CBlountBlogs2

Is John Kerry Ill?

John L. Perry

Qualified psychiatrists would have to say whether John Kerry is mentally ill. But any layman should have no trouble recognizing he’s conducting one sick campaign.

In the study of mental illness is a definable aberration known as “projection.” Sigmund Freud said that’s when a patient, threatened by or afraid of his own darker impulses, resorts to attaching those unacceptable qualities to someone else.
One description in the psychiatric literature puts it this way: “Projection reinforces guilt by displacing it onto someone else, attacking it there and denying its presence in one’s self – an attempt to shift responsibility to others.”

Politics of the Mental Ward

Sensing himself losing instead of winning, the Democrats’ presidential candidate has adopted this defense mechanism as the recurring tactic of his campaign. It works like this:

The Kerry camp resorts to outrageous personal attacks against George W. Bush – demeaning him as a witless dunce, branding him a deserter from military service, depicting him as an illegitimate president, pillorying him as a reckless gunslinger, accusing him of moral cowardice and offering him up to history’s judgment as a latter-day Adolf Hitler guilty of atrocious war crimes.

Nor have those lies been confined to the usual whispers of gutter politics; they have been shouted from the rooftops through the global megaphones of multi-millions of dollars of television ads and an ersatz movie “documentary.”

Hollywood Loonies Acting Out

Even as Kerry stands by smiling and applauding, empty celebrity after valueless celebrity has gone nasty on the public stage to parrot those themes.

Then, quick as a flash and prepared in advance, the moment Bush or anyone in his campaign dares refute any of those lies, Kerry and his surrogates are all over a slavish television accusing the president of attacking him with “fear” and “smear” and “slime.”

Kerry accuses the president of “misleading the American people, hiding behind front groups, saying anything and doing anything,” when in truth Kerry, himself, is guilty many times over of just exactly that.

Kerry Through the Looking Glass

Kerry then has the audacity to ascend the platform once trod by Abraham Lincoln at Cooper Union in New York City and intone: “My duty is to be a president who tells the truth.”

In the next breath, he manages to project his projection defense mechanism into the future, a feat that would surely have impressed Freud. Kerry forecasts that the Republican National Convention will consist of four days of “slogans and personal attacks.”

And what was the Democratic National Convention but a feast of hatred for the president of the United States?

Ricochet Mud-Slinging

Discover an immense wart on your own nose and tell the world it’s growing on your opponent’s.

Prof. Freud, if that isn’t a clinical case of psychiatric projection, what is?

The temptation here is to trot out example after example of how Kerry commits a blatant dishonesty or utters a gross calumny about Bush, then immediately blames Bush for doing what he, himself, has just done.

But, in what has become a campaign way of life for Kerry, the man reels them off faster than you can receive them, embalm them, lay them out and give them a proper eulogy.

Keep Him Under Observation

Instead, as this campaign unfolds, simply bear in mind Freud’s defense mechanism for the mentally ill and note how often Kerry employs the subterfuge of projection – blaming Bush for having his own worst qualities and impulses.

Joseph Goebbels, who turned the sick behavior of projection into a political art form for the Nazi Third Reich, accompanied it by repeating the Big Lie over and over until it came to be accepted simply because of its incessant recurrence.

John Kerry is no Joseph Goebbels. He’s not that artful, not even in Goebbels’ league. But the Massachusetts master-radical is swinging away down there in the minors, doing his damnedest in his frenzied effort to make it into the biggies.

John L. Perry, a prize-winning newspaper editor and writer who served on White House staffs of two presidents, is a regular columnist for NewsMax.com.

A Fight We Must Win

Rudy Giuliani:

President Bush has been the steady hand we need in these times of uncertainty and danger. He understands the stakes. He makes decisions based on deeply held beliefs, not the political winds. He chooses to fight terror in places like Baghdad and Kabul, rather than New York and Kansas. It is the right way to fight this enemy and it is a fight we must win.

In order to keep the pressure on al-Qaeda, we must keep George W. Bush in the White House. In order to take the fight to our enemies, we must have the strength of conviction, and support for our Armed Forces. This is not a fight for those who talk tough, and then leave our troops unarmed. This is not a fight for those who talk about the need for better intelligence, but have a history of voting against it.

This is not a fight that favors sensitivity and nuance. This is a fight that requires strength, determination and resolve.

Remarks by the President of the American Legion

President Bush:

We will continue to work with friends and allies around the world to aggressively pursue the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. You cannot talk sense to these people. You cannot negotiate with them. You cannot hope for the best. We must aggressively pursue them around the world so we do not have to face them here at home. (Applause.)

In this different kind of war, we may never sit down at a peace table. But make no mistake about it, we are winning, and we will win. (Applause.) We will win by staying on the offensive. We will win by spreading liberty. We believe that liberty can transform nations from tyranny into peaceful nations. And so we'll keep our commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq. We will help them become peaceful and democratic countries that are allies in the war on terror

May God bless you, and may God continue to bless the United States of America. Thank you all.

Bush: 'You cannot show weakness in this world today'

In an exclusive interview with 'Today' host Matt Lauer, the president says fight against terrorism will not end.

Lauer: “Have you ever thought, President Bush, about what the first four years of your presidency might have been like were it not for 9/11?”

President Bush: “No, I haven't because I haven't had that luxury. Well, I haven't had the luxury because it was defined by 9/11. You know every day, as I tell the people, every day I wake up thinking about how better to protect America. It’s just the nature of the presidency right now--one of those moments in history that is a defining moment for all of us. I really haven't sat down and had that luxury of thinking what it'd be like.”

Lauer: “You said to me a second ago, one of the things you'll lay out in your vision for the next four years is how to go about winning the war on terror. That phrase strikes me a little bit. Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?”

President Bush: “I have never said we can win it in four years.”

Lauer: “So I’m just saying can we win it? Do you see that?”

President Bush: “I don't think you can win it. But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world –- let's put it that way. I have a two pronged strategy. On the one hand is to find them before they hurt us, and that's necessary. I’m telling you it's necessary. The country must never yield, must never show weakness [and] must continue to lead. To find al-Qaida affiliates who are hiding around the world and … harm us and bring ‘em to justice –- we're doing a good job of it. I mean we are dismantling the al-Qaidaas we knew it. The long-term strategy is to spread freedom and liberty, and that's really kind of an interesting debate. You know there's some who say well, ‘You know certain people can't self govern and accept, you know, a former democracy.’ I just strongly disagree with that. I believe that democracy can take hold in parts of the world that are now non-democratic and I think it's necessary in order to defeat the ideologies of hate. History has shown that it can work, that spreading liberty does work. After all, Japan is our close ally and my dad fought against the Japanese. Prime Minister Koizumi, is one of the closest collaborators I have in working to make the world a more peaceful place.”

Bush Admits Iraq 'Miscalculations' in Times Interview

Filed at 7:08 a.m. ET

NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush acknowledged for the first time on Thursday that he had miscalculated post-war conditions in Iraq, The New York Times reported.

The paper quoted Bush as saying during a 30-minute interview that he made ``a miscalculation of what the conditions would be'' in post-war Iraq.

But he insisted that the 17-month-long insurgency was the unintended by-product of a ``swift victory'' against Saddam Hussein's military, the Times reported.

Bush said his strategy had been ``flexible enough'' to respond. ``We're adjusting to our conditions'' in places like Najaf, the paper quoted him as saying.

The Times said Bush deflected further inquiries as to what had gone wrong with the occupation.

According to the Pentagon, 969 U.S. troops have died in Iraq since the invasion, 828 of them since April 30, 2003. An additional 6,690 service members have been wounded, most of them during the occupation.

In an interview published on Friday in USA Today, Bush said that Americans will re-elect him to a second term even if they disagree with his decision to invade Iraq.

Bush said voters ``know who I am and I believe they're comfortable with the fact that they know I'm not going to shift principles or shift positions based upon polls and focus groups.''

Bush told USA Today that ``the American people have seen me make the hardest of decisions. That's just going to have to be a part of their decision-making process.''

In the Times interview, the president also discussed the issue of North Korea and Iran's nuclear ambitions, saying that he would not be rushed to set deadlines.

The newspaper said ``Bush displayed none of the alarm about North Korea's growing arsenal that he once voiced regularly about Iraq.''

