Saturday, July 31, 2004

A Truman Democrat Speaks Out

Zell Miller, (D GA), speaks out on why he skipped the Democrat convention. Senator Miller has been called every name imaginable by the left wing that is the Dem party. It is now so far left, it looks more and more like the socialist or communist party now. No wonder both the Socialist Party and CPUSA have endoresed the poodle. _ Sailor


See Y'All in New York
Why I skipped the Boston convention.

Saturday, July 31, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Twelve years ago, I delivered one of the keynote addresses on the first night at the Democratic National Convention in New York. It was a stinging rebuke of the administration of George H.W. Bush and a ringing endorsement of Bill Clinton. This summer I'll again be speaking in New York, but it will be to the Republican Convention that renominates George W. Bush.

Many have asked how I could have come so far in just over a decade. Frankly, I don't think I've changed much at all. At 72, I don't feel much need to change my opinions. Instead, the reason I didn't attend the Democratic Convention in Boston is that I barely recognize my party anymore. Most of its leaders--including our nominee, John Kerry--don't hold the same beliefs that have motivated my career in public service.

In 1992, I spoke of the opportunity and hope that allowed me, the son of a single mother growing up in the North Georgia mountains, to become my state's governor. And I attributed much of my success to the great Democratic presidents of years gone by--FDR (a hallowed man in my home), Truman and JFK. The link these men shared was a commitment to helping Americans born into any condition rise to achieve whatever goal they set for themselves.

I spoke of Americans who were "tired of paying more in taxes and getting less in services." I excoriated Republicans who "dealt in cynicism and skepticism." I accused them of mastering "the art of division and diversion." And I praised Bill Clinton as a moderate Democrat "who has the courage to tell some of those liberals who think welfare should continue forever, and some of those conservatives who think there should be no welfare at all, that they're both wrong."

Bill Clinton did deliver on welfare reform, after a lot of prodding from the Republicans who took hold of Congress in 1995. But much of the rest of the promise I saw in his candidacy withered during his two terms in office.

Today, it's the Democratic Party that has mastered the art of division and diversion. To run for president as a Democrat these days you have to go from interest group to interest group, cap in hand, asking for the support of liberal kingmakers. Mr. Kerry is no different. After Hollywood elites profaned the president, he didn't have the courage to put them in their place. Instead, he validated their remarks, claiming that they represent "the heart and soul of America."
No longer the party of hope, today's Democratic Party has become Mr. Kerry's many mansions of cynicism and skepticism. As our economy continues to get better and businesses add jobs, Mr. Kerry's going around America trying to convince people that the roof is about to cave in. He talks about "the misery index" and the Depression. What does he know about either?

And when it comes to taxes and services, you'd be pressed to find anyone more opposed to the interests of middle-class Americans than John Kerry. Except maybe John Edwards. Both voted against tax relief for married couples, tax relief for families with children, and tax relief for small businesses. Now Mr. Kerry wants to raise taxes on hundreds of thousands of small-business owners and millions of individuals. He claims to be for working people, but I don't understand how small businesses can create jobs if they've got to send more money to Washington instead of keeping it to hire workers.

Worst of all, Sens. Kerry and Edwards have not kept faith with the men and women who are fighting the war on terror--most of whom come from small towns and middle-class families all over America. While Mr. Bush has stood by our troops every step of the way, Messrs. Kerry and Edwards voted to send our troops to war and then voted against the money to give them supplies and equipment--not to mention better benefits for their families. And recently Mr. Kerry even said he's proud of that vote. Proud to abandon our troops when they're out in the field? I can hear Harry Truman cussing from his grave.

I still believe in hope and opportunity and, when it comes right down to it, Mr. Bush is the man who represents hope and opportunity. Hope for a safer world. And opportunity for Americans to work hard, keep more of the money they earn, and send their kids to good schools. All the speeches we heard this week weren't able to hide the truth of what today's Democratic Party has become: an enclave of elites paying lip service to middle-class values. Americans looking for a president who understands their struggles and their dreams should tune in next month, when we celebrate the leadership of George W. Bush.

Mr. Miller is a Democratic senator from Georgia.

Kerry Campaign Ad No. 9

Source: Counterpunch

Kerry Campaign Ad No. 8

Seperated at Birth

Kerry's exploits in Vietnam are disputed in best seller

The poodle and the dems are going to find out why trying to use the poodle's Vietnam service is the biggest mistake they could have ever made. Being in combat does not make anyone fit to be Commander-in-Chief. If that were the case, Bob Dole would have beaten the draft dodger. He is about to be exposed as the liar and opportunist he is. His staged exploits the other night are going to be torn to shreds by good and honorable men who served on Swift Boats. The media will either try and ignore and bury this or try to smear and discredit these brave men. The American people will see through that and know the poodle is a fraud and a fake. - Sailor

Kerry's exploits in Vietnam are disputed in best seller

By Rowan Scarborough

Democrats capped Sen. John Kerry's presidential nomination last night by showing a Hollywood-produced movie of his life, featuring amateur film clips and testaments about his service in Vietnam as commander of a Navy river patrol boat.
But a group of former sailors who served with Mr. Kerry are telling a different story. Rather than depicting Mr. Kerry as a war hero, they are quoted in a new book accusing him of exaggerating and falsifying his experiences.

The group says that of 23 crew members photographed with Mr. Kerry more than 30 years ago in Vietnam, only one supports his presidential campaign. They will announce a nationwide campaign by "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" to tell the American public about what they say is Mr. Kerry's true war record.
The biographical movie shown last night, "A Remarkable Promise," shows "family and friends talking about the courage he has shown as a soldier and a veteran, the fights he has waged for middle-class values and the faith in family he has exhibited as a father and husband," the Kerry campaign said before its prime-time convention appearance.
The film was produced by James Moll, a partner of director Steven Spielberg.
The book, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," from Regnery Publishing, is written by John E. O'Neill. Mr. O'Neill served in Vietnam at the same time as Mr. Kerry and followed him as commander on the swift boat.
Mr. O'Neill, riled by what he considered Mr. Kerry's false charge in 1971 of widespread war crimes committed by U.S. troops, has waged a public debate with the politician dating back to the "Dick Cavett Show" that year.
The book quotes Mr. Kerry's fellow combatants as saying two of his Purple Hearts came from friendly fire, not the enemy. The veterans also will dispute other stories Mr. Kerry has told.
"Unfit for Command" will not be released until Sept. 25, but the online Drudge Report yesterday broke news of what it called a "bombshell book." The book hit No. 2 on's best-seller list. Radio and TV hosts were clamoring for Mr. O'Neill to appear.
Regnery, which boasts a long list of best-selling conservative books, has put a tight hold on information until the official release.
Some of the book's charges have been aired by Veterans for Truth.
Retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, who commanded Mr. Kerry's task force in Vietnam, is one of the book's sources.
Adm. Hoffmann said yesterday he has supplied several instances of Mr. Kerry's purported lies. One example, he said, is Mr. Kerry's contention that he warned admirals of the folly of a certain river operation. Adm. Hoffmann said he and others were at the meeting, and that Mr. Kerry never made such a statement.
"The real truth is he didn't say a ... word," Adm. Hoffmann said.
Mr. Hoffmann is chairman of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which plans what it calls a grass-roots campaign.
"We're going to tell the truth — the fact that he was a perpetual, habitual liar," Adm. Hoffmann said. "I don't care whether it was perjury or lying before the Senate of the United States, or that two of his Purple Hearts are at least very specious, if not absolutely false, because he filed false after-action reports."

Friday, July 30, 2004

Coming Soon to a Book Store Near You!

This book will exposes the poodles Vietnam service. His own Squadron mates will unmask Kerry! A must read! - Sailor



Capped by Kerry's primetime speech to accept the Democratic Party's nomination, Thursday's program will include appearances and remarks by Kerry's Swift Boat crewmates, the Kerry-Edwards campaign announced in a press release this morning.

But a group of veterans will soon try to convince a nation how what is presented on the convention stage tonight -- may not be the full story: "Only 2 of John Kerry's 23 fellow Swift boat commanders from Coastal Division 11 support his candidacy today."

A new bombshell book written by the man who took over John Kerry's Swift Boat charges: Two of John Kerry's three Purple Heart decorations (#1 and #3) resulted from self-inflicted wounds, not suffered under enemy fire.

The startling Purple Heart accusations, outlined in detail for the first time, are found in UNFIT FOR COMMAND, Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry.

And that's just the beginning.

The book, previewed by the DRUDGE REPORT, will be unleashed next month by REGNERY.

The book hit #2 on the AMAZON sales chart on the eve of the Kerry acceptance speech in Boston.

Swift Boat Veterans began to fume after Kerry's campaign used a photograph of John Kerry and 19 other Coastal Division 11 Swift boat officers [taken at Ton Sun Nuht Air Base on January 22, 1969] in a pro-Kerry advertisement.

William Shumadine, a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth pictured in the photograph, explains in UNFIT: "John Kerry's use of a photograph with his nineteen comrades, with knowledge that eleven of them comdemn him and six who cannot or do not want to be involved, is a complete misreprentation to the public and a total fraud."

