Folks, I'm going to be on vacation through Monday afternoon. While I'm out of town, make sure to check out my advertisers, my referrers, and the pages linked in the daily news section. I'll be rested, relaxed, and ready to rumble again on Tuesday the 17th. Have a great week-end!

I just wanted to give a quick word of thanks to Daniel Radosh for mentioning my "Polling Conservative Opinion Makers About Blogs" article on CSPAN. It's always nice to get those big media mentions....

"If you could pick up to four Presidents for "Mt. Rushmore 2" who would they be? (Obviously, not including the four on Mt. Rushmore.)" -- Bull_Moose

Of course, Ronald Reagan was a no-brainer, as was James Madison because he was the "Father of the Constitution". Andrew Jackson also made the list (although that's in part for things he did before he became President).

The last one was a tough call for me. Polk, Monroe, Eisenhower, & Adams probably would have been legitimate choices, but I finally settled on Adams for the final slot.

Q: "Your answer reminds me of the answers I heard to questions asked about Viet Nam 35 years ago. Stay the course, hang tough, get the job done, and, of course, "the light at the end of the tunnel". I don't like to draw historical comparisons because they're facile and often wrong but I foresee a long, inconclusive, struggle in Iraq with the media and its Left allies constantly sniping at the Administration (either Bush or Kerry) while the toll of dead Americans increases, the dollar cost of the war soars and the economy sours." -- manhattan_transfer

A: We have an obsession with Vietnam in this country. Maybe it's because it wasn't all that long ago or because it had such a profound effect on the thinking of the Democratic establishment.

But, I gotta tell you, Iraq really doesn't have all that much in common with Vietnam.

Yes, you can say that "Stay the course, hang tough, get the job done, and, of course, "the light at the end of the tunnel" reminds you of Vietnam, but that also could be applied to the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, WW1, WW2, Korea, etc.

I'm not saying that there are no parallels at all, but we just invaded Iraq in March of 2003 and we've lost less than a 1000 men. On the other hand, we were in Vietnam for more than a decade (although to be fair we didn't start to really ramp up our troops until Johnson took over) and we lost more than 50,000 soldiers in that conflict.

In Vietnam, we had a civil war and we were fighting an enemy army. In this case, there has been no civil war, we're fighting a few ragtag militias and terrorists. Moreover, polls show the majority of Iraqi people want a Democracy, there are Democratic elections scheduled for the beginning next year, and the Iraqi military is getting better and larger every day.

So unlike in Vietnam, in Iraq, time is on our side. We're not trying to bring anybody to the negotiating table or just hoping against hope that we can outlast our enemies while politicians make it impossible for our soldiers to win the war. In 6-18 months, we're going to have a Democratic government in Iraq that is completely capable of handling its own security without our help. Once we're to that point, the war's over and we can chalk another one up for the good guys.

One last thing: Every war isn't going to be the Gulf War, the War in Afghanistan, or the war in Kosovo, where we cruise in, crush the enemy like ants with minimal soldiers KIA, and then leave. It would be nice if it were always that easy, but it didn't turn out to be this time. Of course, 9/11 wasn't "easy" either. And if we're going to stop those sort of massive terrorist attacks on our own soil, then we have to put not only Al-Qaeda, but every terrorist group with global reach, and the rogue states that support them, out of business. That's why Saddam had to go...

Q: "sound off on mcgreevy please" -- UVACavaliers9

A: To tell you the truth, I really feel for McGreevy's wife. You know this must have been devastating for her. Not only did she find out her husband has been cheating on her, but he has cheating on her with a man. Can you even imagine what must have ran through her mind when she heard about this?

Then McGreevy drags her out to the press conference so she can do the whole "stand by your man" thing that political wives always end up doing when their husbands can't keep their pants up. Meanwhile, she has to be just dying inside because of all this.

So we have McGreevy using his wife as a shield & trying to play the gay card, because he knows that all he has to do is say "I'm a gay American" and millions of people will rally around him because of that despite the fact that he's a scumbag caught up in the middle of a huge bribery / adultery / sexual harassment / corruption scandal. It's just repulsive and he was right to resign.

I just hope that over time that McGreevy's wife and kids get over this without being too badly damaged. But, when it comes to James McGreevy himself, I don't have a lot of sympathy for him. He made his bed and now he's going to have to lie in it.

Q: "How far would the Republicans have to go in 2004-2008 should Bush win for you to support a minor party in the congressional and presidential elections in 2008?" -- tragicdreamer

A: I guess I could give you some sort of theoretical answer like "Oh, if Bush replaced Rumsfeld with Michael Moore and Dick Cheney with Barbra Streisand and then pardoned Osama Bin Laden, then I might support a third party".

But the reality is, I'm not going to be voting for a third party candidate in 2008. I'm probably going to offend some people here, but there's nothing dumber than a conservative who's voting for the Constitution Party or Libertarians instead of the Republicans or a liberal who votes for the Greens or Ralph Nader instead of Kerry.

Voting for the Libertarians or Ralph Nader isn't practically any different than not bothering to vote. You're just wasting your time voting for someone who isn't going to get elected and whose existence in the race means that it's more likely that the party that least represents your views is going to get elected.

Q: "Do you believe there is a danger Iran will invade Iraq if Kerry scales back US involvement in Iraq to minimal levels and actually succeeds in stocking the country with troops from our political opposers in the UN? Do you believe French and German troops, if present, would pull out in such a circumstance? And what about other countries who couldn't stand alone against those threats? What do you believe the implications of such a conflict would be?" -- The_Big_Fat_Lobster

A: In 6-18 months, when the Iraqis are ready to handle to handle their own internal security, they still won't be able to defend themselves from their neighboring countries. Because of that, we'll probably need to keep a few thousand troops in country for at least a few years just to make sure nobody gets any funny ideas. Were Kerry to scale back or remove US troops too quickly, before Iraq was capable of defending itself, it's quite possible that Iran, Syria, Turkey, or even all three nations might try to take a bite out of Iraq.

Would the French, Germans, and everybody else for that matter, leave if we pulled most of our troops out or left? In a word, yes. If the world's only super power can't hack it, then no one should expect any of the lesser powers to hang in there.

