Bill O’Reilly just told James Carville, tonight, that if John Kerry would just apologize to Vietnam vets all this Swift Boat stuff would just go away.

That statement clearly demonstrates the O’Reilly never has had a grasp of the problem that Vietnam veterans have with John Kerry and still does not. O’Reilly is in over his head on this issue but refuses to admit it. He claims he’s been fair to all sides but I was watching the night he dismissed the Swiftees as smear artists.

We need to let O’Reilly know what value we place on a meaningless apology from a serial liar. Please contact Bill at:

OReilly@FoxNews.com

and let him know what veterans think about his opinion that our thirty years of anger can be assuaged with more lying words from a turncoat traitor. Go Troops!

Airborne and God bless America.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

Don't get me started on that idjit O'Reilly. He believes that no WMDs have been found in Iraq!

US President George W. Bush will defeat his Democratic rival, John Kerry in the November 2 election because he is leading in the polls in the key US swing states...
Full Story

Kerry's Latest waffles pointed out by the President

Excerpted from President Bush's Remarks at "ask President Bush" Event
The Sportszone - Derry, New Hampshire
September 20, 2004

...

Saddam Hussein ignored the demands of the free world. This wasn't the first resolution he ignored. I think it was 17 resolutions -- 17 times the free world spoke. He wasn't paying attention, because he was hoping we would look the other direction, because he was hoping we would forget. As a matter of fact, it is documented that he systematically deceived the inspectors the United Nations sent in. Diplomacy wasn't working. The world had given Saddam Hussein a chance, a last chance to listen to the demands of the free world. And he made the decision -- and so did I. I had to either trust a madman, or forget the lessons of September 11th, or take the touch decision to defend our country. Given that choice, I will defend America every time. (Applause.)

Thank you all. Today, my opponent continued his pattern of twisting in the wind, with new contradictions of his old positions on Iraq. He apparently woke up this morning and has now decided, no, we should not have invaded Iraq, after just last month saying he still would have voted for force, even knowing everything we know today. Incredibly, he now believes our national security would be stronger with Saddam Hussein in power, not in prison.

AUDIENCE: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: Today he said, "We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure." He's saying he prefers the stability of a dictatorship to the hope and security of democracy. I couldn't disagree more. And not so long ago, so did my opponent. (Laughter and applause.) Last December, he said this: "Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe we are not safer with his capture don't have the judgment to be President or the credibility to be elected President." (Applause.) I could not have said it better. (Applause.)

He also changed his mind and decided that our efforts in Iraq are now a distraction from the war on terror, when he earlier acknowledged that confronting Saddam Hussein was critical to the war on terror. And he's criticizing our reconstruction efforts, when he voted against the money to pay for the reconstruction.

Forty-three days before the election, my opponent has now suddenly settled on a proposal for what to do next, and it's exactly what we're currently doing. (Applause.) We're working with the international partners, we're training Iraqi troops, we're reconstructing the -- reconstructing the company, (sic) we're preparing for elections. They're going to have elections in January. (Applause.)

Our work in Iraq is hard work. There are people there who want to stop the march to democracy, that's what they're trying to do. They want us to leave. They want us to quit. Our work in Iraq is absolutely essential -- Iraq -- essential for our country's security. For our children and grandchildren to grow up in a safer world, we must defeat the terrorists and the insurgents, and complete our mission in rebuilding Iraq as a stable democracy. (Applause.)

I'm going to New York after this, and in the next couple of days I'll be meeting with Prime Minister Allawi, the Prime Minister of Iraq. (Applause.) He is a strong and determined leader. He understands the stakes in this battle. I hope the American people will listen carefully to his assessment of the situation in his country. We must show resolve and determination. Mixed signals are the wrong signals to send to the enemy. Mixed signals are the wrong signals to send to the people in Iraq. Mixed signals are the wrong signals to send to our allies. And mixed signals are the wrong signals to send to our troops in combat. (Applause.)

A couple of other points I want to make. Any time we put our troops into harm's way, they need to have the full support of the United States government, the full support. (Applause.) And that's why I went -- and went to the Congress, and said, we need $87 billion of money to support our troops in harm's way. These were for troops in Afghanistan and in Iraq. And I was pleased to get strong support. Bass and Bradley, they were strong in their support. Sununu and Gregg were strong on that support. (Applause.)

The support was so strong, that only 12 members of the Senate voted against it, two of whom were my opponent and his running mate. When you're out gathering the vote, when you're out there gathering the vote, remind people of this fact: Four people in the United States Senate voted to authorize the use of force and did not vote to fund our troops -- two of whom were my opponent and his running mate.