It quoted him as saying about the leaders of North Korea and Iran: ``I don't think you give timelines to dictators.''

Bush told the Times he would continue diplomatic pressure. It said he gave no hint that his patience was limited or that at some point he might consider pre-emptive military action.

``I'm confident that over time this will work -- I certainly hope it does,'' the newspaper quoted Bush as saying of the diplomatic approach.

Kerry Hides DD 214 After It Shows "Silver Star With Combat "V"

Kerry's DD 214 lists a Silver Star with a combat “V” (for valor). As a major correctly observes, the Combat “V” is never awarded with the Silver Star.

Many wanted to look at Kerry's DD 214 by going to "John Kerry For President web site", (Click Here) but it was well hidden.

This is the direct link to "John Kerry's Official Naval Records." (Click Here)

"John Kerry's Official Naval Records."

After two articles we sent out friday with the title John Kerry's Mysterious Combat “V”, the mysterious links disappeared.

It was well hidden, but here is the new link to "John Kerry's Official Naval Records." (Click Here)

Tell Kerry, the “V” is never awarded with the Silver Star

John Kerry's Mysterious Combat “V”

Kerry's DD 214 lists a Silver Star with a combat “V” (for valor). As a major correctly observes, the “V” is never awarded with the Silver Star.

Henry Mark Holzer and Erika Holzer: One Vietnam vet with nearly forty years of military service who retired as a major...in his words. “having seen hundreds of DD 214s” (a veteran’s Record of Transfer or Separation), recently decided to take a close look at John Kerry’s DD 214, which is posted on his website.

What the major called to our attention, which we have since verified, raises some extremely troubling questions about John Kerry’s Silver Star. Keep in mind that the Silver Star is the third-highest medal our Nation can bestow (after only the Medal of Honor and the three service “Crosses”).

There is an abundance of anecdotal evidence that a combat “V” (called a “Combat Distinguishing Device”) is simply not awarded with a Silver Star. For example, a former Vietnam War POW told us that he has “three SSs, and there was no V for any of them.”

Countless other Silver Star recipients all say the same thing. Why? Because, among other reasons, it would be redundant to award a Silver Star for “gallantry” (the statutory term) and then embellish it with a “V” for valor.

Most conclusive, however, is that the law is very clear about the award of Combat Distinguishing Devices. According to the Navy Awards Manual:

Bronze "V" (Combat Distinguishing Device).

Prior to . . . 1974, the "V" was authorized for wear on the Legion of Merit, Bronze Star Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal, Navy Commendation Medal and Navy Achievement Medal. Between . . .1974 and . . . 1991, the "V" was authorized for wear on the Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, Joint Service Commendation Medal and Navy Commendation Medal. [In] . . . 1991, the "V" was authorized for wear on the Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Bronze Star Medal, Air Medal, Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal and Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal. In all cases, the Combat Distinguishing Device may only be worn if specifically authorized in the citation.

Because the “V” is authorized for only the ten awards cited above, but not for the Silver Star, Kerry’s Silver Star citation (the “explanation” of why the award was made) does not even mention the “V” for valor.

The presence of the combat “V” with Kerry’s Silver Star on his DD 214 raises two extremely disquieting questions. How did the unauthorized “V” get there, and why has Kerry allowed it to remain?

The first question should not be taken lightly because we are talking about possible federal crimes. We are talking about the possibility of a forged official document.

Was the combat “V” added by a sloppy clerk or a yeoman’s typo thirty years ago? Was someone pressured or persuaded to add it? If Kerry had nothing to do with the gratuitously added combat “V,” why didn’t he have his DD 214 corrected when he was separated from the Navy?

Which gives rise to the second disturbing question: If Kerry was not a party to the unauthorized “V,” why, for all these years, has he allowed his DD 214 to remain uncorrected and to repose on his website?

In light of the recent Swift Boat revelations and the cloud they have cast over Kerry’s awards, one plausible answer is that this is yet another example of Kerry’s multiple, and increasingly transparent, lies about his alleged heroics in Vietnam.

Let’s hope it won’t take a controversial TV spot to spark a mainstream media investigation of how candidate Kerry received an unearned “V” for valor.

'Hard-working' job ad banned to protect the lazy

Ananova: A businesswoman has been banned from asking for 'hard-working' staff in a job ad because it discriminates against the lazy.

Beryl King was told by a Jobcentre that her advert for warehouse workers discriminated against people who were not industrious.

Beryl, 57, told the Daily Mirror: "I couldn't believe my ears. Has our world gone mad?

"I've been running my business for 27 years and it's getting harder to find people who want to do a fair day's work for a fair day's pay.

"How long before someone says you can't pay people for working because it discriminates against those on benefit who are paid for not working?"

Beryl, who owns two job agencies in Totton, Hants, offered £5.42 an hour for "warehouse packers who must be hard-working and reliable".

The Southampton Jobcentre is investigating. A spokesman said: "Words such as 'hardworking' can be accepted if used with a clear job description."

Operation for third hairiest man

Ananova: The third hairiest man in the world is recovering from surgery to unblock his ears.

Yu Zhenhuan, 26, from China, suffers from atavism and was born with thick hair covering 96% of his body.

He feared his career as a rock star was over after losing a third of his hearing, reports the Daily Mirror.

But, after doctors in Shanghai removed hair from his external auditory canals, he said: "It's no big deal. I can handle it."

Yu was named hairiest man in the Guinness Book of Records in 2002.

But last year Mexican acrobats Larry and Danny Gomez were recognised as hairier. The twins, 19, have 98 per cent covering.

Kerry's Quagmire In Cambodia

The pivotal moment in Kerry's life, according to his many testimonials on the subject, was Christmas of 1968, when, he has said, he was in Cambodia. This experience was central to his later becoming a war protester and to his lighting out on a political path destined to culminate in a rise to the U.S. presidency.

Kerry Made False Cambodia Claim 50 Times

It won't be all that easy for John Kerry to revise his demonstrably false claim that he spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia, since he's on the record more than 50 times making the assertion, according to former Vietnam Swift Boat commander John O'Neill.

"There are more than 50 occasions on which he said he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve and Christmas Day in 1968," O'Neill told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg on Sunday. "More than 50 - as recently as last summer."

The Kerry campaign has commissioned presidential biographer Douglas Brinkley to adjust his Cambodia claims to make them comport with the known facts in an upcoming report in The New Yorker magazine.

But O'Neill said it will be hard to palm off Kerry's previous accounts as mere inadvertent misstatements.

"It wasn't some casual memory," he told Malzberg. "He said his entire life changed that evening, because he realized the United States government was operating illegally. ... He defamed everybody in our unit by claiming he had been illegally ordered there."

O'Neill said some of Kerry's 50 references to spending Christmas '68 in Cambodia include speeches on the Senate floor, quotes in articles and on-the-record interviews with reporters.

He cited a 1992 Associated Press report and a July 7, 2004, account by the Boston Globe's Michael Kranish.

"We were told, 'Just go up there and do your patrol,'" Kerry said in the 12-year-old AP interview. "Everybody was over there [in Cambodia]. Nobody thought twice about it."

In July 2004, reporter Kranish said that Kerry had told him his assignment in Cambodia was the catalyst that turned him against the war:

"[Kerry] himself would say that you really have to look at a lot of his thought process as what was happening during Vietnam," he told the Fox News Channel.

"And in one short anecdote I'll tell you, that in Christmas of 1968, he was on a small boat with his men, basically in Cambodia at a time when Richard Nixon was telling the American public that we're not in Cambodia," Kranish said. [Editor's note: Richard Nixon was not sworn in as president until Jan. 20, 1969.]

"And he basically became skeptical. Well, the government is saying this, but he knew himself that wasn't true. And it's also why he says he came back to protest the war that he had served in."

Get Steve Malzberg's exclusive NewsMax.com column e-mailed directly to you at www.newsmax.com/malzberg.

Washington Times
Kerry's Cambodia Confusion

Washington Times
Fact & Fiction About Cambodia

Rocky Mountain News
Cambodia Troubles Ignored

Townhall
Kerry's quagmire

Leno

Thank you for coming out on such a hot day. It was hot outside. I looked down (at the audience line outside) and drank more lemonade.

Another scorcher today...in fact it was so hot Tom Ridge raised the terror alert from "elevated" to "sticky".

