1
   

Farrah: Kerry is Toast

 
 
swolf
 
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 07:42 pm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39836

Joseph Farrah of WorldnetDaily.com

Quote:

I was wrong.

When I'm wrong, I admit it. And I was wrong.

I was wrong when I predicted months ago that John F. Kerry would likely be our next president.

I based my prediction on the fact that George W. Bush was a disappointing president and showed no signs of having a re-election plan in mind.

That assessment hasn't changed at all. Bush hasn't done a thing to shore up his base or to energize the American people about his re-election.

But something dramatic has occurred since my prognostication.

Kerry's despicable war record - and, worse yet, his post-war record - is becoming known to the American people thanks to some heroic Vietnam vets who made it their mission to get the truth about this phony, this fraud, this fake "hero."

If the voting public sees one 60-second TV commercial produced by the Swift Boat Vets for Truth, I feel confident even loyal Democrats will abandon John Fonda Kerry.

I thought I knew Kerry - having followed his career for the last 33 years. Even I did not understand the depths of depravity and deceit to which this man has plunged in his life.

It's amazing.

I think Kerry is going to rue the day he ever decided to run for president. Not only is he going to lose in a landslide to an undistinguished incumbent, he's going to be humiliated. Teresa hitched her billion-dollar wagon to the wrong star. I hope for her sake that pre-nup is solid.

This guy's going nowhere fast. He may have trouble getting re-elected to the Senate in Massachusetts when these vets get finished with him. He may not carry his home state in 2004.

There's something very compelling about the idea of dozens of solid men to go out on a limb, as these vets have done, and tell the honest truth about a guy who could very well be president - someone who could make life very nice for them. But, instead, they just tell the flat-out truth. They let the chips fall where they may. They take the risky, controversial path - one for which they cannot possibly derive any benefit.

They tell a simple, straightforward story: Kerry lied. He lied about everything. He lied about his wounds. He lied about his actions in Vietnam. He lied to get medals. He lied about what he did with his medals. He lied about atrocities. He lied before the Senate. He lied to his own men. He abandoned and betrayed his comrades.

Kerry is Clintonesque in that he seems to lie even when there is no point in lying. It comes naturally to him. He seems to be a congenital liar with no moral compass whatsoever.

On the other hand, what these vets say is all very believable - because these men have no reason to lie. They have every reason to get behind their most famous friend - even if they didn't like him, even if they thought he was no good. He could help them immensely - if they just shut up and let Kerry make up his own history. But they are standing up to be counted because they actually believe in something bigger than themselves - something called the United States of America.

All that's left to do for the rest of us on the sidelines is to make sure the real heroes have enough financial resources to tell their story to as many of the American people as will listen.

To do that, we all owe them our sacrificial contributions to show that 60-second commercial across America - to show it over and over and over again, until no American can avoid being confronted with the truth about John Kerry.

To tell you the truth, this is one time I'm happy I was wrong.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,204 • Replies: 19
No top replies

 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 07:46 pm
SCROLLL
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 07:54 pm
I always loved Farrah's poster with the beautiful teeth and teats but I don't think that qualifies her to make any significant comments about anything and more especially a Presidential candidate.

Also I heard she was like so gay.

Joe
0 Replies
 
kaleidosmith
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 08:40 pm
My understanding is that these guys served in Vietnam, but not with Kerry and weren't with him when these events happened. It seems that the guys that Kerry actually served with at the time, and the Green Beret that he saved would have a more accurate view.

I am waiting for the response ad by "Missing Texas National Guardsmen AWOL for Beer"
0 Replies
 
astromouse
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 09:44 pm
http://pics.xs.to/pics/04086/farrah.jpg

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Aug, 2004 10:27 pm
Whatever she has to say is pretty much alright with me. Smile
0 Replies
 
Chuckster
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 12:22 am
Farrah has cut his own lifeline by exhibiting his inexplicable failure to support our POTUS in war time. Watch WorldNet Daily fade from view...it's already on the way. Another Arab/American in early Alzheimers decline. Very sad to see a former journalistic hero in retrograde.
0 Replies
 
Karzak
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 12:46 am
kaleidosmith wrote:
My understanding is that these guys served in Vietnam, but not with Kerry and weren't with him when these events happened.


Your understanding is wrong.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 04:40 am
I hate one-liners...
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 05:45 am
Re Kerry's Vietnam supporters vs detractors thing, I find it quite telliing that his fellow boat commanders and his direct superiors are almost to a man among his critics. These are the people I think most qualified to comment upon his and his crew's job performance; those alongside whom he and his crew did that job, and especially those responsible for directing all of them in that job, and thus responsible and accountable for their performance in that job. Interesting too is that while a number of officers and men assigned to Kerry's unit, Coastal Division 11, received three of more Purples and a bevy of other individual citations for valor, yet, throughout the operational history of that unit, only Kerry availed himself of the opportunity to request reassignment predicated on Purple Hearts. Notable too is that among the multiply decorated contemporaneous compatriots of Kerry are several who actually extended their enlistments and/or volunteered for repeat assignment.
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 05:54 am
All but one commander do not stand behind his service, it is interesting.
0 Replies
 
