 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 29, 2005 3:13 pm Post subject: "The NYT Repackages John Kerry's Treason" |
 |
|
"It’s Kerry and the Times who want us to lose the battle in Iraq after we’ve already won the war in Iraq..."
| Quote: | THE NEW YORK TIMES
REPACKAGES JOHN KERRY'S TREASON
By: Doug Schmitz
"John Kerry is telling President Bush what to say in his speech tonight, in the opinion pages of the New York Times. Tomorrow, he will probably write one with the opposite tack...Is Kerry engaging in projection? A little humility, please. John Kerry, of all people, calling for someone else to show humility?...Since Bush is delivering the speech tonight, seems as if the Times is giving space to the candidate they feel should be the President."
— Ed Lasky, The American Thinker, June 28, 2005 In a preemptive strike on President Bush, our U.S. military and the war on terrorism, John Kerry wrote a June 28, 2005 "op-ed" in the Kerry-endorsed New York Times on the very eve that Bush planned to address the American public about Iraq. But Kerry’s 11-hour carpet bombing of Bush comes too little, too late. After all, Kerry was the one dodging every tough question about what he’d do in Iraq in his transparent disdain for our U.S. military. In the end, no matter how much the Times tries to window-dress Kerry as a "war hero," his open contempt for the U.S. and our troops still makes him a traitor.
It’s reminiscent of Kerry’s April 22, 1971 speech before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: He couldn’t get out of Vietnam fast enough to make two trips to Paris to meet with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong Communists to ambush Nixon’s winnable war. It was Kerry and his media allies who willingly provided aid and comfort to our Communist enemies as they painted the real war heroes of the Vietnam War as murderers. It’s also the same media leftists who sought America’s defeat by declaring Vietnam a lost cause, just like they’ve been attempting to do with Iraq and Afghanistan.
In his typical supercilious tone and anti-American mindset – with the full cooperation of Times’ chief anti-American leftist Bill Keller, Kerry accused the Bush administration of "courting disaster with its current course – a course with no realistic strategy for reducing the risks to our soldiers and increasing the odds for success."
Question: Since when did the treasonous Massachusetts senator ever care about our troops, much less show the slightest support for them – in Iraq or anywhere else?
It was Kerry who tried to single-handedly bring the U.S. to its knees in Vietnam and humiliate former President Richard Nixon – with the cheeringly anti-U.S. endorsements of Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather.
It was Kerry who tried to block former President Ronald Reagan’s military aid from reaching the Freedom Fighters in Nicaragua when Kerry and fellow U.S. traitor Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, met with Marxist-Leninist thug Daniel Ortega and spread anti-U.S. propaganda to the country’s equally anti-American media in a "news" conference.
Now, Kerry’s making a repeat performance on the anti-American stage with his full-throttled ambush of President Bush’s winnable war in Iraq – all with the help of the Times, which has become the Democrat Party’s newspaper of record. (It was also Kerry who voted to gut the defense budget, weapons systems and intelligence gathering.) As in Vietnam, the Times still backs Kerry’s shameless distortions of the truth about Iraq.
After all, it was the Times that did everything possible – including planting a phony, Dan Rather-style story it worked on with CBS ‘News’ about allegedly missing weapons weeks before the 2004 election – to defeat Bush and smear our U.S. military.
In his last-minute hit piece on Bush’s June 28 speech, Kerry also claimed that Bush’s "choices" made Iraq a "breeding ground for jihadists."
"Today there are 16,000 to 20,000 jihadists and the number is growing," Kerry inveighed. "The administration has put itself – and, tragically, our troops, who pay the price every day – in a box of its own making. Getting out of this box won’t be easy, but we owe it to our soldiers to make our best effort."
Again, did Kerry care about our troops when he slandered U.S. soldiers still fighting his Communist allies in Vietnam?
Did Kerry show any mercy towards Vietnam soldiers when he claimed that they "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 fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam…"
It’s the same kind of anti-American treason displayed by Illinois Democrat Sen. Dick Durbin, who slandered our U.S. military as "Nazis" in a "Soviet gulag" that was supposedly comparable to "Pot Pol" in their alleged treatment of Gitmo’s suspected terrorists, claiming that our soldiers have "no regard for human beings."
