What the Hell? Mood:
I was just flipping through a 16 year-old copy of Rolling Stone magazine (don't ask) and I come to a pop-up Camel cigarette ad. And it starts playing "Happy Birthday." Is that possible? I don't want to tear it apart, but there's got to be some sort of battery in there, right? And it still works after 16 years? Dang. That's pretty weird.
The Kerry campaign is getting shrill and desperate. They don't want other veterans who oppose Senator Flipper to have their say. They have put pressure on book stores to pull John O'Neill's book Unfit for Command because they think it is a hoax. They have also tried to intimidate the book's publisher with intimations of a lawsuit. Say, who needs the Patriot Act to crush dissent when you can just lawyer up?
And now they've filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission to get the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth's ads pulled. Maybe it wasn't enough for the DNC to write letters to television stations, urging them not to air the ads. Don't doubt for a moment that the hint of libel was in the air.
The Kerrion are responding to the charges of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth like a bunch of book-burners. But what else do you expect from hypocrites? The Democratic Party are absolutely abusing the 527 loophole in McCain-Feingold. They've got many tens of millions of dollars pumped into shit-shovelers like MoveOn.org and Media Fund ---all with the intent of bashing the President and giving Kerry a free pass.
Judging from Kerry's blustering bullshit from yesterday, it looks like total meltdown is only a few more days away. Enjoy.
(Is that enough linkage for you Slanderous Dickheads Who Know Who You Are?)
It's Good to Be the Birthday Boy
Yesterday was my birthday and I had a great time. Had a fantastic dinner of catfish and shrimp with my Momma, all of my brothers, my sister-in-law, my Auntie Lou, two of her children, and one of their girlfriends. And I made out like a bandit with the loot: a beautiful rug, two very comfortable polo shirts, a copy of the 9/11 Report, a delicious chocolate and raspberry cake, several small portraits of Andrew Jackson, and much love.
Afterwards, I spent a few hours at the home of some dear old friends and received the very precious gift from their baby girl of hearing her say my name, each variation more delightful than the last.
And to top it off, it rained. Very hard. I loved it.
Statement of Larry Thurlow, Recipient of the Bronze Star
I don't know where he got it just now, but Rich Lowry, editor of the National Review Online, has published a statement by Larry Thurlow, the only other person besides John Kerry to receive the Bronze Star for actions performed in the aftermath of a mine explosion that damaged Swift Boat No. 3 on the Bay Hap River in early 1969. You need to read the whole thing, but here's the start:
I am convinced that the language used in my citation for a Bronze Star was language taken directly from John Kerry's report which falsely described the action on the Bay Hap River as action that saw small arms fire and automatic weapons fire from both banks of the river.
To this day, I can say without a doubt in my mind, along with other accounts from my shipmates--there was no hostile enemy fire directed at my boat or at any of the five boats operating on the river that day.
I submitted no paperwork for a medal nor did I file an after action report describing the incident. To my knowledge, John Kerry was the only officer who filed a report describing his version of the incidents that occurred on the river that day.
It was not until I had left the Navy--approximately three months after I left the service--that I was notified that I was to receive a citation for my actions on that day.
What's Past Is Prologue
Did John Kerry commit treason in 1971 when he went to Paris and met with delegations from the Viet Cong and the Communist government of North Viet Nam? The young Navy lieutenant appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Commitee on 22 April 1971 and spoke with some authority ---even if it wasn't on his own.
Kerry said Nixon should declare a cease-fire and "accept a coalition regime which would represent all the political forces of the country which is in fact what a representative government is supposed to do and which is in fact what this government here in this country purports to do, and pull the troops out without losing one more American, and still further without losing the South Vietnamese."
Kerry then suggested that Congress should permit a special national referendum on ending the Vietnam War, leading Fulbright to remind Kerry that Congress "cannot directly under our system negotiate a cease-fire or anything of this kind. Under our constitutional system, we can advise the president." Kerry responded that, "I realize that full well as a study of political science. I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties, and I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator [Eugene] McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera." (Emphases added here and below.)
