Without Anesthesia... where the evil Dr. Ugly S. Truth dissects PARTISAN deception and media slant the Old School Way.
Thursday, 29 July 2004
Kerry on Defense - Better qualified to defend the US than anyone? Or a self-promoting liar? Or a war criminal? (part 1 of 2) Mood: incredulous Topic: Kerry's Lies and Spin
In their television commercials, the Johns (Kerry and Edwards) have tried to morph John Kerry into a warrior prince - sort of a
shoddily-embalmed looking, knee-jerk liberal Cincinnatus.In what we can only hope will turn into an
asthmatic Bill Clinton wheeze after a few months of shouting lies, John Edwards
declaims "No man is better qualified to defend the American people than
John Kerry!" in his first TV campaign ads.
Obviously Edwards was chosen because of his insidious sense
of humor, because anyone familiar with Senator Kerry's voting record and his
testimony before a Senate committee after he separated from naval service
should get a good chuckle out of that claim.
John Kerry the disillusioned Vietnam Veteran flung someone
else's medals at the Capitol building to protest the war in Vietnam.Of course, no one explained this to the
onlookers, reporters and press photographers present.If the public knew that Kerry was throwing someone
else's medals away they might not have been as impressed.Great show of character, Senator.
Then Kerry assembled a road show of dysfunctional-looking
men who claimed they had been present during atrocities committed by American
troops in Vietnam or had taken part in those atrocities themselves.
Since these would have been serious violations of the law
which applies to American troops, these atrocity claims were investigated by
the Department of Defense.
Guess what?When
investigators from the military questioned these men about their involvement in
atrocities while in Vietnam, it turned out that no one could testify as to how
and when these atrocities happened.Some of the men who testified weren't even serving where they COULD take
part in atrocities.Some of the men
weren't even Vietnam veterans - some had never served in the Armed Forces at
all.
Why they told these lies is between them and their
photographer (and possibly their drama coach) - John Kerry.These men were apparently persuaded to speak
lies about their service and that of their fellow veterans by someone... and
their road trip was partly orchestrated and publicized by one Lt. John Kerry,
formerly of the U.S. Navy.
Just how many real Vietnam Veterans experienced bigotry,
rudeness and rejection because of John Kerry's work with these people can only
be imagined.The fact remains that John
Kerry helped fake Vietnam Veterans lie about and tarnish the reputations of
REAL Vietnam Veterans.
Kerry himself testified to having committed atrocities
against Vietnamese civilians before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
after leaving the Navy.Now he's awful
coy about exactly what those atrocities might have been, and why he never
served time in jail for having committed them.Conclusion - Kerry either lied about committing the atrocities before
Congress, under oath, or he is a war criminal.
Let's make sure we have this right - John Kerry either
committed perjury before Congress or committed war crimes while serving in
Vietnam.Either way, why isn't he
enjoying Federal hospitality, perhaps at the John Gotti Suite in the Federal
prison at Marion, Illinois?
If Martha Stewart can be convicted of lying to the Feds and
sentenced to five months in jail and a fifty-thousand dollar fine, what's lying
to Congress or having unjustly wounded or killed Vietnamese civilians
worth?Personally, I favor the elegant
solution of deporting Senator Kerry to France, where he, like Jerry Lewis, can
wow the locals with his mastery of the absurd.
Why did John Kerry lie about what he did in Vietnam?If he WASN'T lying, why is an admitted war
criminal walking around free, much less running for President of the United
States?Last time I checked, the
President of the United States could not be a felon, and here's John Kerry, who
swore before a Senate committee to committing war crimes!
Is this the unique experience John Edwards was shouting to
the crowd about?Does
John Kerry's record of deception and possible war crimes qualify him above all
others to defend the American people?Or was it Kerry's admittedly brave but low-echelon
service commanding a river boat in Vietnam?
By contrast, the current Secretary of State was Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff before retiring.How does Kerry's experience in national defense trump Colin
Powell's?Vice President Cheney was
Secretary of Defense.Does Kerry know
more about national defense than Dick Cheney?Very unlikely.Donald Rumsfeld
was Secretary of Defense TWICE - once in the 1970s, and again now - he's
probably forgotten more about national defense than Kerry and Edwards know
between them.
Off hand, I can think of several dozen men and women who are
much more qualified to defend the American people than John Kerry, if only
because they don't lie about what they or other people did under arms,
defending the rest of us.George W.
Bush happens to be one of them.Character
counts, and Kerry has less of it - much less - than Bush.
Next time, I'll discuss what a tight crack all of our butts
would now be in if Senator John Kerry had cast the deciding vote on a number of
crucial decisions during his career - a career where he earned the dubious
distinction of being judged more liberal than his Senate colleague Teddy
Kennedy.
Until then, imagine fighting a modern war without modern
weapons, adequate personnel protection or sufficient speed in moving troops
into battle and you'll understand what John Kerry voted for his entire Senate career
- and luckily for our people in uniform, what he didn't get.
Jimmy Carter's version of "Sixteen Tons" - 'I owe my soul to the Arabian banks.... ' Mood: incredulous Topic: Hypocrites In The NEWS!!!
Why does Jimmy Carter have such a grudge against Israel, our only reliable ally in the Middle East? Because he's a hypocrite and he takes bribe money from the Arabs. He's no more a statesman, a humanitarian or an American patriot than his good friend Kim Jong-Il.
