My Story on DemocraticUnderground.com was Picked Up by MSNBC

My brother was doing some independent research on a new directive issued by the DOD and was angered by the Bush administration's apparent attempt to squelch the First Ammendment rights of members of the US Armed Services. The new directive (DOD 1344.10) states that active duty members of the US military may not endorse any political candidate or take part in any convention as a delegate. He then discovered that the GOP was touting, on it's official website for the convention, having 144 active military personel as delegates.

I wrote the story with him (thanks for the hard work my brother), which was picked up and put on the front page of Democratic Underground. It was subsequently picked up by Eric Alterman from MSNBC.

There is some debate whether or not the directive applies to Reservists but, according to my reading of the directive and my conversations with current members of the National Guard and Reserves, no service member, regardless of duty status, is to endorse political candidates.

Here is a definition from the directive:


E2.1.1. Active Duty. Full-time duty in the active military service of the United States regardless of duration or purpose, including:

E2.1.1.1. Full-time training duty;

E2.1.1.2. Annual training duty; and

E2.1.1.3. Attendance, while in the active military service, at a school designated as a Service school by law or by the Secretary of the Military Department concerned.

E2.1.2. Armed Forces. The U.S. Army, the Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard, including their Reserve components.

The funny thing is that the official GOP website removed it's press release bragging about the active military members. It is gone. I wonder why they removed it? Don't worry, I got a mirror of it here.

I wonder if Alterman and the rest of the mainstream media will follow up on this story?

I wonder why the Bush Administration feels that it is neccessary to put a gag on the US military?

Tweaking Cam

Cam got on to me a few posts back for "outing" Conservative Republican Ed Schrock. He wanted to know why nothing had happened for over a week and why there was no evidence. Well, Ed Schrock has now withdrawn from his re-election campaign for Congress. He has not refuted the allegations nor has he given a reason for his sudden unexpected withdrawal. No evidence you say? How about a tape of Congressman Schrock talking on a gay phone line.

Mr. Schrock's private life should be private right? I mean it's not like he has bashed gays, co-sponsored the Federal Marriage Ammendment, is against gays in the military, has one of the highest ratings from the Christian Coalition, and is one of the most Conservative members of the U. S. House, right. Wrong!!!

He is and has done all of the preceeding things.

His hypocrisy is what is wrong with the so called conservative republicans.

The same website has a breaking story about a prominent New York Democrat being a closeted gay for decades. Ironically enough, this Democrat is now supporting the anti-gay platform of the Bush administration. Even more ironically, he is a featured speaker at the Republican National Convention.

Who is it? Former NY Mayor, Ed Koch.

What about that for fairness Cam, one conservative republican and one old flaming hypocritical Democrat in one week.

The website, is coming out with more outings in the days and weeks to follow. Stay tuned.



Word of the day

schadenfreude \SHAHD-n-froy-duh\, noun:
A malicious satisfaction in the misfortunes of others.

Quote of the Day

"War is delightful to those who have not experienced it."
- Erasmus

I got George W. Bush in the Texas National Guard

"Let’s talk a minute about John Kerry and George Bush and I know them both. And I’m not name dropping to say I know ‘em both. I got a young man named George W. Bush into the Texas National Guard when I was Lt. Gov. and I’m not necessarily proud of that. But I did it. And I got a lot of other people into the National Guard because I thought that’s what people should do. If you’re in office you help a lot of rich people and I walked to the Vietnam Memorial the other day and I looked at the names of the people that died in Vietnam and I became more ashamed of myself that I have ever been because the worst thing that I did was that I helped a lot of wealthy supporters and a lot of people who had family names of importance get into the National Guard and I’m very sorry about that and I’m very ashamed and I apologize to you as voters of Texas."
-Ben Barnes former Lt. Governor of Texas

Video of Ben Barnes making this statement

"Mr. Bush," I said. "How did you get into the Guard so easily? One hundred thousand guys our age were on the waiting list, and you say you walked in and signed up to become a pilot. Did your congressman father exercise any influence on your behalf?"
-Jim Moore (during 1994 Texas gubernatorial debate against Anne Richards)
"Not that I know of, Jim," the future president told me. "I certainly didn't ask for any. And I'm sure my father didn't either. They just had an opening for a pilot and I was there at the right time."
-George W. Bush-Lying draft dodger

Support from Real Americans

Pictures from the Rally in the Valley in Warren, Ohio. Look at the size of the crowd supporting John Kerry and John Edwards. It is really amazing to see so many unscreened American people turn out to show their support.

There was also a huge crowd of Bush supporters protesting the event.

Someone really needs to talk to the Republicans about their signs. They are just not very witty or incisive or even grammitically correct. My favorite sign (you can barely read it) says, "Commander in Chief - Vote for the cowboy not the hippie". I wonder who did more mind altering drugs in the 70's, the cowboy or the hippie?

Doesn't the young girl on the left appear to be having a grand time?



Latest Military Casualities-Iraq

08/25/04 NAME NOT RELEASED YET Not reported yet U.S. Army
08/24/04 Arredondo, Alexander Lance Corporal 20 U.S. Marine
08/24/04 Davis, Donald N. Staff Sergeant 42 U.S. Army Reserve
08/22/04 Belchik, Christopher Corporal 30 U.S. Marine
08/22/04 Stovall, Matthew R. 2nd Lieutenant 25 U.S. Army NG
08/21/04 Reeder, Edward T. Gunnery Sgt. 32 U.S. Marine
08/21/04 Washalanta, Nachez Private 1stCls 21 U.S. Marine
08/21/04 Huston, Seth Lance Corporal 19 U.S. Marine
08/21/04 Cook, Jason Sergeant 25 U.S. Marine
08/21/04 Alvarez, Nicanor Corporal 22 U.S. Marine
08/21/04 Andrzejczak, Krystian Private 1stCls 24 Polish Army
08/21/04 Cuming, Kevin A. Private 1stCls 22 U.S. Army

I will not forget.