Even by Kerry's own admission, his meeting with the Communists and the VC was potentially a matter of treason. But, as with much else he did in those years, Kerry has since then dismissed his language and actions as those of a headstrong youth who was caught up in the emotions of the time. But that doesn't wash with me. He condemned the great majority of his fellow veterans in Viet Nam to reputations as drug addicts, rapists, and war criminals. Specifically, Kerry said that the United States was "murdering" 200,000 Vietnamese a year.
Kerry's suggestion before the Senate committee that there be an immediate pullout led to questions about whether such a move would endanger the lives of South Vietnamese allies.
Kerry responded that "this obviously is the most difficult question of all, but I think that at this point the United States is not really in a position to consider the happiness of those people as pertains to the army in our withdrawal." If the United States did not withdraw, Kerry said, then US bombing would continue, and "the war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America...."
But Kerry, who claimed that he himself was a war criminal, apparently continued on a quest for his own morality after he had come home from Viet Nam. He was a leader of the Viet Nam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), a super-radical outfit full of cranks, impostors, and even would-be assassins.
At a meeting of the VVAW in Kansas City in November 1971, a proposal was made to assassinate several pro-war United States Senators, including John Tower and Strom Thurmond. Kerry denies being there, claiming that he had quit the organization months before. But that simply can't be because he continued to represent the VVAW for at least another year.
Kerry has long been portrayed as not being at the Kansas City, Mo., meeting because Kerry recalled quitting the organization at an acrimonious July 1971 session, four months before the November meeting at which the assassination plot was discussed.
But last week [March 2004], the Kerry campaign seemed to leave open the possibility that he had attended the November session, after historian Gerald Nicosia said he had found an FBI document that he said indicated that Kerry was there. As a result of Nicosia's assertion, Kerry's campaign said in a statement that while Kerry did not remember being at the meeting, "If there are valid FBI surveillance reports from credible sources that place some of those disagreements in Kansas City, we accept that historical footnote in the account of his work to end the difficult and divisive war."
It brings a tear to my eye. But here's what The American Spectator has to say:
The senator likes to bluster about President Bush's supposed failures on homeland security, and perhaps he is worth heeding on that score. After all he, not our hopelessly provincial president, has real-world experience with groups threatening violent action. He should make the most of it. Perhaps a line can be worked into his stump speeches, right after the line about aircraft carriers: "I know something about assassination plots, too."
John Kerry has already made it clear that war is a political tool for him in achieving his ambitions. If we allow him to reach the highest rung of political power, we cannot be sure that he will pass the necessary judgements in the war against Islamofascism. Instead, he will do the "popular" thing to curry favor with "right-thinking" sell-outs. It is too high a risk. He must not be elected.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 6:37 PM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Thursday, 19 August 2004 6:42 PM CDT
Diddling Madame Binh
I want to know more about John Kerry's meetings with the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese delegations at the Paris Peace Talks in 1971. And so does Judicial Watch, who are now formally requesting an investigation of Kerry's possibly treasonous activities there.
According to publicly available records, Senator Kerry was released from Active Duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve (inactive) on 3 January 1970. On 1 July 1972 he was transferred to the Standby Reserve (inactive). While a commissioned officer in the inactive Naval Reserve, Senator Kerry traveled to Paris, France and met with official delegations from the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (the Viet Cong). The Vietnamese Communists eagerly met Senator Kerry and benefited directly from the obvious propaganda victory (See Exhibit 2, page 126 - 129).
These acts are clear violations of the legal prohibitions on individual citizens negotiating with foreign powers (18 U.S.C. ' 953) and the constitutional prohibition against giving support to our nation's enemies in wartime (Article III, Section 3). Additionally, as a commissioned officer of the Naval Reserve, Senator Kerry was subject to the UCMJ, and likely violated Article 104 ("Aiding the Enemy") through his actions with the North Vietnamese/Viet Cong delegation.
Senator Kerry returned from his private negotiations with the Vietnamese Communists to Washington, DC and held a press conference. At that press event, Senator Kerry advocated a Vietnamese Communist "peace proposal" calling for a U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam and payment of war damage reparations to the Communist government. Senator Kerry engaged in this advocacy on behalf of a foreign power with who we were at war while continuing to hold a commission as an officer in the U.S. Naval Reserve.