As far as the implications go, they'd all be bad. It would be viewed as a big defeat for the United States, a huge victory for the terrorists and the dictators in the region, the war on terrorism would essentially be over, the Iraqi people would be murdered and brutalized by their new masters, and Democracy in the region would probably be set back 20 years.

In short, it would be a bigger disaster than Vietnam.

On the other hand, I think a free, prosperous, Democratic Iraq is the key to bringing Democracy to the entire region. This is a big risks, big rewards venture, and under no circumstances should we consider pulling out before the job, which has been messily, yet surely progressing, is done.

Q: "Would you say that a majority of Americans are reasonably intelligent people capable of discerning between the hype and truth in the political process?" -- Archangel

A: Yes, but with a couple of important caveats. First of all, there are partisans on both sides who are able to see the difference between hype and truth, but don't really care as long as it benefits their side. Those are the people political junkies are frustrated by day in and day out, because they blindly toe an ideological line, no matter what the facts or circumstances of a particular issue may be.

But, the really big group of people who have a problem "discerning between the hype and truth in the political process" are Americans who don't care about politics in the least. Are they capable of figuring out what's happening? Sure, but they don't pay attention to what's going on.

Maybe they've come to believe that there isn't much of a difference between the parties because of all the "Demlicans" & "Republicrats" out there, maybe they just don't think 99.9% of what's going on politically has any real impact on their personal lives, or maybe politics just bores them to tears. In any case, they can be fooled...at least for a period of time. But, that old maxim still applies...

"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

Eventually, even if we're talking about people who are barely paying attention, most of them will figure out the truth. Regrettably, sometimes it's too late...

Q: "Do you think that sites such as yours, and your counterparts on the left (This Modern World, etc.) do more to help or hurt America?" -- Rastus

A: The growth of the blogosphere in particular, and the growing influence of political websites in general, definitely helps America. These political websites on the net give people more choices about where to get their news & help keep politicians and the media honest by cataloguing and fact checking their comments. That's a good thing.

Now, some people may not think bloggers are good for America because we're partisan, because we have a point of view. My response to that would be that the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, etc, etc, etc, all have points of view too, they're just trying to fool people by claiming to be objective.

As far as I'm concerned, the public would be better informed, better served, and better able to make important decisions, if the mainstream media was just as up front about their ideological leanings as bloggers are.

Today will be Q&A Friday #4 at RWN.

So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective, heck it can even be about movies, music, TV, and film if it's interesting enough and I'll try to root through the questions and start answering more of them around 5 PM EST today.

My posts will probably be a little shorter than normal and I won't be able to get to every question (so don't even bother asking fluff like "what is your favorite color" or "How often do you clip Patton's nails"), but expect at least twice as many posts as normal today.

So ask away and let's see how this goes...

Small Business Ideas Forum

A friendly place to share your knowledge, find help, and encourage one another. We discuss topics such as search engine marketing, ecommerce, improving sales, customer service, and much, much more. We'd love to have you drop by for a visit.

Check out the Small Business Ideas Forum by clicking here.

Ooooh, it doesn't look like it has been a good day for one of Iraq's biggest bad guys...

"Radical Iraq cleric Moktada al-Sadr was wounded in a U.S. bombardment of the holy city of Najaf on Friday, but his exact condition remains unknown, spokesmen for Sadr said.

"Sayyed Moktada was wounded in American bombing. He suffered three injuries to his body. We don't know his exact condition or to where he was taken," spokesman Ahmad al-Shinabi told Reuters."

I know many of you are probably wondering how we got to Al-Sadr since he has been hiding like a coward in the Imam Ali shrine. Well, maybe it went a little something like this....

Then, next thing you know, he goes outside and ***bam*** "he suffered three injuries to his body".

However our guys got him, good job guys!

-- From the July 19th Blogger Symposium On The 2004 Election here at RWN...

"Donald Luskin:....For example, you must surely loathe that Ron Reagan is speaking for the Dems.

John Hawkins: I do loathe it, but I don't think it's a dirty trick. Ron Reagan is a liberal, so why shouldn't he be speaking there? See me, I'd ask Michael to speak at the GOP convention as a counter."

From today's Washington Times...

"The Bush campaign, faced with criticism for loading the Republican National Convention schedule with prominent social liberal speakers, now says it will feature conservative broadcaster Michael Reagan on the opening night.

The speech by the adopted son of the late President Ronald Reagan is intended as the Republican answer to the other Reagan son, Ron, who addressed the Democratic National Convention in Boston last month."

Are there Bush campaign people reading RWN or do great minds think alike? Hmmm, I'll guess it's the latter, but give me another year or so to keep getting my name out there and that might change...

-- The Washington Post churned out a ridiculous editorial today called "Swift Boat Smears". Although the WAPO didn't see fit to mention that the Swift Boat Vets for Truth have already caught Kerry in a lie about going to Cambodia on Christmas of 1968 in that editorial, they did insert this laughable Democratic talking point into the piece...

"It's also relevant to know who's underwriting this advertising campaign. The biggest single donor so far to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth isn't a Swift boat veteran but one of the leading Republican donors in Texas. Houston builder Bob J. Perry gave the group $100,000, accounting for the bulk of the $158,000 in receipts it has reported. It's fair to ask whether truth is at the top of this group's agenda. "

*** Gasp *** You mean there are Republicans giving money to an anti-Kerry group? Well, gosh, how can they be trusted now? But, wait a second...who does the WAPO expect to be funding an anti-Kerry group? George Soros, Barbra Streisand, & Michael Moore? Does this work the other way as well? I mean, are groups like MoveOn and the NAACP less credible because there are Democrats giving them money? Yeah, there's no liberal bias at the WAPO is there?

-- You know, I like Alan Keyes a lot, but he's already going down in flames in his run for the Senate in Illinois. Not only is he 30+ points at home and being quite convincingly painted as an opportunistic, hypocritical carpetbagger, just look at this....

"Former (four term) Gov. James R. Thompson refused to endorse Republican U.S. Senate nominee Alan Keyes on Wednesday, saying some of Keyes' stands on the issues made him "uncomfortable."

Once again, I have to think back to the reply I gave to an RWN reader back on On July 9th who suggested that Alan Keyes replace Cheney on the ticket. Here's the relevant part of my reply...