Neo Cons beginning to see error of Iraq war

From Truthout.org -

But the biggest slam has come from one of the neo-cons' leading intellectuals, Francis Fukuyama, author of "The End of History." Confronting columnist Charles Krauthammer, who recently proposed that the United States pursue an interventionist policy of forcefully promoting global democracy, Fukuyama flat-out rejected the major neo-conservative arguments for going to war in Iraq. Saddam Hussein never posed an immediate threat to the United States, he declared. And the United States lacked the "nation-building" know-how to make Iraq democratic.

"If the United States cannot eliminate poverty or raise test scores in Washington, D.C.," he chided his neo-con colleagues, "how does it expect to bring democracy to a part of the world that has stubbornly resisted it and is virulently anti-American to boot?"

"The United States," he concluded, "needs to be more realistic about its nation-building abilities, and cautious in taking on large social-engineering projects in parts of the world it does not understand very well."

Fukuyama also faulted his close friend Krauthammer, and other neo-cons by implication, for failing to deal with reality. "There is not," he wrote, "the slightest nod towards the new empirical facts that have emerged in the last year or so: the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the virulent and steadily mounting anti-Americanism throughout the Middle East, the growing insurgency in Iraq, the fact that no strong democratic leadership had emerged there, the enormous financial and growing human cost of the war, the failure to leverage the war to make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front, and the fact that America's fellow democratic allies had by and large failed to fall in line and legitimate American actions ex post."



I think I may have figured out who ordered those tickets...

Conservative Republican Congressman OUTED!!!

From the gay website Blogactive.com :

When the story of Congressman Ed Schrock (R-VA-2) first came to me, I was quite skeptical. After all, Congressman Schrock's district includes parts of Hampton and Norfolk and all of Virginia Beach, home to no less than NINE military facilities and Pat Robertson’s Regent University! Nevertheless, the activities of Congressman Schrock have been documented and verified as thoroughly as any I have seen come before me and what I have learned is, well, ScHrOCKING!

Congressman Ed Schrock has made a habit of rendezvousing with gay men via the MegaMates/ MegaPhone Line, an interactive telephone service on which men place ads and respond to those ads to meet each other. What makes this story more amazing? Congressman Schrock not only voted for the homophobic Marriage Protection Act, but he also signed on as a CO-SPONSOR of the Federal Marriage Amendment!

Ed Schrock has a voting record that the most right wing conservative would be proud of. The Christian Coalition gave him a 92% rating in their 2003 voting guide.

I guess if John Kerry's Vietnam service is open to scurrilous charges then a conservative congressman who co-sponsored the FMA and voted for it is open to having his alleged gay rendezvous explored. Gutter politics is fun, isn't it kids?

Gay Themed Show Pulled from Official RNC Sanctioned Events (S&M Whore Whippings Still Approved)

I wonder who bought those tickets using the "special" Republican convention code?

Two Vietnam Vets wait for Bush to respond.

Crawford Texas, John Rassman and Max Cleland are waiting outside the Rhinestone Cowboy, George Bush's, Crawford ranch to give him a letter signed by 9 US Senators demanding he specifically condemn the devious and dishonorable attack ads by the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush.

"As veterans of the armed services, we ask that you recognize this blatant attempt at character assassination, and publicly condemn it," the senators said in their letter.
-Letter signed by 9 US Senators to George W. Bush

Bush keeps triple amputee Vietnam Vet waiting:



John O'Neil caught in a lie about Cambodia

During a Hannity and Colmes interview on Tuesday August 24, John O'Neil was asked why he was caught on tape telling Richard Nixon he was in Cambodia during his deployment in Vietnam. O'Neil couldn't answer the question and fumbled about while Sean Hannity tried in vain to help him out. O'Neil has now told three different versions of where he was in Vietnam. He told Nixon he was in Cambodia, he has stated he was on the border of Cambodia and in Print he has denied ever being near Cambodia.

Not that we needed further proof that O'Neil is a liar, but which of his stories is true. If he was in Cambodia, he has lied and defamed Kerry. If he wasn't in Cambodia, he lied to President Nixon. Either way, John O'Neil is caught in a lie again.

Or maybe, at that time in Vietnam, borders were not specific or clearly marked and it was easy for a Swift Boat captain to be mistaken. Maybe.

Naaaahhhh! John O' Neil is a big fat greasy uptight partisan smearmongering liar.



John Kerry's speech before the US Senate in 1971.

A lot of lies have been spread about John Kerry's speech about Vietnam to the Senate in 1971. I doubt most of the people who are mis-quoting it or taking it out of context have read the entire thing. Here it is. Read it yourself and decide if John Kerry was attacking the soldiers or the government for sending them to fight and die in an immoral war:


Editorial Notes by Dr. Ernest Bolt, University of Richmond

By April 1971, with at least seven legislative proposals relating to the Vietnam war under consideration, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chaired by Senator William Fulbright (Democrat-Arkansas) began to hear testimony. On the third day of hearings, six members of the committee heard comments by John Kerry, a leader of the major veterans organization opposing continuation of the war. Kerry was the only representative of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) who testified on April 22, but others in VVAW were in the audience and at times supported his remarks with applause.