Like Kerry and Dan Rather, Durbin used a bogus anonymous source to smear our U.S. military and its commander-in-chief in the Democrats’ frivolously treasonous quest to regain power. What’s more, Durbin’s non-apology and crocodile tears over his anti-American rant against our troops showed no sincere signs of contrition.
Like Durbin and Rather, what was equally treacherous about Kerry’s anti-American slander in 1971 was that he made the unsubstantiated charges without ever providing one shred of proof; Kerry’s so-called "witnesses" to those alleged atrocities weren’t even Vietnam veterans. Yet, Kerry has never suffered serious consequences for his treason against the U.S., other than losing the 2004 election, in which he deserved to be defeated.
The only ones putting us in "a box," as Kerry also claimed Bush was doing, are anti-American, Dick Durbin Democrats like Kerry, anointed by the Times, who continue to provide "news" copy for al-Jazeera. Besides, it was Bill Clinton and John Kerry who shirked back from confronting Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
It was Clinton and Kerry who allowed terrorist cells to grow in the mid- to late 1990s and ignored the six separate terrorist attacks on and off U.S. soil – and who refused to confront the terrorist threat of Hussein and bin Laden. If there is anyone to blame for 9/11 and the spread of terrorism, it’s Clinton and Kerry.
As usual, much like he’s always done in the past with our enemies, Kerry continues to blame Republican administrations for the attacks on our troops, instead of blaming the terrorists who perpetrate them. But it should come as no surprise that Kerry and the Times have always had a rather sick fascination with terrorists and believe in some twisted way that the terrorists are supposedly much stronger than they really are.
Kerry goes on to claim that "our mission in Iraq is harder because the administration ignored the advice of others, went in largely alone, underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency, sent in too few troops to secure the country, destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification, failed to secure ammunition dumps, refused to recognize the urgency of training Iraqi security forces and did no postwar planning."
First off, what "advice of others" do you suppose Kerry thinks Bush is ignoring? Could it be the several "foreign leaders" that Kerry claimed last year were allegedly endorsing his candidacy, of which he refused to name?
As for Kerry’s claim that Bush went "in largely alone," Kerry not only continues to deny the fact that he voted for the $87 billion before he voted against it, he ignores the fact that we have over 40 countries as major allies in the war in Iraq. Therefore, we definitely did not go "in largely alone" as Kerry claimed. It’s an insult and a slap in the face to our brave troops for Kerry to say otherwise.
As for Kerry’s claim that Bush "underestimated the likelihood and power of the insurgency," again, Kerry and the Times continue to display their angst for Bush, our troops and the U.S. every single time they charge that the so-called insurgents are gaining the upper-hand. Despite certain setbacks, we have already won the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: We are now working to win the peace, which, of course, takes time.
As for Kerry’s claims that Bush "sent in with too few troops to secure the country" and "destroyed the Iraqi army through de-Baathification," Kerry not only voted for the war in Iraq, he failed to bring up the fact that he voted against arming our troops with additional body gear, as well as providing additional money for the training of Iraqi security forces. It’s a moot point on Kerry’s part because our U.S. military and coalition commanders knew how many troops we needed and they have called up more troops accordingly as post-Saddam loyalists and Baathists have cowardly emerged from the shadows.
Kerry then had the unmitigated gall to claim that Bush was being arrogant about the war in Iraq when writing that "a little humility would go a long way – coupled with a strategy to succeed." This is rich coming from Kerry, whose one of the most pompous, ego-driven career politicians in Washington who spent decades trying to deplete our military.
Continuing his call for our defeat in Iraq, Kerry claimed that Bush "must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq, referring to them as "the occupation." Bush has repeatedly told us and the White House press corps that U.S. troops will eventually leave once Iraq is stabilized.