[A major campaign is being planned, beginning next week, over 200 anti-Kerry vets involved, with news conferences in battleground states.]

The Many Faces of John Kerry (Part 2)

The Many Faces of John Kerry (Part 2)
Originally posted Sept. 2, 2003; reposted July 29, 2004
By John Pike

This is the second of a two-part, in-depth report on John Kerry and the 2004 presidential race.

Is Kerry a Democratic liberal or a centrist, as sometimes is claimed? The rating services of both the left and right report that he votes with Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts about 96 percent of the time in support of a strong tax-raising and government-knows-best platform. In the 1972 campaign, Kerry ads displayed photos of Kerry and Kennedy together.

John Forbes Kerry no longer trumpets the fact that his initials are JFK, and he has expunged his middle initial from his bumper stickers. Political operatives in the Bay State say this is because it is believed his close association with the Kennedys and Massachusetts liberalism might hurt his presidential candidacy, especially in the South. When it is remembered that he was Democratic presidential-nominee Michael Dukakis' lieutenant governor, Kerry campaigners note that the two were elected on separate ballots.

There are other image problems that still have not been handled. The week that included Kerry's appearance before Congress included another incident that produced an embarrassment that took years to be exposed. In a protest on April 23, 1971, Kerry led his shocked countrymen to believe that, weeping, he and his VVAW comrades had tossed their war medals onto the steps of the Capitol where a large sign nearby proclaimed: "Trash." It stirred the emotions for those on both sides of the conflict and again spurred media attention for Kerry. But then in 1984 a reporter noticed that Kerry's medals were displayed on the wall of his office and the Wall Street Journal reported that, when confronted, Kerry claimed he actually tossed away his combat ribbons, not his medals. Kerry says he threw someone else's medals. Whatever the truth, he had let the fabrication continue for years.

But enough for now of Kerry's life many years ago when the Earth was flat. Anyone past the age of 40 knows that people change their minds and even reform their character during the course of their lives. Perhaps the question should be, "Is Kerry still saying whatever needs to be said to get elected?" You bet, critics say.

Last December, after arriving a half-hour late to speak and answer the questions of 175 politically savvy Dartmouth College students on the cold and snowy New Hampshire campus, Kerry spoke of the need for increased investment in renewable energy sources such as wind, geothermal, ethanol, biomass and solar. "Twenty percent of all electricity to be produced by renewable energy sources by 2020" is his battle cry. He calls for "a new Manhattan Project" for alternative energy. He says he disagrees with the Green Party platform on only one issue, but doesn't say which. The kids love it.

Naturally, when a private company came to Massachusetts recently and told of plans to generate electricity with the winds that blow through the 18 miles of ocean between touristy Cape Cod and wealthy Nantucket Island, one would expect that Kerry would jump up and down with glee. Wrong. He is waffling. With super-rich landholders and yachtsmen such as Walter Cronkite, the Kennedys, Kerry himself, and his neighbors concerned about the possible sighting from the shore or their yachts of a few sea-based windmills, the candidate is unwilling to give the project his support at this time - a critical period when the alternative-energy company needs as much help as it can get. Critics call it hypocritical, but a Kerry spokesman provides this disclaimer: "The facts aren't in on Cape Wind and its environmental effect. ... John Kerry is waiting for all the information to come in the environmental-impact statement before he makes a decision on whether to support the project."

Those opposed to the project are not saying they don't want to have to sail around the windmills, but are talking about such concerns and sensitivities as whether birds will fly into them and be hurt or killed - a worry that never stopped the erecting of a skyscraper or a barn or house or even a telephone pole. Needless to say, environmentalists who favor use of alternative energy to replace fossil fuels wherever possible, and who considered Kerry to be a strong ally, indeed a very strong ally, are beginning to use the "O" word for opportunist and the "P" word for phony.

Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace, has put it this way: "Kerry is the one who really needs to be called out on this stuff. He's been pretty mum so far. We don't know where he stands." And many on the left who were expected to support Kerry's candidacy, but have drifted off to Howard Dean, say there is a pattern to all of this. Most cite the invasion of Iraq, currently a more important issue than renewable energy. They note that Kerry voted to give Bush authorization to wage war in Iraq, and they say they are not likely to forgive him for it.

In a speech Jan. 23 at Washington's Georgetown University, this longtime member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said, "We need a new approach to national security. A bold progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too-often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush administration. The blustering unilateralism is wrong, and even dangerous, for our country. In practice, it has meant alienating our longtime friends and allies, alarming potential foes and spreading anti-Americanism around the world. I say to the president, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger. And show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war."

Columnist Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe also wonders whether Kerry tries to be all things to all people. Jacoby reports that, when in the early 1990s a constituent wrote Kerry expressing support for an invasion of Iraq, Kerry's office responded by sending two letters - one saying he opposed the war and another supporting President George H.W. Bush's response. Kerry blamed it on computer problems and the failure to dispatch a third letter - one opposing the war but supporting the troops.

With antiwar candidate Dean moving ahead in New Hampshire and Iowa, Kerry continued to try to present himself as both for the war and against it, say Democratic political consultants in the Bay State. Now, they say, he may be writing off those states in favor of a last-ditch stand in the South as a national-security veteran.

An experienced Kerry watcher reminds that in 1984, when he first was trying to win election to the Senate, his chief rival in the tough Democratic primary was U.S. Rep. James M. Shannon. Kerry had been outscored by Shannon, 100-94, on the endorsement questionnaire of a group opposed to America's then-growing military. In Massachusetts, the antiwar vote was and is significant, and the two liberals were vying for their vote. A member of the group favoring a reduction in funds earmarked to build key weapons systems contacted a Kerry lieutenant and advised that Kerry change his answers on the questionnaire so that both candidates would have an equal score. Kerry changed his answers, both got a perfect score and the maneuver kept Shannon from receiving the important endorsement.

In seeking approval of this disarmament group, Kerry formally expressed approval of canceling a host of the very weapons systems that helped defeat Iraq so quickly, including the B-1 and B-2 stealth bombers, the AH-64 Apache helicopter, the Patriot missile system, the F-15, F-14A and F-14D jets, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Aegis air-defense cruiser and the Trident missile system. Kerry says of this 1984 campaign posture, "I'm sure that some of it was driven at the time by the nature of the beast I was fighting politically."

Kerry said recently he does not remember changing his answers on the questionnaire, even though it was well-publicized at the time, and that his first responses may just have been a misstatement of his position or misinterpreted. "I wasn't trying to be on both sides of it," he soothes.

The problem for Bay Staters who know him, and for Democrats in nearby New Hampshire who are swamped by Massachusetts media with tales of his comings and goings, poses and postures, commitments and causes, is that this man thinks nothing at all of being mercurial and contradictory. It is a joke among local politicians that Kerry will simply say or do anything for the slightest advantage. For instance, they point out, Massachusetts has lots of folks of Irish decent who vote out of proportion to their numbers and being Irish there is a strong advantage to winning election - especially for Democrats, as the large number of Irish surnames at the Massachusetts Statehouse will testify. "It is how you become one of the boys," says Mike Gilleran, the former deputy chief of the Massachusetts Republican Party.

To Kerry's advantage his surname sounds Irish and his facial features look Celtic to locals. Virtually everyone has always assumed he was Irish-American. He isn't. And not only is he not Irish-American, his mother's people are New England Brahmins. For some Massachusetts Democrats, voting even once for a Yankee Brahmin requires three "Hail Marys" to cleanse the soul.

The maternal ancestors of John Forbes Kerry include the Forbeses, who made their fortune starting the Boston-China trade, and the Winthrops, one of whom led the English settlers overseas to Boston and was the first governor of Massachusetts in the 1630s. Another Winthrop was governor of Connecticut from 1676 to 1683.

While Kerry's maternal forebears were known by all, he was forgiven that accident of birth for the sake of his father's presumed Irish stock. Kerry says he has known for only about 15 years that his father's mother was in fact Jewish and from the former Austrian empire. He also says he only found out recently, when a Boston Globe reporter informed him of it, that around 1902 his grandfather Kohn, a Jew from Bohemia, changed his name from Kohn to Kerry. Not only that, he says he was completely unaware that grandfather Kerry shot himself to death in the men's room of the Copley Hotel in Boston, a story so notorious that it appeared at the time on the front pages of Boston newspapers.

Although a Kerry spokesman says that he continually corrected reported misstatements about his supposed Irish heritage, it immediately became clear to the scoffing Boston press that the senator had manipulated the misunderstanding to his advantage, having tried to correct the record in only the most tangential way if at all. Other Massachusetts politicians also have lied about their supposedly Irish heritage to gain electoral advantage. But, says Gilleran, "If it were understood by the population that he was not Irish, he would never have risen in Massachusetts politics.

Pretense to imaginary forebears may be a misdemeanor as these things go, but breaking and entering is not. Heard of Watergate? Get ready for Lowellgate.