The committee began the hearing April 20 and continued to receive testimony for four days in April and for seven days throughout May, 1971. The full testimony heard by the committee, including that of Kerry, is in Legislative Proposals Relating to the War in Southeast Asia, Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, Ninety-Second Congress, First Session (April-May 1971), Washington: Government Printing Office, 1971. Subject breaks in Kerry's testimony were provided by the Senate staff in the form of subtitles, which in some cases are retained below. Additional editorial notes are provided by Professor Bolt. Excerpts from Kerry's testimony are from pages 180, 181-183, 184, 185, 195, 204, and 208.

Statement of Mr. John Kerry

...I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony....


I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.

We who have come here to Washington have come here because we f eel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out.


...In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart....


We found that not only was it a civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever, but also we found that the Vietnamese whom we had enthusiastically molded after our own image were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.

We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone on peace, and they practiced the art of survival by siding with whichever military force was present at a particular time, be it Vietcong, North Vietnamese, or American.

We found also that all too often American men were dying in those rice paddies for want of support from their allies. We saw first hand how money from American taxes was used for a corrupt dictatorial regime. We saw that many people in this country had a one-sided idea of who was kept free by our flag, as blacks provided the highest percentage of casualties. We saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs as well as by search and destroy missions, as well as by Vietcong terrorism, and yet we listened while this country tried to blame all of the havoc on the Viet Cong.

We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them. We saw America lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum.

We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of orientals.

We watched the U.S. falsification of body counts, in fact the glorification of body counts. We listened while month after month we were told the back of the enemy was about to break. We fought using weapons against "oriental human beings," with quotation marks around that. We fought using weapons against those people which I do not believe this country would dream of using were we fighting in the European theater or let us say a non-third-world people theater, and so we watched while men charged up hills because a general said that hill has to be taken, and after losing one platoon or two platoons they marched away to leave the high for the reoccupation by the North Vietnamese because we watched pride allow the most unimportant of battles to be blown into extravaganzas, because we couldn't lose, and we couldn't retreat, and because it didn't matter how many American bodies were lost to prove that point. And so there were Hamburger Hills and Khe Sanhs and Hill 881's and Fire Base 6's and so many others.


Now we are told that the men who fought there must watch quietly while American lives are lost so that we can exercise the incredible arrogance of Vietnamizing the Vietnamese....

Each day to facilitate the process by which the United States washes her hands of Vietnam someone has to give up his life so that the United States doen'st have to admit something that the entire world already knows, so that we can't say they we have made a mistake. Someone has to die so that President Nixon won't be, and these are his words, "the first President to lose a war."

We are asking Americans to think about that because how do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? But we are trying to do that, and we are doing it with thousands of rationalizations, and if you read carefully the President's last speech to the people of this country, you can see that he says and says clearly:

But the issue, gentlemen, the issue is communism, and the question is whether or not we will leave that country to the Communists or whether or not we will try to give it hope to be a free people.

But the point is they are not a free people now under us. They are not a free people, and we cannot fight communism all over the world, and I think we should have learned that lesson by now....


We are asking here in Washington for some action, action from the Congress of the United States of America which as the power to raise and maintain armies, and which by the Constitution also has the power to declare war.

We have come here, not to the President, because we believe that this body can be responsive to the will of the people, and we believe that the will of the people says that we should be out of Vietnam now....


We are also here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We are here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Gilpatric, and so many others. Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded.

The Marines say they never leave even their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They have left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching begin them in the sun in this country....

Editorial Note: Concluding his formal statement, Kerry commented about administration attempts to disown veterans and looked forward thirty years (to 2001) when the nation could look back proudly to a time when it turned from this war and the hate and fears driving us in Vietnam.

Following his formal testimony, the committee members questioned him during their discussion of some of the legislative proposals under consideration. In the course of this discussion, Kerry spoke with considerable familiarity and understanding about disengagement and withdrawal proposals being considered. In response to a question from Senator Aiken, Kerry endorsed "extensive reparations to the people of Indochina" as a "very definite obligation" of the U.S. (p. 191).
Kerry also commented on growth of American opposition to the war, the actions of Lt. Calley at My Lai, and strategic implications of the war.

...It is my opinion that the United States is still reacting in very much the 1945 mood and postwar cold-war period when we reacted to the forces which were at work in World War II and came out of it with this paranoia about the Russians and how the world was going to be divided up between the super powers, and the foreign policy of John Foster Dulles which was responsible for the created of the SEATO treaty, which was, in fact, a direct reaction to this so-called Communist monolith. And I think we are reacting under cold-war precepts which are no longer applicable.

I say that because so long as we have the kind of strike force we have, and I am not party to the secret statistics which you gentlemen have here, but as long as we have the ones which we of the public know we have, I think we have a strike force of such capability and I think we have a strike force simply in our Polaris submarines, in the 62 or some Polaris submarines, which are constantly roaming around under the sea. And I know as a Navy man that underwater detection is the hardest kind in the world, and they have not perfected it, that we have the ability to destroy the human race. Why do we have to, therefore, consider and keep considering threats?

At any time that an actual threat is posed to this country or to the security and freedom I will be one of the first people to pick up a gun and defend it, but right now we are reacting with paranoia t this question of peace and the people taking over the world. I think if were are ever going to get down to the question of dropping those bombs most of us in my generation simply don't want to be alive afterwards because of the kind of world that it would be with mutations and the genetic probabilities of freaks and everything else.

