Blogs for Bush Team
Matt Margolis, Founder/Editor
Mark Noonan, Editor
Kevin Patrick, Senior Writer
Paul Lewis, Senior Writer

News Tips

Guest Bloggers
Leo Pusateri

Blogroll For Bush


Above are the 43 most recently updated blogs. Click here for the full blogroll

Allies


Archives
Categories

B4B Coverage Of...
The 2004 Republican National Convention
The Alito Nomination
The Roberts Nomination
The Roberts Hearings
Hurricane Katrina

Recent Posts
What Media Bias? Part 66
Why to Stay Away From Paranoid Conspiracy Theories
Offending Islam
Too Soft at Guantanamo Bay
Saddam and al-Qaeda
Common Article III of the Geneva Convention
We Must Defeat Political Correctness To Win The War On Terror
Regarding laughing matters...
Kerry: Still a Loser
Murtha's "strategic vision"?
Open Thread: Another Weekend Is Here
Just Because it Will Irk Our Leftwing Friends
Faith and Reason
Being a Soldier
Blogging For Bolton
Faith and Violence
The Trying of Terrorists
Air America Bankrupt
Tax Cuts Are Good For The Deficit
Politics in Sin CIty


Margolis Media Works

Add to My Yahoo!
CentCom

GOP Bloggers

Thank you, President Bush

Social Security Information



Blogs for Bush Store





Search The Grand Old Portal

Donate to Blogs For Bush to help keep us blogging!
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Prime Sponsor

Premium Sponsors

More Sponsors


GOP Bloggers


Subscribe To B4Bcast!


Site Credits
RSS 2.0

Powered by:
Movable Type 3.2

Design by:





ANNOUNCEMENT: Matt Margolis & Mark Noonan get a book deal!


September 15, 2006
Kerry: Still a Loser

Just when you think Kerry can't possibly get any more pathetic, he comes through for you again:

Asked if he dreads the prospect of being “Swift-Boated” all over again, Kerry counters that he would relish such a fight.

“I’m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other,” he declares. “I am so confident of my abilities to address that and to demolish it and to even turn it into a positive.”

Kerry’s tough talk triggers laughter from John O’Neill, a fellow Vietnam veteran who helped found Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth and wrote a blistering 2004 book on Kerry, “Unfit for Command.”

“Well, he’s got eight times as much time to prepare for us as he spent in Vietnam,” says O’Neill, referring to Kerry’s short tour of duty.

Hey, Kerry, rather than working on kicking the asses of your fellow veterans, why don't you release your military records so we can see if the Swifties really are telling the truth?

It'll be fun to watch him implode in the early primaries - and the outrageously funny part of it is that he'll implode because he still won't have come clean on his past. The guy is not only a loser, but he's a rather stupid man - had he just released his full records in 2005, then whatever bad there is in them would be ancient history by 2008...by hanging on to them and giving chest-beating statements about the Swifties, all Kerry does is keep the issue alive - alive and easily exploited by his opponents in the Democratic primaries.

Posted by Mark Noonan at September 15, 2006 01:14 PM



Comments

You know, I agree. kerry should release all his military records the very moment pres bush does exactly the same!!!!!!!!

Posted by: OhioGolfer [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 15, 2006 01:25 PM

If he were smart, and he's not, he would let this issue die. So my guess is, he will pull another "Reporting for duty" moment, and try to run on a non-existent war record.
Should be fun.

Posted by: MagicalPat [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 15, 2006 01:25 PM

Gee Ohio are you really going to go there.. AGAIN!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/2004-02-14-bush-docs.htm

USA TODAY 05/20/2005

“President Bush released his official Vietnam-era military records in February to counter Democrats' suggestions that he shirked his duty in the Texas Air National Guard. These documents detailed Bush's service in the Guard from 1968 until 1973.”

Posted by: DM at September 15, 2006 01:55 PM

OhioGolfer, you weren't paying attention in 2004, were you? President Bush released all of his records. Kerry gave selected records to selected reporters, even though he promised, on Meet the Press, to make them all available to the public. What is he hiding?

Posted by: Matt at September 15, 2006 02:44 PM

Why are you still so hateful, Mark, especially toward America's veterans: Gore, McCain, Cleland, Kerry, Murtha, and, I suppose the next on the hate list, Powell? Jesus can heal you from the ideology of hate, but only if He is lord of your life, not some other thing or person. But no matter what troubles life hands you, Jesus will always be by your side.

Posted by: Robert Meyer at September 15, 2006 03:26 PM

I think "loser" isn't up to it in terms of terminoligy when it refers to Kerry.

Consider it this way, sort of an evolutiony scale..

-Loser
-Stupid
-Dumbass
-Numbnuts --- (Kerry might make it this far on a good day)
-Dipshit
-Asswipe
-Cretin

So from a purely Darwinian perspective that most Dems can agree with, clearly "loser" is not appropriate.

Posted by: Strange__guy [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 15, 2006 05:10 PM

Hey, Kerry, rather than working on kicking the asses of your fellow veterans, why don't you release your military records so we can see if the Swifties really are telling the truth?