Yeah, John. You may as well have brought Viet Nam up. It was going to come back on you, anyway.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 1:58 PM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Thursday, 19 August 2004 2:06 PM CDT
Wednesday, 18 August 2004
The Idiocy of Their Opposition, Part Two
And then, right on cue, I catch a few minutes of Howard Dean, an unstable conspiracist, clucking and moaning right along with Chris Matthews, a partisan blowhard, about the "mistake" of withdrawing troops from South Korea. Just what in the fuck are they talking about?
One of the "arguments" advanced by the Bush-hating Left in the months leading up to the War for Iraq was that North Korea presented a bigger threat to us than did Saddam. Therefore, they seemed to say, if Bush was going to go to war, why wasn't he doing so against Kim?
That would be because there is no conventional response to the danger of a nuclearized North Korea. How many different ways can that be emphasized to these fucking morons on the Left? Do they actually think that the approximately 37,000 troops we have in South Korea have ever been considered as part of our response to a potential nuclear missile attack? How would that even work? Yes, when Kim didn't have nuclear capabilities (that is, before the Clinton-Albright crowd gave away the store to this fucking misshapen troll), there was a logic to maintaining our conventional forces there because they could provide a defense against a North Korean onslaught on the ground.
But now? Our men and women in and around the DMZ are little more than cannon fodder. Did the fools on the anti-Bush Left ever stop to consider that our troops would be defenseless against a nuclear attack? Why do they have to be told such an obvious thing? Their counter-proposal of dealing with the North Korean problem instead of Saddam was never any such thing. It was an ignorant objection thrown out for the sake of appearing "serious" about the military threats facing us. The Left could say, "We're the ones who are serious about dealing with real threats, not made-up ones in Iraq that only serve the interests of Halliburton or the Neocon cabal or the Illuminati or blah, blah, blah...."
There are only two possible solutions to the threat of a nuclearized North Korea: diplomacy (which really means bribery on a scale far greater than anything even Clinton and Albright imagined) or a devastating and simultaneous pre-emptive strike against every one of Kim's installations. Neither of these solutions can make any use of our ground forces there.
Why is that not understood? How can our withdrawal of troops from a literally untenable situation be anything but right?
The Idiocy of Their Opposition
There has been such a sharp and outraged reaction to the objections of the Kerry camp to President Bush's call for troop redeployments from Germany and Asia that it should be a wake-up call to the Democratic faithful. What else could Kerry's complaint be but partisanship for its own sake? He and Dick Holbrook and Wesley Clark are absolutely full of shit. They are demonstrating their collective incompetence in dealing with the reality of our present situation.
Courtesy of the Kerry Spot at NRO, read what Gen. P.X. Kelley (Ret.), former commandant of the United States Marine Corps, has to say about this:
"John Kerry's opposition to troop realignment demonstrates a backward looking view that blindly embraces the status quo and ignores the realities of the post-9/11 world. The threat America faces today is fundamentally different than the threats America's military was configured to face during the Cold War. I should know, I was commandant of the Marine Corps during the Cold War.
"Modern military capabilities make force deployment and the projection of power more important than the location of standing armies. The world has changed since the Cold War, and President Bush justifiably recognizes that our Armed Forces must also change if we are to effectively fight and win the War on Terror.
"Senator Kerry's political attack is an insult to the hundreds of people who have been working on this proposal for years."
There are many more responses just like this at the link provided. Go there and scroll down to today's entry at 12:31 PM.
We can't have these people in charge. They know that Bush's decision is the proper one, but want to piss all over it, anyway. Ridiculous.
None Too Swift
The Kerrion do not realize it yet, but their man's war record has been dealt some serious blows. Actually, I think they may know it's true, but are not yet ready to confess.
It wouldn't matter but for the fact that Kerry has made his experience in Viet Nam the core of his qualification to be Commander-in-Chief. (Is that not so?) But he has pursued this line because it is what his party expected. They purposefully sought out a candidate whose military experience could be favorably compared to George W. Bush's more modest record. (How else can Wesley Clark's ridiculous bid be understood?) So the party exploited Kerry and Kerry was willing to exploit the party.