So they asked my opponent, why, why did you make that vote? He said, I voted for the $87 billion, right before I voted against it. That's not the way people talk here in New Hampshire. He went on, and said, well, he said he's proud of the vote, and finally he said, it's a complicated matter. There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat. (Applause.)

Let me tell you what else I believe -- I'm kind of winding down here, getting ready for questions. Let me tell you what else I believe. I believe that liberty can transform nations from places of hopelessness to hope, from places of darkness to light. We're seeing that in Afghanistan today. Ten million people registering to vote is a phenomenal statistic. It is such a hopeful number, isn't it? In spite of the fact that the Taliban were pulling women off buses and killing them because they were trying to register to vote. People want to be free.

I believe liberty can transform enemies into friends, because I've seen it firsthand when I've talked with Prime Minister Koizumi of Japan. I want you to think about this, now, as you're contemplating the historic opportunity we have in the world today. It wasn't all that long ago in the march of history that we were fighting the Japanese as the sworn enemy, sworn enemy. My dad, your dads and granddads were fighting the Japanese. Yet after World War II, Harry Truman, Harry S. Truman believed that we should work to help Japan become a democracy. He believed that liberty could transform societies. There was a lot of skeptics then, a lot of people who doubted whether or not the hard work that went into that -- to changing Japan was worth it. You can understand that. First of all, there are skeptics in every society. And secondly, a lot of people in this country's (sic) lives had been turned upside down as a result of the war we had just fought, and they had trouble realizing that an enemy could become a friend.

But there were some people in this country who just refused to yield to the value that we know, that liberty is a powerful, powerful part of everybody's soul. And today I sit down at the table with Prime Minister Koizumi -- I'm going to be doing so here in the next couple of days in New York, too --as a personal friend, but we're talking about keeping the peace. We're talking about how to make this world a more peaceful place. We're talking about the peace that we all long for. Think about that. Here I am talking to the head of a former enemy, working together to make the world a better place.

And that not only means helping Iraq get up on its feet, that means feeding the hungry. Do you realize, our country feeds more empty -- empty stomachs than any country in the world, by far? That means -- (applause) -- that means helping those poor souls on the continent of Africa deal with HIV/AIDS. We're, by far, the most generous nation when it comes to helping people ravished by the pandemic of AIDS. We're working with people together to make this world a better place. (Applause.)

Someday -- we will succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan by being firm in our beliefs, unyielding to the demands of those who want us to quit, those terrorists who are trying to kill people to get us to leave. That's what they're trying to do. We'll be successful. Everybody longs to be free. And when we are, we'll be able to look back and say, the world is better off. Someday, an American President and an Iraqi leader are going to sit down, talking about keeping the peace, talking about how to make a part of the world that is so desperate for freedom become a more peaceful place. And our grandchildren and our grandchildren's children will be better off for it. (Applause.)

I'll tell you what -- (applause) -- not yet, not yet. The stakes are high. These are historic times. I clearly see where I want to lead this country. I know what we've got to do the next four years to make this country a safer place and the world a more hopeful place. And I appreciate you giving me a chance to come and explain why I'm running again.

Now, let me answer some of your questions, and then -- yes, sir?

Sep 20, 2004
From the New Yorker:

Despite her linguistic prowess and her worldliness, Heinz Kerry has, at times, a deaf ear for the nuances of slang, code, condescension, and vulgarity in English—for the emotion of the language. “There are these bizarre moments that make you shudder,” the Kerry adviser said. “Like calling herself African-American to black audiences.” She dismissed voters skeptical of her husband’s health-care proposals as “idiots,” and, in a television interview with a Pittsburgh anchorwoman, employed the word “scumbags” to describe some of her detractors.

Sep 16, 2004 - AP

Teresa Heinz Kerry makes no apologies for speaking her mind on the presidential campaign trail.

"Someone who's 65 like me being called 'opinionated' because I take a stand and have an opinion? Give me a break!" Heinz Kerry told about 60 mostly black political, community, and business leaders at a library in the city's blighted Homewood neighborhood on Thursday.

...

During the trip, she's fought off a stomach ailment to march in Labor Day parades in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, and drew headlines by saying "only an idiot" wouldn't support her husband's health-care plan.

E*D Flashback - August 3rd 2004 - THK said:

"They want four more years of hell," she said of the Bush supporters who could be heard chanting "Four more years! Four more years!"

E*D Flashback - July 26, 2004 -

Heinz Kerry attended a Massachusetts Statehouse reception Sunday night for fellow Pennsylvanians, telling them, "We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics." She criticized the tenor of modern political campaigns without being specific.