But Kerry’s enemy-appeasing op-ed gets worse: the flip-flopping Kerry first claimed that we don’t have enough troops in Iraq then said "our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos." What? Which is it, Kerry?
Kerry then calls on Bush to stop "using the requirement that troops be trained in-country as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France and Germany to do more." What a shock: Kerry still wants us to coddle France and Germany.
Then, after accusing Bush of "destroying" the Iraqi security forces through "de-Baathification," Kerry calls on Bush to "prod the Iraqi government to fill the current security gap by integrating" ex-Saddam Hussein loyalist "militias into a National Guard-type force that can provide security in their own areas."
"He calls for surrounding states to help with Iraq’s borders," said Ed Lasky of The American Thinker (June 28, 2005). This is fantasy: they are the states helping the insurgency. He calls for using tribal and ethnic militias. But they are a divisive development."
But Kerry also charged that Bush should include the "Sunnis who fear being disenfranchised, see electricity flowing, jobs being created, roads and sewers being rebuilt and a democratic government being formed, the allure of the insurgency will decrease."
Where has Kerry been? Not only did the Sunnis not want any part of the Iraqi elections in January, our U.S. military has been working non-stop to ensure that Iraqi utilities and infrastructure are maintained and that a democratic government is formed, which Iraq has for the first time in its nation’s history. The only way the "insurgency" will quell is if the U.S. military is there to hold off these terrorists and provide needed training for Iraqi security forces, who have already expressed the desire to secure their own country.
Besides, how can someone like Kerry, who would rather hold hands with terrorists than destroy them, lecture Bush on anything concerning just wars when Kerry doesn’t even believe they can be won? As his track record has shown, Kerry has already proven that he’d rather negotiate with terrorists than annihilate them.
It’s crooked, anti-military politicians like Kerry and anti-U.S. propaganda rags like the Times that are making our troops’ jobs harder by providing aid and comfort to terrorists – and by not telling the truth to the American public, which is a charge that Kerry continues to level against the Bush administration.
Towards the end of his New York Times-endorsed rant, Kerry also couldn’t resist throwing in an anti-Semitic remark when he charged that "our fitful mediation between Israel and the Palestinians in return for their help in rebuilding Iraq, protecting its borders, and bringing its Sunnis into the political process" would bring immediate resolution.
"This seems like he wants to pressure the Israelis and make them the scapegoat for frustrations in Iraq," Lasky said.
Kerry’s old friend, Yasser Arafat, never shared any of the blame for the murder of innocent Israelis, which is why the U.S. must continue supporting Israel.
"The next months are critical to Iraq’s future and our security," Kerry continued. "If Mr. Bush fails to take these steps, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, costs rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Our troops deserve better: they deserve leadership equal to their sacrifice."
Wrong, Sen. Kerry: Our troops already have a leader – President George W. Bush – who cares more about them than what the latest slanted poll says or the pettiness of enemy-appeasing Dick Durbin Democrats like Kerry and their politics of personal destruction. As for the American public’s patience wearing thin, that’s only with Kerry and his media allies who continue to twist the truth about our military.
Again, Kerry never cared at all about our military’s sacrifice when he raced home from Vietnam and his meetings in Paris with North Vietnamese and Viet Cong Communists to slander our troops before the world, painting them as the real enemy, as he’s doing now.
Kerry’s shoddy attempt to make himself look "presidential," while attacking our military’s commander-in-chief only makes him look more desperate, more increasingly asinine – and continues to show his true anti-American colors.
It’s obvious that Kerry wants to re-write Bush’s speech as the arrogant senator tries to inflict his anti-U.S. propaganda once again on us – with the full cooperation of the Times. After all, Kerry had an opportunity last year to tell the truth about himself but he blew it. Any chances he had are gone and should fall on deaf ears.
What’s more, Kerry’s rhetoric also continues to confirm what we’ve always known about the Times: That it’s nothing more than a public relations arm of the Far Left wing for the new Dick Durbin Democrats who hate this country, despise our troops with every fiber of their beings and who crave America’s defeat.