On Sept. 18, 1972, the evening before the primary election during his second attempt for Congress, Kerry's brother Cameron and one Thomas Vallely, both part of his current campaign team, were arrested by Lowell police at 1:40 a.m. and charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit larceny. The two were apprehended in the basement of a building whose door had been forced open, police said. It housed the headquarters of candidate DiFruscia. The Watergate scandal was making headlines at this time, and it was called the Lowell Watergate.

"They wanted to sever my telephone lines," DiFruscia said recently. Had those lines been cut, Kerry's opponent would not have been able to telephone supporters on Election Day to get out the vote and coordinate poll watchers, vital roles in a close election. "I do not know if they wanted to break into my office," says DiFruscia today. At the time he said, "All my IBM cards and the list of my voter identification in the greater Lowell area are in my headquarters."

Cameron and Vallely, along with David Thorne, who was Kerry's campaign manager at the time and has been close to him since they attended Yale together, did not deny the two entered the building in which they were captured. They said at the time they were in the cellar of the building to check their own telephone lines because they had received an anonymous call warning they would be cut.

This reporter heard an allegation that another congressional candidate placed the alleged anonymous call, which was denied. But if the Kerry campaign was concerned about someone breaking and entering to cut off its telephone service, why didn't they just call the police? Why break the law? And what does any of this say about Kerry's mind-set? Kerry campaign officials did not answer important Lowellgate questions.

The case was transferred to superior court and continued without a finding, where it was dismissed about a year later. But since it happened at the last minute, and Kerry won the primary but went on to lose the general election, this ugly business did not receive intense media scrutiny. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein were busy investigating another break-in.

To tease Kerry, the editors of his Yale yearbook listed him as a member of the Young Republicans. As the Democratic primary grows more heated, says a top Democratic political consultant, the issues are likely to become: "What is a Democrat?" And, "Is John Kerry one of them?"

John Pike is a contributing writer for Insight magazine.

Wednesday, July 28, 2004

The Many Faces of John Kerry (Part 1)

It is time to take a look at the socialist and communist endorsed cadidate of the dem party for president. I will be posting Part II as soon as it is available. Kerry lied, while good men died. - Sailor

The Many Faces of John Kerry (Part 1)
Originally posted Aug. 29, 2003; reposted July 28, 2004
By John Pike

Sen. Kerry frequently has found himself staking out positions on all sides of controversial topics.

This is the first of a two-part, in-depth report on John Kerry and the 2004 presidential race. Visit Insight Online later in the week to read part two.

Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, 60, was scheduled formally to announce his bid for the Democratic nomination for president in front of an aircraft carrier in South Carolina as this issue of Insight went to press. This is the same John Kerry who only a few months ago complained when President George W. Bush landed on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. The carrier was returning from the Middle East, and the president went to welcome home the warfighters aboard, but Kerry charged he used it as a stage prop for campaigning.

It is said in the Bay State that it may take extraterrestrial intelligence to figure out John Kerry. He has the backbone to fly a plane under a bridge, ride motorcycles at high speed and steer a warship toward enemy fire in Vietnam, beach it and earn the Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Yet he does not have the spine to stick with a politically unpopular opinion, or even reveal his ethnic and family heritage. In Boston they say it is as if Kerry's backbone works for only half his body. Call him the man with half a backbone.

Granted, to win elections American politicians of every political stripe have for decades altered and bonded their positions to suit the zeitgeist of public opinion. But Kerry has been singled out by both Democrats and Republicans for saying without conviction or belief whatever will generate media attention and help win elections. Often he is ambivalent or obfuscates to try to satisfy those on both sides of antithetical issues. Many editorial writers and commentators have dismissed him as a transparent self-promoter, a phony and an opportunist. It has been reported widely that he has been running for president since his days at prep school, with every significant move in his life calculated to further that end. A local joke among Boston pols is that his initials, JFK, stand for "Just for Kerry."

At a time of few antiwar protests, Kerry had during a class speech at graduation questioned the wisdom of militarily engaging the North Vietnamese. But he knew the political value of military service. After being graduated from Yale in 1966 following years at prestigious New England and European boarding schools, Kerry did not delay or avoid service in Vietnam. Soon he commanded a patrol boat similar to that of John F. Kennedy, the mother of all JFKs, whose political career he sought to emulate. After a few months he requested and received a transfer out of Southeast Asia to become an aide to an admiral in New York, and then maneuvered an early honorable discharge to run for Congress. But the district he picked was very liberal indeed, and he soon found it was impossible to get to the left of Robert Drinan, a Jesuit priest from Boston College Law School, and dropped out of the contest.

Kerry's first national media attention - and the first in which the epithet "phony" was directed against him - came on April 22, 1971, when he testified before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations as part of a carefully orchestrated buildup to an antiwar protest in Washington. The object was publicity, and a nationwide storm developed around this tall young man still in his 20s. He spoke as a member of an antiwar group called the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), some of whom felt kinship with Communist China's Chairman Mao. Testifying eloquently against the war and U.S. bombings using a speech prepared by Bobby Kennedy speechwriter Adam Walinsky, Kerry slipped away from the manuscript to add rhetorical bombs of his own design, saying he had heard U.S. soldiers relate how they had "personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war." Kerry also was quoted during this period as saying, "War crimes in Vietnam are the rule, not the exception." He spoke on television of "crimes committed on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

Many veterans were outraged at these charges of American war crimes, which he later acknowledged he personally never saw, and which it developed had been spun out of the mouths of young Maoists. Michael Bernique, who served with Kerry as a swift-boat skipper, reportedly said, "I think there was a point in time when John was making it up fast and quick. I think he was saying whatever he needed to say."

War veteran John O'Neill, who publicly debated Kerry at this time, has been reported as saying Kerry's statements about war crimes were irresponsible, wrong, immoral and a "disservice to all the people that were there. ... The war didn't change [Kerry]. I think he was a guy driven tremendously by ambition. I think he was that way before he went and is that way today."

With his testimony before the committee, Kerry was in the eye of a hurricane, providing visibility calculated to propel a political career in Eastern Massachusetts, a whirlpool of antiwar activism so powerful that in 1972 it was the only state to vote for antiwar candidate George McGovern. Years later, local journalists laugh, Boston's pol Billy Bulger gave Kerry the nickname "live shot" for his strenuous efforts to appear on the nightly news.

But did Kerry's private beliefs about the Vietnam War match his public statements of opposition? Was it all a fraud to ride the antiwar movement and gain media attention? President Richard Nixon's staff certainly thought Kerry was a phony. According to a secretly recorded White House conversation on April 28, 1971, Nixon spoke on the phone with his counsel, Charles Colson. Consider:

"This fellow Kerry that they had on last week," says Colson about a Kerry TV appearance, "he turns out to be quite a phony."

"Well, he is sort of a phony, isn't he?" says Nixon.

"Yes," says Colson, and mentions that in the antiwar demonstrations held that weekend Kerry stayed at the home of a Georgetown socialite while other protesters slept on The Mall. "He's politically ambitious and just looking for an issue. Yeah. He came back [from Vietnam] a hawk and became a dove when he saw the political opportunities."

"Sure," says Nixon. "Well, anyway, keep the faith."

A Kerry spokesman denies he returned from Vietnam a hawk.

In another reported conversation, White House chief of staff H.R. "Bob" Haldeman is speaking to Nixon: "He [Kerry] did a superb job on it at the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. A Kennedy-type guy, he looks like a Kennedy, and he, he talks exactly like a Kennedy." A reporter says Kerry deliberately affected his accent during the testimony to sound like John and Bobby Kennedy. For example, he occasionally "ahsked" questions.

And three days later Haldeman tells the president, "Kerry, it turns out, some time ago decided he wanted to get into politics. Well, he ran for, took a stab at, the congressional thing. And he consulted with some of the folks in the Georgetown set here. So what, what the issue, what, he'd like to get an issue. He wanted a horse to ride."

And there are others, this time within the antiwar movement itself, who also viewed Kerry as a fake. When he returned to the United States in April 1969 he was still a U.S. Navy officer and not protesting the war, though it was a time of many demonstrations. He first became involved in the antiwar movement that October after his sister Peggy, who was working for a radical group organizing a 250,000-strong Washington antiwar protest, contacted Kerry to ask if he could provide a plane and fly an activist around New York state to deliver speeches. He could, and he reportedly flew the plane himself to get a look at the burgeoning movement.

Soon afterward, in January 1971, Kerry attended a series of hearings of the radical VVAW in Detroit. He did not speak at the event, which received limited press coverage. He is said to have wanted a larger platform, the top role. It was here again that Kerry was labeled an opportunist, this time by radical members of the VVAW. He was not an organizer, yet he was seeking to become the spokesman and coordinator. He was called a power-grabbing elitist who generated internal friction within the group.

But some members also believed that Kerry - intelligent, clean-cut and college-educated - would be an especially effective representative for a group being labeled as hippies, traitors or communists. He also was seen as able to raise big money, which he did.