Minutes later, the Tribune-Review's Colin McNickle questioned Heinz Kerry on what she meant by the term "un-American," according to a tape of the encounter recorded by Pittsburgh television station WTAE.

Heinz Kerry said "I didn't say that" several times to McNickle. She then turned to confer with Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell and others. When she faced McNickle again a short time later, he continued to question her, and she replied: "You said something I didn't say. Now shove it."

UPDATE!
It turns out the New Yorker was wrong. Heinz Kerry was quoted entirely out of context and was instead referring to public servants... I'm not sure if that makes things better or worse for Heinz. Here is the quote:

"I believe there is a nobility in public service. I believe every citizen can be a public servant. And should be," said Heinz Kerry.

Sally Wiggin asked, "Do you think some of the nobility has gone out of public service?"

Heinz Kerry said, "Oh, there is a lot of scumbags everywhere. Not just in politics. In everything. There are a lot of immoral people everywhere.

Clearly the New Yorker misled readers of that article. In a way, calling our public servants - the police, our firemen, our judges and district attys, and virtually any city employee - calling these people scumbags is far worse than calling her critics scumbags; however, it seems she wasn't really talking about all of them, and who can argue that there aren't a few bad apples here and there? So take from this what you will...

It takes a certain kind of person to support John Kerry...



Originally posted 10:12PM, Sep 16 2004

Update: Rather than addressing the behavior of the Union Thug who attacked a little girl, the libs try to shift the focus/change the subject/attack the source. I suppose we wouldn't be bringing physical attacks on ourselves if we would just assimilate to their viewpoint, right?

Update: The left spin finds it's way into an ALMOST balanced article.

Update: An official appology. <- Hat Tip Danette

Update: In the note the President wrote, "Thank you for supporting my campaign. I understand someone tore up your sign. So I am sending you a new sign and a signed picture. Please give my best to your family." The note on the photo read, "To Sophia, Best wishes from me and Barney." Source.

The Road Less Graveled
(A down home message for Dan Rather in the colorful Texas idiom he so loves)

Y’all know what we all been thinkin’ out here in Texas, Dan, since you started all this foolishness? We think y’all been pissin’ down our necks an’ tellin’ us it’s rain for so long that you boys done got to believin’ it yourselves. Heck, we think maybe you been back East so long you got yourself thinkin’ us folks out here couldn’t hit sand if we fell off our horses; couldn’t hit water if we fell outta the boat. Danged if you ain’t been treatin’ us like you think we got squirrels swimmin’ in our gene pools or sumthin.’ You need to remind yourself that a tree don’t ever get too big for a short dog to lift his leg on, Dan.

Bout them documents bein’ genuine; well, hells-bells, Danny Boy, Grannie’s glasses are so thick, when she looks at a bare wall she see’s folks wavin’ at her, an’ even she can tell them memos are bout as phony as hips on a rattlesnake. We’re startin’ to think your brain done got harder than a woodpecker’s lips if you can’t see that. As far as that story bout George an’ his National Guard duty, looks to us like you’re tryin’ to put wheels on a cow an’ call it a dairy truck. Then you go pokin’ up her butt hopin’ you’re gonna find ice cream. Besides, ever time you durn fools put that picture of young George in his flyboy outfit on the TeeVee, ol’ Jane Fonda loses another herd of her Vagina Voters. Hell, Charlene says that sweet boy’s purtier than my new tangerine metalflake bass boat.

Well, Danny, you still ain’t lost all your redneck habits; you boys took one pickup load to the dump an’ come back with two. Dadgummit, Dan, where you gittin’ all this stuff? You been callin’ some kinda mystery numbers that ol’ boy, whatsisname, Kenneth, is bringin’ you offa bathroom walls at truck stops? Somethin’ you oughta be worryin’ about, Danny Boy: you know how the boys say when you go on a hunt always make sure to save a round for your huntin’ guide? Like if he don’t find nuthin’ else for you to shoot? You suppose any a them rich, fancy-shmancy, New York dudes you work for ever been on a hunt and heard that, Dan, hmmm?

You know how you always been fond a sayin’ you feel like a long tailed cat in a room full a rockin’ chairs? Well, seems to us like you’re startin’ to look more like the ground floor tenant in a two-story outhouse. Yeah, for sure you ain’t lookin’ like the tallest hog at the trough no more. Why, we bet you got yourself wired so tight right now that if we stuck a chunk a coal up your butt it’d come out a diamond in about five minutes. Last time we seen you on TeeVee your smile looked like Charlene’s little ol’ chihuahua dog that time he bit down on one a them ol’ yeller-jacket wasps; you know, kinda like that look a feller gets when he squats with his spurs on.