Now, the price of Kerry's nomination ---the kickback to the anti-war Dean crowd--- was to reverse himself on the issue of the War for Iraq. It is this that infuriates me more than any lies about his military experience. (These lies are of interest to me only because they damage the credibility of his predicate qualification.) But the absurd and hypocritical positions Kerry has taken on the strategic importance of a Saddam-free Iraq ---clearly contradicting those he had embraced for the past six or seven years--- are what should concern every one now. That is, he has much to explain from his early political career, but the utter stupidity of his position on Iraq now ---with its tortured objections of "processes" not observed and failures to gain "consensus"--- is intolerable. It is only willful ignorance of his rhetorical support ---often eloquent and far-reaching--- for regime change in Iraq because of the dangers posed by Saddam and his weapons of mass murder that will keep the anti-war Left happy with their nominee.
But I cannot forget the most basic guiding principle of the Democratic Party in 2004. It is the only thing that matters ---and it trumps any and all other ideological concerns: Anybody But Bush. We will see again, as we did in the days of Clinton's impeachment, the Democratic Party bury its ethical misgivings and make its bid for the preservation of the power they need. No holds are barred, no prick of conscience remains unblunted.
Another Lying [War Hero]
Did anyone catch that lying sack of commie shit Tom Harkin call the Vice President a coward? I thought it was extreme. But not to worry. Bitches get slapped when they get out of line.
(Bitch-slapping and graphic courtesy of the InstaPundit.)
When it comes to lying about his service, Kerry's whoppers about infiltrating Special Ops guys into Cambodia don't hold a candle to what Harkin said, though. Harkin himself claimed to have battled Mig fighters over North Vietnam while a Navy pilot. He was a pilot, but never went to Vietnam.
How did a political party that last held the White House with a man who admitted he dodged the draft and said he loathed the military, who demonstrated against his own country while living overseas, come to be the party that now trumpets more militarism than any other?
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 1:32 PM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Wednesday, 18 August 2004 1:42 PM CDT
A Lie? No, Just Incompetence
As the helpful bloggers at GOP.com noted:
The John Kerry campaign, in an effort to burnish the nominee's image on intelligence matters and spin their way out of his lousy committee attendance record, claimed on its website Monday, "John Kerry served on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence for 8 years and is the former Vice Chairman of the Committee." Fact is John Kerry has never - ever! - served as vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Turns out, there was a senator named Bob Kerrey from Nebraska who was vice chairman for a while. Kerry's website later pulled the plug on the page, which might be construed as a metaphor for the whole campaign.
It's true. I clicked on the link and all I got told was that I had no rights to visit that page. Sounds suspicious. Like clicking on Joe Wilson's Kerry-funded restorehonesty.com. You get nothing either way.
You know, all Kerry has to do is authorize the intelligence committee to release his attendance records from the executive sessions ---and then we'll know how much of a bum he is on the whole issue of intelligence. As you can see for yourself, Bob Kerrey ---the actual former vice chairman of the SSCI--- had an excellent record of involvement, whereas the Frenchman was probably off somewhere not reading important intelligence reports ---although he's perfectly comfortable accusing others of not doing so, either.
Although I have misgivings about computer-based voting, it wouldn't occur to me to lay a predicate foundation for a charge of malfeasance by Republicans in Florida and elsewhere in this upcoming election. But that is what Paul Krugman has done in his latest outburst of insinuations. He, like the Democratic Party as a whole, is almost wanting there to be another chance at declaring fraud in Florida. That way, they can feel vindicated in the event that they lose the state again. But Tom Bevan at RealClearPolitics has got Krugman's number, demonstrating that all Krugman is doing is
Sowing seeds of fear, doubt and illegitimacy in advance of a possible Bush victory in Florida.
The report is required of the division following every general election as a result of the 2001 elections reform law passed after the contentious 2000 presidential election.
It concluded that the use of both systems helped reduce the error rate from the 2000 election.
"Overall, the percentage of uncounted ballots decreased from 2.93 percent in the 2000 election presidential election to 0.86 in the 2002 gubernatorial election," the report stated, adding that the error for the now-infamous punch-card machines in 2000 was 3.93 percent.
Well, if the Dhimms can't blame touch-screen voting machines, maybe they can go back to such bullshit charges as black disenfranchisement through police checkpoints.