Within five months of becoming its leader, Kerry says he quit the VVAW to focus on a new organization that emphasized veterans' benefits. Others say he was told to leave. His personal arrogance was so notorious that a Doonesbury cartoon from the era, created by fellow Yale alumnus Garry Trudeau, pictured Kerry as a shameless self-promoter. Another displays him absorbing praise following a speech, beaming and saying to himself, "You're really clicking tonight, you gorgeous preppie."

From the start, Kerry's mouth has been a loose cannon. During his first run for Congress, trying to get to the left of Father Drinan, Kerry was quoted as saying he would like to "almost eliminate CIA activity" and declaring that he wanted U.S. troops "dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

Saying whatever he needed to say apparently came easily to Kerry during his failed 1972 second attempt for Congress. According to Anthony R. DiFruscia, who ran against Kerry in that race and now is a Republican state representative in New Hampshire, Kerry would say one thing in one town and something else in another. In the more Spanish and Catholic area of Lawrence, DiFruscia said recently, Kerry would give speeches saying he personally was opposed to abortion and finds it repulsive, leaving the impression he was opposed to abortion. But in the more socially liberal and protestant Concord area, Kerry would say he supports a woman's right to choose, so voters there would believe he supported abortion. "He set a pattern of providing to various groups what they wanted to hear," DiFruscia said. And, "Kerry would also show pictures of himself holding a gun" and then make vehement statements opposing the war.

"Kerry is an opportunist, no doubt about it, and a carpetbagger" who moved to Lowell, Mass., only to run for office, says DiFruscia. "I do not think his stripes have changed much, but maybe they have."

After that 1972 congressional campaign - a race that also included future congressman, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Paul Tsongas - DiFruscia had lunch with the two men."Back in 1973, [Kerry] said he had presidential ambitions," says DiFruscia. "He planned his life around being president. There was sincerity with Paul that I did not see with John. Kerry would make statements according to only what he thought people wanted to hear, rather than how be believed the country should be influenced."

Another candidate that election year was Paul J. Sheehy, who said recently that Kerry was even more liberal in 1972 than he is now. According to his best recollection, Sheehy reports, Kerry said in a speech during that race that things were so bad someone had died of starvation in Lowell, an event that never happened. Kerry ran fourth in Lowell.

John Pike is a contributing writer for Insight.

9/11: A Failure of Academia

I found this article a vey interesting take on why Americans were so unprepeard for 9/11. This is something that needs to be studied further. - Sailor

9/11: A Failure of Academia
By Dr. Walid Phares July 28, 2004

A few months ago, when the 9/11 Commission released footage of the communications between several command centers and the transportation network during the dramatic minutes of September 11, one phrase chilled me to the bones. It summarized how unprepared America was to face to the Jihadist onslaught. A pilot of an F-16 rushing to the scene over the Pentagon screamed on his radio: "God, the Russians had us...they had us."

Since the end of the 1990s, Americans, were subjected to a campaign of intellectual subversion. The Jihadist factor, although identified by U.S. intelligence agencies as the driving force behind terrorism throughout the past decade, didn't make it into the national psyche. Hence, this American jet pilot automatically blamed "Russians," even 11 years after the end of the Cold War.

The 9/11 Commission had a historic opportunity to confront this reality last week. After nearly two years, the U.S.-mandated entity assessed the threat and attempted to reveal how we failed to prevent this catastrophe. I had the privilege to be invited by the commission to participate in a select pre-briefing on Thursday, July 22, along with former administration officials and VIPs. The two commissioners who summarized the report to us described the "failures" preceding the 9/11 strikes. At least, and to the credit of this committee, it did not blame everything on Washington's foreign policy. The committee did not capitulate to "academic elites" from coast to coast, who attempted to portray bin Laden's mini-genocide as a "response to America's foolish behavior.” That, alone is a step forward. We didn't fall into the trap of self-flagellation, nor we did succumb to the Wahhabi Lobby's pressures. At least until now.

The commissioners blamed 9/11 on a failure of "management" and a failure of "policy.” Indeed, not responding to the terrorist threat during the Clinton years proved perilous. It logically led to mismanagement of crisis. If you don't act in response to the enemy, you will encourage him. That was what happened in the 1990s. Not responding to the 1993 attacks led to a series of additional attacks around the world, culminating in the 1998 embassy bombings. Responding inappropriately that summer (bombing a factory in Sudan and bombing an empty tent in Afghanistan) emboldened the Jihad warriors. The strike against the USS Cole was their next move. The silence that followed the naval attack hastened Mohammed Atta's plans. Bad policies (Bill Clinton's policies) led to mismanagement.

Rightly, the commission blamed the two technical failures on a deeper one: A failure they said, of the "imagination." They argued that the 9/11 attacks surpassed our imagination as a government and as a people. "The scale of the resources was non-proportional with what we can absorb," they felt. They concluded, "Our leaders didn't understand the gravity of the threat." Hence, politically speaking, no one is really responsible for not meeting the challenge, neither the Clinton nor the Bush administrations. "Every one in office was somehow responsible," stated all the commissioners.

In a sense, this is a psychological technique to pull the nation together. In times like these, uniting Americans by blaming our lack of imagination as a whole may have merit. But historians will dispute this conclusion. I do, too. A nation that won two world wars against Fascism and Nazism, one Cold War against Soviet Communism, put men on the moon and leapt into the 21st century with its unsurpassed technology, is not without imagination. A culture that produced Hollywood and the internet can only be described as overly imaginative. So, was it really a failure of imagination? Or was it rather a crisis of political education? I believe it was the latter.

When an FBI agent rushed to her supervisors to inform them that "Saudi men" were learning to fly but not land airplanes, no one lifted a finger. Agents were told that CIA analysts were receiving cable after cable indicating that Jihadist elements were mounting operations against the mainland, and possibly planning to use planes. But the agency's political bosses had not produced guidelines to help the analysts properly recognize the terrorist threat. In 1998, bin Laden himself declared war against infidel America. The White House did not hear and Congress did not see. Back in 1994, a former CNN journalist, now an MSNBC Terrorism analyst, Steven Emerson, filmed Jihad preachers in New York calling for violence and showed it to the nation. Not only was there no response, but Wahhabi political factions began systematically lobbying against a crackdown. Worse, all experts who attempted to warn America were suppressed by Arabist-Islamist factions. The Wahhabi Lobby claimed that, "warning from the Jihad threat was a cover for pro-Zionist propaganda to advance Israel's interests!" Overall, the American public was denied every single opportunity to be educated.

Americans have a great imagination. What the U.S. lacked was a basic education about Jihadist terror, the worse enemy we have met, the enemy who visited destruction upon New York and Washington in 2001. The pilot that morning embodied the state of America’s education about radical Islam and terrorism, not the state of our imagination. Some academic elites had insisted that after the Soviet Union collapsed, the West had no real enemies. Hence, the last foe the pilot knew was Russia. Don't blame him for what he said when he saw the smoke over the capital and Manhattan. He, along with millions of Americans, was told for a whole decade that Islamic Fundamentalism isn't a threat. Al-Qaeda was attacking us from one side, and our educators were failing us from the other.

Walid Phares is a Professor of Middle East Studies and a Terrorism Analyst. His analysis are posted on Analysis

Kerry Campaign Ad No. 7

Tuesday, July 27, 2004

A Must View

For any of you who have forgotten why we fight, just click on the link. My thanks to GOC at Obnoxious Droppings for the link.  Be warned there are graphic images here! - Sailor

Why We Fight

9/11 report outlines Iraq's contact with al Qaeda

The 9/11 Commission's Report clearly debunks the lies the left has been peddling. It also shoots their Bush lied and there were no connections to Iraq mantra out from under them. The report is bad news for those on the left hoping to blame Bush for 9/11.- Sailor

9/11 report outlines Iraq's contact with al Qaeda

By Guy Taylor

The September 11 commission's final report features the most thorough account to date of a subject hotly debated since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003: the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime.
Pulling from more than 2 million classified files and from interrogations of several detained terrorists, the report portrays a relationship spanning several years with contacts initiated at some points by Iraq and at others by al Qaeda.

But the commission ultimately concluded it had seen "no evidence" that the contacts "ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship." Nor was there evidence that "Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States."
The key word in the final report's phrasing is "operational," which was omitted from an earlier report by the September 11 commission's staff that said the contacts had not developed into a "collaborative relationship."
Part of the Bush administration's argument for invading Iraq — particularly statements by Vice President Dick Cheney — centered on claims about strong ties between Saddam and al Qaeda.
Such claims are bolstered in some cases and weakened in others by the September 11 commission's 567-page final report, Chapter 2 of which offers the following conclusions:
c There is "evidence" that in 1997, bin Laden "sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of bin Laden."
c In mid-1998, the situation reversed, with Iraq reportedly taking the initiative. "In March 1998, after bin Laden's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with bin Laden. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through bin Laden's Egyptian deputy, [Ayman al] Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis."
c Similar meetings "may have occurred in 1999. ... According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered bin Laden a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Laden declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicated some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States."
In addition to the "collaboration" matter, significant debate has swirled around the issue of whether Mohamed Atta, who piloted one of the hijacked jets that slammed into the World Trade Center on September 11, had met with an Iraqi official in Prague in April 2001.
In its report, the September 11 commission said Atta "is known to have been in Prague on two occasions" — once for a single night in December 1994, and once for a single night in June 2000. But, the commission cited FBI evidence placing Atta in Florida when the 2001 meeting is said to have occurred.
Meanwhile, the report appears to suggest that in the days after September 11, some in the Bush administration were eager to find ways to politicize the attacks into a basis for invading Iraq. According to the report, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell told the commission that Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz had argued at the time "that Iraq was ultimately the source of the terrorist problem and should therefore be attacked."
The report offers a direct quote of what Mr. Powell told the commission: "Paul was always of the view that Iraq was a problem that had to be dealt with. ... And he saw this as one way of using this event as a way to deal with the Iraq problem."
President Bush did not give Mr. Wolfowitz's argument "much weight," Mr. Powell told the commission, adding that although the president continued to "worry about Iraq" in the following week, he ultimately "saw Afghanistan as the priority."