"The problem Alan Keyes has is that he's a pundit, not a politician, and like most pundits, I don't think he's capable of making the transition. That's not a slap at Alan Keyes because I'm a fan, but it's not enough to have the right views on the issues. You have to be able to do the things that make a politician successful to be worthy of national office.

...The skill sets you need to succeed as a columnist, commentator, or radio host are just very different from the ones a politician needs to be elected.

So maybe in a 99% conservative, politically aware, America we could have an Alan Keyes/Rich Lowry ticket battling against Hugh Hewitt & Michelle Malkin to get into the White House, but in the interim, the pundits just aren't going get invites from the voters to the big dance."

Were it me, I'd go ahead and dump Keyes, grab a local Illinois pol, and push the heck out of him. Sure it's a real longshot at this point, but Keyes already has zero chance of getting elected and it's not too late to make the switch...

-- Have you seen the two hilarious videos at MoveOnPlease? "The Michael Moore Story -- I Am Not An @sshole" & "Bush Is Hitler And Worse"? If not, make sure to check them out because they're the funniest political parodies I've seen since the JibJab "This Land" video.

-- I've been doing a little poll watching lately and Kerry's doing well, the Democrats are confident, and if the election were held today, John Kerry would win.

But, remember something -- the GOP hasn't had their convention yet and when they do, Bush is going to surge ahead of Kerry. So in other words, until oh say....September 15th or so, when the excitement from the GOP convention has died down, the polls aren't going to mean all that much.

-- I believe John Kerry damaged himself more with his base than most people realize by claiming that he would have voted for the war even if he knew Saddam had WMDs. Here's ultra-left-winger Andrew Cockburn on Kerry's comments over at Counterpunch...

"Kerry goes from bad to worse. Last week he dropped Saddam's non-existent WMDs as a campaign issue. He did this huge favor to Bush via his (Kerry's) foreign affairs spokesman, the insufferable Jamie Rubin, formerly the top State Department flack in the Clinton years. Rubin told the Washington Post last weekend that knowing then what he knows today about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kerry still would have voted to authorize the war and "in all probability" would have launched a military attack to oust Hussein by now if he were president. Up until the previous day Mr flip-flop O'Kerry had said he only "might" have still gone to war.

...If the war on Iraq bothers you, a vote for Kerry is a vote thrown away."

We conservatives have been pointing for months that Kerry is trying simultaneously portray himself as a hawkish, John Wayne clone who's going kick a little terrorist behind and a dovish Un-ophile who's opposed Chimpy McSmirk's eeevvvviiilllll war. It's nice to see that there are a few anti-war lefties who are finally starting to admit the truth as well...

Former President Bill Clinton today charged the Bush administration with "plagiarism of ideas" and offered as evidence a 1998 speech Mr. Clinton made to explain his order to bomb Iraq.

"If you read the text of my speech, you'll see that President Bush lifted practically all of my reasons for attacking Iraq and used them as his own," said Mr. Clinton. "I was the one who said Saddam Hussein must be stopped before he used chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. If you read the papers today, you might think that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld just made that up out of whole cloth."

Mr. Clinton indicated his willingness to graciously receive an apology and overdue royalty payments from Mr. Bush.

If you enjoyed this satire by Scott Ott, you can read more of his work at Scrappleface.

Mysterious Wooden Structure Causing Pre-Olympic Jitters

Olympic security officials in Athens, Greece conceded today that they had failed to notice a giant wooden horse that had been wheeled to within meters of the Olympic stadium sometime late last week.

The sudden appearance of the gigantic horse, which was said to measure over one hundred cubits in width, has raised fresh concerns that the security around the Olympic complex might be more porous than originally thought.

“When you’re spending over $1.5 billion in security, quite frankly, somebody shouldn’t be able to wheel a giant wooden horse right up to your stadium,” said one U.S. official today.

But Thanasis Kyriakou, who is coordinating the security efforts for the 2004 Olympics, said that the horse, while of unknown origin, posed no serious security threat to the Games, which are set to begin in three days.

“If anything, this gigantic horse is only bringing more attention to the Olympics,” he said. “I see this horse as a tremendous gift.”

Sharply disagreeing with Mr. Kyriakou is NBC Sports Chairman Dick Ebersol, who said that the unplanned presence of a gigantic horse could ruin his network’s coverage of the Games.

“It’s wrecking all of our camera angles,” Mr. Ebersol said. “Everywhere you look, there’s that dopey horse in the background.”

For his part, Mr. Kyriakou believes that the enormous horse could enhance viewership of the Olympics and has even recommended wheeling the mysterious wooden structure into the stadium itself.

“I say let the horse in,” he said. “What’s the worst that could happen?”

If you enjoyed this satire by Andy Borowitz, you can read more of his work at The Borowitz Report.

If there were such a thing as the "chutzpah Olympics", these Germans would finish just behind the Egyptian dean who wanted to sue the Jews for stealing gold during their exodus from Egypt.

You're going to think this is satire, but it's a real story from the Washington Times...

"In what might seem an act of monumental nerve, a group of Germans is seeking compensation from Poland for property lost at the end of World War II.

...Rudi Pawelka, head of Preussische Treuhand — an association representing the interests of the former inhabitants of East Prussia — has promised legal action before German courts and the European Court of Justice.

Germany has spent an estimated $85 billion since the war to smooth the re-integration of the expellees. But with Poland now part of the European Union, their organizations feel it is time for the compensation issue to be put on the official agenda."

Can you believe these people?

"Hey, remember back in WW2 when we invaded your country, slaughtered your military, butchered your people, destroyed your capital, stole everything that wasn't nailed down, set up death camps on your soil, and then got driven away and left you pinned under the boots the Soviets for almost 50 years? Yeah...well we'd like our stuff back. You don't mind do you?"

Wow, is there anything that makes your heart bleed quite like reading about a bunch of Germans who're upset that the whole "Nazi thing" didn't work out for them as well as they had hoped? I mean, come on -- who would have thought the Poles wouldn't want to live around people who brutalized, slaughtered, and enslaved them for no other reason than because they could? Whatever happened to live and let live right?

Yes, the world's tiniest accordion is pumping out a sad little German polka tune for all those poor Aryans who lost their land because of how WW2 turned out...