Uh, he did. Not much in there - pretty bad political decision not to release it. Why don't you read the article so you can stop spreading this false meme? How many times do you need to be corrected?

When will Bush authorize the release of his Guard records?

Posted by: winnowhead [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 15, 2006 06:17 PM

Uh.....OG.....Bush did...Kerry didn't.....been there. Kerry did release his military records before he didn't release them.

I still beleive he is cataloguing them. Notice how he sealed those pertaining to those questionable Purple Bandaids.....er....Hearts that he "earned".

Posted by: TiredofLibBullShit [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 15, 2006 06:43 PM

Given the fact that Pres. Decider, Karl Rove, Dead-eye Dick Cheney and the rest of the crew did absolutely no military time (that amounted to much) I can't figure out what all the chuckling about Kerry's REAL military duty is all about. It seems odd that people who are perfectly happy with Mr. Bush's abysmal military "service" would hold Kerry to such high standards.

Posted by: annaeye at September 15, 2006 07:40 PM

Winnow,

No, he hasn't - President Bush has, but Kerry hasn't...and all the liberal spin doctors in the world can't make the fact of Kerry's refusal to release go away.

Posted by: Mark Noonan [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 15, 2006 08:37 PM

anna,

President Bush, though, never tried to make his service a central reason for electing him to the White House - he served his country in a modest way, and he's modest about it. So did I - should I ever run for office, I won't be trying to gather up my former shipmates and use them as a reason for voting for me.

Kerry only served a few months, and his service is way overblown - but even that isn't what is really wrong here. What is wrong is that Kerry came home and DISPARAGED his service and those he served with, and only with the change in the political wind did Kerry try to puff up his service.

Posted by: Mark Noonan [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 15, 2006 08:41 PM

Kerry can threaten any he wishes. His flip flops are still catching up to him;

We Are The Troops

Senator Kerry Threatens to “Kick Veterans Asses”

If he really feels the need to "kick Veterans asses," he is welcome to try to kick mine.

Posted by: Lew Waters [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 15, 2006 10:06 PM

I'm pretty sure that if the records were checked, you would find that Bob Hope spent more time in Vietnam than John Fraud Kerry did.

Why would you get a purple heart for a little bit of metal in your ass from your own grenade when all you were attacking was a couple bags of rice?

Posted by: Bob at September 15, 2006 10:22 PM

I am sick and tired of neorads like anna denigrating the National Guard. This BDS has gotten so bad that entire branches of the military are considered insignificant, if doing so can contribute (in their petty little minds) to an attack on the President.

National Guard service is, and always has been, honorable and worthy of respect.

The service of George W. Bush in the National Guard was honorable and worthy of respect. He did not need, much less use, influece to get in---they were still looking for pilots after he was accepted. He passed stringent tests, physical, psychological, and intelligence tests, to qualify for jet fighter training. He served nearly two full years of active full-time duty when he was assigned to the Air Force for pilot training. He flew when he was asked to, both on assigned duty periods and when scrambled to intercept unidentified aircraft coming into the country. He followed established procedures for requesting time off and then early dismissal, procedures basaed on the requirements of the National Guard at that time, considering the influx of career pilots from Viet Nam who needed the air time and could take over the duties that had been filled by the skilled and trained National Guard pilots who had been defending their country.

The National Guard had a minimum of 50 units of duty required, per year, to remain current. If Bush had served his entire six years, he would have needed 300 units to have fulfilled his duty. In his service, he acquired over 900 units.

He recieved high accolades from his commanding officers, for his flying skills and his leadership skills.

He released all his military records.

He never---NEVER---ran on his military record. He did not bring it up. He did his duty and then he moved on. He did not attempt to make it more than it was, or to use it to further his political career.

I find that those who feel so free about trashing entire branches of military service tend to have no respect for the military in general, and no military service of their own. They sit in their comfy homes far from any armed conflict and then diss those who endure danger and discomfort to protect them, so they can whine at leisure.

Posted by: Almiranta [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 16, 2006 11:07 AM

I just love the Orwellian spin, wherein an effort to counter lies with facts and to expose falsehoods by presenting the truth is twisted into a pejorative which is intended to imply that the action is really a personal attack based on lies. Therefore, “Swift-Boating” is now supposed to mean victimizing the innocent by launching false accusations. Only on the Left........

The best way for Kerry to "...kick their ass from one end of America to the other...” would be to sue, for slander and libel. This would get the whole issue into the legal system, where it could be handled according to the rules of law, and where the Swift Boat vets could be dealt with properly and punished if they are making false statements.

Why won't Kerry do that? Why DIDN'T Kerry do that? For that matter, why did a group of men, many of whom were Democrats and many of whom had very limited financial resources, risk being sued? I know that if I were going to make claims that might upset a very mean-spirited and vindictive man, such as Kerry, especially one with vast financial resources at his command, not to mention his personal power and his powerful friends, I would worry about that. A man like that could break nearly anyone who went up against him, merely by dragging the matter into the courtrooms.

Unless.....

Unless I were aware that truth, being the best defense against accusations of slander and libel, would back up every word I said.