An’ about your boss, that city slicker fella, Johnnie Klein, the one said somethin’ bout all us sittin’ out here in our long johns? Well we’re gonna give him some advice so good he can take it out back an’ bury it in a Mason jar. You see, the fact is, Danny Boy, now that all us earthworms is gittin’ guns, you big birds is gonna have to be more careful bout where you’re peckin.’ Somebody needs to tell that dude, Klein, that his cage may still be turnin’ but his squirrel’s done died. Course, maybe the boy can’t help hisself; it might run in the family, you know, generic. We heard tell when he was born his ol’ momma carried the little feller around upside down for a whole year wonderin’ why he only had one eye.

Yeah them ol’ boys up there at Power Line done gone an’ slapped you dudes nekkid an’ hid your clothes. Them blogger cats watched you fellers jump in that ol’ litter box an’ they just flat covered you up, quicker ‘n slicker than WD 40 on a doorknob. Yeah you boys done gone skinny dippin’ in a pond full a snappin’ turtles. Looks like them broadcastin’ geniuses at CBS done let them yeller-dog Democrats talk you inta sellin’ your mule so you could buy a plow. When you crawled into the sack with little Miss McCauliffe you done got yourself a real ugly bed partner there, Dan, like a real three-bagger, I mean. You know the drill: one bag over her head, one over yours and one over the dog’s so’s at least he’ll have some respect for you come mornin.’

Before all y’all up there at CBS go tryin’ to saddle up another hog for a quarter horse race, you need to think about this: us ol’ boys out here know a keyboard ain’t where you hang the pickup keys and a byte ain’t what Bubba’s pit bull did to Cousin Billy; we know modem ain’t what we did when the weeds got up to the porch and digital ain’t countin’ on our fingers, least not any more. Yeah, we done got ourselves a dog in this fight, a bloggin’ pit bull, Dan Boy, an’ he’s justa slobberin’ for another big ol’ bite of Liberal blubber butt. Didn’t your ol’ daddy ever tell you that you ain’t never gonna be the brightest bulb on the tree if you go huntin’ bobcats with a BB gun?

But cheer up, Dan, maybe one a these days all you pointy-headed, liberal, media fellers will see the light. Course, seein’s where y’all seem to be keepin’ them pointy heads, it’ll prob’ly be one a them there things the doctors use.

Whatcha call ‘em, proctoscopes?


Russ Vaughn
A Texan

P.S. Charlene says to yell you don’t even think about comin’ back to Texas. Way folks out here feel, you’d have to tie a pork chop around your neck just to get a dog to play with you. Well, and maybe Mollie Ivins.

Here is who you talk to...

Hat Tip: Russ

President Bush's Remarks at Victory 2004 Luncheon
September 17, 2004
Grand Hyatt Washington
Washington, D.C

America and the world are safer. This progress involves careful diplomacy, clear moral purpose and some tough decisions. And the toughest came on Iraq. I knew Saddam Hussein's record of aggression and his ties to terror. When people say, what ties to terror, remind them about Abu Nidal, the killer of Leon Klinghoffer, and his organization. Or Zarqawi. He's the person who beheads people, trying to shake our conscience and shake our will. He was in and out of Baghdad, as were some of his cohorts. Or the fact that Saddam Hussein paid the families of suicide bombers. He had a history of using weapons of mass destruction. It's important for the President and the country to always remember one of the lessons of September the 11th is that we must take threats seriously before they fully materialize. (Applause.)

My administration saw a threat in Saddam Hussein. I went to the Congress; they looked at the same intelligence I looked at, remembered the same history I remembered, came to the same conclusion we came to -- Saddam Hussein was a threat. And members of Congress authorized the use of force. My opponent looked at very same intelligence I looked at, and having looked at it, concluded that Saddam Hussein was a threat, and voted "yes" when it came time to authorize the use of force.

Before the Commander-in-Chief commits the troops into harm's way, he must try all options before the military. I was hoping diplomacy would work, so I went to the United Nations. And the United Nations looked at the same intelligence we did and remembered the same history we remembered, and concluded, with a 15-to-nothing vote in the U.N. Security Council, that Saddam Hussein must disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. I believe when international bodies speak, they must mean what they say. I believe when the President speaks, he must mean what he says.


...