Kerry’s claim that Bush "must take steps to reduce support for the insurgency" is a scurrilous attempt to take the heat off anti-American Democrats like Kerry and Dick Durbin who undermine Bush, our U.S. military, the war on terrorism and America’s resolve in fighting a just war that Kerry and his fellow traitors really wanted to avoid.
The Times’ unquestionable backing of Kerry’s continued lies about President Bush, our troops and Iraq only makes it look more anti-American with every op-ed it foists on a much wiser American public who are starting to spot phonies like Kerry a miles away.
After all, it was the Times who heavily endorsed John Kerry last year, which deeply obscured its already non-existent objectivity.
"The network of financial connections between Kerry’s campaign and the Times is extensive," wrote Jonathan M. Stein, Newsmax.com (Aug.27, 2004). "Although the Times has an allegedly official "ban" on political campaign contributions, a simple search on "opensecrets.org" reveals that at least two editors in the employ of the Times, Christine Muhlke and Elizabeth Stewart, have contributed at least $1,500 to John Kerry’s campaign efforts.
"These are individuals who have direct influence on the selection of stories that run in the Times and its companion magazine – and they are on the record giving money out of their own pockets directly to the Kerry campaign. At least two other employees of the Times – Alan Flippen and William Usuik – have contributed $1,250 to Kerry. Alternatively, not a single employee of the Times has contributed to President Bush or any other Republican candidate or organization."
Stein added that "the New York Times, in major stories, has used donor-donee connections to call into question the credibility and objectivity of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Therefore, in all fairness, the same standard should be applied to the Times in assessing its credibility and objectivity."
While Kerry continues to blame President Bush and our U.S. military for the hardships in Iraq, it’s traitors like Kerry and his media allies at the Times who are doing all they possibly can to turn Iraq into another Vietnam. It’s Kerry and the Times who are still distorting the facts about the war in Iraq – and who are still slandering our troops.
It’s Kerry and the Times who want us to lose the battle in Iraq after we’ve already won the war in Iraq.
Karl Rove was right: Democrats are wimps when it comes to defeating America’s enemies – and the Times and other media leftists are only too happy to join them in their volcanic hatred for the U.S.
"Published originally at EtherZone.com : republication allowed with this notice and hyperlink intact."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doug Schmitz is a conservative columnist who regularly contributes to Intellectualconservative.com , BushCountry.org and has been a frequent guest columnist for Accuracy in Media ( www.aim.org ). He is a regular columnist to Ether Zone.
Doug Schmitz can be reached at: dougsopeds@netscape.net
Published in the June 29, 2005 issue of Ether Zone.
Copyright © 1997 - 2005 Ether Zone.
We invite your comments on this article in our forum!
Link To Full Article |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kate
Admin
Joined: 14 May 2004
Posts: 1891
Location: Upstate, New York
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
Great read, this Doug Schmitz certainly has a way with words.... has a little bite, like Steyn does
and coined a new phrase 
Dick Durbin Democrat
_________________
.
one of..... We The People |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 30, 2005 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
It still amazes me that anyone would pay attention to either sKerry or the NYT.
As far as I'm concerned, sKerry is a total opportunist willing to step on anyone he can to attain the highest office in the world. He has proven he is willing to say anything whatsoever and hurt anyone he can in his quest for power.
Excellent article, it's very refreshing to see others see what I see.
_________________
Clark County Conservative |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
army72
Seaman
Joined: 06 Sep 2004
Posts: 182
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 19, 2005 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry, I got pretty steamed about half way through. I'll have to go back later and finish.
We have some real power hungry clowns in office that would say or do anything if they figured enough votes were in it. For the life of me, I cannot understand how these A******S ('scuse the bitterness) refuse to look at the effect of their deeds on our troops. I do not believe it hurts the morale, but what it does do is to give our enemies another way to fight our guys.... through our own government. I'll bet al Jazeera loves to print these stories.
Yet these idiots figure it's more important to wage war against Bush than to help our guys... it sickens me.
_________________
Hillary and Kerry in '08? Something smells!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
