hands dirty and begin the process of restoring the budget, helping Iraq to independence, and securing our borders. Most of all, we must commit to praying for our fearless leader as he will have, no doubt, a very challenging four years ahead of him. But a good challenge: the challenge of making this country that beacon of hope that shines the light of freedom and democracy throughout the world.

God Bless you, George W. Bush. We salute you, sir. Here's to a great Four More Years!

Posted by Portia at November 3, 2004 10:25 PM

It's like graduating high school only to go one to get out of your first four years, only to be pulled into your

it looks like W is gonna scratch Abe's chin or something...or give him a belly rub...ya, belly rub

Posted by: Peter at November 4, 2004 07:50 AM

There ya go big comfy? Do you want a soda....a sooooda?

rub rub rub

Posted by: Peter at November 4, 2004 07:58 AM

[Most importantly, we've squashed the attempts to defile the memory and service of Vietnam Veterans and current servicemen--they have been vindicated.]

If by this, you mean the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have disbanded, then I agree.

Posted by: Henry at November 4, 2004 11:54 AM

How about the Veterans who were defiled by the words of a pretentious, egomaniacal, selfserving vet of only four months, who seemed to have so much knowledge of what went on behind the scenes of a war in which he only spent those measly four months. Oh, and with 5 medals, what, did he get one every three weeks? That's bull. Kerry's lies caught up with him and the NORMAL American saw him for what he was, a fraud.

Posted by: Jon at November 4, 2004 03:13 PM

The NORMAL American (I'm not sure how you define that) didn't see Senator Kerry for a fraud. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth turned out to be the frauds. Look at the reports in the weeks after their charges were leveled, and you'll find that many of them turned out to be untrue. Kerry's medals were earned and deserved. Kerry fought in Vietnam. Bush didn't. It's as simple as that. Don't go bashing Kerry's service to his country when he was the one who actually went overseas.

Posted by: Henry at November 7, 2004 10:05 AM

Um....out of Kerry's 3 purple hearts, none of them required any hospitalization. One was even self inflicted when a grenade he threw bounced back and exploded near his position, giving him a pretty nasty scratch.

The Swift Vets were vindicated. Kerry's tactic of showing his entire chain of command picture, when only two of the 20 some odd officers supported him, was low. The only reason why the SBVFT was even formed was because Kerry refused to stop running the picture when confronted with a signed petition from the rest of the officers.

Henry, please change "NORMAL" to "LIBERAL". Then again, it's hard to see a fraud when one can lie so well. Kerry has lied about everything, even the box scores for the Red Sox. Well, that wasn't as much a lie as he made up a score to try to make himself look "more like one of the guys". For 30 years he lied about Christmas in Cambodia. His Mainstream Media attack dogs lied about Bush's record in the Air National Guard. Kerry has lied about the issues:
"90% of cargo containers at seaports aren't checked."
If you watch FahrenHYPE 9/11 you'll see alot of the DNC's lies come to fruition.

Posted by: Peter at November 9, 2004 08:00 AM

You talk of Kerry having "lied aboutthe issues" as though Bush never has. "90% of cargo containers at seaports aren't checked" - that may or may not be misleading, I don't know, but I'll take your word that it isn't true. But to mention that and not mention any of the many lies/distortions Bush came up with during the campaign? Silly and misleading all in its own right., my friend, I could make the same one-sided attack against Bush, and not mention Kerry at all. You'd jump right over it. Naturally. Same reason for why I'm jumping all over what you said. It's misleading and pointless.

I don't think the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were vindicated, and I'll be looking it up to find out for sure. Kerry's wounds, however they were earned, were earned in Vietnam. Bush, of course, didn't go there, so he couldn't get any wounds. That's the bottom line, Peter.

Posted by: Henry at November 9, 2004 10:47 AM

The Swifties weren't vindicated??? You guys need to stop harping on Kerry's four months in Vietnam. He didn't even serve out an entire tour, for cryin' out loud.

The election is over. The people have spoken. Get over it.

Posted by: Ron at November 9, 2004 12:32 PM

P.S. have you looked at the election map lately? I mean really looked? You may be feelin' blue, but I'm seein' red!

