Posted
with the Permission of David Limbaugh
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 Swift Boat Veterans 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 the memory was "seared, seared in me" -- he wasn't in Cambodia, Christmas
1968, at the orders of Richard Nixon, who wasn't yet president.
He's
had to virtually admit that no hostile fire accompanied his first Purple Heart
incident, meaning he didn't deserve that award.
He has personally
attacked President Bush's National Guard Service and V.P. Cheney's "five deferments"
and contrasted it with his volunteering for two 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 our
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 President 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 U.S.
withdrawal from Vietnam.
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 demands that President Bush denounce the Swiftees' truths.
He
insists Iraq isn't part of the War on Terror yet claims that we've lost 1,000
people in the War on Terror.
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
Vice President 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 President 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 Bush gave Kerry these assurances
confidentially based on their close friendship?
He says he
won't delegate our national security to other nations, but never stops complaining,
essentially, about Pres. Bush's failure to delegate our 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
has been ducking the press for over a month 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.
He
has said President Bush isn't being tough on North Korea, when before, Democrats
were mortified at his "reckless" saber rattling against that nation.
Are
you dizzy yet?
©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Read
Limbaugh's biography
* * *
Comments
From Our Visitors
After reading Kerry’s 1971 Senate testimony,
I was wondering why someone like Kerry with his very low opinion of the United
States of America would ever want to be president of said country? He seemed to
have more trust for the Communists than he did for his own nation.
Aaron
* * *