Unless I were aware that a court of law, ruled by rules of law, would be the last place a certain type of person would want to be. After all, in a legal proceeding, both parties have to follow the rules, including the rules of production of evidence and the rules of testimony.

Unless I had total confidence that the other party would avoid such rules and conditions in much the same way a vampire would avoid the sun.

Unless I knew, without a doubt, that a legal suit would be the last thing I would have to fear.

And/or unless I really WANTED this to get into court, because I WANTED Kerry to have to produce documents and testify, and was trying to get this accomplished by taking my accusations public.

But in any case, without absolute truth and facts to back me up, I would never take on a machine like the Kerry machine, with its meanness and its money and its power.

Conclusion........obvious

Posted by: Almiranta [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 16, 2006 12:31 PM

What kinds of questions might Kerry have to face if he were examined under oath in a court of law? Hmmmm.

During what years did you serve in the Unites States Navy? What was your date of discharge? On that date, what was the nature and description of your discharge?

Were you an officer of the United States Navy during the time you organized and led the Winter Soldier anti-war protests? Were you an officer of the United States Navy during the time you testified under oath to the United States Congress about both witnessing and committing atrocities in Viet Nam?

If you were an officer in the United States Navy during the time you were organizing and leading anti-war protests, what were your duties during that time? Where were you assigned? How is it that you had the time to devote to your anti-war efforts if you were serving as an active officer in the United States Navy? How is it that you were able to wear such long hair and present such an un-military appearance during that time?

Were you an officer of the United States Navy when you secretly visited North Viet Nam during our armed conflict with that country? Were you an officer of the United States Navy when you secretly met with the military and political leaders of country with which we were at war?

What was the nature of the discussions you had with the political and military leaders of North Viet Nam? Were your commanding officers, or any other Navy officials, aware of your visits to this country? Of your meetings with these North Vietnamese officials? Did you report to any Unites States official regarding these visits? Regarding these discussions?

How were these visits and meetings arranged? By whom? For what purpose? Did you travel under your own name? Who made the travel arrangements? Who paid the expenses of the trips? How did you contact the North Vietnamese officials? How did they communicate with you?

If the visits were made without the knowledge and approval of the United States government or military, and if you did not make these visits on the behalf of the United States government or military in an official capacity, do you feel that these visits were legal?

Were there any actions taken against you as the result of these visits and meetings? If so, what was the nature of these actions?

What was the nature of the discussions you had with the officials, both political and military, in North Viet Nam? For what reason or reasons were you named a Hero of North Viet Nam?

Did you lie or misrepresent the truth in your sworn statements to the United States Congress regarding your allegations of both witnessing and committing atrocities in Viet Nam? If you lied at that time, how did you justify such lies? If you lied, why did you mislead the governing body of the United States of America regarding the armed conflict in Viet Nam? If you did not lie, why, as an officer in the United States Navy, did you fail to file contemporary reports on the illegal activities which you witnessed? Why did you fail to take action to ensure that the people committing such atrocities were punished?

If you did not lie about committing atrocities, do you feel that having committed actions which constitute war crimes would disqualify you from serving as the President of the United States? As the Commander in Chief?

If you did lie about committing atrocities, do you feel that lying under oath to the United States Congress would disqualify you from serving as the President of the United States? As the Commander in Chief?

Do you feel that your book was anti-American? Anti-military? Do you feel that the cover, which depicted an upside-down American flag, was anti-American? Anti-military? Why have you prohibited your publisher from re-issuing that book? Is it true that you have threatened legal action against your publisher if the book were to be re-issued? Why?

At any time did you misstate facts or falsify a report on an action or an alleged action regarding your tour of duty in Viet Nam? Did you ever submit a report of enemy contact or action when none existed? Did you ever file a false report to protect yourself from disciplinary action which might have reasonably resulted from an event? Did you ever file a report which exaggerated or misstated a claimed injury to yourself or to any of your crew?

Do you have an explanation for the issuance date of March 2001 for your Honorary Discharge from the Navy? Is this the only discharge you have ever received from the Navy? Are you aware of any other circumstance in which nearly 30 years have passed between separation from the Navy and the issuance of an Honorary Discharge?

It seems to me that anyone who wants to have the power and responsibility of the Presidency of the United States and truly feels himself qualified to do so should be able to stand proudly and confidently in front of a judge, a jury, and the nation, and answer questions such as these in a manner which would make it clear he was the right man for the job.

Unless......

Posted by: Almiranta [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 16, 2006 12:32 PM

The Swift Boat gang were liars, Li'l Almy. Their claims are contradicted by their own statements and by official Navy records. Why do you hate the military so much that you would accuse the Navy of lying, Almy?

BTW, you've really been on a roll today--the talking points, the painful wrongness, the insecure anger...keep up the good work! You're a very funny gal!

Posted by: SeesThroughIt at September 16, 2006 02:56 PM

Please report any inappropriate comments to abuse (at) blogsforbush (dot) com. Be sure to include the title of the blog entry, the name of the commenter, and the text of the offending comment.

Post a comment




Remember Me?
(you may use HTML tags for style)