Therefore, I think it is ridiculous to assume we have to play this power game based on total warfare. I think there will be guerrilla wars and I think we must have a capability to fight those. And we may have to fight them somewhere based on legitimate threats, but we must learn, in this country, how to define those threats and that is what I would say to the question of world peace. I think it is bogus, totally artificial. There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands. [Laughter.]...

Editorial Note: Kerry's exchange with the senators consumed two complete hours, ranging from earlier French experiences in Indochina to the status of the war in 1971. Kerry faulted the electronic press for failure to report a recent antiwar conference because of its lack of "visual" appeal and entertainment value. He also cited the "exorbitant" power of the Executive, faulting Congress.

In response to Senator Symington's inquiry about American men and women still in Vietnam and their attitude toward opposition to the war within Congress, Kerry offered the following comments.

...I don't want to get into the game of saying I represent everybody over there, but let me try to say as straightforwardly as I can, we had an advertisement, ran full page, to show you what the troops read. It ran in Playboy and the response to it within two and a half weeks from Vietnam was 1,200 members. We received initially about 50 to 80 letters a day from troops arriving at our New York office. Some of these letters -- and I wanted to bring some down, I didn't know we were going to be testifying here and I can make them available to you -- are very, very moving, some of them written by hospital corpsmen on things, on casualty report sheets which say, you know, "Get us out of here." "You are the only hope he have got." "You have got to get us back; it is crazy." We received recently 80 members of the 101st Airborne signed up in one letter. Forty members from a helicopter assault squadron, crash and rescue mission signed up in another one.

I think they are expressing, some of these troops, solidarity with us, right now by wearing black arm bands and Vietnam Veterans Against the War buttons. They want to come out and I think they are looking at the people who want to try to get them out as a help.

However, I do recognize there are some men who are in the military for life. The job in the military is to fight wars. When they have a war to fight, they are just as happy in a sense, and I am sure that these men feel they are being stabbed in the back. But, at the same time, I think to most of them the realization of the emptiness, the hollowness, the absurdity of Vietnam has finally hit home, and I feel is they did come home the recrimination would certainly not come from the right, from the military. I don't think there would be that problem....

Editorial Note: Kerry returned to the theme of the mood of troops in Vietnam and back home as he concluded his testimony.

...You see the mind is changing over there and a search and destroy mission is a search and avoid mission, and troops don't -- you know, like that revolt that took place that was mentioned in the New York Times when they refused to go in after a piece of dead machinery, because it doesn't have any value. They are making their own judgments.

There is a GI movement in this country now as well as over there, and soon these people, these men, who are prescribing wars for these young men to fight are going to find out they are going to have to find some other men to fight them because we are going to change prescriptions. They are going to have to change doctors, because we are not going to fight for them. that is what they are going to realize. There is now a more militant attitude even within the military itself....

Editorial Note: Later as Democratic senator from Massachusetts, John Kerry joined 61 others in favor of a nonbinding resolution to lift the U.S. trade embargo against Vietnam. The original embargo began against the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1964 and extended to the united Socialist Republic of Vietnam in April 1975. Following the nonbinding senate resolution, President Clinton repealed the embargo 4 February 1994.



In Defense of a Hero

While listening to the radio yesterday, I heard at least 6 hours of Kerry bashing on my "favorite" conservative talk shows (and I only listened until from 8:00 am until 3:00 pm. Four different programs, six different hosts, one station. The topic was beaten into the ground ensuring any casual listener would be exposed to the theme that John Kerry was; a coward, a liar, a cheat, a forger, and a glory seeker with plans to falsify his reputation dating back 35 years. Like the chorus of a bad pop song, it will stick in the audience's minds where it will roll around and settle permanently into the subconscious. And like a sleazy promoter who takes advantage of naive young singers, the radical right is forming and shaping an ignoble image of John Kerry to give it's product, George W. Bush a lustrous sheen, in comparison.

The only problem is they have a defective product. Their guy has not done well for this country...ever. He has failed at every venture he has ever undertaken. From his below average efforts at learning instructions he was not qualified to attend to his tenuous National Guard duty used to duck real service to his vainglorious business attempts that all ended in bailouts, bankruptcy or illegal profiting, George W. Bush has no promotable qualities. Nothing of value in an ever superficial election process.

What to do if you are the handlers of a failure? Tear down your opponent with every low blow and sleazy tactic available to you.

One of the many areas Kerry outshines Bush is his history of brave service to his country. Here is a man who volunteered to go into the military, not in a country club National Guard unit, but with a commitment to the U. S. Navy at a time of war. After completing his training he then demanded to be sent to the conflict (George W. Bush forceful checked the box that said "No. I do not wish to be considered for duty in Vietnam"). John Kerry was sent to a ship off the coast of Vietnam and could have stayed relatively safely on it for the duration of his tour of duty. He chose to get closer to the action by demanding service on a "Swift Boat" in the heart of dangerous jungles of Vietnam. John Kerry knew he would be going into a true combat situation where men were injured and killed daily and he did it willingly. George Bush didn't willingly attend his minimum weekend drills or make time for his required physical exams.