We got a great military. I'm proud to be the Commander-in-Chief of a fantastic military. It's been my honor to have met many who wear the nation's uniform. These are extraordinary citizens of great courage and great decency, and they deserve the full support of the federal government. That's why, last September, I went to the Congress and asked for supplemental funding of $87 billion to support our troops in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan. And this was an important request. It was for ammunition, spare parts, body armor. It was for fuel, hazard pay, health benefits. This was an important piece of legislation -- so important, support was overwhelming in the United States Congress. So strong that only 12 members of the Senate voted against it -- two of whom were my opponent and his running mate. (Applause.) Do you realize this? Do you realize that four members of the Senate voted to authorize the use of force, and then voted against funding the troops? Only four of 100 -- two of whom were my opponent and his running mate.

So they asked him why, and he said, I actually did vote for the $87 billion -- right before he voted against it. (Laughter.) And he said he was proud of the vote. And finally he just said, it's just a complicated matter. (Laughter.) There's nothing complicated about supporting our troops in harm's way. (Applause.)

A President must be clear and a President must mean what he says. During the course of this campaign, my opponent has, I think seven, or maybe eight different positions on the war in Iraq. He was for it, but didn't fund the troops. Then he became the anti-war candidate. Then I think it was at the edge of the Grand Canyon that he said, well, knowing everything we know today he still would have voted for it. Then he said we're spending too much money, and he was on a national talk show earlier that said, we weren't spending enough money. And then he did a radio interview two days ago to try to clear it all up. (Laughter.) And here's what he said: There were no circumstances -- none -- under which we should have gone to war, although his own vote to go to war is the right one and it was right to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. (Laughter.)

Even the radio talk show guy said, I can't tell you what he said. (Laughter.)

Mixed signals are the wrong signals to send our troops in the field, to the Iraqi people, to our allies, and most of all, to our enemy. (Applause.)

I love this part of the President's speeches. He continually updates and fine tunes the speech to represent Kerry's many waffles on the Iraq issue. I truly cannot wait until Kerry is made to answer for his flip flopping (hopefully) in the debates. I think Bush is going to mop the floor with Kerry on Iraq.

If you would like to read the rest of this speech, or any of the President's other remarks, transcripts can be found at whitehouse.gov.

Ken, this is powerful. This old cavalry trooper is saying what a lot of us feel bout the Swift Vets and he's right on target about the mainstream media. Those stupid elitist bastards just don't understand how they just ad to our anger every time they denigrate the Swiftees while they try to prop up that traitor's rapidly deteriorating campaign.

Russ

This is an official communication from Thomas C. Wyld, Communications Coordinator, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. If you wish to opt-out of future email communiques, please read the intructions at the close of this letter.

Ladies and Gents:

The following message was sent to SwiftVet Dr. Louis Letson from a friend of his. Doc thought everyone would benefit from reading it, so I thought I'd share it with you. Fair warning, though. It is as powerful as it is heartfelt.

With best wishes,

Tom

- - - - -
September 15, 2004

Dear Lou,

Keep the faith, Lou. You have some pretty big names supporting you, and you also have most of the 2.5 million Vietnam Vets behind you as well. It is these same media personalities (and outlets) that created the lies and stereotypes that have become the image of the Vietnam veteran. Those of us who served know they are lies, but until now we had no credible voice to speak our anger. In the 60's and early 70's there was no internet, no FOX News, no Swiftboat Veterans for Truth. All the country had was ABC, NBC and CBS, along with the NY Times and the Washington Post, all of whom lied aboutus.

You and the Swifties have given us a voice, and we are grateful beyond words. Lou, ou know that I lost my closest brother in Quang Ngai Province in September 1966. He was a Marine Staff Sergeant who died DEFENDING a village with a squad of Marines. Yes, defending the village, not burning it or killing and raping the villagers. His story was told in a book, "The Village," by F. J. West. He was 25 years old and left a wife and two children.

Multiply his story by 58,000, and you have 58,000 families who have been quietly seething for 30 years over the lies and negative stereotypes that were created by the likes of John Kerry, Fonda, Ramsay Clark, and the (then) national media. They still don't get it. They still don't understand that even after all this time we are as angry as ever, because those lies cut very deep and the wounds never healed.

If John Kerry hasn't done anything else, his posturing and chest pounding about his Vietnam War heroics have finally brought about the forum for us, the men who served our nation when asked in Vietnam, to be heard. It is you, the Swift Boat Veterans, who are representing us in this fight for our history and our dignity. All I can say, as one who served in the jungles of III and IV Corps as an infantryman in the First Cavalry Division, and as a brother who lost a brother and more friends than I want to count, is thank you for taking on this fight for us. Thank you and I salute you all.