Kerry Campaign Ad No. 6

Source: Registered

Monday, July 26, 2004

Kerry Campaign Ad No. 5


Kerry/Edwards - For Big Labor, Against the Working Stiff

So the poodle and his puppy claim to be for the working stiff?  Fat chance!  Both have plan to file a brief with the National Labor Relations Board to do away with the secret ballot on unionization.  Below is the full scuttlebutt.  -  Sailor

Fair CommentKerry and Edwards Join Legal Battle To Deny Workers Secret Ballot on Unionization

Posted July 20, 2004
By Justin Hakes
Insight Magazine

In an issue emerging as a top election-year priority for organized labor officials, Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John Edwards (D-N.C.) have joined with Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) to file formal arguments at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) urging the agency governing America's private-sector workplaces to deny employees access to the secret-ballot election process when choosing whether to unionize.

"For two politicians who claim they'll stick up for America's workers, taking away basic freedoms is a strange way to show it," says Stefan Gleason, vice president of the National Right to Work Foundation.

Kerry, Edwards, Kennedy, 14 other senators, and 31 congressmen joined to file the amicus curiae brief, perhaps the most noteworthy of dozens filed last week by representatives of management, unions, employees, public-policy groups, and members of congress arguing either in opposition to, or in favor of, the plight of disenfranchised employees aided by National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys.

The Board invited the briefs after voting 3-2 to determine the enforceability of increasingly common arrangements intended to limit further employee freedom to determine whether union officials are authorized to represent them. These arrangements, sometimes called "card check" or "neutrality agreements," involve high-pressure card solicitation drives that frequently result in complaints of union coercion from rank-and-file workers.

Replacing the less-abusive secret-ballot election process with "card check" has become the No. 1 requirement of candidates to obtain Big Labor's support in the 2004 elections.

According to the AFL-CIO's recent statement to BNA's Daily Labor Report, "we don't have any [election] issue that's a litmus test, but this is as close as it gets." According to the AFL-CIO, more than 80 percent of newly organized employees each year are already unionized through the controversial "card check" process while the traditional election process, favored by federal labor policy and the courts, is used far less frequently.

"Having trouble selling even a bare majority of workers on the merits of unionization, union officials are resorting to the in-your-face 'card check' process to intimidate workers into supporting a union," says Gleason.

Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Ga.), a signatory to a separate congressional brief and lead sponsor of legislation to reduce "card check" organizing abuses, says "Hard-working folks deserve the right to a fair and secret election, not the threats, arm-twisting, and shakedown tactics that come with 'card check' campaigns.

"The lead consolidated cases at the NLRB, brought by Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation attorneys, arise out of the automotive industry where suppliers have cut deals with union officials to waive the secret-ballot election process and to assist in pressuring employees to sign union authorization cards. The coercively obtained cards were then counted as "votes" in favor of authorizing the union to act as the employees' monopoly bargaining agent.

These pacts also typically require employers to hand over their employees' private information (including home addresses) to union organizers, subject employees to unsolicited "home visits," and permit wide access to company facilities, resulting in employee complaints of browbeating and other harassment.

Jason Hakes is a spokesman for The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation, a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, is assisting over 150,000 employees in nearly 300 cases nationwide. Its web site is

Sunday, July 25, 2004

The Boston Gulag

Much has been made of the plans of the City of New York to have protests and demonstrations some distance from Madison Square Garden during the GOP Convention. The left has moaned and groaned, whined and belly ached. Of course this will but a crunch on the plans of those being trained by the Ruckus Society to disrupt the convention. The Ruckus Society is also heavily funded, to the tune of close to $300,000.00 br Mrs. Kerry's Tides Foundation. I have posted before about the plans to disrupt the convention. Just as a reminder:

New York ruckus brought to you courtesy of Teresa Heinz-Kerry

by Judi McLeod

She may sport fashionable togs rather than a face mask, but the chaos expected during the upcoming GOP convention, is partly courtesy of the stylish Teresa Heinz-Kerry.

The Ketchup Queen financed the shadowy Tides Foundation to the tune of $4 million to date. The Tides Foundation funds the Ruckus Society, a notorious group of anarchists who rioted and looted Seattle during the 1999 World Trade Organization riots.

This summer, the Ruckus Society has been training protesters for the GOP Convention. Included in their how-to Book for Dummies are mass sit-ins, blockades and pie throwing at high-level officials enroute to Madison Square Gardens.

With the money of Mrs. John Kerry, Ruckus Society members live up to their name of being ready to create a ruckus anywhere, but they’re bound to be more careful in New York than they were in Seattle. And it’s not because they are afraid of The Terminator who’s scheduled to give one of the GOP’ keynote addresses. It’s because they don’t want their rioting, looting, sit-ins and blockades to leave the impression that the Dems and their gaggle of Hollywood supporters are the bad guys. It’s the Johnny America shout mimicking Paul Revere: "The Republicans are coming! The Republicans are coming!" that they want to stick in the public mind.

In Ruckus Society Director John Seller’s own words: "The Republicans would love to have images coming out of New York City that make them look like the reasonable ones like they’re about responsibility and law and order and creating a safe society, and that the left was unreasonable and violent."

Rhetoric aside, with tactics like dog decoys intended to deliberately miscue bomb sniffing dogs in their bag of dirty tricks, tossing marbles under the hooves of police horses and using homemade slingshots to pelt the noble beasts, radical protesters should be prepared to wear the unreasonable shoe that best fits them.

While some 600,000 passengers travel to Penn Station on regular working days, protesters are hoping that their handiwork will see the necessity of having to evacuate Madison Square Garden.

All lessons being taught to willing protestors at the Ruckus knee are ones to make it less easy for the New York Police Department to maintain public safety.

Philadelphia Police Commissioner John Timoney calls radical protesters what they are, "criminal conspirators".

"There’s a cadre, if you will, of criminal conspirators who are about the business of planning conspiracies to go in and cause mayhem and cause property damage and cause violence in major cities in America that have large conventions and large numbers of people coming in for one reason or another."

Nothing, least of all commonsense will stop the radicals who are on a mission the equivalent of telling the not so long ago besieged Big Apple to get out of town by sunset.

"We will draw our examples and inspiration from the brave shapers of history who came before us and those who put their bodies on the line to gain independence," was one of the loftier protester warnings on the Internet.

Ruckus Society patron Teresa Heinz-Kerry was a flower child of the 60s when she worked as a United Nations interpreter in Geneva. It was when she was hanging out for an Earth Day rally in 1990 that she first ran into the guy with the same initials as JFK.

The socialite, who partly financed the coming ruckus in Madison Square Garden, is not likely to risk her public safety by being in New York. Her protest days long over, for Teresa Heinz-Kerry the Aug. 31 Day of Civil Disobedience will be as tame as the ketchup bottle on the kitchen table as she watches events from one of her half dozen mansions.

Now Boston has decided to one up New York by creating a gulag, they call a "protest zone" or a "free speech zone". Below are several pictures of this fenced in zone. Do note the mesh cover and the razor wire. I am sure those veterans that have been POWs, who will be in Boston to protest the poodle, will be most offended. I was never a POW and I DAMNED offended. - Sailor

Kerry Campaign Ad No. 4

Source: Registered

Saturday, July 24, 2004

John Kerry Didn't Support the Troops

John Hawkins takes the poodle to task over his not supporting our troops in Vietnam. The CinC wannabe did in fact give aid and comfort to those that were killing his "band of brothers". Just ask some that did time in the Hanoi Hilton, how Kerry's words were used. Kerry is nothing more then a lying sack of shit, especially when he tries using his Vietnam military experience as a reason he is qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. As far as this Sailor is concerned, the poodle is not fit to command a garbage skow. - Sailor

John Kerry Didn't Support the Troops in His Post-Vietnam Days
Written by John Hawkins
Saturday, July 24, 2004

The most underreported and unexplored story of the entire presidential campaign has been John Kerry's time as an anti-war protestor. Here's a guy who is selling himself to the American public as Sgt. York reincarnated and yet the same press which spent weeks hyperventilating over the unsupported and insubstantial ''George Bush AWOL'' story has shown scant interest in digging into Kerry's Post-Vietnam days.