John Kerry got the action he was looking for. In the Navy reports, his time in country reads like an action movie, the only difference is it was real danger, real bullets and real bravery. Here are some excerpts:

19 FEB 1969 Bay Hap River
As a follow-up to the mission of 18 February, five swift boats moved downriver in the morning with a company of South Vietnamese marines to engage troops that took swift boats under fire the day before. The boats came under fire several times during the day, although damage was limited to "several SA (small arms) holes in superstructure and rigging of PCH 72 and 94."

20 FEB 1969 Dam Doi River
On a patrol of the Dam Doi River with five other swiftboats and helicopter cover, PCF 94 came under intense small arms and rocket fire from three personnel in black pajamas on the bank. Kerry and one member of his crew were wounded. Kerry received shrapnel wounds in his left thigh. The second man, EN2 Eugene Kenneth Thorson suffered shrapnel wounds in his right arm. Both were treated aboard the USCGC Wachusetts and returned to duty. Persons filing reports on this mission were highly critical of the cover provided by the helicopters and noted that the area seemed prosperous and lacked offensive bunkers, and suggested that future operations in the area avoid destruction. Kerry received the Purple Heart for this operation.

25 FEB 1969 Cua Lon River
Early in the morning, four swift boats, including Kerry's, rendezvoused to conduct operations against Viet Cong targets with cover from helicopters. The party destroyed several boats as well as a suspected Viet Cong meeting hall containing Ho Chi Minh posters and Viet Cong uniforms. Later in the day, the boats encountered heavy fire from rockets and automatic weapons. The boats and helicopters suppressed the enemy fire. When a man was seen running into a bunker, PCF94 beached and an assault party was sent to retrieve him. The landing party was fired on shortly after landing on the beach and pinned down until another boat could reach the area. When the Viet Cong refused to leave the bunker in spite of repeated requests from the Officer in Charge, the bunker was destroyed.

In less than one week, three different engagements involving small arms fire, automatic weapons fire and rocket launcher attacks. In the same amount of time, those who have never given anything mock and viciously attack a man who did and, to many, have destroyed his reputation in the process.

The reports go on and on and portray a man who willingly went into combat again and again, acted bravely under fire, and took care of his men. Read them for yourself at:


I have heard many conservative pundits, who never had the courage, dedication, or bravery to serve, question how John Kerry could receive the awards he did (Silver Star, Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts) in only 4 months of service. After reading the after action reports and looking at the almost daily intense combat he faced, it is a wonder he, and the men he served with, were not hurt worse or killed in combat. I wonder how many Vietnam soldiers were killed in less than 4 months of service? Would these same chicken hawks who condemn Kerry question their grievous wounds because they “hadn’t been there long enough” to die?

Contrary to what the right wing attack dogs would have you believe, the facts are clear:

John Kerry Volunteered to serve his country at a time of war.

John Kerry demanded to be sent to the country with which we were fighting.

John Kerry demanded to be sent to a more dangerous assignment in the heart of combat.

John Kerry faced enemy fire.

John Kerry was wounded, repeatedly.

John Kerry saved the lives of men he served with.

John Kerry’s actions during the Vietnam war were heroic.

As a former soldier, I find this case of character assassination appalling. President Bush and his lackeys are setting out to destroy the reputation of a man who did the right thing. This is the politics of personal destruction at it’s worse and the fact that the president will not condemn it is an insightful look into the character of a desperate, petty, weak man. George W. Bush is metaphorically spitting in the face of all Vietnam Vets. Can the cry of “Baby Killer” be far behind.

This defamation of a war hero’s medals sets a dangerous precedent for generations to come. Every attack against Kerry weakens the memory of our soldiers and dishonors and diminishes all of their service and sacrifice. An environment has been created in which every medal can be questioned, every award defamed.

I wonder which soldier serving bravely in Iraq, under fire, under attack, or wounded in action will be the target of smears and lies and slander in future elections? Simply because they present a challenge to a failed incumbent.



Boob -


Why Bush Will Lose in November-

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. What has changed since the last election. How will the majority of people vote and why? I have come to the conclusion that Bush will lose in November and here is why: The 2000 elections were not the most exciting in recent memory; no incumbent, two unexciting candidates, a bored electorate, good economy, a generally peaceful world. The people of this country were lulled into apathy. The end result- 48% to Gore, 48% to Bush and 4% to all other candidates.

The bases did what bases do and each diligently supported their respective candidates. The swing voters swayed to and fro and finally split about equally between Bush and Gore. 100 million people didn't even bother to show up at the polls. Minority voters were wooed and soccer moms were courted but no one really inspired the fire or political adrenalin of past elections.

What has changed since then? We are caught in an unending war on terror, deficit spending has exploded, we have an incumbent who has split the country apart politically, racially, sexually, religiously and culturally. 850+ U.S. troops have been killed and over 5000 wounded in a conflict that has been proven time and time again to have been waged on false pretenses. America's standing in the world community has never been lower. The economy does appear to be on the upswing but it is not reflected in job growth and a net loss of jobs appears to be likely for the first time in any administration since the great depression. Gas prices, drug prices, college tuitions, health care costs, and insurance are all rapidly out pacing inflation washing away the small refund the majority of Americans received.

The Democratic base is as motivated and fired up as I have ever seen. John Kerry is raking in never before seen sums of campaign contributions (most from first time individual donors). Bush's base is still strong and he is, likewise, raking in the dough. Money is about a wash in this contest. Hundreds of millions will be spent making this the costliest election in the history of mankind.

For the first time, Liberals (or Progressives if you prefer) are receiving a small amount of representation on the radio, in books and (thank you Michael Moore) on the big screen. The incredible success of most of these ventures proves there is an engaged audience eager for the message. Yes, they are preaching to the choir but what a big loud enthusiastic choir it has turned out to be.