Posted by: ron at November 9, 2004 12:33 PM

Thanks for telling me the election is over. And to get over it, which I have. Now, does that mean all conversation that you might not like shuts down? If so, you're not living in the same America as I am, Ron.

Kerry didn't serve out an entire tour of duty. True.

Bush didn't go to Vietnam. True.

The Swift Boat Veterans weren't vindicated? I'll get back to you on that one.

Posted by: Henry at November 9, 2004 02:20 PM

Ok, as promised...

As I have done in the past, I clicked on the great to the Annenberg Political Fact Check link Emily provides in her "Must Read News Sites" section to find out the truth about the Swift Boat Veterans' claims. There, a search for "Swift Boat Veterans" came up with a lot of interesting stuff.

One of the most current pages linked to on the main page of is "The Whoppers of 2004." That page includes the following:

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth:

This group ran $11 million in dubious ads claiming Kerry didn't deserve his Vietnam medals, and characterizing his anti-war testimony as a "betrayal" of veterans. See "Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record" on Aug. 6, and "Swift Boat Veterans Anti-Kerry Ad: "He Betrayed Us" With 1971 Anti-War Testimony" on Aug. 23.

Link to "Republican-funded Group Attacks Kerry's War Record":

Link to "He Betrayed Us":

The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a non-partisan group, and I'm betting Emily wouldn't have it as a "Must Read News Site" if she doubted its credibility.

The Swift Boat Veterans were, in truth, for anything but the truth.

Posted by: Henry at November 9, 2004 02:49 PM

Instead of checking with other sites (factcheck, etc) why don't you read the book? Can't beat primary sources.

Posted by: Ron at November 10, 2004 02:04 PM

Of course you can beat primary sources, if they lie.

How about you check non-partisan sources instead of just blindly believing the primary sources?

You think is wrong? That means you also think Navy records are wrong. That many, many other people who were with Kerry in Vietnam are also wrong.

It's about weighing the evidence of each side, here. One side has evidence that obviously is meant to help group and not another. Another side has evidence that is meant only to let the truth be known. It's clear which side is more believable.

I'm seriously asking -- do you think's findings are wrong?

Posted by: Henry at November 10, 2004 02:56 PM


did you read the entirety of both articles? Both of them neither fully support, nor destroy either testamony. That's why it's called "Factcheck"....not "Sidetaker". The site is not promoting sides, though in each cases, there is strong evidence for each. The first article shows that SBVFT is funded by a republican who donated about $100k. Big whoop. George Soros donated over $87 mil. to liberal groups like In otherwords, if anything, they should have an article about George Soros' contributions to the liberal left and DNC.

FactCheck isn't wrong, nor are they right. They're not trying to be either. They're presenting the facts from both sides, with a little truth thrown in the mix.

The line that "Unfit for Command is full of lies" came from the DNC weeks before the book actually came out. And if you wanna see who's really telling the truth, watch the interviews or read the transcripts from Fox's inverviews with John O'Neil and some liberal nutjob who kept yelling "YOU'RE A LIAR, THE BOOK IS A PACK OF LIES" over and over and over again. It was childish. I believe Emily has a link to a blog called "The Daily Recycler" that has that clip.

Think about it, Henry. Swift Vets get about $160k in donations by July, and the left screams bloody murder. gets millions from day one and no one says a thing. Just think about that.

Posted by: Peter at November 10, 2004 04:22 PM

I see you are still flogging Michael Moore. Have you seen Fahrenheit 9/11 yet? Or are you still speaking about it without empirical foundation?

Posted by: ziggy at November 11, 2004 10:44 AM

Ziggy, i thought we cleared this up. Empirical evidence does not have to be one's own first hand experience, but the documented first hand experience of others. If someone passes on knowledge they gained first hand, that's empirical.

You must have a really short memory to have forgotten a thing like that.

Posted by: Peter at November 11, 2004 01:47 PM

[FactCheck isn't wrong, nor are they right. They're not trying to be either. They're presenting the facts from both sides, with a little truth thrown in the mix.]

I don't get that. "They're presenting the facts from both sides, with a little truth thrown in the mix"? Huh?

FactCheck isn't trying to be right, no. But it does try to uncover the truth. And it has, in regard to the Swift Boat Veterans, as it has with many other things.

I HAVE read the articles, Peter. Have you?