swolf
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 06:22 am
timberlandko wrote:
Re Kerry's Vietnam supporters vs detractors thing, I find it quite telliing that his fellow boat commanders and his direct superiors are almost to a man among his critics. These are the people I think most qualified to comment upon his and his crew's job performance; those alongside whom he and his crew did that job, and especially those responsible for directing all of them in that job, and thus responsible and accountable for their performance in that job. Interesting too is that while a number of officers and men assigned to Kerry's unit, Coastal Division 11, received three of more Purples and a bevy of other individual citations for valor, yet, throughout the operational history of that unit, only Kerry availed himself of the opportunity to request reassignment predicated on Purple Hearts. Notable too is that among the multiply decorated contemporaneous compatriots of Kerry are several who actually extended their enlistments and/or volunteered for repeat assignment.


Again, this is 100% unique. There has never been a case of a guy running for president and virtually everybody who served in the military around him coming forward saying the guy is unfit for command.

Only the democrat party could produce such a thing and even then only when it was left with the absolute bottom of its own barrel after the Klintlers and their blackops machine had torpedoed all of the viable candidates to leave H. Klintler's run in 08 intact.
0 Replies
 
kaleidosmith
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 06:30 am
Didn't Kerry's commanding officers have to sign-off on his commendations?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 07:16 am
kaleidosmith wrote:
Didn't Kerry's commanding officers have to sign-off on his commendations?

Indeed so, and among these same superiors some now are on record as saying that had they been more fully aware of the circumstances surrounding the events leading to the citations, things likely would have gone a bit differently.

Interesting too, re Kerry's valorous volunteering for dangerous duty, is this:

From The Boston Globe, June 16, 2003:

Quote:
... Kerry initially thought about enlisting as a pilot. But his father, Richard Kerry - a test pilot who served in the Army Air Corps - warned him that if he flew in combat, he might lose his love of flying. So Kerry, who sought in so many ways to emulate John Fitzgerald Kennedy, took to the water, just as his idol served on a World War II patrol boat, the 109.

Kerry served two tours. For a relatively uneventful six months, from December 1967 to June 1968, he served in the electrical department aboard the USS Gridley, a guided-missile frigate that supported aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin and was far removed from combat ...

... Kerry initially hoped to continue his service at a relatively safe distance from most fighting, securing an assignment as "swift boat" skipper. While the 50-foot swift boats cruised the Vietnamese coast a little closer to the action than the Gridley had come, they were still considered relatively safe.

"I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry said in a little-noticed contribution to a book of Vietnam reminiscences published in 1986. "When I signed up for the swift boats, they had very little to do with the war. They were engaged in coastal patrolling and that's what I thought I was going to be doing."

But two weeks after he arrived in Vietnam, the swift boat mission changed -- and Kerry went from having one of the safest assignments in the escalating conflict to one of the most dangerous. ...


Sounds to me as though Kerry got something other than that for which he thought he had bargained. Seems to me he siezed the soonest possible opportunity to remedy the inconvenience brought about by his unexpected change of mission, whether or not he engineered that opportunity. I suspect he was not wholly uninvolved in the structuring of that opportunity.

Then too, "Give him a medal and get him the hell out of here" is not an unknown means by which a military command relieves itself of an unappreciated element. I strongly suspect that played a significant part in Kerry's military career track.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 07:45 am
my direct superiors (those blond guys from Yale) during that dirty little asian war were, by and large, the most incompetent yahoos one could encounter in a lifetime, but I am sure they were quite sincere in their endeavors while causing untold loss of life, (they usually got lots of medals as well)
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 08:11 am
If you want to understand what the GOP is attempting to do to John Kerry. Just look at what was done to former Senator Max Cleland in the last election.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 08:32 am
Just what was done to Cleland? Pointing to his voting record and to the fact his injuries were not due to hostile action? Cleland wasn't injured in combat, he screwed up. He was among an off-duty group of buddies gathered in a secure rear area with the intent to have a few beers and swap some stories, saw a grenade, and imprudently picked it up. That he did it in Vietnam makes it no less an unfortunate carelessness than had he done it while in bootcamp. There is no "Bravery under fire" entailed by accidentally blowing yourself to bits. Cleland "left his limbs" not on the battlefield but at the Officer's Club.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 10:47 am
What amazes me that Kerry thought he wouldn't be tripped up by embellishments and fabrications related to his military service when he chose to make it the cornerstone if not virtually the sole qualification for him to be President of the United States? Who was the idiot in his campaign that thought this would not generate intense scrutiny?
0 Replies
 
Brand X
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 12:19 pm
Er.... Terry McAuliffe, who inherited the title of Deceiver-in-Chief of the Democrat Party from Bill Clinton.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 7 Aug, 2004 02:21 pm
I'd say McAuliffe just went along with the suggestions of an ambitious hotdogger who hauled a Super8 camera around Vietnam so he could film heroic re-enactments of actions in and as which he wished to portray later he had been involved.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Farrah: Kerry is Toast
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 11:13:00