Chris Matthews: Self-Righteous Defender of Flippers
Chris Matthews, who would probably interrupt a dying man's last words, "interviewed" the spokesmen from the Bush and Kerry campaigns last night on Hardball ---and made a very big deal of a supposed distortion made in a Bush campaign web ad of a response he elicited from John Kerry on 6 January 2004. The original exchange went thusly:
MATTHEWS: Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it's been fought...Are you one of the anti-war candidates?
KERRY: I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely.
Matthews' self-righteous objection to Bush's man, Matt Dowd, was that, in the web ad, only the first three words out of Kerry's pie hole were used ---before it cuts away to the very gay-sounding theme song from the 1960s TV show Flipper.
I noticed this, too, when I watched the ad the other night. But if that's all they got, then they got nothing.
Matthews asked Kerry if he was an anti-war candidate ---and Kerry said YES. That is the operative word, comrades: YES. Now, Kerry can leave all of the lawyerly wiggle room in that enunciation he wants and backfill it with "in the sense that" and blah, blah, blah ---but he answered in the affirmative and what he added to it in qualification does not negate what the answer is in its essence.
So what's the consequence? John Kerry voted to authorize the President's use of our military to enforce the UN resolutions and to provide for our defense against Saddamite Iraq. That's the bottom line.
Never mind the fact that the President, as Commander-in-Chief, does not actually require such an authorization except on political grounds. Never mind that Kerry's vote, as he himself knew when he cast it, was not subject to revision or extension, except rhetorically (which he has certainly since demonstrated). And never mind that in the sequel to that vote, Kerry decided against the $87 billion supplemental as a protest. Seems to me that the time to have lodged a protest would have been on the first vote. Of course, at that point, Kerry was not staring down the barrel of Howard Dean's pop-gun.
In the clearest, most damning way possible ---to a nation of TV-watchers and movie-goers--- this video I'm talking about is unanswerable. Kerry hangs himself over and over in a thoroughly documented slew of TV and print appearances that can leave no doubt that his position on Saddam has changed fundamentally in a very short period of time. And it was prompted by his own political opportunism.
Again, I strongly encourage you to go to KerryOnIraq.com and look at the video yourself.
Thomas Lipscomb, writing in The American Spectator, pretty much hammers another nail into Kerry's coffin of lies with his latest essay. Check it out. Not only is the Cambodian story not going away but, if Lipscomb has anything to say about it, neither is the 1971 Viet Nam Veterans Against the War meeting in Kansas City at which there was a secret vote on a proposed assassination of six pro-war United States Senators. Why hasn't more been asked about this story in Big Media? Because they are carrying the guy's water, that's why.
As the story developed, and was widely ignored by the major media, several things emerged that reflected favorably on Kerry's conduct at the meeting. He had argued strongly against the assassinations and prevailed in the final vote. But Kerry still denied the accounts. He stuck to the resignation story as well, even though there was clear evidence in the New York Times and other papers that Kerry had continued as a spokesman for the VVAW, making media and speaking appearances for a year and a half after his supposed resignation.
When FBI files emerged establishing Kerry's presence in Kansas City, the campaign conceded that Kerry somehow must have forgotten his involvement in the plot to assassinate U.S. senators while still on the executive committee of the VVAW. What might have been an unforgettable experience for a man who was now a Senator himself turned out to be just one of those little memory lapses we all have.
See, if John Kerry would just come out and own up to his own bravery in voting down a plan to murder people who disagreed with him and his organization, it would help Americans understand that he really does have some principles. For instance, he would never have murdered William Fulbright. Doesn't he get some points for his self-restraint?
Must've Missed the Segue
I was just watching a story on CNN about how Iran is backing al-Sadr in Iraq and rattling the sabre of its own missile technology. After it ended, instead of going into any sort of analysis or other obviously relevant follow-up, Wolf Blitzer immediately segued into an in-studio interview with the liar Joe Wilson about whether reporters should give up their sources in the so-called Plame Scandal.
What does that have to do with anything?
CNN is full of crap for giving this obvious liar a platform to wonder aloud about the legality and ethics of reporters' rights to protect their sources. Ordinarily, Leftists are big on such protections, but not when they think they have some points to score against Bushitler.