It was so hot in the valley even people who aren't making porn movies are walking around the house naked.

I tell you, I was sweatin' like Don Johnson trying to pay his grocery bill.

Of course the Summer Olympics begin on Friday. This was in the paper today - Greek officials have announced that many Olympic security problems have been solved. "Many". That makes you feel good huh? When you're talking about security, I think a simple majority is all you need.

Greek officials say they are ready for the Olympics, but they'd be more ready if they had more of a head start. More of a head start?! Didn't Greece have the first Olympics like 2500 years ago? How much more time do these people need?

And today the terror threat in Vegas was raised from "who cares" to "not interested".

Here's something scary - the Justice Department revealed today that two years ago they had video surveillance which suggested that terrorists were targeting Las Vegas, but the public was not told about it because they thought it would hurt tourism. You think?! So even the terror alerts fall under "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas."

Hey Kev, you know where the terrorists stayed? At the Aladdin and the Sahara.

Now there are reports that the older terrorists may target Branson, Missouri.

President Bush appointed a new CIA Director. Congressman Porter Goss of Florida. Porter Goss. Sounds like something Arnold Schwarzenegger would say at a filling station. "Yeah, pour-da gas, I must go! Pour-da gas!"

John Kerry was at the Grand Canyon yesterday. He said he wanted to go some place that made his head look smaller.

John Kerry met with leaders of the Navajo Indian Tribe over the weekend. Kerry said the Indian people have been disrespected in the past, and, under his administration they will be treated with the dignity and reverence that they deserve. Then he got in his Jeep Cherokee and drove away.

It happened again. In Kentucky another teacher was accused of having sex with her student. And the kid was home schooled!

The Lakers have traded Gary Payton and Rick Fox to the Boston Celtics. So many Lakers have left! Who's Kobe not going to pass to next season?

Conan

John Kerry recently went to the Grand Canyon. He said that he hasn't seen a crevess that big since he shaved.

It's being said that 50 athletes on the U.S. Olympic Team are supporting themselves by working at Home Depot. That's good because Athens is still only half done with the Olympic Village.

An astounding 65% of people in California approve of the way Arnold Schwarzenegger is running the state. The other 35% are girly men.

It's being reported that Donald Trump is going to release his own line of clothing. It's going to be made from the same wool-polyester blend that makes up his hair.

Boston Globe "Reporter" Paid By Kerry

I'm sure when you heard about this story you felt a little deflated like somebody come up and punched your balloon with a little attack. It's a story in the Boston Globe, away, written by the name of Michael Kranish, and the headline of the story: "Veteran Retracts Criticism of Kerry

The week after Kerry heralded his wartime experience by surrounding himself at the convention with his Vietnam band of brothers a separate group of veterans has launched a TV ad and I book that questions the basis for some of Kerry's combat medals but yesterday a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer..."

"Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a 'terrible mistake' in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star -- one of the main allegations in the book. The affidavit was given to the Boston Globe by the anti-Kerry group to justify assertions in their ad and book. Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry 'lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.'"

"Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star. 'I still don't think he shot the guy in the back,' Elliott said. 'It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here.'" (Emphasis Rush's) Later in this story, Elliot makes it plain that the other guys in the ad and in the book are not lying. He doesn't know that they're lying. This led to a statement today put out by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. You can see the statement at the Drudge Report.

ANTI-KERRY VETS HANG TOUGH
Fri Aug 06 2004 13:37:12 ET

The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth concerns an article appearing in morning edition of the BOSTON GLOBE, written by GLOBE reporter and author of the official Kerry-Edwards campaign book, Mike Kranish.

"Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the BOSTON GLOBE by Mike Kranish as extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played.

“Additional documentation will follow.

"The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish’s own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around.

"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has more than 250 supporters who are revealing first hand, eyewitness accounts of numerous incidents concerning John Kerry’s military service record. The organization will continue to discuss much of what John Kerry has reported as fact concerning his four-month tour of duty in Vietnam."

END

"The following statement from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth concerns an article appearing in [today's] Boston Globe... [Viet Vet] Captain George Elliott describes an article appearing in today’s edition of the Boston Globe by Mike Kranish as 'extremely inaccurate' and 'highly misstating' his actual views. He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Captain Elliott reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request that the ad be played." Essentially Captain Elliott is renouncing what is said of him in this Boston Globe Mike Kranish story. The statement then goes on to say, "Additional documentation will follow. The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102 of Mr. Kranish’s own book quoting John Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Viet Cong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around."

Let's just stop there. Kranish, the author of the Boston Globe story, wrote a book on John Kerry, is his biographer, and on page 102 of that book that Kranish wrote, he quotes Kerry acknowledging that he 'killed a single, wounded, fleeing Vietcong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around.' Yet, Kranish writes today in the Boston Globe: "Yesterday a key figure in the anti-Kerry campaign, Kerry's former commanding officer, backed off one of the key contentions. Lieutenant Commander George Elliott said in an interview that he had made a 'terrible mistake' in signing an affidavit that suggests Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star..."

"Elliott is quoted as saying that Kerry 'lied about what occurred in Vietnam . . . for example, in connection with his Silver Star, I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back.' The statement refers to an episode in which Kerry killed a Viet Cong soldier who had been carrying a rocket launcher, part of a chain of events that formed the basis of his Silver Star. Over time, some Kerry critics have questioned whether the soldier posed a danger to Kerry's crew.... Yesterday, reached at his home, Elliott said he regretted signing the affidavit and said he still thinks Kerry deserved the Silver Star. I still don't think he shot the guy in the back,' Elliott said. 'It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words.'"

Yet in Kranish's own book on page 102 he quotes Kerry as acknowledging that he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Vietcong soldier whom he was afraid would turn around -- meaning he shot him in the back! Who is Mike Kranish? Mike Kranish is a reporter covering the Kerry campaign for the Boston Globe. Mike Kranish is also a biographer of John Kerry, and as I just learned during our break at the top of the hour, Mike Kranish has also written the yet-to-be-released official campaign book for Kerry-Edwards. It is entitled "Kerry-Edwards." You can get it now on Amazon. It's not available. The item has not yet been released but you can order it and they'll ship it to you when it arrives. List price, $12.95, your Amazon price, $10.36. What does it say about the author? "Michael Kranish has worked for the Boston Globe for more than 20 years, including the last 16 in the newspaper's Washington bureau. He is coauthor of, 'John Kerry the Complete Biography' published this year by Public Affairs."

He's on the bus, covering the Kerry campaign. He's in the Washington bureau. This guy has written the official John Kerry biography published this year, is writing the official campaign book, today has a story about one of the swift boat vets, that the Swift Boat Vets for Truth is denying is accurate. "Captain George Elliot describes Kranish's article in today's edition of the Boston Globe as 'extremely inaccurate and highly misstating his actual views.' He reaffirms his statement in the current advertisement paid for by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. He reaffirms his affidavit in support of that advertisement, and he reaffirms his request the ad be played."

This story by Kranish today said that he renounces and recants all this! The article by Mr. Kranish is particularly surprising given page 102 of Kranish's own book quoting John Kerry acknowledging he killed a single, wounded, fleeing Vietcong soldier whom he was afraid might turn around. The story today by Kranish in the Boston Globe says that Elliot 'renounces' this story, when Kerry himself admits it in a book Kranish wrote! This is beyond insane. It's beyond a new depth. This is beyond a symbiotic relationship. This is beyond a willing accomplice relationship. This turns the Boston Globe into a campaign arm of the Kerry-Edwards campaign. This means the Boston Globe is actively involved in securing the election of John Kerry. Now, it's nothing that we don't know, but they deny it when confronted with this. Now it's out there, and it's undeniable when you have a staff reporter writing the biography and writing the official campaign book and then doing a story on one of these vets.

I will not be surprised by any more examples of media bias, even I on this one, am stunned -- and, by the way, Paul Colford in the New York Daily News makes it clear that Kranish is the paid author of the official book. He is being paid to write the official campaign book called "Kerry-Edwards." He's being paid by the campaign while a reporter on the Boston Globe. So I think, ladies and gentlemen, that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have just been given an added credibility boost here contrary to what everybody thought when the sun came up this morning

Leno

Political experts continue to be baffled over John Kerry’s failure to get a bump in popularity after the Democratic Convention. Jimmy Carter got a bump in 1976. Ronald Reagan received a bump in 1980. And Bill Clinton not only got a bump in 1992, he got a bump and a grind.

