SwiftVets.com

[Mary Ann Parker]

This is a nice article from David Limbaugh. Concise and balanced.
I have included web sites for reference to;
1. That article
2. His interview w/John O'Neil
3. His new Blog!
Enjoy and make it a great day!
Mary Ann Parker

Read David’s New Blog!

http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/blog.aspx

Read David’s Interview with John O’Neill

http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/oneill01.htm

Old Media’s Disproportionate Interest In Bush Past

http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/
September 17, 2004

What does it say about the Old Media that they are wholly uninterested in gravely
serious and highly relevant charges against John Kerry yet investigate to death
relatively minor and largely irrelevant claims against President Bush?

They have uncovered every rock for years and could never find anything but disputed,
ambiguous innuendo against President Bush about an issue that pales in comparison to
the charges against John Kerry and for which there is much more credible proof.

Even if we assume as true all the Democrats’ allegations about the president’s guard
service—he used his family connections to avoid Vietnam and to shirk certain duties
and orders—they shouldn’t really amount to that much to liberals. I’ve never met a
liberal who disapproved of anyone doing his best to avoid being drafted into the
Vietnam War, which liberals uniformly believed was immoral.

We also know that President Bush, by his own admission, was a little more carefree
when he was younger, but that around age 40 he had a religious conversion. Since
then, by all accounts, he’s been a changed person in many respects and has built an
impressive resume, including his little stint as president and commander in chief.

In short, all of these stories about President Bush, even if true—which I seriously
doubt—are mostly irrelevant to the question of his fitness to continue as commander
in chief because we’ve already witnessed his performance and character in that very
job the last four years.

The allegations against John Kerry are infinitely more serious. We know—despite the
dissembling of the media on this issue as well—that he, too, tried to avoid the war,
only “volunteering” when he was about to be drafted. But he also is said to have
embellished and lied about his service to enhance his resume and to get an early
out, perjured himself in Senate testimony, suborned similar perjury from others, and
slandered his fellow soldiers, which served as fodder for the enemy to torture POWs.
He hung out with murder-contemplating anarchists, negotiated with the North
Vietnamese enemy and lobbied vigorously for a course of action that would lead to a
bloodbath in Vietnam.

And the claims against the two men are not only qualitatively different in
substance, but there is also no comparison in the level of proof between the two
cases.

In support of the charges against President Bush we have forged documents, the
disputed hearsay testimony of a deceased superior, the marginally corroborative
testimony of an 86-year-old secretary who admits young Bush was a nice guy even if a
bit insubordinate, and a malcontent Democrat hack or two who served in the Guard
with him.

Weighing against the charges we have proof that young Bush amassed more service
points than were required of him, the family members of the deceased officer who
contradict the secretary, the contradictory testimony of the daughter of one of the
Democratic hacks and common sense. We are expected to believe Cmdr. Killian allowed
young Bush to openly disobey orders and merely wrote a whining memo to himself for
the file? That wouldn’t have happened in the Guard I served in—not in a million
years.

In support of the charges against young John Kerry we have 250 Swift Boat veterans
of all political stripes, many of them decorated, who have firsthand knowledge of
what they describe. Far, far fewer of those who served with Kerry support him and/or
his version of the events. And as for the more damning charges—that he slandered the
troops and nation under oath and confessed to his own crimes—we have our own eyes
and ears. Many of us have watched his Senate testimony and the Dick Cavett debate,
and we know what he said.

Moreover, Kerry has never retracted, nor apologized for what he said. He has never
explained why he shouldn’t have been punished for his self-confessed war atrocities.
He has never explained why he trashed his fellow soldiers and why he was integrally
involved with a group contemplating assassination.

This is a sordid past. And, contrasted to President Bush, John Kerry has never
changed his colors in the last 30 years. He has remained adamantly anti-defense and
remains the arrogant elitist he always was.

As to the respective charges against Bush and Kerry, it’s undeniable that those
against Kerry are far more serious, supported by much stronger evidence and much
more relevant to the question of fitness for commander in chief.

Yet the Old Media ignores the claims against Kerry and investigates to death the
ones against President Bush. The Old Media richly deserves its diminishing fate.



All pages copyright David Limbaugh 1994-2004

[Kimmymac]

That is a great article, Mary Ann. It is one of those articles that one reads and says "EXACTLY!" while reading it.

Thanks for sharing that, it really sums it all up perfectly.

[neverforget]

If you take off the parens around the links, then they will become clickable URLs.

Like this:

http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/blog.aspx

Good articles and writinjgs. Thanks.
_________________
US Army Security Agency
1965-1971

[grammaj]

Glad to find this topic. I was thinking of these differences and wondered where I could 'vent' my feelings about them.

For the sake of argument, let us assume the worst about the records of President Bush. That said, IMO, President Bush would only be hurting himself. In contrast, John Kerry's actions hurt and continue to hurt and affect countless Veterans, their families, and all Americans who care about their country. All of our hearts ache because of him.

God Bless us, one and all.

Gramma J