However, there are a plethra of great angles for front-page stories out there. Kerry spoke from the back of the same pick-up truck as hated anti-war protestor Jane Fonda, Kerry was present at a VVAW meeting where they ''discussed and voted (against) an assassination plot against pro-war U.S. senators,''' Kerry's first Purple Heart turned out to be an accidentally self-inflicted scratch that was fixed with a band-aid which is particularly significant since his three purple hearts got him out of Vietnam and into the anti-war movement well before his tour of duty should have ended, all of Kerry's former commanding officers think he's unfit to be President, Kerry claimed that he committed atrocities in Vietnam, etc.

If Kerry were a Republican instead of a Democrat--which would mean that the press would really go after him on this stuff instead of burying it--all the baggage from his time as a Vietnam War protestor would be enough to torpedo his campaign.

Think I'm exaggerating?

Well, imagine what would happen if Kerry's war record got the scrutiny it deserved. Think about what a month of articles featuring devastating quotes, like the ones compiled by groups like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, would do to the Kerry campaign if they regularly appeared on the front pages of the ''A list' papers like the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, and the Chicago Tribune.

"In 1971, when John Kerry spoke out to America, labeling all Vietnam veterans as thugs and murderers, I was shocked and almost brought to my knees, because even though I had served at the same time and same unit, I had never witnessed or participated in any of the events that the Senator had accused us of. I strongly believe that the statements made by the senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States' efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and their allies, retreated to a life of despair and suicide. Two of my crewmates were among them. For that there is no forgiveness." -- Richard O'Mara

"I served in Vietnam as a boat officer from June of 1968 to July of 1969. My service was three months in Coastal Division 13 out of Cat Lo, and nine months with Coastal Division 11 based in An Thoi. John Kerry was in An Thoi the same time I was. I'm here today to express the anger I have harbored for over 33 years, about being accused with my fellow shipmates of war atrocities. All I can say is when I leave here today, I'm going down to the Wall to tell my two crew members it's not true, and that they and the other 49 Swiftees who are on the Wall were then and are still now the best." -- Robert Brant

''In a whole year that I spent patrolling, I didn't see anything like a war crime, an atrocity, anything like that. Time and again I saw American fighting men put themselves in graver danger trying to avoid... collateral damage. When John Kerry returned to the country, he was sworn in front of Congress. And then he told my family -- my parents, my sister, my brother, my neighbors -- he told everyone I knew and everyone I'd ever know that I
and my comrades had committed unspeakable atrocities." -- David Wallace

''I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lt.(jg) Kerry. In 1971, '72, for almost 18 months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains -- there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it." -Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)

"(Kerry) encouraged our enemies to rebuild and hang on when they were near defeat, as they were after the tet offensive in 1968. Did you know our POWs had John Kerry's words quoted to them by their interrogators?" -- Retired U.S. Navy SEAL captain with service in Vietnam, John Bailey.

''John Kerry's recent admissions caused me to realize that I was most likely in Vietnam dodging enemy rockets on the very day he met in Paris with Madame Binh, the representative of the Viet Cong to the Paris Peace Conference. John Kerry returned to the U.S. to become a national spokesperson for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a radical fringe of the antiwar movement, an organization set upon propagating the myth of war crimes through demonstrably false assertions. Who was the last American POW
to die languishing in a North Vietnamese prison forced to listen to the recorded voice of John Kerry disgracing their service by his dishonest testimony before the Senate?" -- John O'Neil in May, 2004

The fact that John Kerry, a man who trashed the military so badly in his testimony before Congress that the Vietnamese played Kerry's words to our POWs in an effort to break their will, is now portraying himself as a champion of the military who can be trusted to lead America because of his Vietnam war experience, is practically beyond belief. As Mark Steyn once said of Kerry, ''He spent the Seventies playing Jane Fonda and he now
wants to run as John Wayne.''

If Kerry wants to play up his combat time and his medals, I have no complaints. He did put his life in danger, he did win medals, and he deserves credit for that. But, there were a lot of soldiers who fought in the Vietnam war who fit that description and Kerry smeared their good names, trashed their reputations, and stood shoulder to shoulder with anti-war protestors who thought our soldiers were human garbage. As far as I'm concerned that in and of itself makes John Kerry unfit to be the President of the United States.

About the Writer: John Hawkins is a freelance writer and humorist who maintains an especially entertaining blog, Right Wing News, at:

Kerry Campaign Ads No. 3


Friday, July 23, 2004

Kerry Campaign Ads No.2

Herman Munster                          John Kerry

Kerry Anti-Terror Plan Removed From Campaign Web Site

The Berger saga continues. Why did the poodle remove his anti-terror plan from his web site? Now why would the poodle do that? Could it be that the stolen documents were used to formulate that plan? This gets curiouser and curiouser.

Stay tuned on this one as well. - Sailor

Kerry Anti-Terror Plan Removed From Campaign Web Site After Berger Revelation
By Jeff Gannon
Talon News
July 22, 2004

WASHINGTON (Talon News) -- Shortly after news broke that former Clinton administration National Security Advisor Samuel "Sandy" Berger was being investigated by the Justice Department for illegally removing highly classified documents from the National Archives, the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) removed its anti-terror plan from its web site.

Republicans have suggested that the information contained in the documents was used to formulate Kerry's policy, but are limited in proving those charges because the material is still classified. The sudden disappearance of the policy from the campaign web site that coincided with Berger's dismissal supports Republicans' contention that the purloined data formed the basis of at least part of the Democratic candidate's homeland security program.

The link to the policy is now defunct, but the original page was temporarily preserved in a Google cache. The Kerry release outlining the policy is also archived on the conservative discussion board (web site).

Key portions of the policy removed from the web site included the following three passages:

-- Increase Port Security and Accelerate Border Security. Currently, 95% of all non-North American U.S. trade moves by sea, concentrated mostly in a handful of ports. John Kerry believes improvements in port security must be made, while recognizing that global prosperity and America's economic power depends on an efficient system. Kerry's plan would develop standards for security at ports and other loading facilities for containers and assure facilities can meet basic standards. To improve security in commerce, John Kerry believes we should accelerate the timetable for the action plans agreed to in the U.S.-Canada and U.S.-Mexico "smart border" accords as well as implement security measures for cross-border bridges. Finally John Kerry will pursue modest safety standards for privately held infrastructure and will help owners find economical ways to pay for increased security.

-- Secure Nuclear Power Plants, Nuclear Weapons Facilities and Chemical Facilities. John Kerry will appoint an Energy Secretary who takes nuclear plant security seriously and ensures meticulous follow-up to any security violations. He would also order an immediate review of engagement orders and weaponry for plant guards, and ensure attack simulation drills be as realistic as possible. A Kerry Administration would ensure that security of our nuclear weapons facilities is a U.S. government responsibility -- not cede it to private contractors as the Bush Administration considered doing. A Kerry Administration will tighten security at chemical facilities across the nation that produce or store chemicals, focusing first on facilities in major urban areas where millions of Americans live within the circle of vulnerability.

-- Tighten Aviation Security and Combat Threats to Civilian Aircraft. John Kerry will close loopholes in existing regulations on cargo carried by passenger flights and increase the reliability of new screening procedures. Kerry will increase perimeter inspections of U.S. airports and work with international aviation authorities to make sure the same standards are in place at all international airports. He will work with our allies to crackdown on the sale of shoulder-fired missiles that could be used in an attack on civilian aircraft, and are sold on the black market.

The Kerry campaign did not respond to a Talon News inquiry about the removal of the link from the web site.

Instead of reviewing documents for the 9/11 Commission investigation, Republicans suggested that Berger used the information from the National Archives to help the Kerry campaign.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) said, "Reportedly these documents related to homeland security and then suddenly we see that the Kerry campaign came forward with what may have been illegal documents. This is sensitive stuff and was a significant breach of security."

"Kerry knows better than to use these documents," Chambliss added.

Berger admitted to removing documents from the National Archives on five separate occasions, but maintains that it was "inadvertent."

Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) believes otherwise, saying, "There is a curious connection between the removal of these documents and the Kerry press conference on port security. It's disappointing what people might do as they try to take the president down."

Berger had been the dominant national security advisor to Sen. Kerry and was suggested by some as a potential Secretary of State in a Kerry administration, something that now appears unlikely no matter what the outcome of November's election.

When asked by NBC if he was aware of the investigation, Kerry said, "I didn't have a clue."

Democrats tried to deflect the damaging revelation by claiming its timing was politically motivated.

"Somebody leaked it obviously with an intent to do damage to Mr. Berger, and that's unfortunate," Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) said. "I think the timing of all this is curious. Berger deserves the benefit of the doubt until the investigation is complete."

Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the Justice Department to produce documents about any correspondence with the White House on the investigation. He is accusing Republicans of a "smear campaign" against Berger.

McAuliffe has great cause for concern since two important Kerry advisors have been damaged in the past two weeks.