According to the "Wall Street Journal”, al Qaeda’s new strategy is to destroy our financial institutions and bring the nations big businesses and major corporations to its knees. No wait I’m sorry that’s Ralph Nader’s platform. I’m sorry.

Actually it was kind of funny, Wall Street had so many police on duty, out of force of habit, 200 CEO’s turned themselves in.

According to "Drudge Report”, a domestic centerpiece of Republican agenda for the second Bush term is getting rid of the internal revenue service. They want to do away with the IRS. Whew! So I guess they are serious about going after terrorist organizations.

Martha Stewart turned 63 yesterday. Martha’s at that awkward age, too young to retire too old to try and climb over the prison wall.

Mary Kay Letourneau, the Washington school teacher who had an affair with her 13-year-old student, was released from prison today after a seven-year sentence. I don't think she gets it. They asked her what she's going to do now that she's out, she said, "I’m going to Disneyland."

How about this? Team USA with all our NBA pros got their ass kicked by Italy, my people kicked ass, 95-78 in an exhibition game. Italy killed our team! Team USA, they played so poorly together; I thought I was watching the Lakers.

Conan

Both candidates for president, George W. Bush and John Kerry were in Davenport, Iowa today. Sort of weird. This allowed voters the choice of being scared or bored to death.

Residents in Missouri overwhelmingly voted to make same sex marriage illegal. They also changed their state motto to the "don’t show me state”.

Kilborn

A group of 80’s rock stars are getting together for a concert to support John Kerry. It’s not going well though – Kerry and Edwards are already three points down to Hall and Oates.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth Fight Back

Senator John Kerry has made his 4-month combat tour in Vietnam the centerpiece of his bid for the Presidency. His campaign jets a handful of veterans around the country, and trots them out at public appearances to sing his praises. John Kerry wants us to believe that these men represent all those he calls his "band of brothers."

But most combat veterans who served with John Kerry in Vietnam see him in a very different light.

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth

Watch The Ad (Click Here)

Transcript Of The Ad:

John Edwards: "If you have any question about what John Kerry is made of, just spend 3 minutes with the men who served with him."

Al French: "I served with John Kerry."

Bob Elder: "I served with John Kerry."

George Elliott: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Al French: "He is lying about his record."

Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury."

Van O'Dell: "John Kerry lied to get his bronze star ... I know, I was there, I saw what happened."

Jack Chenoweth: "His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day."

Admiral Hoffman: "John Kerry has not been honest."

Adrian Lonsdale: "And he lacks the capacity to lead."

Larry Thurlow: "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."

Bob Elder: "John Kerry is no war hero."

Grant Hibbard: "He betrayed all his shipmates ... he lied before the Senate."

Shelton White: "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam."

Joe Ponder: "He dishonored his country ... he most certainly did."

Bob Hildreth: "I served with John Kerry ...

Bob Hildreth (off-camera): John Kerry cannot be trusted."

Announcer: "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement."

Read more on this subject in Related Hot Topics:

Kerry Set Vietnam Trap for Himself

Mainstream Press Faces Problem: How to Smear These Swift-Boat Vets?

Vets to Senator McCain: "We Purchased with Our Blood and Service the Right to be Heard"

Leno

Some bad news for John Kerry coming out of the Democratic Convention. The balloons didn’t fall, but apparently his poll numbers did.

Did you hear about this? It’s the first time since 1972 that a candidate didn’t get a bump from their convention. In fact not only didn’t Kerry get a bump but President Bush gained 4 percentage points. And today Bush asked Kerry if he would speak at the Republican Convention too.

Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge said in a press conference yesterday that several of our major financial institutions are in danger of being hit by terrorists. When John Kerry heard about this, he immediately placed Teresa Heinz Kerry in an undisclosed location!

John Kerry and John Edwards recently published their political promises and strategies in a book. You see that’s smart putting all their ideas in a book. This way they’re certain to keep them secret from Bush.

John Kerry told George Stephanopoulos Sunday that he has a secret plan for Iraq. But he said he can’t reveal it unless he’s elected president. Bush has a plan too, he just can’t talk about it either until he’s really "elected” president.

On the other hand, do you know who did an unexpected bump over the weekend? Mike Tyson.

Did you see that fight over the weekend? Mike Tyson was knocked out in the forth round, but he’s not quitting, although I understand they’ve toned down his opponents a bit. In fact, six weeks from tonight, he’s fighting Ryan Seacrest.

Happy Birthday to Martha Stewart, she’s 63 years old. I got her a lovely gift. It’s a toilet cozy. It’s a quilted cover that goes over the stainless steel john in her cell. You know, kind of warms up the place, makes it look more homey.

American Airlines kicked a disruptive man off a flight this week from Miami to New York for wearing a t-shirt with a topless woman on the front. Luckily, the flight wasn’t delayed and they were able to get another pilot.

I was trying to find stuff to talk about today, it was a slow news day, so I found this. On this day in 1492, Columbus set sail from Europe, looking for a sea route to India - and ended up in America. And ironically, if you make a call from Europe to a company in America today - it’s re-routed to India.

Concrete pieces of Wrigley Field in Chicago have been falling to the ground. Which is strange this time of year because usually for the Cubs, the collapse doesn’t occur until the playoffs.

In other sports news, champion race horse Smarty Jones is retiring at age 3. Big surprise. Completely unexpected. You know why Smarty Jones is retiring so young? So he can smoke dope with former Miami Dolphin Ricky Williams.

According to "The Star”, Britney Spears is moving her wedding up to August. She’s apparently only giving her guest two weeks notice, which is not much, but still longer than the groom usually gets.

"Flush The Johns" Spreading Across The Country

Tom Lawrence sent us a picture that was taken on Route 38 in Racine County, Wisconsin. The Picture had two Toilets Side By Side, one named "Kerry" and the other one "Edwards". A very large sign over the Toilets read "Flush The Johns".

NewsMax
This Year's Hit Political Slogan: 'Flush the Johns'

We'll always treasure our official Sore Loserman Crying Towel from the last presidential race, but now we see that a most entertaining catchphrase for this year's campaign has spread.

Ohio: At President Bush's appearance Monday in Marietta, "Many people were wearing 'W '04' badges and T-shirts. Some had their own T-shirts. One said: 'Flush the Johns. W '04'," the Marietta Times reported.

In Dayton, Slate reported July 8 while following Sen. John Kerry and Edwards, "The evening's final event boasts the best anti-Kerry/Edwards sign of the day ('Flush the Johns') ..."

Louisiana: Sen. John Edwards "had to shout at times to be heard over supporters of President Bush... Across the street, about four dozen Bush supporters shouted 'Four more years!' and waved signs saying 'Flush the Johns'," the Associated Press reported.

Wisconsin: "The Smith/Sikes family of the Town of Caledonia, supporters of President Bush, put out a display that's hard to misread. The family's yard sports a large sign that reads, 'Flush the Johns'," the Journal Times reported in Racine.

"A few people each day pull in to compliment the family, drop off bumper stickers or ask if they can re-create the display somewhere else."

Homeowner Ellis Smith told the Journal Times his wife, Janet Sikes, got the idea when she became disgusted while watching a Democrat campaign speech.

"My wife said, 'We ought to flush the Johns,'" he said.

West Virginia: During the president's visit Monday in Wheeling, one sign read "Flush the Johns," USA Today reported.

Colorado: "Republicans held a 'Flush the Johns' rally" on steps of the state Capitol in Denver as Kerry and Edwards launched their tour to the Democrat convention, the Rocky Mountain News reported July 24.

Pennsylvania: "New bumper sticker spotted: 'Flush the Johns'," the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported July 11.

Florida: "Heading to a St. Petersburg, Fla., rally last night, a knot of Bush supporters greeted the Dem ticket with 'Flush the Johns' signs," the New York Daily News reported July 8.

We expect Kerry and Edwards are in trouble if people remember the advice from the hit 1993 book "Everything I Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten": Play fair. Don't take things that aren't yours (this includes accepting money confiscated from taxpayers for work you refuse to do). Flush.

If Bush Convenes A Special Session Of Congress, Would Kerry Edwards Show Up?

If "Mighty Mouse Kerry" and "Super Lawyer" would show up and work each day through the Election, President Bush should convene a special session of Congress.