Washington, DC - Aides to presidential candidate John Kerry today dismissed as "obscene libel" and "preposterous lies" a new book that questions Kerry's service during the Vietnam War.

Written by a group of veterans who served with Kerry during his 4-month tour, "Misfit For Duty: John F. Kerry's Christmas Turkey" claims that Kerry embellished his war exploits, including a clandestine mission to the Arctic ocean on Christmas Eve 1968 to assassinate a rogue island of misfit toys.

Democratic spokesman Lanny Davis ripped the book as "unvarnished lies straight from Santa's North Pole sleaze workshop, dictated to a cabal of unhinged losers who represent a only a tiny majority of John Kerry's beloved Band of Brothers."

At Salon.com, Joe Conason also slammed the authors, writing that "I find it ludicrous that anyone would seriously believe anything a typical Vietnam vet psychopath would say about John Kerry."

Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill noted while the authors some may served with Kerry, none had been on his polar boat, and several were members of the Republican party.

"The fact that these men do not support John Kerry in the election, well, that pretty much sums up where they're coming from," says Cahill.

Despite threats of "legal action and/or incineration" from Kerry campaign lawyers, the book has risen to #1 on several online bookseller sites. Some analyst attribute its rapid sales to promotion on right-wing internet sites. Others point to billionaire Democratic financier George Soros, who yesterday announced a $5 million campaign to buy and burn the entire first printing.

Whatever the case, the book has sparked renewed controversy over the Vietnam war, and Kerry's part in it.

'TWAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS

The harrowing story of a daring foray to the North Pole has long been a staple of Kerry's Vietnam biography. In 1970 as a 26-year-old veteran, Kerry testified to a Senate Committee that he and other US soldiers had participated in atrocities against indiginous Misfit Island toys, "including rape, torture, dismemberment, firecrackers, and other so-called 'reindeer games.'"

"Christmas '68, I remember it as if it were yesterday," Kerry is quoted in a 1985 interview with the Boston Globe. "There was Linus, and me, and Herbie the Elf, dodging tracer fire from reindeers and misfit toys alike, and unloading .50 caliber rounds into the Abominable Snowman. Herbie got taken out by AW fire from a spotted elephant. He was just a damned kid, who only wanted to get back stateside and study dentistry."

In the interview, Kerry said the episode scarred him, turning him against the war and for truth in government.

"It was completely surreal," recalled Kerry. "We we taking clay fire left and right, and styrofoam shrapnel, and meanwhile the President was all over CNN claiming we weren't even there. It was then I finally realized that Ronald Reagan's Vietnam adventure was nothing but a lie."

In a later recollection during a 1991 Senate floor speech denouncing the Gulf War, Kerry said he was recruited for the secret holiday mission during a Bob Hope USO Christmas special.

"Hope was Nixon's shadow CIA station chief in Saigon," said Kerry. "During a skit with Phyllis Diller, he blinked a morse code message that I was to take his covert bikini go-go girl assassination squad to the Arctic to take out the a nest of Khmer Blanc."

The illegal mission was "seared, seared into my memory," said Kerry, who used it as an example of how war corrupts government officials.

"There I was, strafing helpless misfit toys with Joey Heatherton, Jill St. John, Lola Falana and Raquel Welch," said Kerry. "Our fire dispersed the insurgents, and I could have shot several of the fleeing toys in the back, but I didn't. Down in Saigon they say, my small heart grew three sizes that day."

In a 2003 Washington Post profile, Kerry even displayed a souvenir from the mission.

"Who told you about this? Even my friends don't know about it," said Kerry, pulling a musty fur bikini top from a secret compartment in his attache case. Kerry said it was "a good luck charm" given to him by covert CIA agent Nancy Sinatra.

Putting on the bra, Kerry formed his hands into pantomime guns.

"Pow! Kapow! k-k-k-k-brrrudda brrrudda shpeww!" he added, blowing imaginary smoke from his fingertips.

In his recent biography A John Kerry Christmas, the candidate seemed to back off his earlier claims, saying that he and his crew were only "near the Arctic." However, he provided biographer Douglas Brinkley additional background details of the mission.

"I can only speculate why Bob Hope recruited me," said Kerry. "I know he was concerned that his ex-partner Bing Crosby had been 'flipped' by Viet Cong agent David Bowie when they taped that 'Little Drummer Boy' duet."

After returning from the mission, Kerry told Brinkley that Hope offered him a co-starring role in the secret CIA musical comedy 'Road to Cambodia,' but he was determined by then to speak out against the war.

"There must have been some magic in that old Vietnamese silk hat I found," said Kerry. "For when I put it on my head I began to change around."

NAUGHTY OR NICE?

In stark contrast to his personal recollections of the mission, the authors of "Misfit For Duty" maintain that neither Kerry's crew, nor Nancy Sinatra, can recall having ever been to the Arctic. The authors also claim that Kerry's Swift Boat would have neither the fuel nor speed to travel 11,000 nautical miles to the Arctic Sea in one night, and that its aluminum hull would not have been able to penetrate the thick December ice pack. The book also cites official Navy logs that place Kerry in a safe billet that night, and notes several studies that question the existence of Santa Claus, a key component of Kerry's CIA mission story.

While maintaining the charges "did not merit a response," Kerry campaign manager Cahill refered reporters to the landmark 1946 case of Gimbel v. Kringle.

"If the GOP's hatchetmen want to argue before the American people that there is no Santa Claus, I say bring it on," said Cahill, who added that Kerry's story was "fully verified" by the late Burl Ives in 1971.

As of posting time, the sharply conflicting accounts were drawing the increasing scrutiny of the press. All major news networks have announced major psychiatric investigations of the book's authors, as well as their religious affiliations, drinking habits, links to the Republican Party, Rupert Murdock, the Illuminati, and the Rotary Club.

"It's time we get to the bottom of why these so-called 'war heroes' would make such unbelievable, scurrilous allegations of a war hero," said ABC Nightline correspondent Jake Tapper.

"They say the first casualty of war is truth," he noted. "What kind of ghouls go around parading the corpse?"

If you enjoyed this satire by Iowahawk, you can read more of his work here.

For more than 30 years, it looks as if John Kerry has been doing this...