Wilson, who has the Caesarian habit of referring to himself in the third person, is hungry for vindication, but he's the one to blame for exposing his wife to questions about her connections. That's because he took it upon himself to write himself into Big Media's attack on this Administration by blabbing about his CIA-sponsored fact-finding trip to Niger. He wasn't qualified to do the job and Robert Novak wondered why. How did some washed-up former ambassador from the Clinton Administration without any intelligence experience get such an assignment? Was it nepotism? Did he know someone who got him the job? Sure enough, he did. Who would it have been? A natural question that was easily answered. But Wilson lied about it. He denied that his wife was responsible for getting him the assignment.
Remember: Wilson didn't have to say anything about his trip to Niger. But he and Plame are Bush-haters and Wilson wanted to get in on the action by writing a bunch of lies in the New York Times. Was that right? Did he betray his confidences? Sure he did. And it turns out that what he said was false. The recent report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence said so and so did the Butler Inquiry.
No sympathy for you, Joe. You wanted to get your 15 minutes and now you're getting a whole lot more: an international reputation as a liar (at least among those who get their information from places besides Wolf Blitzer and 60 Minutes) and as an incompetent axe-grinder. Nice work. Maybe Jean le Kerry will give you another post once he lies his way into the White House with the help of anti-American shithooks like you.
No Proprietary Atrocities
New York Congressman Peter King has written a great op-ed on how Big Media is ignoring the so-called "9/11 families" who support our President in favor of exploiting a relative handful of loudmouths who think that a war profiteer like Richard Clarke is some sort of hero.
[...] Richard Clarke insinuated himself onto the national scene, becoming the overnight darling of the anti-Bush crowd, as he implied that Mr. Bush was to blame for September 11. Again the media cited the September 11 families who supported Mr. Clarke. All of this coincided with the release of Mr. Clarke's book.
I understand that these Bush-haters who lost family and friends on that awful morning have a right to their grief, as well as their politics. But they are not the owners of 11 September 2001. Not by a damn sight. We have all been changed as a consequence of that moment. So has been our foreign policy. The problem the Bush-hating Left has is that they do not have the fortitude to face the necessity of our new posture in the world. They want to turn back the clock and not face the task at hand, which is the annihilation of Muslim terrorists. But George W. Bush has not let them slink back into the warm beds of their aloof isolationism. That is why they resent him: because he is doing the right thing and they can't abide it. They want a leader who will negotiate and dither and appease. They want John Kerry. Christ save us all if they get him.
Release the Records
Since John Kerry has made his military record the primary qualification for his Presidential candidacy, why doesn't he just release all of his records from his time in Viet Nam? He promised Tim Russert months ago that he would, but his campaign only released some of them and pretended that they had kept the promise. If he released everything, the public would be able to determine for themselves whether his tales of secret excursions into Cambodia are true. And the details surrounding the issue of his medals.
Kerry should also authorize the release of the records of his attendance at the private meetings of the Senate Intelligence Committee. We know that during the time of his membership (1993-2000), he missed three-quarters of all the public meetings of that committee, but he himself has to okay the release of the private attendance records. Why does it matter? Because he has held himself out as someone who is on top of things with regard to Congressional oversight of our government's intelligence services. But we know that neither he nor John Edwards has given anything like the necessary time to intelligence. In fact, Kerry seems to have no clue about the importance of intelligence:
Not long after the first World Trade Center bombing, John Kerry proposed $7.5 billion in across the board intelligence cuts. Kerry's 1994 proposal to cut intelligence by $6 billion was criticized at the time by Democrats including then-Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dennis DeConcini and Sen. Daniel Inouye, who warned Kerry's cut "would severely hamper" intelligence efforts. Kerry's proposal was fortunately defeated by a vote of 20 to 75, with even Sen. Ted Kennedy voting against the measure. In 1995, Kerry proposed a bill to reduce the Intelligence budget by $1.5 billion. This bill had no co-sponsors and never reached the Senate floor for a vote.
The public has a right to know that Kerry preaches one things and practices another.
Posted by Toby Petzold
at 3:03 PM CDT
Post Comment |
Updated: Monday, 16 August 2004 4:03 PM CDT
An Early Birthday Present Mood:
Liz Claman is back on CNBC this morning.