DeLay Mocks Work-Shirking Kerry

NewsMax: We weren't the only ones to note the hilarious hypocrisy when Sen. John Kerry, who refuses to take himself off the taxpayers' dole even though he has missed more than three-fourths of the votes this year, called yesterday for President Bush to convene a special session of Congress.

"That's pretty tough talk from a guy who has fewer days at work this year than he has houses," stated House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. "He's not been around here during our regular session; what makes anyone think he'll be here for a special session?"

Nor were we the only ones to think that in the unlikely event Kerry would show his face at work if a session were called, America would be better off without his rare appearance.

In the 1980s and '90s, "He voted 38 times to cut defense spending, against higher pay for our troops, and proposed a $45 billion cut in intelligence spending," noted DeLay, R-Texas. "Maybe we're better off when he's vacationing than actually working after all."

Is it too early for the Massachusetts Democrat to flip-flop on his claim during his convention speech that he wanted voters to judge him on his record?

Leno

Obviously the Democrats are very proud of John Kerry’s service record, as we all should be and they chose those words very carefully. "Decorated war hero”. That’s what they always say when they describe John Kerry. "Decorated war hero.” Here’s why – that appeals to women. War – that’s for the men. Men relate to war. "Decorated” see that gets the gay vote.

Did you watch John Kerry’s speech? Kerry started out his speech by saying "I’m John Kerry and I’m reporting for duty.” And President Bush said "Great!” and sent him to Iraq.

John Kerry broke out his "secret weapon” – a personality.

Kerry said he was really looking forward to giving the speech. Apparently, he said he couldn’t wait to find out what his policies were.

They showed a little montage of his life and in the film they showed a picture of a young John Kerry when he was in a rock band and explained why he did it. He said it was a great way to meet girls. Today President Clinton called him and said, "Hey if you think that’s a great way to meet girls, wait’ll you become president.”

I learned an interesting little bit of trivia about John Kerry. Did you know he was once a soldier in Vietnam? Has that been mentioned before?

John Edwards also had some tough words for Osama bin Laden. He said, "We will destroy you.” Then he said "And if that doesn’t work, we’ll sue your ass.”

They say a record number of Americans are now in prison. So good news for Martha Stewart – she’s still trendy.

Letterman

Everything was exciting. To unwind after the convention John Kerry got together with some of his Vietnam buddies to pull a casino heist.

Did you see Teresa Heinz-Kerry? Her family makes the red bottle ketchup. She’s also the youngest Gabore sister.

Teresa also has a book out. It’s called "It Takes a Villa”.

Bill Clinton was seen at a jewelry store buying a $10,000 necklace. Hillary was excited about the news – she can’t wait to see who he gives it to.

Kerry Edwards Nixed Wendy's, Feasted Instead on 5-Star Fare

When John Kerry, John Edwards and their wives descended on a Newburgh, N.Y., Wendy's restaurant on Friday for a "light" lunch with the common people, it was all just a photo op.

Team Kerry-Edwards had already ordered their real lunches - consisting of five-star gourmet food from a tony local restaurant - with instructions to have the haute cuisine ready for pickup after the top Democrats ditched Wendy's.

"A member of the Kerry advance team called Nikola’s Restaurant at the Newburgh Yacht Club the night before and ordered 19 five-star lunches to go that would be picked up at noon Friday," MidHudsonNews.com reported on Sunday."Management at the restaurant, which is operated by CIA graduate chef Michael Dederick, was told the meals would be for the Kerry and Edwards families and actor Ben Affleck who was with them on the tour."

After tossing out their cheeseburgers and chili, Kerry and Edwards feasted on shrimp vindallo, grilled diver sea scallops, prosciutto, wrapped stuffed chicken and steak salad.

The meals came to about $200, MidHudson News said.

Experts agree war isn't based on lies

J. Francis Gardner - San Antonio Express-News

First there was Hans Blix, then David Kay, then the Senate Intelligence Committee, then the Butler Inquiry and, now, the 9-11 commission.

All have reached the same conclusion: The Bush administration was mistaken, not lying, when it claimed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as the main justification for Gulf War II.

U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix: "They were mistaken in their views, but I don't think they acted in bad faith."

Iraq Survey Group leader David Kay: Agency intelligence in Iraq was almost all wrong, but there was "no sign that the administration pressured analysts."

Senate Intelligence Committee: These nine Republicans and eight Democrats issued a unanimous report that absolved administration officials of pressuring CIA analysts to inflate the case for WMD. Agency judgments on Iraq's weapons "were either overstated or were not supported by the underlying intelligence reporting."

Butler Inquiry: Lord Robin Butler headed this five-member committee that investigated British intelligence-gathering prior to the Iraq war. Their report found no evidence to suggest Prime Minister Tony Blair lied to the public in making a case for war.

9-11 commission: Another bipartisan panel and another unanimous endorsement of commission findings that the administration was misled by a seriously flawed intelligence-gathering network. Republicans, independents and most Democrats have united in praise of the commission's findings.

It will be interesting to see if foam-at-the-mouth liberals finally get the message — calling President Bush and Blair "liars" has been thoroughly discredited on both sides of the Atlantic.

Presidential critics who had hoped for a knockout punch from the 9-11 commission were sorely disappointed. Any highlighted failures of the fledgling Bush team (on the job seven months) were more than offset by deficiencies and lapses during Bill Clinton's eight years in the Oval Office.

Not lost on commission members is the fact that since Sept. 11, 2001, no comparable attacks by terrorists have occurred on U.S. soil. This is not for lack of trying by al-Qaida. America is doing something right.

"Because of offensive actions against al-Qaida, and defensive actions to improve homeland security, we believe we are safer today," as stated in the commission's executive summary.

In the process of spreading blame for the many failures leading up to 9-11, the commission hit a home run when it fingered Congress. House and Senate Intelligence panels were criticized for inadequate review of U.S. intelligence agencies and the State Department.

After all, these oversight bodies are privy to the same data, and receive similar briefings, as the White House.

Perhaps without intending to, the 9-11 commission brought into sharp focus the difference in meaning that terrorism has for Americans versus its perception among our allies.

Europeans look at terrorism as an inconvenience, similar to air pollution or traffic snarl. To them, terrorism is a problem to be managed — part of the price one pays for living in Western civilization. Warfare is seen as an improper analogy in this context.

The United States looks at terrorism as a direct assault against the American ideal. To us, it's personal. Terrorism is a problem that must be forever solved, not simply contained.

Declaring war against a force so antithetical to our way of life, therefore, makes perfect sense.

Commissioners referred to the 9-11 attacks as an early battle in a global struggle. They know we are at war. Not a war of Christianity vs. Islam. Not a war of Western vs. Middle-Eastern cultures. This is a war between civilization and chaos.

For now at least, America's actions are those of a nation that intends to win.

See Y'All in New York
Why I skipped the Boston convention.

BY ZELL MILLER
Saturday, July 31, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

Twelve years ago, I delivered one of the keynote addresses on the first night at the Democratic National Convention in New York. It was a stinging rebuke of the administration of George H.W. Bush and a ringing endorsement of Bill Clinton. This summer I'll again be speaking in New York, but it will be to the Republican Convention that renominates George W. Bush.

Many have asked how I could have come so far in just over a decade. Frankly, I don't think I've changed much at all. At 72, I don't feel much need to change my opinions. Instead, the reason I didn't attend the Democratic Convention in Boston is that I barely recognize my party anymore. Most of its leaders--including our nominee, John Kerry--don't hold the same beliefs that have motivated my career in public service.

In 1992, I spoke of the opportunity and hope that allowed me, the son of a single mother growing up in the North Georgia mountains, to become my state's governor. And I attributed much of my success to the great Democratic presidents of years gone by--FDR (a hallowed man in my home), Truman and JFK. The link these men shared was a commitment to helping Americans born into any condition rise to achieve whatever goal they set for themselves.

I spoke of Americans who were "tired of paying more in taxes and getting less in services." I excoriated Republicans who "dealt in cynicism and skepticism." I accused them of mastering "the art of division and diversion." And I praised Bill Clinton as a moderate Democrat "who has the courage to tell some of those liberals who think welfare should continue forever, and some of those conservatives who think there should be no welfare at all, that they're both wrong."