Former Ambassador Joe Wilson was discredited by a Senate Intelligence Committee report that contradicted Wilson's public statements about how he was selected for a sensitive mission to Niger in 2002 and the results of his report about Saddam Hussein's attempt to purchase uranium in Africa. Wilson represented his investigation as proof that President Bush misled the United States in making the case for the invasion of Iraq. An investigation into British intelligence confirms that Bush's claim was "well founded."

While political reactions to the Berger affair are predictably mixed, there is no doubt that the former national security advisor broke the law. The documents he removed carry the highest classifications for secrecy: code word clearance.

Republican House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) called Berger's actions "just a third-rate burglary."

But former FBI agent G. Gordon Liddy disagrees, calling it a grave transgression against national security. Liddy wonders why the Justice Department has not arrested Berger for having admitted to committing five felonies.

Liddy pointed out that Berger is the second Clinton official to face prosecution for withdrawing classified materials from secure premises. Former CIA director John Deutsch was pardoned by President Clinton in the final hours of his second term and spared from suffering any punishment for having taken laptops with classified materials to his home in 1996.

Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) questioned Berger's motivation for the thefts.

He said, "What in heaven's name was he thinking? What is so important that he would risk both his reputation and prosecution to remove these documents? What's there to hide?"

He added, "There is no one with his experience who can claim that these are the actions of an absent-minded employee. Sandy Berger knows better."

Foley recalled the final days of the Clinton administration when he said, "And we thought it was bad when they were only stealing furniture."

Thursday, July 22, 2004

Kerrry Campaign Ads No. 1


The Birth of Freedom Works

My congratulations and best wishes to a new, powerful voice for Conservatives. FreedomWorks. - Sailor

New group to counter liberals

By Ralph Z. Hallow

Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey, former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Jack Kemp and former White House Counsel C. Boyden Gray are joining forces to counter MoveOn.Org and other liberal Democrat groups in the November elections.
Mr. Armey, chairman of Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE), and Mr. Kemp, a co-founder of Empower America, are merging their two organizations into FreedomWorks to foster a "freedom agenda."

Billionaire currency speculator George Soros has pledged $15 million to liberal campaign groups, including those known as 527s for the tax-code section that regulates them, seeking to defeat President Bush in November.
"We believe that hard work beats daddy's money," Mr. Armey said. "MoveOn is doing all kinds of high-profile, big-dollar deals with money from George Soros and other rich Democrats."
"We can match that with people on the street who really care about Social Security retirement accounts, tax simplification, smaller government and freedom from frivolous lawsuits," Mr. Armey said.
The merger gives FreedomWorks the CSE membership of 360,000 activists and donors across the country. It also brings Empower America's donor network.
The merged group "will encourage Republicans — and Democrats — to take positions on issues of individual freedom that many of them have been reluctant to take publicly before," said Matt Kibbe, FreedomWorks president and chief operating officer and CSE president.
Like many other "independent-expenditure" organizations formed to deal with the complicated provisions of last year's McCain-Feingold campaign-finance rules, FreedomWorks will have a complicated legal structure giving it nonprofit status as a 501(c)3, a 501(c)4, a 527 and a federal political action committee.
The new group, headquartered in Washington, will have a full-time campaign staff on the ground in the presidential battleground states of Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as in Illinois and Texas.
Mr. Kibbe said the new organization will house "a sophisticated conservative political database containing over 600,000 activist names in all 50 states."
William Bennett, a former Cabinet official in Republican administrations and an Empower America co-founder, will be a senior adviser to FreedomWorks and will focus on school choice, another of the new group's policy priorities.
Former U.N. Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatick, who was the third co-founder of Empower America, has not indicated what role she will play in the new group.
Mr. Kemp, who for more than 25 years has been one of the nation's leading advocates of economic growth through low tax rates, said that with the merger, FreedomWorks "builds on over 30 years of combined organizational experience."

More Troubles in Utopia

Dick Morris reports on the schism between the Clintons and the Kerry/Kennedy factions of the Dem Party. This will get very interesting. Keep your eyes glued to this one. - Sailor


New York Post

July 21, 2004 -- JUST as the Democratic Party in the later 1960s was dominated by the schism between President Lyndon B. Johnson and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, so the party in this decade is likely to be mired in a split between the Clintons on the one hand and Ted Kennedy and John Kerry on the other.
The Kerry campaign's recent effort to keep Hillary out of the convention's spotlight prime time, coupled with the selection of Sen. John Edwards as Kerry's running mate, are opening shots in this fight, which will likely escalate into a full-fledged feud.

When Kerry chose Edwards, a charismatic future contender for the presidency, he knew he was investing in an opponent for Hillary when she goes for the top job herself. If Kerry loses, Hillary will run in 2008; if he wins, she'll run in 2012. Either way, she'll have to beat Edwards, whom Kerry plucked from the ashes of defeat.

Hillary, of course, was entitled to a prime-time speech. Apart from her husband, she is the most popular Democrat in the nation and she has addressed both of the last two conventions. The fiction that the women Democratic senators caucused and decided to anoint Maryland's Barbara Mikulsky to speak for them fooled nobody. To suggest that Hillary should mutely stand behind Mikulsky nodding in agreement was a statement to the Clintons: This isn't your party anymore.

The split began in the fall of 2003, when Kerry was floundering in the face of the Howard Dean surge. The Clintons had bet on Kerry and even sent Chris Lehane (who had played a key role in their Lewinsky-impeachment defense) to be the Massachusetts senator's chief campaign consultant. But as Kerry faltered, the Clintons bailed out on his candidacy and pushed Gen. Wesley Clark into the race as their candidate.

The former president was quoted in public as saying that his wife and Gen. Clark were the two most outstanding Democrats in the nation. Clinton loyalists like Bruce Lindsay and Harry Thomason took their cue and went to work for Clark (a fellow Arkansan). But the unkindest cut of all was when Lehane walked out of the Kerry campaign, attesting to the senator's lack of viability and joined up with Clark.

In rushed Ted Kennedy to save the day, sending Mary Beth Cahill of his Senate staff to steer the faltering Kerry campaign. Kennedy's pivotal role was evident from his up-front and public position by his Massachusetts colleague's side on the night Kerry won the New Hampshire primary. As Kerry was all but clinching the nomination, who introduced him to the victory rally? Ted Kennedy.

Throughout their administration, the Clintons cold-shouldered Kennedy — realizing that the average American voter saw him as radioactively liberal. In the 1996 campaign, we went into overdrive to be sure that Kennedy would have no prime-time speaking role, even though he had usually had the spotlight to himself at past Democratic conclaves.

As Bill Clinton veered to the center, he increasingly parted company with Ted Kennedy and became the senator's factional antagonist within the party. The gap was bridged somewhat in the impeachment fight, but has come back with a vengeance now that Kennedy is using Kerry as an alternative to the Clinton domination of the party.

Indeed, insiders in the Kerry operation were quoted anonymously as saying that Kennedy had warned against putting Hillary on the ticket.

The increasing tendency of the Kennedy-Kerry operatives to shut out the Clintons from the campaign highlights the Clinton conundrum: They desperately want Kerry to lose, but can't say so in public.

Bill Clinton's publication of his memoirs a few weeks before the Democratic convention was clearly a move to slow down Kerry's momentum. The book's timing forced Kerry to designate Edwards much earlier than is traditional, so as to stop the former president from hogging the spotlight. Kerry will probably pay for his premature selection in decreased viewership during his convention now that it is drained of any suspense.

The battle between Bill and Hillary in one corner and Kerry, Kennedy and Edwards in the other will become as bitter as the battle between Johnson and RFK. Cahill's bluntness in excluding Hillary from the speakers list — even though Kerry was forced to back off and let Hillary introduce Bill — is a signal that in this fight, no holds will be barred.

Sandy Berger’s Heavy Lifting

The spin and damage control is in full swing by the libs and dems over their fair haired boy's, Sandy Berger, theft of classified, code worded documents. Of course old Sandy claims it was inadvertant. Still, the documents he took are still missing. Why is that? Could it be that Sandy delivered them to his new boss, the poodle, to be used as campaign material? Or is it because these documents are quite scathing of Sandy's former boss, Billy Clinton. As usual the lib/dems are whining that the Reps leaked the investigation, but I have heard it was the lib/dems that did the leaking. This should be very interesting as it develops. Here is Byron York's take on this. - Sailor

Sandy Berger’s Heavy Lifting

The troubling details of the Archives document removal.

Byron York
National Review OnLine

In Washington this morning, government officials are trying to piece together the facts of the Sandy Berger case in an attempt to understand what the former Clinton administration national-security adviser was trying to accomplish when he took highly classified documents from the National Archives.

Berger, who yesterday quit his position as an informal adviser to the Kerry campaign, was appointed by former President Clinton to vet Clinton-administration documents before those documents were turned over to the September 11 investigating commission. Berger claims that as he went through a large number of documents last fall, he inadvertently put a few in his briefcase and took them home. "In the course of reviewing over several days thousands of pages of documents on behalf of the Clinton administration in connection with requests by the September 11 commission, I inadvertently took a few documents from the Archives," Berger said in a written statement. "When I was informed by the Archives that there were documents missing, I immediately returned everything I had except for a few documents that I apparently had accidentally discarded."