"Carter's Arab financiers By Rachel Ehrenfeld Published December 21, 2006
To understand what feeds former president Jimmy Carter's anti-Israeli frenzy, look at his early links to Arab business.
Between 1976-1977, the Carter family peanut business received a bailout in the form of a $4.6 million, "poorly managed" and highly irregular loan from the National Bank of Georgia (NBG). According to a July 29, 1980 Jack Anderson expose in The Washington Post, the bank's biggest borrower was Mr. Carter, and its chairman at that time was Mr. Carter's confidant, and later his director of the Office of Management and Budget, Bert Lance.
At that time, Mr. Lance's mismanagement of the NBG got him and the bank into trouble. Agha Hasan Abedi, the Pakistani founder of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), known as the bank "which would bribe God," came to Mr. Lance's rescue making him a $100,000-a-year consultant. Abedi then declared: "we would never talk about exploiting his relationship with the president." Next, he introduced Mr. Lance to Saudi billionaire Gaith Pharaon, who fronted for BCCI and the Saudi royal family. In January 1978, Abedi paid off Mr. Lance's $3.5 million debt to the NBG, and Pharaon secretly gained control over the bank.
Mr. Anderson wrote: "Of course, the Saudis remained discretely silent... kept quiet about Carter's irregularities... [and] renegotiated the loan to Carter's advantage."
There is no evidence that the former president received direct payment from the Saudis. But "according to... the bank files, [it] renegotiated the repayment terms... savings... $60,000 for the Carter family... The President owned 62% of the business and therefore was the largest beneficiary."
Pharaon later contributed generously to the former president's library and center.
When Mr. Lance introduced Mr. Carter to Abedi, the latter gave $500,000 to help the former president establish his center at Emory University. Later, Abedi contributed more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects.
Even after BCCI was indicted - and convicted -- for drug money laundering, Mr. Carter accepted $1.5 million from Abedi, his "good friend."
A quick survey of the major contributors to the Carter Center reveals hundreds of millions of dollars from Saudi and Gulf contributors. But it was BCCI that helped Mr. Carter established his center.
BCCI's origins were primarily ideological. Abedi wanted the bank to reflect the supra-national Muslim credo and "the best bridge to help the world of Islam, and the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists."
Shortly after assuming office, in March 1977, Mr. Carter made his first public statement regarding a Palestinian "homeland." Since then, he has devoted much of his time to denouncing Israel's self-defense against Palestinian terrorism, which he claims is not only "abominable oppression and persecution" of the Palestinians, but also damages U.S. interests in the region.
By the time BCCI was shut down in July1991, it operated in 73 countries with a deficit of $12 billion, which it had managed to hide with wealthy Arab shareholders and Western luminaries. Among them Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahayan of Abu Dhabi, who gave hundreds of millions of dollars to Yasser Arafat and Palestinian terrorist groups, and who branded the United States: "our enemy number one"; Former head of Saudi foreign intelligence service, and King Faisal's brother-in-law, Kamal Adham - who with another Saudi, the banker of the royal family, Khaled bin Mahfouz, staged BCCI's attempt to illegally purchase the Washington-based First American bank, in the early 1980s.
True to its agenda, BCCI assisted in spreading and strengthening the Islamic message; they enabled Pakistan's nuclear ambitions, and helped the Palestinian leadership to amass a $10 billion-plus fortune, used to further terrorist activities and to buy more influence in the West.
BCCI founders also supported the Islamic fundamentalist opposition to the Shah of Iran, and saw it as an opportunity to undermine Western influence in the Gulf. They assisted the revolution financially, reinforcing their position within the leadership of the Iranian revolution. Ironically, the success of that revolution cost Mr. Carter his presidency.
BCCI's money also facilitated the Saudi agenda to force Israel to recognize Palestinians "rights," convincing Egyptian president Anwar Sadat to sign the Camp David Accords in September 1978. Since then, Mr. Carter repeatedly provided legitimacy to Arafat's corrupt regime, and now, like the Saudis, he even sides with homicidal Hamas as the "legitimate" representative of the Palestinian people.
In a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Carter again laid responsibility for U.S. bias against the destitute, depressed and (consequently) violent Palestinians on American policy makers' helplessness, over the last 30 years, against the menacing tactics of the powerful American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC).
However, it seems that AIPAC's real fault was its failure to outdo the Saudi's purchases of the former president's loyalty. "There has not been any nation in the world that has been more cooperative than Saudi Arabia," the New York Times quoted Mr. Carter June 1977, thus making the Saudis a major factor in U. S. foreign policy.
Evidently, the millions in Arab petrodollars feeding Mr. Carter's global endeavors, often in conflict with U.S. government policies, also ensure his loyalty.
Rachel Ehrenfeld is the director of the American Center for Democracy."
Where are the episodes of Frontline,60 Minutes, Chris Matthews' Hardball, 20/20, and Now (with or without Bill Moyers) dealing with what looks as though it has been a systematic and very, very effective buyout of an American president - and afterwards, purchase of someone who has been falsely regarded as a beacon of probity and conscience, and who we trusted to negotiate an end to North Korea's nuclear program (did they pay him off, too, or was that simply another favor to the Saudis... )?
Where is the probing, hard-hitting investigative journalism from the (raucous laugh) "mainstream media" when we need it? What could be more news-worthy than a pattern of big-money corruption involving a former President who presumes to represent the US overseas to this day?
incredulous