[The site is not promoting sides, though in each cases, there is strong evidence for each.]

If you read the articles, you will see that the strong evidence is that the Swift Boat Veterans lied.

[The first article shows that SBVFT is funded by a republican who donated about $100k. Big whoop.]

This is why I'm not sure you read the article. It says so much more than that. In case you didn't read it, or failed to read all of it, or just forgot it right after you read it, here it is:

" A group funded by the biggest Republican campaign donor in Texas began running an attack ad Aug. 5 in which former Swift Boat veterans claim Kerry lied to get one of his two decorations for bravery and two of his three purple hearts.

But the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records. "

Yes, it mentions that the group is funded by the biggest Repub. campaign donor in Texas. Is that all it says? Nope. "...the veterans who accuse Kerry are contradicted by Kerry's former crewmen, and by Navy records." That's as big of a point of the article as the point about how the Swift Boat people were funded.

The article ends by saying "At this point, 35 years later and half a world away, we see no way to resolve which of these versions of reality is closer to the truth." True, obviously. But just looking at the evidence presented on that page, one sees that all of it points to the Swift Boat Veterans as having lied. Or, at least, there were other people who were in better positions to recall what truly happened – such as Rassmann, a Republican himself.

The other article isn't conclusive of anything. But it does show how the Swift Boat Veterans were clearly willing to distort the truth in order to make Senator Kerry look bad. It was politically motivated. This has nothing to do with George Soros or anyone else. We're talking about the Swift Boat Veterans here.

If there's one thing these articles show, it's that the Swift Boat Veterans definitely weren't vindicated.

Posted by: Henry at November 11, 2004 03:34 PM


Here's what I don't get: One Swift Vet lies, and now they're all liars. That's what I read. But since they're republicans in support of Bush, that little lie is exploded in the MSM to say they're all liars. How about Dan Rather using false documents to promote his point of view? He's a journalist, not a propoganda manager. What about Kerry spouting lie after lie about the Bush Administration? He lied about foriegn shippments being scanned. He lied about Having a definite plan for Iraq. He even lied about the box scores for the Boston Red Sox WS championships. Then, he covers them up and no one is the wiser.

I was watching a editorial piece on After-the-fact witnesses and how people can be manipulated. It was scary, and i'll tell you why: A Psychology professor did a test on one of her classes. She "hired" a spare camera man to walk into class, steal her purse, then run out. He was quite average looking, with a mustache and dark hair. After the "crime" was committed, the students were shocked, of course. Subtly, the professor made a remark about how strange that was, and she really noticed his big nose. When interviewed, all of the students said they really noticed his big nose. When put infront of a line-up, they couldn't pick the right guy because they were all looking for a man with a large nose. This can be applied to any case of after-the-fact shock or trauma. I'm not saying the Swift Vets are right (though basing your entire political career on only 4 months in Nam when many vets spent at least a year in Hell), i'm just saying that you can't trust the word of a traitorous liar like Kerry ( i can comment more about the "traitorous" part if you like).

I would have to say, even if they're only partly right, they're still vindicated.

Posted by: Peter at November 12, 2004 11:54 AM

That's ridiculuous. Go back to Bush and the Republican party lied just as much, if not more, than Kerry and the Democratic party during the campaign. Think about it.

And you're letting the Swift Boat Vets off because it was a traumatic time and it was therefore hard to get all the facts straight? Well, gee, then, maybe they shouldn't have been so motivated to take down Kerry, if their facts weren't all that straight. War is a traumatic time... so come on, Swift Boat Vets, be nice to Kerry in regard to his heroism, ok?

The Swift Boat Veterans looked for the attention they received. And the fact that they lied wasn't even picked up by the mainstream media. At least it wasn't until too late -- until after public opinion on the matter had already set against Kerry.

And how the heck do you say "one Swift Boat Vet lies, and now they're all liars"? The ads weren't made up of one guy. It was many guys, many liars.

Vindication sure isn't a word that can be applied to the Swift Boat Veterans -- or anybody else who is just "partly right" or not at all right.

Posted by: Henry at November 12, 2004 04:10 PM

Peter I didn't forget your argument, but I don't accept it. Do you remember my answer?

Posted by: ziggy at November 12, 2004 05:38 PM