But it appears that some of the evidence in the case casts doubt on Berger's explanation. First, Berger has reportedly conceded that he knowingly hid his handwritten notes in his jacket and pants in order to sneak them out of the Archives. Any notes made from classified material have to be cleared before they can be removed from the Archives — a common method of safeguarding classified information — and Berger's admission that he hid the notes in his clothing is a clear sign of intent to conceal his actions.

Second, although Berger said he reviewed thousands of pages, he apparently homed in on a single document: the so-called "after-action report" on the Clinton administration's handling of the millennium plot of 1999/2000. Berger is said to have taken multiple copies of the same paper. He is also said to have taken those copies on at least two different days. There have been no reports that he took any other documents, which suggests that his choice of papers was quite specific, and not the result of simple carelessness.

Third, it appears that Berger's "inadvertent" actions clearly aroused the suspicion of the professional staff at the Archives. Staff members there are said to have seen Berger concealing the papers; they became so concerned that they set up what was in effect a small sting operation to catch him. And sure enough, Berger took some more. Those witnesses went to their superiors, who ultimately went to the Justice Department. (There was no surveillance camera in the room in which Berger worked with the documents, meaning there is no videotape record of the incidents.)

The documents Berger took — each copy of the millennium report is said to be in the range of 15 to 30 pages — were highly secret. They were classified at what is known as the "code word" level, which is the government's highest tier of secrecy. Any person who is authorized to remove such documents from a special secure room is required to do so in a locked case that is handcuffed to his or her wrist.

It is not clear why Berger would focus solely on the millennium-plot report. But it is clear that the report has been the object of intense discussions during the September 11 investigation.

The report was the result of a review done by Richard Clarke, then the White House counterterrorism chief, of efforts by the Clinton administration to stop terrorist plots at the turn of the year 2000. At several points in the September 11 commission hearings, Democrats pointed to the millennium case as an example of how a proper counterterrorism program should be run. But sources say the report suggests just the opposite. Clarke apparently concluded that the millennium plot was foiled by luck — a border agent in Washington State who happened to notice a nervous, sweating man who turned out to have explosives in his car — and not by the Clinton administration's savvy anti-terrorism work. The report also contains a number of recommendations to lessen the nation's vulnerability to terrorism, but few were actually implemented.

The after-action review became the topic of public discussion in April when Attorney General John Ashcroft mentioned it in his public testimony before the September 11 commission. "This millennium after-action review declares that the United States barely missed major terrorist attacks in 1999 and cites luck as playing a major role," Ashcroft testified. "It is clear from the review that actions taken in the millennium period should not be the operating model for the U.S. government."

In May, a government official told National Review Online that the report contains a "scathing indictment of the last administration's actions." The source said the report portrayed the Clinton administration's actions as "exactly how things shouldn't be run." In addition, Clarke was highly critical of the handling of the millennium plot in his book, Against All Enemies.

It is not clear how many copies of the report exist. Nor is it clear why Berger was so focused on the document. If he simply wanted a copy, it seems that taking just one would have been sufficient. But it also seems that Berger should have known that he could not round up all the known copies of the document, since there were apparently other copies in other secure places. Whatever the case, the report was ultimately given to the September 11 Commission.

Wednesday, July 21, 2004

Sandy's Super-Secret Skivvies Story

Doc Farmer jumps all over the Sandy Berger pilferring of classified materials. Naturally, the media is either trying to bury this or marginalize it. After all, Berger is a Clintonista, and therfore can do no wrong. This is not sitting well with Ron Kuby, noted radical lawyer, William Knuntsler protegé and frequent Clinton apologist.

"Nobody, nobody inadvertently picks up classified information and walks out with it. It isn't done," Kuby told his WABC Radio partner Curtis Sliwa.

"You cannot do this accidentally," he told Sliwa. "You can do it arrogantly, being so used to your top security clearance that you figure the rules don't apply to you - and I've seen that in Republican and Democratic administrations alike. But you don't do it accidentally."

Kuby insisted that even if Berger had simply removed the notes he made while viewing the secret Clinton administration terror documents, it would still be a crime.

"If you're taking notes about classified information, those notes are now classified. They're placed in a secure area. You can have access to them only while being viewed by a security officer. Nothing gets removed."

"It's a crime to remove classified information or to deal with it in a manner that potentially compromises it," he said.

Kuby said he learned about the security procedures first hand, when he was permitted to view classified information during his involvement in the trial of the first World Trade Center bombers.

"The rules are very strict," he said. "There's somebody monitoring you. The notes that you take on classified material themselves are deemed to be classified. You leave everything there."

"You're not permitted to remove anything from that room - period," he emphasized. "It's a crime to remove classified information or to deal with it in a manner that potentially compromises it."

If Ron Kuby is not buying into Berger's story, why would anyone else? Here is Doc's fine article on this. - Sailor

Sandy's Super-Secret Skivvies Story

Written by Doc Farmer
Wednesday July 21, 2004

Sometimes a story comes across your computer screen that just seems too weird. You know the ones I’m talking about. Woman lifts Volvo off trapped puppy. Man in Superman costume beats up motorists. Politician keeps promise. Columnist starts anti-defamation league for fat, bald, ugly guys. That sort of thing.

How about this one? High government official hides classified documents in his underwear.

I’d have an easier time coping with a story like this if it came from an august journalistic body like the Weekly World News (sample headline: Cheney Is Actually a Robot!) or the New York Times (sample headline: Rumor Has It Cheney Will Be Dumped – For a Robot). Nevertheless, when you see it even in (relatively) reliable news sources, it starts to weird you out a bit.

What’s weirder still, unfortunately, is the truth.

It would appear that Sandy Berger, the former National Security Advisor under Clinton, spent some time in the National Archives reviewing documentation prior to his testimony before the 9/11 Commission. No problem with that, refreshing your memory is allowed (indeed encouraged) so that the evidence you give is accurate.

However, it’s not encouraged that you take the documents home with you. In fact, since the room is high security it would appear that such action is actively discouraged. Despite this, Mr. Berger (by his own admission) took several highly classified documents and shoved them in his jacket, his socks and, yes, his underpants.


I’ve worked in banking for a good part of my career. Security, mainly. As such, I’ve spent a good amount of time in vaults and secure cash areas. I know that you have to verify the contents of the vault, but I also know you have to put some level of trust in the people who work in those areas. It’s the old Russian saying ''Doveryay, no Proveryay'' (Trust, but Verify). We would put cameras in the vault areas, not just to prevent theft but also in case of accident or illness (vaults are enclosed, remote places with few visitors).

But in all my years in security, I would never had thought it possible to check an employee’s drawers (the non-desk variety) for stolen cash.

When security types such as I gather for conferences, we always regale ourselves with the story of the really stupid criminals (fact is, there aren’t many smart ones) who rob a bank and stuff the money down the front of their pants. They run out, not realizing that they also have a ''bait'' pack that includes an exploding dye pack. We always suggest ways to update those dye packs--usually involving Tabasco....

Who would have thought we would have to consider such a thing for classified documents? Especially from people who were supposed to be in a position of high trust?

The news media’s coverage of the Sandy Berger case has been surprising. The fact that they’re even mentioning it at all is the surprise. You can bet your sweet bippie that if Dr. Condoleezza Rice had been stuffing documents, the media would be all over this like Clinton on an intern. However, the media is doing their best to excuse Mr. Berger’s actions. So in that way, they’re staying true to form.

Some are even going as far as saying that what Mr. Berger did wasn’t really a crime. Despite that some documents are missing. Despite his protestations of no ill intent.

If I go into a jewelry store and start stuffing diamond necklaces down my drawers, I’m pretty sure that’s a crime. If I visit a vault and line the inside of my trousers with presidential portraits, I’d wager that I’d be spending the better part of a decade inside a 8 by 8 apartment with steel bars, steel beds, a steel toilet, and a roommate named ''Killer.''

However, if I’m a lib/dem/soc/commie who worked for Slick Willie, and I stole classified documents, apparently I would get sympathy from an understanding news media and a number of Democratic National Committee representatives.

What is wrong with that picture?

It’s a good bet that those ''missing'' documents will never be found. In some ways, this is most unfortunate, because that data may have shown just how much the Clinton administration knew about Al Qaeda in the run-up to the 9/11 attacks. Perhaps incriminating, perhaps vindicating, it’s impossible to know at this juncture.

However, it may also be quite fortunate that the documents are gone forever. At least, it’s fortunate for the clerk at the National Archives, who would have to receive them. If they are found again, I hope they give the poor schmuck some rubber gloves...

About the Writer: Doc Farmer is a writer and humorist who is also a moderator on ChronWatch's Forum. He formerly lived in Saudi Arabia and Qatar, but now resides in Indiana. Doc receives e-mail at

This Article Was First Published On ChronWatch At: