Montgomery Burns Posted September 19, 2004 Report Share Posted September 19, 2004 Remember when former Senator Bob Kerrey said that Bill Clinton was an "unusually good liar - unusually good"? Well, surely by now Democrats realize that John Kerry is an unusually bad candidate – unusually bad. Just consider: Kerry's never said why he should be president, other than to fulfill a lifelong dream. He inappropriately boasts of his war heroism, when experience tells us that authentic heroes rarely brag about their heroism. The SBVFT have deeply discredited numerous parts of his Vietnam record, but Kerry hasn't even attempted a factual rebuttal to any of the charges. He has been forced to admit – despite testifying that the memory was "seared, seared in me" – that he wasn't in Cambodia on Xmas 1968 at the orders of Richard Nixon, who wasn't yet president. He's had to virtually admit that no hostile fire accompanied his 1st Purple Heart incident, meaning he didn't deserve that award. He has personally attacked Bush's National Guard service and Cheney's "5 deferments" and contrasted it with his volunteering for 2 tours of duty in Vietnam. But he hasn't answered John O'Neill's charge that his first tour was 100 miles off the shore of Vietnam and he didn't volunteer for service until he was about to be drafted. Besides, who in their right mind would believe that Kerry would volunteer to risk his life in a war he adamantly opposed? He either perjured himself in his antiwar testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in admitting to committing atrocities or he actually committed those atrocities. Which is worse? POWs have said their communist captors used his slander of American troops against them. He was present at a meeting of the VVAW where assassinations of public officials were discussed. Whether or not he voted against them or left the meeting, he has never explained why he associated with such a group of sadistic thugs. He admitted to being in Paris and having "talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government." Under whose authority? For what possibly legitimate purpose? He castigates Bush – preposterously – for having no plan to win the peace in Iraq. But he's never explained how he would be qualified to plan for any peace, given his disastrous predictions of no bloodbath or refugee problem upon US withdrawal from Vietnam. I guess it is a soooper sekrit plan. He was rated the most liberal senator in 2003 by the nonpartisan National Journal. And that doesn't even begin to tell the story of his egregiously anti-defense and anti-intelligence record for his entire 20 years in the Senate. He has failed to denounce Michael Moore's deceits, but he demands that Bush denounce the Swiftees' truths. He insists that Iraq isn't part of the War on Terror yet claims that the US has lost 1,000 people in the WoT. He hasn't explained how his Silver Star citation was signed by Navy Secretary John Lehman years after the fact when Lehman denies signing it. He also hasn't explained how a "combat V" was affixed to the citation when such designations never accompany a Silver Star. Where's Dan Rather? He refuses to release all his military and medical records and hides behind his biographer Brinkley, who contradicts him, saying Kerry alone possesses authority over his records. He brutalized Cheney for saying America would be safer under Bush-Cheney but in the next breath said he would make America safer. He swears he voted for the Iraq war resolution because Bush promised he'd attack only as a last resort. Since there were no such conditions in the resolution and no one else corroborates his claim, are we to assume that Bush gave Kerry these assurances confidentially based on their close friendship? He says he won't delegate US national security to other nations but never stops complaining, essentially, about Bush's failure to delegate US national security to other nations. He claimed that foreign leaders prefer him for president. What was he doing talking to them, under whose authority and about what? He ducked the press for 6 weeks after excoriating President Bush for hiding from the press. He won't answer hypotheticals about what he'd do on fundamental issues as president. He says he has a plan to withdraw troops, but when pressed admits he won't know enough about the conditions on the ground until he's president. He admitted that life begins at conception, but is pro-abortion anyway. He has made incredibly destructive and bogus claims about GOP plans to disenfranchise a million black voters. Are you dizzy yet? This guy is more embarrassing and pathetic than Jean Chretien. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montgomery Burns Posted September 20, 2004 Author Report Share Posted September 20, 2004 Ouch. The numbers keep on getting worse for Kerry. At Bodog betting palace, you have to risk $225 on President Bush to win $100. For Kerry, you can win $175 and only have to put up $100. At Tradesports (future markets), they have Bush ahead of Kerry 66.6 - 34. They also have it at 91.0 that the Republicans will keep the House, and 82.6 that the Republicans will keep the Senate. At the Iowa Electronic Markets (which has a remarkably accurate record of predicting during previous elections), they have Bush ahead 60 - 40.4. For House Control: Republicans Gain 53.7 Republicans Hold 39.5 Republicans Lose 7.6 and Senate Control: Republicans Gain 53.8 Republicans Hold 20.0 Republicans Lose 27.0 Dan Rather is going to have to come up with some more forged documents to assist Kerry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.