I would be honored if you would share my thoughts, and support, with the brave men who have stepped forward, at great risk, to speak the truth about Vietnam Veterans. If I had been on a swift boat in Vietnam, I would be right there with you. I did my time carrying a ruck sack and an M-16, and to this day I am proud of what I did over there, and I am proud of what my brother did when he gave his life defending that village 28 years ago today.

Yes, by coincidence, today is the 28th anniversary of his death in a little village in I-Corps. People who wonder why, after 30 plus years we are still angry about the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and their proponents, just don't get it.

Mike Sullivan
Knoxville, Tennessee
D/1/7 Cav
1st Cavalry Division, Vietnam

I must not be reading enough of the news...

Zell Miller responds to critics:

My critics in the national media are working overtime trying to paint me as an angry nut who got the facts all wrong in my speech to the Republican National Convention. Since there's not enough time to challenge all of these critics to a duel, let me set the record straight here and now.

The Record, set straight.

Via pawigo view

Do you know what I would rather think?
I’d rather think that Dan will blink.
Unable to defend his blather,
From pajama’d fiends that round him gather,
With keyboards blazing out their scorn,
As this great Samson’s locks are shorn.
This first Sequoia, hacked into logs,
Won’t be the last felled by the Blogs.

Dan’s faux reports were belied by the science
Deployed by our robed and unshaved alliance.
We rendered them fakes by letter and line,
This Pajama Brigade, so up yours, Mr. Klein!
Ol’ Dan must admit he’s been outcomputer’d,
Taken to the Vets and journalistically neutered.
One question remains that indeed does perplex us
Must we take him back, out here in Texas?

Russ Vaughn
Texas Hill Country

I think it would be fun if visitors to E*D took part in a caption contest.

Every once in a while, I scour the AP election photos looking for photos of Kerry which I deem funny. Below are three such pictures. To take part in the caption contest, all you need to do is leave a clever caption in the comments section. I'll pick my favorite, and at the end of the week I will give out a GMail invitation to the winner of each contest.

Ok, on to the pictures...

Picture 1

Picture 2

Picture 3

These companies advertised on 60 Minutes last Sunday. Let them know how you feel about that network interfering in the American electoral process.

Nissan
nissan-ir@mail.nissan.co.jp
1-800-647-7261

Pfizer
ccfeedback@pfizer.com
1-800-733-9393

Aventis
aventis-ir@aventis.com
1-800-221-4025

Campbell's
Campbells Soup
1-800-257-8443

KIA
1-800-333-4542

Sprint
nicholas.sweers@mail.sprint.com
1-913-624-3000

Aflac
http://www.aflac.com/about_us/media_center_contact.asp
1-800-992-3522

Citi
investorrelations@citi.com
1-800-285-3000

Ameriquest
https://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/contact.html
1-800-523-3964

Splenda
http://www.splenda.com/vcrc/emailform.jhtml
1-800-7-SPLENDA

SBC
drucilla.cessac@sbc.com
1-210-821-4105

Ford
https://www.ford.com/en/company/onvestorInformation/shareholderQuestions.htm
1-800-392-3673

American Express
ronald.stovall@axp.com
1-800-525-3355

Tell these companies what you think about Dan Rather, 60 Minutes and CBS.

Submitted by Russ Vaughn

By now, 99% of people who visit blogs know all about the 60 Minutes story and how it was nothing more than a trumped up partisan attack based on forged documents that have ended up doing little more than dragging whatever shred of dignity, credibility, and reliability Dan Blather and his awfully biased 60 Minutes had through the mud.

The very best synopsis on why the documents are fakes can be found here.

Update: Correction, the best site for this is LGF. It was close, though, but LGF PROVED the documents were fakes.

I make it a point to NEVER watch 60 minutes; however, my elderly grandfather takes Dan Blather's poisoned diatribes as the word of God.


I happened to be in the room with my Grandfather when I heard Blather start into his attack on the President, so I picked up the story (weird how I have seen exactly 10 minutes of CBS news in the past month, and those 10 minutes happened be the most scandalous in recent memory.)

I wanted to blog about the story but I have been pretty busy lately. With what little time I could sign online I spent most of it reading the news... Besides, Rush pretty much destroyed the story on his radio show and website so I figured I wouldn't have any sort of chance at a scoop and would basically be talking about a story that had been covered better elsewhere.

I've had a few emails about the story, and people updating me with what is going on with the story, which I really do appreciate; however, I'd already read most of the stories over on Drudge.