Bill Clinton did deliver on welfare reform, after a lot of prodding from the Republicans who took hold of Congress in 1995. But much of the rest of the promise I saw in his candidacy withered during his two terms in office.

Today, it's the Democratic Party that has mastered the art of division and diversion. To run for president as a Democrat these days you have to go from interest group to interest group, cap in hand, asking for the support of liberal kingmakers. Mr. Kerry is no different. After Hollywood elites profaned the president, he didn't have the courage to put them in their place. Instead, he validated their remarks, claiming that they represent "the heart and soul of America."
No longer the party of hope, today's Democratic Party has become Mr. Kerry's many mansions of cynicism and skepticism. As our economy continues to get better and businesses add jobs, Mr. Kerry's going around America trying to convince people that the roof is about to cave in. He talks about "the misery index" and the Depression. What does he know about either?

And when it comes to taxes and services, you'd be pressed to find anyone more opposed to the interests of middle-class Americans than John Kerry. Except maybe John Edwards. Both voted against tax relief for married couples, tax relief for families with children, and tax relief for small businesses. Now Mr. Kerry wants to raise taxes on hundreds of thousands of small-business owners and millions of individuals. He claims to be for working people, but I don't understand how small businesses can create jobs if they've got to send more money to Washington instead of keeping it to hire workers.

Worst of all, Sens. Kerry and Edwards have not kept faith with the men and women who are fighting the war on terror--most of whom come from small towns and middle-class families all over America. While Mr. Bush has stood by our troops every step of the way, Messrs. Kerry and Edwards voted to send our troops to war and then voted against the money to give them supplies and equipment--not to mention better benefits for their families. And recently Mr. Kerry even said he's proud of that vote. Proud to abandon our troops when they're out in the field? I can hear Harry Truman cussing from his grave.

I still believe in hope and opportunity and, when it comes right down to it, Mr. Bush is the man who represents hope and opportunity. Hope for a safer world. And opportunity for Americans to work hard, keep more of the money they earn, and send their kids to good schools. All the speeches we heard this week weren't able to hide the truth of what today's Democratic Party has become: an enclave of elites paying lip service to middle-class values. Americans looking for a president who understands their struggles and their dreams should tune in next month, when we celebrate the leadership of George W. Bush.

MEET THE PRESS Sunday, August 1, 2004



But first, Zell Miller may be a Democratic senator from Georgia but he has endorsed George W. Bush for re-election, and he will speak at the Republican convention at the end of this month.

Senator Miller, welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

SEN. ZELL MILLER, (D-GA): Thank you, Tim. Good to be with you.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me take you back to 1992. Here you are at the Democratic convention, and this is what you had to say.

(Videotape, July 13, 1992):

SEN. MILLER: I am a Democrat because we are the party of hope. For 12 dark years, the Republicans have dealt in cynicism and skepticism. They've mastered the art of division and diversion and they have robbed us of our hope.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: You're talking about Ronald Reagan and former President Bush. What's changed?

SEN. MILLER: Oh, the Democrats have changed. This time, it's the Democrats who have the party of division and diversion. Have you ever seen anything like this Democratic convention? We've been going to them for a long time. This is the first time I've ever seen the speakers issued muzzles before they went up to the speaking platform. I mean, you have to give them a C+, I guess, for discipline, but it was a convention that was completely deceptive in every way. Somebody back in Georgia said that it's the Botox convention: cosmetically enhanced.

MR. RUSSERT: But they talked about a strong defense. They talk about reducing the top bracket of the tax cut, rolling it back. They talked about health care for the average man and woman like a U.S. senator gets. What's wrong with those issues for a Democratic Party?

SEN. MILLER: Well, there's a lot of difference between talking about them and then doing something about them. I mean, on the issue of defense, here is Senator Kerry, who voted to send troops to Iraq and then turned around and voted against financing the equipment and the ammunition and the benefits for the dependents that these troops needed. Now, he's saying he's going to do all of these things.

I found his speech amazingly evasive. It was the same gobbledegook, same baffle gab that you have always heard from John Kerry. He said that he had a plan for Iraq, but then he never got around to telling you what that plan was. He said that he was going to increase troops by 40,000, and special ops, he was going to double, but I'm not going to send them to Iraq. I don't know exactly where he stands on these things still.

MR. RUSSERT: It's interesting, because your views of Senator Kerry seemed to have changed. This is what you said of March of this year. "...after hearing the agenda [Kerry has] laid out for our country-I cannot support him in his race for the presidency. There are too many issues about which John Kerry and I disagree. And there are too few similarities between John Kerry and the great Democratic leaders I've known."

But here you are just three short years ago, with Senator Kerry, in Atlanta, Georgia. There's a picture of the two of you, and that night you said this. "My job tonight is an easy one: to present to you one of this nation's authentic heroes, one of this party's best known and greatest leaders-and a good friend. ...In his 16 years in the Senator John Kerry has fought against government waste and worked hard to bring some accountability to Washington. Early in his Senate career in 1986, John signed on to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Deficit Reduction Bill, and he fought for balanced budgets before it was considered politically correct for Democrats to do so. John has worked to strengthen our military, reform public education, boost the economy and protect the environment."

That's not ancient history. That's 2001.

SEN. MILLER: That's also the press release they gave me to introduce him by. And I was very impressed with John Kerry when I first came to the Senate, because I knew this man was an authentic American hero. And anyone that has a Silver Star and Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, I respect and admire and thank them for their service. But later I got to serve with this served with this man and I saw what kind of record he really did have in the Senate.

But let's make one thing clear, Tim. I am not for President Bush's re-election because I am against John Kerry. I am for President George W. Bush because he is the right man in the right place at the right time. He is the man who has had the backbone to stand up and defend America in possibly the worst time in all of our history. That's why I'm for him, because he's a strong leader. He understood that the best way to keep money back with people is to leave the money in their pockets and never take it to Washington in the first place. I'm for George W. Bush because of positive reasons, not negative reasons against John Kerry.

MR. RUSSERT: You mentioned that John Kerry did call for an increase of 40,000 active duty troops and doubling the size of our Special Forces. He also said that we are using the National Guard and reservists almost as a back-door draft. About 30 percent of the reservists and Guardspeople from Georgia have been mobilized largely because of Iraq. Is he right about that?

SEN. MILLER: I have visited those troops in Iraq, and they are proud and honored to be serving their country there. Lots of good things have been happening in Iraq that have not been in the press. There are real advances being made, and I think they're going to continue to be made. And I think that eventually we're going to see that this war in Iraq was the correct thing to do because it kept it from being on the streets of America. I think we'd rather fight the enemy over there than over here. And I think that America is safer because we've done that, and I also think that it has the possibility of transforming the Middle East, which is what every president has wanted to do for many years.

MR. RUSSERT: Might we need more American troops in Iraq?

SEN. MILLER: I think you have to go by what the military leaders tell you. I don't think politicians make those kind of decisions. I think military leaders make those decisions.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Pat Roberts, Republican, chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman, sat here a couple of weeks ago and said if the Senate knew back in 2002, October, that the weapons of mass destruction that the intelligence agency said existed, did not exist at the levels that had been said, the Senate would not have voted to authorize the war.

SEN. MILLER: Well, I'm not sure that's correct, but I know this, that John Kerry was on that Intelligence Committee for eight years. They had 49 meetings. He missed 38 of those meetings. And I also know that they had a number of meetings that were classified. We don't know how many of those he missed. I think he ought to tell us.

MR. RUSSERT: But you believe the Senate still would have voted for the war even in the absence of weapons of mass destruction?

SEN. MILLER: Oh, yes. I think so. I think that it was something that we needed to do both in Afghanistan and in Iraq.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to the September 11 Commission. President Bush is expected to implement many of the recommendations the commission has put forward. Back in March, you had this observation: "I've come to seriously question this panel's usefulness. I believe it will ultimately play a role in doing great harm to this country, for its unintended consequences, I fear, will be to energize our enemies and demoralize our troops."

Do you still believe that?

SEN. MILLER: There's no doubt that it energized our enemy at the time that it was first set up, and there's no doubt that there was a lot of politics involved. But because of the great work of the chairman and the vice chairman, they were able to come up with some very good suggestions on what we need to do to strengthen our security and our intelligence, and I think that we're going to do that.