For example, here's John Kerry talking about Cambodian Christmas back in 1986,

"Mr. President, I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia.

I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me ...."

Yes, Kerry flogged his tall tale about "Christmas in Cambodia" to death, even going so far as to tell Laura Blumenfeld at the WAPO this story back in 2003...

"A close associate hints: There's a secret compartment in Kerry's briefcase. He carries the black attaché everywhere. Asked about it on several occasions, Kerry brushed it aside. Finally, trapped in an interview, he exhaled and clicked open his case.

He smiled and aimed his finger: "Pow."

But then, when Swift Boat Veterans for Truth hit the scene and said Kerry was lying through his teeth about going to Cambodia in Christmas of 1968, suddenly the story started to change...

"The Kerry campaign first asserted that the Massachusetts senator never said that he was in Cambodia, only that he was near the country. But when presented with a copy of the Congressional Record and asked about Kerry's letter in the Boston Herald, the campaign said it would come up with an explanation. After repeated phone calls, there was still no clarification."

Now, if John Kerry lied about going to Cambodia in Christmas of 1968, what else is he lying about?

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, men who are Vietnam Vets, men who fought beside of John Kerry, men who were in his chain of command, say Kerry was lying not only about Cambodia, but about his Bronze Star, and his 1st and 3rd Purple Hearts. They also say John Kerry is "Unfit for Command". Since the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were right about this, you have wonder: are they right about everything else?

I swiped the nifty 'Kerry as Pinocchio' graphic from the fine folks over at Country Store. By the way, that's a great blog that never gets the credit it deserves. You should check them out.

*** Update #1***: For 30+ years Kerry has been telling people that he spent Christmas of 1968 fighting in Cambodia.

But, just this week so far, Kerry's people have now come up with two different stories to try to explain Kerry's lie.

#1) Kerry's people denied he was ever in Cambodia to Carl Cameron from Fox News. They said he was just near the country. Then after they realized that lie wouldn't work because Kerry was on the record saying he had been to Cambodia in Christmas of 1968, they went back to the drawing board.

#2) Now, the new spin -- which I heard on Fox, it hasn't shown up on the net as far as I know yet -- is that Kerry did go into Cambodia with a bunch of SEALS, but not on Christmas. However, no SEALS were named, no date was given, no information was imparted as to who sent Kerry on this mission or what other Swift Boat Vets were there, so there were no details at all.

Furthermore, Kerry's latest story makes absolutely no sense given that he's said things like this before...

"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas."

How do you reconcile the fact that John Kerry said that he was shot at by "South Vietnamese...celebrating Christmas" now that he's admitting he didn't actually go into Cambodia on Christmas?

Someone should have reminded John Kerry that it's the cover-up, not the lie that really sinks you...

I've got a huge surprise for you later today that will absolutely blow you away or I got really behind and won't be able to update until oh...say 5 PM EST...I forget which.

I'm not sure what happened exactly...I mean I was watching "Kill Bill 2", checking through some old WW2 propaganda posters, updating ads, taking a little nap and wham-o, next thing you know I'm scratching my head and wondering where all the time went like the guy in that horrible movie "Memento".

Speaking of "Memento", I want to try to give you something to do while I'm AWOL all day. So, how about suggesting your least favorite movies of all time? The dullest, worst, most painful movies you've ever sat through...

My Choices
--------------

1) The Abyss: This had the most ridiculous ending of any movie I've ever seen. I plan to write a post about this movie one day, simply because my disgust and loathing for this movie is uncontainable and will eventually burst out my chest like that creature in "Alien" unless I eventually write about it...

2) Starship Troopers 2: Only in movie run by liberal nancyboys can the military be portrayed as the bad guys in a movie where they're fighting against merciless, giant insects who want to wipe out the entire human race for no particularly good reason.

3) Steel Magnolias: This movie was so bad that I indirectly ended up breaking up with a girl I was dating over it.

4) The Beach: The totally incoherent movie about a bunch of hippies living on an out of the way beach that featured Leonardo Dicaprio who went crazy in a totally unconvincing fashion.

I would give you some more movies to work with but geeze, it's 12:19 and I have to be up at 6:05. Like Ah-nold, "I'll be back" later tonight.......

*** Update #1***: Let me add to my list...

5) Wag The dog: This movie is like "Canadian Bacon" except that it's not very funny and takes itself way too seriously. Moreover, the fact that so many people treat this movie like it's some sort of inciteful political commentary when it had a believability factor of 0 has always annoyed me.

6 & 7) House of the Dead & Street Fighter: I list both of these movies because each of them is just as unbelievably bad as you'd expect poorly made movies based on video games to be. However, I have to give Street Fighter the edge for "worst movie ever made that was based on a video game".

8) Matrix Revolutions: There are so many things to loathe about this movie. The terrible "philosobabble" dialogue, the way they blew off important characters like Morpheus, and most importantly, the fact that almost the entire movie takes place in the "real world" where mech warriors and robo-squids duked it out, instead of in the Matrix which was where all the worthwhile action took place in the first two movies of the series.

Yesterday, in an attempt to answer a question posed by George Bush, John Kerry affirmed that he would have voted to give George Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq "even if he had known then no weapons of mass destruction would be found."

Of course, that long overdue answer to a very basic question must have been a devastating blow to Kerry's liberal supporters who've been chanting "where are the WMD?" since the end of the war. Heck, their own candidate just said the WMD were basically irrelevant, he would have voted to give Bush the authority to invade whether he knew Saddam had them or not.

But, that's not what I wanted to focus on.

I wanted to talk about the questions John Kerry had for George Bush, really silly questions if you ask me.

Here are the four questions Kerry posed to Bush as they were described by Reuters reporter Patricia Wilson...

1) Why (did you rush) to war without a plan for the peace?

When we went to war the 19th UN Resolution since the Gulf War asking Saddam Hussein to disarm (and yes, he was still violating the UN Resolutions) had just failed. Moreover, we spent a FULL YEAR publicly debating the war in Iraq.

George Bush took the issue before the Senate and John Kerry, among many others, voted to give Bush the authority to wage war. We even got unanimous approval from the UN Security Council to give Saddam a final "disarm or else" message and only when it was clear that it was not going to be possible to get support from the UN to invade Iraq under any circumstances did George Bush move ahead and invade.