The third party as represented by Ralph Nader (Independent Candidate) and to a smaller extent Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Candidate) is polling horribly and is having trouble raising anywhere near the money the two big parties are raking in. Most of the supporters of third parties saw in the 2000 election the results of supporting an unelectable candidate. Vote your conscience and you may get the greater of two evils, making the lesser seem much preferable. Most main third party voters more closely relate to the Democratic Party platforms than the Republican (especially this one). The two main third party candidates have expressed their support for Kerry over Bush. This election will result in the smallest support for third party candidates in the last 5 elections and I wouldn't be surprised if some third party candidates chucked their support to Kerry at the last minute. Kerry gains disenfranchised third party voters, Bush does not.

Bush has lost the confidence of a few within his own party. The rising deficits, his immigration proposal, unchecked government spending, the Patriot act and other real or perceived sleights have done irreparable damage to the true conservatives in the Republican party. I have heard anecdotal stories and testimonials from many who, although they would never vote for a liberal Democrat, can not bring themselves to vote for a Republican who has betrayed their core beliefs. They would rather stay home or leave that part of the ballot blank. There is no counter equivalent loss in support for Kerry.

The homophobic red herring of the anti-gay amendment to the Constitution has sheared away the support of Bush within the gay community. Reportedly Bush had a million gay supporters in the last election. Kerry will undoubtedly pick up most of that segment of the voting public and probably many more new voters with whom this is a core issue. Bush keeps his religious base but loses much more.

Scandal upon scandal are reaching their conclusions or seeing the first light of day after this administration has stonewalled and thwarted the investigative process. The Plame outing, secret energy meetings, inter-administration memos, Halliburton overcharges, Medigate, violation of civil rights, torture. The American public and, more importantly, the American media are finally holding this administration to account (not to the level of extramarital sex but hey it's a start). Many more damaging and possibly devastating revelations will come out between now and November in spite of best efforts of the Republican controlled Congress. To even some of the most stubborn Bush supporters this much smoke indicates a fire. Bush loses support. Kerry either gains or stays even.

From the stories of disenfranchised African-American voters in Florida to Bush's no-show and outright snub of the NAACP, African-American support for this President, though never high, has eroded to an almost non-existent level. There is also active voter registration and recruitment by Democratically supported organizations to motivate and activate this under-represented segment of America. Bush loses whatever small amount of support he had within this community and Kerry keeps the traditional support and possibly gains new voters.

The military has been pushed to the breaking point by a poorly planned and unnecessary Iraq war. The families and the soldiers who have served have been lied to repeatedly by the defense department about the amount of time they would spend on combat deployments. The morale of the military is sinking rapidly. Stop loss orders and activation of the Individual Ready Reserve have further eroded the confidence and support of the military for Bush. The Non-Commissioned Officer Corps is in danger of being destroyed by those career NCO's who are choosing to retire or just leave the military rather than be overused and abused. While he will still have support withing the military community (which has traditionally been more conservative)there will be a backlash from tens of thousands of service men and women and their family members who have been seriously hurt by the direct actions of President Bush and his Neo-Con administration. Bush loses a significant amount of support from the military. Kerry receives the protest vote or stays even.

In conclusion, Bush has acted like he has a mandate from the people when over 50% did not support him to begin with. He has completely alienated Democrats, Moderates, members of his own party and base, homosexuals, African-Americans, the military, third party voters and the all important swing voters. Kerry gains the support of most of the above groups and at the very worst does not get the votes that Bush loses.

Bush is going to lose this election, not because of anything Kerry has done or will do, but because of all of the damage and conflict, pain and betrayal Bush has caused during his term. When it comes right down to it the election is not Kerry versus Bush, it is Bush versus himself and in that contest Bush loses either way.

Serial Killer or Conservative Talk Show Host?

Compare the typical serial killer's profile to the typical conservative talk show host (CTSH) and see if you can distinguish between them.

The average serial killer is a white male. So is the average CTSH.

Both serial killers and CTSH begin their careers in their mid 20's to early 30's.

The typical serial killer doesn't usually know his victims or have any particular hatred for them personally (though they might be symbolic to him in some way) most of the time...His victims never did anything to hurt him in any way...they are normally strangers to him. Same with CTSH victims.

The superiority the organized serial killer feels leads to a strong need to dominate those around him. He may be prone to violent outbursts much like CTSH.

The serial killer wants to be seen as someone who is attractive and appealing to women. However, his level of sophistication in interacting with women, especially women who are above him in the social strata, is low just like CTSH.

This is a person who will not handle rejection (real or imagined) well, particularly by women, and he will become angry, sullen, and determined to retaliate. Ever notice how much CTSH hate strong women (Hillary, Barbra Streisand, The Dixie Chicks)

There is usually a high degree of redundant violence, or an 'overkill', where the victim is subjected to a disproportionate level of brutality. CTSH are still metaphorically killing Clinton.

There are several types of serial killers. See if you can match your favorite CTSH with the type of serial killer most like him. See answer below.

* Visionaries - Acts in response to voices and is instructed by these voices to perform his acts. Usually schizophrenic and psychotic.

* Missionaries - They think it is their responsibility to rid society of unwanted elements.

* Hedonists - Attack because the act causes them pleasure.

* Thrill - Attack because of a desire for a thrill or experience.

* Gain Killers - Attack and kill for personal gain. The killer premeditates the act to require financial gain or materialistic goods.