What strikes me about this story is that it is entirely irrelevant, and I say this with the knowledge that libs will see me as saying this based entirely on my pro-Bush stance. First of all, Bush never made his service in the National Guard an issue. He didn't make this the centerpiece for his campaign. Most importantly, Bush has 4 years of service as the Commander in Chief of the entire Executive Branch of the US Government. These four years are as recent as they can come. If we are going to look at Bush's track record of service to his country, we ought to look at the most important factor for an incumbent President; how he ran the country in the past 4 years. Since The War on Terrorism and National Security seem to be the most important issues to voters, we should note that Bush's approval ratings on these issues is VERY high. Bush's doctrine of preemption has proven itself a valuable tool in preventing acts of terror AND has led to the liberation of millions of highly oppressed people. The easiest way to stamp out fundamentalism is to introduce liberty and freedom to the Middle East, and President Bush has done just that.

The timing of this release is interesting. Bush, the Chief Executive Officer of the US gave the order that ALL, no some, ALL of his records be released. He did this months ago. It is suspicious that any documents would later emerge as if out of thin air. It is awfully convenient that these documents would emerge within days after the Republican National Convention, during the so called "bounce" period.

It should be noted that Kerry STILL has refused to release all of his documents.
CBS's "Proof" that Bush Lied

Documents damning Bush suddenly appear that apparently weren't around when Bush called for all of his records to be released, right after he starts a climbing in the polls.... hmmm... The guy who supposedly wrote the documents is, conveniently for CBS, unable to refute the authenticity of the documents... hmmm... The guy who supposedly wrote the documents was retired at the time he supposedly wrote the document... hmmm... The alleged author's family says he genuinely liked Bush and his father... hmmm...

Even in spite of all the evidence that suggests the documents were fake, CBS chose to allow Dan Blather to call the president a liar in front of the entire world. CBS may as well be a 527... And their advertisers are nothing more than contributors to the Anti-Bush, Pro-Kerry 527 that is CBS.

Let's, for sake of argument, say that the documents were fake and that CBS either suspected this or knew for certain that the documents were no good. Would CBS go forward anyway? Lets look at the pros and cons.

PRO: There is evidence to suggest that the far left (AKA liberals; AKA moonbats) do not care for facts. The allegation is enough for them because they hate Bush and believe far worse things about him without need for any factual base for such beliefs.


So, maybe 30% of the country will buy the story even if it is proven to be false... Even if CBS retracts the story they will still believe it to be true. So liberal indifference to facts/the truth is a PRO for CBS news.

CON: A potential CON would be that CBS risks its credibility as a trustworthy news source; but, once again, millions of Americans don't care for the truth anyway as long as they hear what they agree with/want to hear, so CBS would only lose credibility among moderates and conservatives; BUT, conservatives have known that CBS is extremely biased and that Dan Blather serves little use beyond a DNC Talkingpoints Zombie. Besides, Conservatives have been tuning into Fox News instead of CBS, so what appears to be a CON might not actually have that much negative impact.

PRO: A definite pro is that you cannot un-ring a bell. Even if the story is eventually retracted or proven wrong, only people who keep a close tab on the news will know this. Most Americans can't even tell you who the Vice President is, but they might remember that there were questions about Bush's service record during Vietnam, which leads to another pro...

PRO: By renewing attacks on Bush's service record, particularly with a BS trumped up story, the entire attention of the blogosphere, talk radio, and other news sources is shifted away from, oh I don't know... The SWIFT VETS!!!

PRO: By making a knowingly false attack on your opponent, you cheapen their same attack on you. The casual observer, unable to sort out all the allegations, facts, and details, will just say, "so what! One side says one thing, the other side says the same thing about the other side, so it must just be partisan attacks without real substance."

Kerry's service record was under major attack, Kerry has been proven to have lied at LEAST about Cambodia and attention was beginning to be paid to his Anti-War activities after he returned from Vietnam, but suddenly there is a scandalous story, most likely based on fraudulent documents, making a similar claim about Bush having lied about his service record... This completely deflates the impact of the swiftvets because suddenly they are old news, there is a far juicier story out there, and the blatantly false attacks on Bush make the casual observer question the validity of similar attacks on Kerry. This is a HUGE pro. for the libs.

PRO: There have been claims that some of the polls showing Bush with a double digit bounce after the RNC were weighted polls, purposely giving Bush an edge so that when real, accurate polls show a smaller bounce, it appears as if Bush has started to drop (making good news for Bush seem like a negative because thought he is still ahead, his lead dropped in half). Throw in the barrage of attacks against Bush, from Kitty Kelley's new book to this CBS smear story, and suddenly we can attribute the "drop" in Bush's numbers to the "startling revelations" about the "truth" of Bush's National Guard Service. This works out to be another Pro for CBS... If they know the polls were weighted in order to make Bush's lead appear to get smaller, then even a false attack could give the perception that Bush is in a freefall; which would influence some voters into thinking Bush is a sinking ship.