As to the whole idea that we didn't have a "plan", that's just silly. It's an old military maxim that "no battle plan survives first contact with the enemy" and the plan for post-war Iraq didn't work out as well as anyone hoped. John Kerry knows that, just like everyone else with half a brain does.

Summing all this up, there was no rush to war and there was a plan that didn't work out as well as we hoped...as everyone who knows anything about the lead up to war in Iraq already knows.

2) Why (did you use) faulty intelligence?

I could note that Bush wouldn't have used the intelligence if he knew it was faulty, that the CIA and intelligence agencies all over the world all said Saddam had WMDS, and that we may still find stockpiles in Iraq or learn that Saddam shipped his WMDs out of country before the war.

But set all of that aside.

Isn't John Kerry the same guy who said back on 10/02/02 that,

"The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and to expand it to include nuclear weapons. We cannot allow him to prevail in that quest. The weapons are an unacceptable threat."

John Kerry might as well be asking "why did I use faulty intelligence" since his position on Iraq's WMD's was almost exactly the same as the one George Bush took. People should laugh at John Kerry for asking a question this hypocritical...

3) Why (did you mislead) Americans about how he would go to war?

The answer to this is easy -- he didn't. To the contrary, George Bush was extraordinarily blunt and direct about exactly what he was going to do for over a year. The only people who didn't know George Bush was going to take Saddam out unless he complied with the UN Resolution were people living in isolated Unabomber style shacks without radios.

4) Why (didn't you bring) other countries to the table?

What are the Brits, Poles, Australians, Italians, Japanese, South Koreans, & the other 24 countries that are still with us in Iraq -- chopped liver? Apparently John Kerry thinks so because he has consistently been blowing off their contributions to the war.

And this from a guy promising Americans the moon when he gets elected. "Oh, our troops will be home in no time because I'll get our allies to take up the slack. It'll be as easy as pie". Meanwhile, nobody who knows anything about foreign policy believes this.

Remember that Kerry is insulting the allies who are helping us by treating them like they don't exist. Then you have to consider that the Iraqis don't trust the Turks or most of their other neighbors to send in troops, so that's pretty much a "no-go". Then there are the French, Germans, and Spanish who have said definitively that they're not sending in soldiers (like they'd be all that helpful even if they did).

So where are these massive numbers of soldiers going to come from? Is John Kerry having a secret clone army built a la "Star Wars"? You have to wonder because that's the only way he's going to replace more than 130k troops in Iraq before the Iraqis are ready to do so themselves.

These are lame questions, offered up by a lame candidate, who has lamely tried to obfuscate his real beliefs and what he intends to do once he becomes President.

In the olden days, the ruler of a nation was decided by who was strongest and could best kill his enemies. Political discourse consisted merely of battle cries. An October surprise consisted of ninjas jumping down from rafters.

And everyone was happy.

Now, eventually this became more civilized, leading to the contest for American President being decided by a no holds barred cage match. Campaigning usually consisted of wrestling a bear. This was the better idea because the opponent wasn't killed, and he might have better ideas the next time around (and a craftier headlock). Somehow - and I'm not sure of the semantics - this devolved into the Electoral College we now use today. And thus the pendulum has swung too far, making politics almost completely devoid of violence. When was the last time you saw a congressional debate end with someone doing a flying kick across the room? Months, at least.

Now, it's irrefutable that violence helps political discourse. Yes, someone could begin to voice an objection to my point, but I would quickly beat him before he could say anything. Thus, it is irrefutable. So why was violence taken out of politics? Well, it's all a conspiracy by the wimpy leftists to try and get an upper hand. Everyone knows liberal ideals wouldn't last in an out and out fight. Most of their wacky stances on issues would probably be given up after a simple bitch-slap. Most people in the military vote Republican, as do gun owners, so a real "debate" like in the olden days would be extremely one sided. Sure, murderers in prison mainly lean towards the Democrats, but that will in no way make up the gap. Let's face it: in the area of violence, the liberals are politically bereft of ideas. Their only real response available is, "Ow! Stop hitting me!" And, no, we won’t.

So let's forget our previous follies and get back to beating senseless our political opponents. You can't reason with people who wave "No Blood for Oil" signs, but you can use their signs as cudgels against them. Foreign diplomat getting snooty? Not after he has a trip through a plate-glass window. And think of what it would be like if a politician drop-kicked a whiny liberal; there would be some real leadership.

That's why for this coming presidential election, we should petition that the president not be decided by a bunch of goobers punching chads but instead by a kickboxing match. That will show our terrorist enemies that we are a serious people... and that we will seriously kick their @sses.

If you enjoyed this satire by Frank J., you can read more of his work at IMAO.

One of the most common refrains about Bush that you'll hear from liberals is that W. is "stupid", an "idiot", a "moron", & of course, how could we ever forget "dumb"?

But we must remember that liberals said exactly the same thing about Reagan and Quayle and will likely try to claim that either the GOP candidate for the presidency or the vice-presidency in 2008 is "even dumber than Bush". As Ann Coulter pointed out, that's just standard operating procedure for libs...

"If liberals were prevented from ever again calling Republicans dumb, they would be robbed of half their arguments. To be sure, they would still have "racist," "fascist," "homophobe," "ugly," and a few other highly nuanced arguments in the quiver. But the loss of "dumb" would nearly cripple them."

But, let's examine this idea, this claim that "Bush is dumb" in a little more detail.

Furthermore, let's just set-aside the fact that a guy who's as stupid as liberals claim Bush is wouldn't be able to spell his own name, much less run his own business, become governor of Texas, defeat Al Gore during the 2000 debates, or win the presidency.

Let's look back to George W. Bush's college days. You know, when he got his undergraduate degree from Yale (1968) and an MBA from Harvard? Is Yale really pumping out that many cretins? Can just any imbecile off the street get an MBA from Harvard? Apparently, there are a lot of liberals who believe this to be the case.

Then there's George Bush's SAT score of 1206 (which is "the equivalent of a 1280 under today's dumbed-down scoring system").