* Power Seekers - Kill for the desire to have control over the life and death of others.

*That was a trick quiz. All conservative talk show hosts fit every category.

Maybe it's a good thing conservative radio talk show hosts have been given the relatively non-violent medium in which to act out their power and dominance issues. God only knows how many serial killings could have been prevented had the killers been given access to microphones, multi-million dollar contracts and an audience of adoring morons.

They have awakened a sleeping giant...

It's morning in America.

The American public is slowly waking up to the reality of the damage the Bush administration has done to our great country. Americans are slow to anger and quick to forgive but eventually our compassion and tolerance reaches a breaking point. Most were willing to give the controversially elected President a chance. After all, he had promised to be "a uniter, not a divider," and a "compassionate conservative".

He has failed. The man who would be king has proven to be the court jester, with disastrous consequences. A war with no end is decimating our military's morale and it now requires "stop loss" orders and dipping into the inactive ready reserves just to maintain the status quo. The morale of our armed forces has gone from the patriotic fervor of post 9/11 to a barely sustainable forced facade propped up by the laughable chicken hawk's and radio personalities hollow rhetoric.

The outright temerity of this administration to blatantly lie to the American people is finally being spotlighted by a timid media which stood idly by and even propagandized for this administration in the buildup to war. Don't ask don't tell became the motto, not of the military, but of our most cherished Constitutional institution. The press, free to explore and challenge and demand, for the most part stood idly by and reprinted the carefully worded memos and releases pounded out by the administration's pulp writers.

We are waking now. We are being roused by the lives lost, the opportunity squandered and the lies told. It is no longer the fringe element who are asking questions. The unpatriotic label has lost it's adhesive, it's just doesn't stick anymore. Who among us has not been affected? As many Americans brush away the sleep from their eyes, they begin to see, many for the first time, what has happened while they were sleeping. Like some bizarre reverse world, the nightmare begins when we become fully conscious.

I can hear it now. The low rumblings of thunder. The challenge to a patronizing authority. The demands for truth, not only from our leaders but from our media and our neighbors and our friends. No longer content to sit idly by and believe what we are told, Americans now begin to use that sacred document forged of fire so many years ago to defend the weak, to hold to account the powerful and to demand the truth from those who would lead. Your ivory towers are crumbling. Your facade is cracked. We can see behind the curtain.

No longer will we sleep. Lay motionless while our world is diminished. Sit idly by and watch events unfold that we can influence. The time for passivity has long since passed and, like the giant, once awakened, we will not return to our slumber until a change has been wrought, a price paid for the grievous wounds inflicted up us as a nation and healing can begin.

Good morning America.

Freedom Chickens

My family and I own seven chickens. They are different breeds, colors and personalities. We got eight of them at easter time when they were just a few weeks old. We cared for them, nurtured them, watched them grow and sadly watched one die. We built them a pen and put the young chicks inside. The coop was not great (I built it myself) but it was reasonably strong, protected them from the elements and gave them room to walk around during the day.

After they had reached maturity, I began to feel bad about the conditions the chickens lived in. They still got plenty of food and fresh water. They also received daily treats of corn on the cob, tomatoes, cucumbers and other luxury chicken food. They probably had better quality of life than most other chickens in the world. They had eaten all of the fresh grass on the ground and tried to reach the grass that grew outside the coop but were blocked by the wire which kept them safe.

But, we reasoned, there were dogs, raccoons, opossum, skunks, hawks, snakes and all sort of other dangerous critters that would kill our chickens if given the opportunity. They are out there. We have seen them. We were keeping them safe from the evil creatures who wished them harm. There is no higher calling than protecting the creatures you are responsible for.

I began to ask people, "If you were a chicken, would you rather live in a secure environment that limited your freedom or a riskier environment in which you got to explore and live life to the fullest?". The answer was unanimous. Let your chickens go.

So we did. It has been a little over a month now. We still have all 7 chickens. They are free to roam, explore, run, eat strange and wonderful things, follow their own path, and sometimes even fly. We take reasonable precautions and are vigilant to any growing threat. We will still protect them (we love our chickens)from anything that wishes them harm. We still lock up their coop at night (where they return every evening of their own accord) but most of their lives are spent exploring the wonderful possibilities of freedom.

We know we will eventually lose some, we can't protect them from every known and unknown danger no matter what we do, and when that day comes, we will be saddened and angry at whatever gets them. There will probably be retribution if we can identify, without any doubt, whatever is responsible. The hard part, at that point, will be giving the remaining "girls" the freedoms to which they have become accustomed, but we will.

There are millions of chickens who live in the extreme safety of commercial production facilities. They are crammed together in wire cages, inside metal building, on secure grounds. They have people whose only priority is to keep them alive for as long as possible. They are given massive doses of drugs to ward off diseases and are kept in bright lighted conditions 24 hours a day, so their owners can see them and watch for signs of illness. The produce more eggs and meat than my little flock ever could and they are completely safe, secure and controlled. Not one of those chickens will ever have to go through the terror of being attacked and killed by a wild predator. Ironically, their stress levels, induced by the very confinement that keeps them safe, greatly shorten their lifespans.

A great man once said, "Give me liberty or give me death", but I wonder if a more appropriate statement would be, "Give me liberty and I will assume the risk of death,". A moderately safe but completely restricted life is no alternative to the thrilling, life affirming and sometimes dangerous thrill of freedom, chicken or not.