So is CBS going to lose viewers over this? Probably not, the conservatives stopped watching CBS, opting instead for FOX, the casual observer is not likely to follow the story in any great detail, and the left will believe it even if they know it to be false... How else do you explain the success of Left Wing Nutjobs like Michael Moore and Al Franken.

Possible PRO: CBS and 60 Minutes might actually get higher ratings because of the scandal. People will be tuning in to watch what they have to say next about this story. Even if they are hurt in the long run in the credibility department, they might see additional revenues in the short term. Every mention of CBS and 60 minutes is free publicity, so even in a negative context, this could work out as a PRO... CBS just has to weather a storm, but they might even come out on top.

So, do I think that the documents are fake? Yes, thanks in large part to LGF pointing this out. Do I think CBS would report a false story to hurt Bush? Well, what do they have to lose? I see a whole lot of PROs and very little CONs... unless I am missing something or my analysis is off.

*Note* This post is a bit unpolished in terms of grammar, spelling, etc. I was pretty tired when I wrote it, but I wanted to finally have something to say about it, so it is up. I will periodically fix errs as I find them.

Duane, over at The Forest For The Trees, emailed me with a splendid idea.

Hey Key,

I've started a highly suspect, fairly improper but otherwise fun
"Click To Kick Kerry Campaign" on my blog.

The basic idea is that I'm tired of Kerry ads popping up on my google
AdSense banner so I'm encouraging everyone to click on every Kerry ad
they see on any blog. This will hopefully generate some cash for the
anti-kerry bloggers and will also cause Kerry to spend money on his
adsense ads, money he would otherwise spend on forging TANG memos or
for botox treatments.

If you think it's a good idea pass it on. If you think it's the
dumbest thing you've ever heard that's fine too!

Here is what he suggests:

I recently added the Google AdSense bar to the top of this blog cause, well, free money is always a good thing. After adding the bar I noticed that 90% of the ads are re-elect John Kerry advertisements, most likely because I spend quite a bit of time blogging about Kerry and Google is just that smart.

Well, I've decided that combining my love of money and my distaste for John Kerry would be a great thing to do so I've decided to initiate the "Click to Kick Kerry Campaign". The idea is simple. I go to all my favorite blogs and make sure to click every pro-Kerry ad that I can find, making sure to go through the archives of each blog to ensure I maximize my kicking potential.

The way I figure it, every extra dollar Kerry is billed for his internet advertisement will mean he has one less dollar to spend on re-creating TANG memos or buying ad time in battleground states. And the fact that Kerry will be funding the very blogs that are bringing down his campaign is just a wonderful bit of irony.

So, click away my friends, click away!

A very good idea indeed - but for all lefty sites, not just Kerry. Make Moron.org... err moveon.org and ACT etc pay for their lies.

Also, I think it should be noted that all Adsense members have absolute control over which types of sites may appear on their site. Members are allowed to go in and filter out sites they don't want to appear. This is what I will do if I get Adsense... I want sponsors that people might legitimately want to visit, not lefty sites.


--

On a side note, I was rejected by Google for Adsense for apparently violating policies concerning content (being anti a person/group/etc.) I objected to my rejection stating that I failed to see how my site fit that category and was told the rejection was in err and that I should expect an email inviting me into the program. I have still not recieved that email so I will write another letter of complaint.

This is to inform you that whatever portion of your marketing budget that is applied to advertising on CBS is completely wasted in our household. No television set in our home is ever tuned to CBS or any of its affiliates and only infrequently to ABC, NBC or CNN.

We have been concerned for some time that the major networks were becoming less reporters of news than purveyors of political opinion. The current presidential campaign has turned that concern into a certainty. We refuse to underwrite such media interference in the political process with our purchases.

Inasmuch as we are in that demographic that represents the upper quartile of net worth households, you should be concerned that we are representative of a large and growing segment of the population with substantial purchasing power, which will not be exposed to your advertisements unless they are broadcast on Fox News or placed on Internet sites, now our two major sources of news.

Please understand that this is not a threat to boycott but merely to point out that you may be misspending a significant portion of your marketing budget. CBS, in particular, but ABC, NBC and CNN, also, have lost us as consumers of their product.

Do you wish to as well?

A Texas Family

Submitted by Russ Vaughn