That's a superb score. In fact, as "Linda Gottfredson, co-director of the University of Delaware-Johns Hopkins Project for the Study of Intelligence and Society, told United Press International: "I recently converted Bush's SAT score to an IQ using the high school norms available for his age cohort. Educational Testing Service happened to have done a study of representative high school students within a year or so of when he took the test. I derived an IQ of 125, which is the 95th percentile." In other words, only one out of 20 people would score higher."

So if George Bush is smarter than 19 out of 20 people, that means he's probably brainier than 95% of the people who claim that he's "dumb". Can you ever remember a time when there were so many people who smugly and yet incorrectly presumed themselves to have a higher IQ than a man who was their intellectual superior?

I was pleased to get an opportunity to interview Michael Barone, a man who knows about as much about the ins-and-outs of elections and political history as anyone walking the planet, via email.

Mr. Barone writes a regular column for U.S. News & World Report & is a political contributor for Fox News. Furthermore, he has written several books including his latest: "Hard America, Soft America: Competition vs. Coddling and the Battle for the Nation's Future.

You can read the interview here.

Sadly, "(r)etired Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and now an adviser to Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry, has been hospitalized in Washington state after a severe stroke, Pentagon officials said Monday."

Now most people, whatever their political persuasion might be, would be sorry to hear that Mr. Shalikashvili had a stroke and would wish him a speedy recovery.

Like I said...that's MOST people.

But, to some of the kookier denizens of the Democratic Underground, every bad thing that happens, anywhere in the world is the fault of....

A) Satan
B) Terrorists
C) Hitler
D) George W. Bush

If you guessed D, you got it right! And of course, they blame Bush for giving Shalishkavili a stroke.

Don't believe me? Just check out some of the responses from a Democratic Underground thread called " Just on CNN: Gen. Shalishkavili in hospital--unknown reason"...

wordout: "poisoned. gotta take out all military opposition before martial law is declared.."

donsu: "yeah - BBBT&M. bushgang motto: bully, bribe, blackmail, threaten and if all else fails, murder works for them! we haven't stopped them from doing what they want, yet."

DeadHead67: "Probably the same kind of 'Stroke' that. . .all the people close to the Kennedy assassination suffered. Hmmmmm!"

daleo: "Saddam had a stroke recently, too. While in U.S. custody. Hmmm."

Coventina: "My tinfoil hat is now officially ON!!!"

Voltaire99: "Get his testimony on video tape before it's too late! Judging from the Bush administration's depravity, it's not unreasonable to fear the worst."

Hat tip to A Small Victory for finding this post at the DU.

One of the first names that comes to mind, perhaps THE first name that comes to mind, when you talk about liberals in the United State Senate, is Teddy Kennedy. And largely because of that liberalism -- although leaving Mary Jo Kopechne to die certainly doesn't help -- Ted Kennedy would be defeated as badly as Michael Dukakis and Walter Mondale if he were running for President this year.

So if someone wouldn't vote for Ted Kennedy, why in the world would they vote for a man like John Kerry, who's practically Kennedy's ideological twin?

Want evidence? Just read this editorial in today's Washington Times (which I am going to quote almost in it's entirety)....

"Ever since John Kerry won his Massachusetts Senate seat amid former President Reagan's 49-state landslide in 1984, he has acted as a virtual clone of Massachusetts' senior senator, Edward Kennedy. Indeed, based on its annual statistical analysis of congressional voting patterns on economic, foreign-policy and social issues, the authoritative, nonpartisan National Journal has crowned Mr. Kerry the Senate's most liberal member twice in the 1980s, once in the 1990s and, most recently, in 2003.

In a previous editorial, The Washington Times reviewed the annual ratings that various interest groups assigned to the voting records of Massachusetts Democratic Sens. Kerry and Kennedy. Those organizations included the liberal Americans for Democratic Action, the American Conservative Union, the American Civil Liberties Union, the League of Conservation Voters, the AFL-CIO, the Concord Coalition, the National Taxpayers Union and the Christian Coalition.

For all practical purposes, the ratings were identical. The same conclusion can be drawn from an examination of the voting patterns of Messrs. Kerry and Kennedy on the annual lists of "key votes" that are carefully selected by Congressional Quarterly and National Journal's "Almanac of American Politics."

Each year CQ identifies about 15 "key votes." From 1985, when Mr. Kerry entered the U.S. Senate, through 2003, CQ has selected 270 "key votes." Mr. Kennedy has cast a vote on 268 of them. For five of the 268, Mr. Kerry neither voted nor publicly announced a position. That leaves 263 Kennedy votes that can be compared with Mr. Kerry's positions. Mr. Kerry voted with Mr. Kennedy on 235 of those "key votes," and he announced a position identical with Mr. Kennedy's votes on eight others. On just 20 of Mr. Kennedy's 263 votes did Mr. Kerry cast a vote different from Mr. Kennedy's.

In sum, Mr. Kerry agreed with Mr. Kennedy's votes on 92.4 percent of CQ's "key votes" from 1985 through 2003. Moreover, in five of the last six years, Mr. Kerry has not differed with Mr. Kennedy on a single CQ-designated "key vote." Regarding the two votes from 2002 where the two differed — the use of force against Iraq and passage of the Andean free-trade agreement — Mr. Kerry has effectively repudiated both of his votes, bringing him in line with Mr. Kennedy 100 percent of the time over the past six years.

The National Journal has identified 108 "key votes" spanning 18 years, beginning with the 99th Congress (1985-1986) and ending with the 107th (2001-2002). Mr. Kennedy has voted on 106 of them. On 98 of those votes, Mr. Kerry agreed with Mr. Kennedy. That's 92.5 percent of the time. For his first 16 years in the Senate, Mr. Kerry was in sync with Mr. Kennedy on 96 percent of National Journal's "key votes."..."

John Kerry is nothing but an ultra-liberal, just like Ted Kennedy, except for all of the flip-flops he uses to try to hide his real record from the voting public. John Kerry may flip and flop, but in the end, he's just as liberal as his mentor Ted Kennedy.

Hat tip to Henry Hanks from Croooow Blog for bringing this column to my attention.

After the John Kerry campaign trotted out the lawyers (big surprise there) in an attempt to shut-up the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they've fired back at Kerry with a devastating attack on his record in Vietnam. Here are a few of the key charges the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have made against John Kerry...

