![]() | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
|
« Funding Terror | Main | The Cowardly Liar » August 18, 2004Christmas in Cambodia UpdateKerry lied. The media's failure to investigate his claims about Vietnam stands in marked contrast to the media's incessant braying after President Bush to answer questions about his National Guard service during the same war. In Bush's case, there is not one single shred of evidence that Bush was "AWOL" or served dishonorably or lied after the fact in order to embellish his image. Neither is there a single soldier who served with him who contradicts his version of his service, or alleges dishonest or dishonorable service. In Kerry's case, the majority of those who served with him say he is lying about significant parts of his service in Vietnam, and one of Kerry's biggest tales, about spending Christmas 1968 in Cambodia, has been proven to be an utter and complete falsehood - a lie Kerry has told in the Boston Herald, in his book, and on the Senate floor. Bush released his military service records. Kerry refuses to do the same. One man is lying. The press hounds the other. Be thankful for blogs like HughHewitt.com, Instapundit, and PowerLine, where you get real reporting and credible facts. UPDATE: An ACTION OPPORTUNITY for my Nashville-area readers, Kerry's upcoming appearance Sept. 1 at the American Legion national convention here might present a good opportunity for some peaceful protesting and signs questioning the Christmas in Cambodia story. Perhaps those signs would prompt the local press - which has ignored it so far - to finally report on Kerry's lies about his Vietnam service. Posted in Kerry's Lies
| Linked By |
Please support HobbsOnline by doing your online shopping at Amazon.com Comments
Heh, how about signs with large, easy-to-read maps of the South Vietnam-Cambodia region, as well as the Mekong river and delta. Put a highlight around just the parts that swiftboats operated in, then caption it "You were HERE"... ;) Posted by: Siergen at August 18, 2004 06:20 PMI guess that depends on what "shred" is... http://www.glcq.com/bush_at_arpc1.htm Posted by: The Baculum King at August 19, 2004 05:33 AMWow. A document showing that 1st Lt. George W. Bush was moved to "retired" status is proof that he was a deserter. How can one deny that Bush was a deserter in the face of such overwhelming evidence? /sarcasm Posted by: Dave T. at August 19, 2004 09:36 AMPost a comment
Comments Policy: Your comment is subject to deletion if it is off-topic or includes foul language or personal attack. Readers, please email me if you find comments that include egregious violations of this policy. Comments may not post immediately - do not post twice!
|
|||||||||||