MR. RUSSERT: So the commission has been a net plus?

SEN. MILLER: Yes, I think you look at it now and say that, but I also said at that time that they could just say everybody was at fault, and move on, and I think that's what they finally concluded that, there were a lot of people that were at fault.

MR. RUSSERT: Should we have won one central intelligence czar?

SEN. MILLER: That's something that someone who knows more about this business than I are going to have to decide. I kind of think not, because I think that it's not good to have someone like that in a political White House.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to your standing as a Democrat. The Chatham County Democratic Committee down there in southeastern Georgia, near Savannah, issued this on their Internet. "Zell gets divorced, a loyal Democrat no more. The Democratic Party of Chatham County, Georgia, does hereby divorce former Democratic Governor Zell Miller. Statements and actions of the formerly-Democratic U.S. senator have irretrievably broken the bonds that formerly existed between us and we view any previous ties to Miller as null and void."

SEN. MILLER: Well, they let me keep my dogs, and I appreciate that. Look, these people are as out of touch as some of the Democrats are somewhere else. I can tell you right now that as far as the Democrats in Georgia are concerned, most of them agree with where I am on this, supporting President George W. Bush. There will be a lot of George Bush Democrats in Georgia, just like there were a lot of Ronald Reagan Democrats in Georgia.

And I also say this to you. There are three things I think in the South that are going to change this election as far as how people view it. One is this is a part of the country as you well know, Tim, that is very pro-military. And they do not understand a person voting to go to war and then not supporting the troops. It also is a highly agricultural area, and these people are--John Kerry is agriculturally illiterate. And it is also a part of the country that stands for American values. And how can a person say that they are for American values and for the American family whenever they vote or not vote but oppose an amendment to the Constitution that would define marriage as a union between man and woman? How can you say that you're for family values whenever you listen to Whoopi Goldberg get up there and talk about obscenities and vulgarities as far as the president is concerned and hear someone talk about the president being a thug and a murderer and then get up there and validate those remarks by saying these people represent the heart and soul of America? They don't.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Kerry says he's against gay marriage, and that he did distance himself from some of the comments made at that fund-raising event.

SEN. MILLER: Well, why doesn't he release the tape and show us what else was said there that he said was the heart and soul of America? And I'll tell you something else, I watched him very closely the other night. How can a person say--how can they talk about the glory of Old Glory whenever they voted three times for an amendment--against an amendment that would have protected the flag against abuse? He's not for family values. He's completely out of sync as far as...

MR. RUSSERT: You mean the constitutional amendment in terms of burning or desecrating the flag?

SEN. MILLER: Yes.

MR. RUSSERT: The Atlanta Constitution, your hometown paper--Atlanta--well, not your hometown paper, one of your papers in your state, let me correct that, said this. "In his seamless self-delusion over the last year, Miller says his Democratic Party has left him, not the other way around. On that score, he's like the out-of-step GI who insists it's everyone else in the platoon who's on the wrong foot. Soon, and very soon, Zell needs to come home and take to his rocking chair. Clearly the world is too much with him."

SEN. MILLER: That's the same newspaper that whenever I left the governor's office had a lot of good things to say about me. I'm not worried about those kind of comments. What I'm worried about is what's going to happen in the next five years in this country. And I am convinced that what happens in these next five years will determine what kind of world that my grandchildren and my four great- grandchildren are going to grow up in. And that's why I'm so strong for George W. Bush for president, because I think he's going to make this world safer for those precious children of mine.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you think the world's safer now than it was pre the invasion of Iraq?

SEN. MILLER: Oh, sure, I do, and I think that it's very obvious that it is. I mean, we have not had another attack since 9/11. And just think of the opportunities that they have--been out there. I mean, yes, it's safer than it was. This is one of those things where you've got to have continued vigilance, and we've got to do everything we can. But certainly it's safer, because the war is going on over there instead of over here right now.

MR. RUSSERT: John Kerry came out to address the Democrats and said, "I'm John Kerry," and he in fact is ready to serve his country, accept his duty as commander in chief. Do you have any doubt that he would not be a strong, effective commander in chief?

SEN. MILLER: Oh, yes, I have a lot of doubts. If you will look at his record in the Senate, which is something they didn't talk about at all during the Democratic convention, it was as if he has been in a witness protection program somewhere and didn't even exist, incognito somewhere. He has voted--he's been on the wrong side of foreign policy issues for the last 20 years. If he had had his policies adopted in the Senate instead of the Ronald Reagan policies being adopted, we would still be in the Cold War. We'd still have a Soviet Union and the Berlin Wall would still be up. This...

MR. RUSSERT: Now, Senator, how can you say that?

SEN. MILLER: Because this is a man...

MR. RUSSERT: I...

SEN. MILLER: This is a man who voted to cut every single one of the weapons systems that won the Cold War.

MR. RUSSERT: But aren't you...

SEN. MILLER: This is a man that voted against the weapons system that we're using to fight the war on terror. This is a man who voted against increases in intelligence funding. He wanted to cut intelligence funding.

MR. RUSSERT: But on defense and intelligence authorization bills, you have the same voting record as John Kerry.

SEN. MILLER: I didn't try to cut--now ultimately he came along and voted for some, but I sure didn't try to cut this defense budget.

MR. RUSSERT: Some Democrats in Georgia--and here is John Lewis, who's the dean of the congressional delegation, believes that you were elected with the support of a lot of Democratic working people, black and white. This is what Mr. Lewis said. He "called Mr. Miller's decision to appear at the [Republican] convention on behalf of President Bush `a shame and a disgrace.'... This is the same Zell Miller who said 40 years ago that President Johnson had sold his soul when he signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is the same Zell Miller who as elected by the working people of Georgia--the teachers, union members, farmers and both black and white voters in the state. I do no understand what he is so angry about, but apparently he has lost his way.'"

Why are you so angry at the Democrats?

SEN. MILLER: John is a very good friend, and I can remember another quote of not too long ago where he said, "Zell Miller was a courageous man who had led a courageous life." I'm not angry. I'm just disillusioned. I'm disillusioned with a party that has gone completely so far to the left that in the South we don't even have a chance of electing Democrats statewide anymore because they are associated with the National Democratic Party, they're associated with the Kerry-Edwards-Daschle wing of the Democratic Party. And this group is so far to the left that they are completely off the charts.

MR. RUSSERT: John Edwards is from North Carolina, Southern senator.

SEN. MILLER: Oh, he's got a good ZIP code and he's got a good accent and he's got a good smile. But he has voted very similar to the way that John Kerry has voted. He also voted to go to war and then voted against supporting the troops.

MR. RUSSERT: Is this what


MR. RUSSERT: Is this what you're going to tell the Republican National Convention?

SEN. MILLER: No, I'm going to come up with something else to tell them, but it'll be along those lines. I'll talk about the journey that I've made in life and I'll talk about the journey that my Democratic Party has made.

MR. RUSSERT: The other prime-time speakers--Arnold Schwarzenegger, Rudy Giuliani and John McCain--are all pro-gay rights, and Schwarzenegger and Rudy Giuliani are pro-abortion rights and pro- anti-gun rights. Should they be speaking to a Republican convention, and are they out of sync with your thinking?

SEN. MILLER: Well, of course, I disagree with them on all those issues, but sure they should, because the Republican Party has become the party where diversity is accepted. You know, they talked about diversity at the Democratic convention. There was no diversity in ideology whatsoever. Can you remember when they wouldn't even let Bob Casey, a pro-life Democrat, governor of Pennsylvania-- wouldn't even let him speak at the convention in '92? They have completely pushed out any moderate to conservative Democrat. It's no longer the party of the big tent that it once was.

MR. RUSSERT: Senator Zell Miller, we thank you very much for sharing your views.

Coming next, the view from the Kerry campaign. Democratic Senator Joe Biden of Delaware. And then our Roundtable, with insights and analysis, all coming up right here on MEET THE PRESS.

Bush Sends Nobody to Die

MOORE: So, you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.

O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself..

MOORE: Your child? It’s Bush sending the children there.

O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself.

MOORE: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old…

O'REILLY: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.

Transcript of Bill's interview with Michael Moore!

MOORE: Over 900 of our brave soldiers are dead. What do you say to their parents?

O'REILLY: What do I say to their parents? I say what every patriotic American would say: “We are proud of your sons and daughters. They answered the call that their country gave them. We respect them and we feel terrible that they were killed.”

RUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, what I'm going to do next, I seldom -- I mean seldom -- do if ever. It is a professional, philosophical belief I have to not comment on what others who do what I do, say or do. I know many of you get frustrated by this, because you'll hear things on other programs say, "Rush, you've got to get a tape of that and you've got to nuke it," and I don't, because I've never commented on what other people say or do on similar programs such as this, people who do what I do. It's just a professional, philosophical belief that goes back to when I was 16, and the way the business was conducted then. It's just something I don't do, and there's multitudinous reasons for it and I won't go into it. But I'm going to violate the rule today, because of particular subject matter. I didn't see this, but I read a transcript of it. Apparently Michael Moore appeared on Bill O'Reilly's Fox show, the O'Reilly Factor.

I read the transcript of it and hen I finished reading the transcript, I was um...unsatisfied. I was disappointed, and I was disappointed in the whole flavor of the interview and the way it went. I thought, I mean, if Moore is going to agree to come in then there's an opportunity there to really expose some of the myths and the lies and the distortions and the outright danger that is posed, particularly to young servicemen in this movie. You know, they're showing this movie around the world and 18-, 19-, 20-year-old servicemen are being very dispirited by it, because they don't understand the context, the political context. They're neophytes, they're kids -- but they've joined, which is the point ultimately that I'm going to get to. So what happened instead was that the interview was descended into a false premise, and it was frustrating to me that Mr. O'Reilly accepted a false premise and attempted to argue it.

Now it's easy. One of the reasons I don't review and comment on things, is because it's easy in hindsight to be critical of the way somebody else does something, and that's one of the reasons I have not done it. I mean, a lot of people have probably found disagreement with the way things I've done over the years, and once they're done they're done, and all the criticism in the world isn't going to change what happened.


But in this case, the false premise that was put forth that was accepted and thereby shaped the entire interview, was, "Bush sends kids to die." Bush sends no one to die. The Palestinians send their kids to die. The Palestinians strap bombs on their kids and send them into civilian areas in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv with the express purpose of having those explosives blow up and kill not only the kids, but as many innocent civilians as possible nearby. That is "sending your kids off to die."

George Bush sends no one off to die -- kids, adults, anyone. Yet the interview descended into, "Would you die for your country? Would you die for Fallujah?" and that's not at all an acceptable premise to me. Here's why. We have in this country a volunteer army. Since 2000, particularly 2001, everybody joining the Army knows exactly where they're going. The odds are they're going to go to combat. As such, most of them joining do so willingly. This notion that in this day and age, given the present circumstances, that there are people joining the Army simply to get a college education or to escape poor, dire economic circumstances, while it may be true, it denigrates those who are signing up. It denigrates the intentions and honor of those joining. This is not a generation of 1960s, blue-jeaned, tie-dye clad, long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking protesters.

This generation of people joining the U.S. military, you can talk to their parents, are going to defend their country. They're going precisely because of what happened on 9/11. They are making the decision on their own. They are not "being sent to die." They are willingly, and thank God for them, joining various branches of the armed service to go defend their country. It is a lost concept to many on the left who think it's up to the French and the U.N. to defend us. But this really galls me, because what it ultimately is, is a cut and a denigration at those joining. It's making them out to be victims. They are not victims. They are heroic people. They're heroic young people who are doing what they want to do of their own volition, choosing to go, knowing full well the likelihood they'll end up in a combat zone at some point in their service -- and yet they join, and throughout the course of this period since the Iraq war started, I have marveled at the stories they tell when they come back and call this program.

I have marveled at the stories I've heard reading newspapers from local communities about the people who join and why, and I don't hear where anybody's forcing them to because it's a volunteer army. I don't hear where George Bush is rounding people up under cover of darkness in various communities around the country and saying, "Here kid, I'm sending you to die." The whole premise of this interview, therefore, was false. Yet it was accepted and got argued, and it was just disappointing because there was no ground gained in this, and yet the premise was allowed to stand when the debate began, "Would you send your kid to Fallujah? Would you die for Fallujah?"

This is not about Fallujah! This is not about Basra. This is not about Iraq. It's not about one place. It's about the defense of the United States of America. It's about ensuring that another 9/11 doesn't happen. It's about taking whatever steps we can to see to it that there's as peaceful a life, day to day, in this country, as there is -- and there are people, young people, who are willing to risk their lives, signing up for the military, and the last thing we need is for some overweight, bloated bigot moviemaker to start denigrating them, and then have this premise accepted all over the media.

It's even worse when a major political party seeks to denigrate the armed forces and uniform-wearing men and women of this country, by accepting the same false premise and bracing an entire presidential campaign around it. It just offends me to no end. I've also exercised considerable restraint in talking about this stupid, foolish movie. One of the reasons for that is, Why talk about it and give it even more attention? You know, I'm not sitting here with chump change as an audience. You are the largest audience in talk radio in this country. When I talk about it, people who haven't heard about something, hear about it.

Well, in this case everybody's heard about this stupid movie. But I also know that when you start criticizing and ripping something, all you do is generate curiosity about it. Well, the curiosity factor is sated. Everybody who wants to see this movie, has. Everybody who's heard about it, has. So I'm safe to talk about it and not fear that I'm going to unwittingly promote this stupid thing. But the premise that any U.S. president in this day and age is "sending kids off to die" is insulting. It is banal. It is infantile. It is puerile. It is insane. It is lunatic. It is absolutely degenerate -- especially in this day and age. Now, people are free to say what they want to say, free to make a movie, do whatever they want to do, and anybody's free to glom on to it and sign on to it and say whatever they want. But when this kind of thing is taken up by an out-of-power, scared-to-eath, filled-with-fear-and-rage political party that used to once be great, and seeks to build its own identity around the lies and distortions and the efforts to ridicule and impugn fine people, then it's worthy of concern and discussion.

And I just felt like I had eaten a meal but never swallowed anything, after reading the transcript of this interview, because the whole thing took place under a false premise. I know you're saying, "Why don't you get Moore on?" It's not what I do. If I ran into him, it's not what I do -- and that's why it's difficult to comment about this, because I didn't interview him, and it's after the fact. So please don't interpret this as a criticism Mr. O'Reilly. It is not that. It's a criticism of Mr. Moore. It's a criticism of a premise that ends up being accepted, because there is a genuine desire to discredit this man by people who feel he's being grossly inaccurate and unfair to some really honorable people.

So I'm not being critical of Mr. O'Reilly here, and I don't want anybody to think this, but I think it is just a shame. It's just an absolute shame that this kind of whatever you call this -- docudrama, propaganda, whatever it is -- is being accepted and transmitted as some sort of factual, relevant bit of news that people need to shape their lives by or grow up or get up and learn to smell the roses and the coffee, because there's some so-called new profound truth in this movie when it's nothing but distortion and lies -- and this premise that Bush is sending kids off to die, when we have a volunteer force, we have great young people who bear no resemblance to the rabble-rousers of the 1960s, their age then, who are doing this for their genuine desire to defend the country.

I just react in a very negative way when their efforts are besmirched, and when efforts made to impugn their honor, integrity, sense of purpose, and to make them out to be victims, because we are not victims in this country unless we want to be made victims. I think what is happening is the whole Democratic Party is beginning to look itself as a victim. They are the ones that instituted victimology. They're the ones that started making groups and groups of people victims. "You're a victim of this. You're a victim of that. We're going to fix it for you." They now look at themselves as all being victims, and they have no ability, it seems, to understand what is relevant in the country today and what's important to a lot of people.

And instead they want to try to lie to people and use whatever class B actors and directors and people they can to further this charade; this picture of America that is untrue -- only for one reason: to advance their own power in their quest to reacquire it. So that's that. I had to make this brief departure from my policy and philosophy this one time. And there are many of these false premises out there, that are being advanced and discussed as "genuine fact" on the left. It's not the way to argue these things, is to accept the premise. If you're going to do this, don't allow the premise. Dispute it; argue that, rather than accept it -- and move on from there, because there's no gaining at all when you accept the false premise and then begin to argue it. Remember undeniable truths of life. "The purpose of armies is to kill people and break things." The purpose of armies is not to die. Therefore, our United States military is sent by no one "to die." The United States military is sent to kill and win -- and we love them.