Predictions -

I have made some predictions on other sites and have been told that people are keeping track, so here they are on this site in a new column I like to call...


I predict John Kerry will win the election in November in both the electoral college and the popular vote.

I predict Brad Carson the Democratic candidate for Senate from the great state of Oklahoma will win his run for the US Senate.

I predict the Senate will return to a Democratic majority.

I predict the house will gain more Democratic members and lose more Republican members.

There you have it folks. Bookmark, cut andpaste, record them in your ledgers.

Let me know what you think and then check back in November.

If Bush Were a Democrat...

August 19, 2004
By Steven Vincent

Come, my friends, to an alternate universe where the same people are in power in a place called the United States but some of their political affiliations have been switched.

This is what it would be like if George Walker Bush (D) and Vice President Dick "Effin" Cheney (D) presided over a country still run by a Republican-controlled Congress and a right-wing media attack machine...


Bush Seeks Support in Impeachment Hearings

WASHINGTON D.C. (AP) - President Bush on Friday sought allies in an increasingly hostile and vitriolic impeachment process. The pleas to members of the Republican controlled house fell on deaf ears.

"There is a reckoning coming," stated House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), "and it is time for Mr. Bush to pay the price for his his reckless disregard for the truth."

"This President has done enough damage to our country's security and military with his distortions and outright lies that I see no alternative to impeachment and possible criminal charges," stated House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-Texas).

The anger is hardly limited to the House of Representatives. A panel of all 50 Republican US Senators today approved a no-confidence measure against the Democratic President.

Said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), "I can't in good conscience, support President Bush when scandal after scandal has revealed what type of miserable failure he is. I would be guilty of dereliction of duty if I did not do everything in my power to remove this man from office."

From the massive deficit spending which is a strong issue with the traditionally Republican fiscally conservative crowd, to the increasingly disturbing information about the reasons given for going to war, there is a movement within the political community to hamstring President Bush so, in the words of Congressman Ernest Istook (R-Okla.), "...he can't do any more damage".

Rush Limbaugh Recovering From a Stroke Suffered on Air

FLORIDA (UPI) - Rush Limbaugh is recovering from a stroke suffered on air. Millions of fans were shocked and saddened when the conservative talk-show host went into an apoplectic fit while ranting about the scandals of the Bush administration.

"He started off calmly enough," said longtime producer James Golden (aka Bo Snerdley), "but by the time he got to Medigate, Curveballgate and Plamegate he just, sort of, turned purple and started foaming at the mouth."

Mr. Snerdly further stated, "I blame the Bush administration".


1. MY LIFE by Bill Clinton
3. MY BUSH (Would Be a Better President) by Ann Coulter
4. YOU SHOULD CHOKE ON A PRETZEL by Michael "Savage" Wiener
5. MARRIAGE IN CRISIS (How Pro-Gay Activist Judges are Destroying the Institution I Hold Sacred) by Rush Limbaugh

Bush Was AWOL from Alabama National Guard Unit

WALL STREET JOURNAL - Documents obtained by the Wall Street Journal under Freedom of Information Act clearly show that President Bush was AWOL during the period he was supposed to be attending his Guard unit in Alabama.

Further investigation points to a massive cover-up attempt by people within the Bush administration and possibly George Bush himself to destroy damaging documents that relate to his misconduct.

The resulting evidence will lead to criminal charges being filed.

Libby Convicted in Plame Case

WASHINGTON (AP) - Vice Presidential Chief of Staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby began serving a 20 year federal prison sentence for his part in releasing the name of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame.

The release, according to testimony in the case was a direct attempt to punish Plame's husband, Ambassador Joe Wilson for refuting a claim made by President Bush during his 2003 State of the Union Address.

Mr. Libby received a relatively light sentence (he faced the death penalty for treason) because of his cooperation with prosecutors.

Although it still hasn't been made public, Mr. Libby's testimony is believed to be the reason for the sudden and unexpected resignation of Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney reportedly stepped down because of health issues and because he wanted to spend more time with his openly gay daughter, Mary.

Sources inside the prosecutor's office claim that Scooter "sang like a canary" and implicated Cheney in the illegal release of information. Sources also state that Mr. Libby "peed his pants a little," and "cried like a scared baby" when he was led away in handcuffs and shackles to begin his sentence.

Bush Rated Worst President Ever

ZOGBY (Poll) - Bush is rated worst president ever in recent poll and only second to Hitler as most despised leader of all time.

Approval 4%
Disapproval 92%
Undecided 4%

Approval 3.85%
Disapproval 96%
Undecided .15%

Poll has a margin of error of +/- 4%


There you have it, my prediction of how things would be if Bush were a Democrat. Of course, if Bush were a Democrat he probably couldn't have done the things he has with the impunity and arrogance he has shown.

The media, Congress, and special prosecutors all turn up the heat on a Democratic president. The watchdogs of democracy, the checks and balances of our great society must provide the same high standard of scrutiny to all of our elected officials regardless of the letter that falls behind their name or the real or imagined dangers we face. They have failed us as much, if not more, than the leaders who have gotten bolder with each successful scam, ruse and lie.

Shame on them and shame on us if we allow it to continue for four more years.

Back by Popular Demand

Due to the increasing requests for new posts from conservatives at Cam Edwards website (camedwards.com). I have decided to begin posting again. I thought that many of you would be happy readin my articles and editorials on the Nationally Known Website DemocraticUnderground.com but alas your quest for the truth has led you back here time and time again. So, thanks for your interest and here goes...


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?