On Kerry's first Purple Heart

...Unmentioned in Kerry's Tour Of Duty version are the actual surrounding facts. Kerry, Lieutenant William Schachte, USN, and an enlisted man were on the whaler. Seeing movement from an unknown source, the sailors opened fire on the movement. There was no hostile fire. When Kerry's rifle jammed, he picked up an M-79 grenade launcher and fired a grenade at a nearby object. This sprayed the boat with shrapnel from Kerry's own grenade, a tiny piece of which embedded in Kerry's arm.

There are no witnesses who claim to have seen hostile fire -- necessary for a Purple Heart (even a rose thorn Purple Heart) -- that day. At least three witnesses, Dr. Letson (who spoke to the participants and removed the M-79 fragment), Lt. Bill Schachte (on the boat), and Cmdr. Grant Hibbard (whose investigation revealed Kerry's application for a Purple Heart to be fraudulent), are able to testify directly or based upon contemporaneous investigation that Kerry's first Purple Heart was a fraud. Thus, Lewis Letson's statement that "I know John Kerry is lying about a first Purple Heart" is conclusively established by the evidence. Like the third Purple Heart, Kerry's first Purple Heart was essential to his quick trip home.

On Kerry's third Purple Heart

...Although Kerry's "minor" bruise could never entitle him to a Purple Heart, Kerry's reported shrapnel wound to his "buttocks" (although minor according to the treating physician) from an enemy mine would have entitled him to such an award (had he not been lying about its origin).

The conclusion is inescapable: that Kerry lied by reporting to the Navy that he had been wounded by shrapnel in his backside from an enemy mine when in reality he negligently wounded himself and then lied about the wound in order to secure a third Purple Heart and a quick trip home.

On Kerry's Bronze Star

As recounted in the attached affidavits of three on-scene participants (and verified by many others present) Kerry's operating report, Bronze Star story, and subsequent "no man left behind" story are a total hoax on the Navy and the nation. As recounted in the affidavits of Van Odell (Exhibit 6), Jack Chenoweth (Exhibit 7), and Larry Thurlow (Exhibit 10) (and verified by every other officer present and many others), a mine went off under PCF 3 -- some yards from Kerry's boat. The force of the explosion disabled PCF 3 and knocked several sailors, dazed, into the water. All boats, except one, closed to rescue the sailors and defend the disabled boat. That boat -- Kerry's boat -- fled the scene. After a short period, it was evident to all on the scene that there was no additional hostile fire. Thurlow began the daring rescue of disabled PCF 3, while Chenoweth began to pluck dazed survivors of PCF 3 from the water. Midway through the process, after it was apparent that there was no hostile fire, Kerry finally returned, picking up Rassman who was only a few yards from Chenoweth's boat which was also going to pick Rassman up. Each of the affiants (and many other Swiftees on the scene that day) are certain that Kerry has wholly lied about the incident. Consider this: How could the disabled PCF abandon the scene of the mine? Why did Kerry have to "return" to the scene?

...Clearly, Van Odell is right when he says, "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star . . . I know. I was there. I saw what happened." As Jack Chenoweth swore, "his account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day." Most poignantly, Larry Thurlow, whose brave actions saved the PCF 3 boat that day after Kerry fled, has the right to say, "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."

On Cambodia

If there is a consistent[1] repeated story by John Kerry about his Vietnam experience, it is his story about how he and his boat spent Christmas Eve and Christmas of 1968 illegally present in Cambodia and, listening to President Nixon's contrary assurances, developed "a deep mistrust of U.S. government pronouncements." See Exhibit 24, Kranish book, p. 84. The point of his story was that his government and his commanders were lying about Kerry's presence in Cambodia on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. During a critical debate on the floor of the United States Senate on March 27, 1986, Senator John Kerry said:

...The story is a total preposterous fabrication by Kerry. Exhibit 8 is an affidavit by the Commander of the Swift boats in Vietnam, Admiral Roy Hoffmann, stating that Kerry's claim to be in Cambodia for Christmas Eve and Christmas of 1968 is a total lie. If necessary, similar affidavits are available from the entire chain of command. In reality, Kerry was at Sa Dec -- easily locatable on any map more than fifty miles from Cambodia. Kerry himself inadvertently admits that he was in Sa Dec for Christmas Eve and Christmas and not in Cambodia, as he had stated for so many years on the Senate Floor, in the newspapers, and elsewhere. Exhibit 27, Tour, pp. 213-219. Sa Dec is hardly "close" to the Cambodian border. In reality, far from being ordered secretly to Cambodia, Kerry spent a pleasant night at Sa Dec with "visions of sugar plums" dancing in his head. Exhibit 27, p. 219. At Sa Dec where the Swift boat patrol area ended, there were many miles of other boats (PBR's) leading to the Cambodian border. There were also gunboats on the border to prevent any crossing. If Kerry tried to get through, he would have been arrested. Obviously, Kerry has hardly been honest about his service in Vietnam.

Folks, these are men who treated Kerry for wounds, fought beside him in other boats, & that were in his line of command. They're also veterans who went to Vietnam and risked their lives, just like John Kerry.

Furthermore, their accounts sound VERY credible and it's quite easy to understand why they came forward.

Imagine how you'd feel if you served with a guy in a combat situation and you didn't really think much of him.

Then, a few months later, he turns up stateside, waving around a bunch of medals you don't think he earned, and telling the entire world that people like YOU are war criminals.

Then, fast forward to 2004 and here's this same guy running as a combination of Sgt. York, Patton, & John Paul Jones. Put another way, as Captain George Elliott, USN (retired) from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth said...

"In 1971, '72, for almost 18 months, (John Kerry) stood before the television audiences and claimed that the 500,000 men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains -- there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for President of the United States and Commander-in-Chief. It just galls one to think about it."

If you were in their position, if you knew John Kerry was lying through his teeth and was using those lies as the basis of his presidential campaign, wouldn't you step forward and try to let people know the truth?

*** Update #1***: Remember that memory that was "seared" into John Kerry? According to Fox News reporter, Carl Cameron,The Swift Boat Vets for Truth have already caught Kerry in a lie. He just reported that the Kerry campaign is now saying John Kerry WAS NOT in Cambodia in 1968.

If John Kerry lied about being in Cambodia, what other parts of his military record is he lying about? I can't wait to see how this plays out...