Today on Blogcritics
Home » Kerry’s Sinister Advertising Hoax

Kerry’s Sinister Advertising Hoax

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Since I’m on a roll here (and imagining Shark bursting blood vessels is worth every word I type), I’d like to ask you one question, dear reader: Remember the 9/11 Bush advertisements, the ones everybody hollered about? Granted, no-one needs reminding of that awful day. It was ill-advised, but hardly evil. This is just the latest excuse to kick the president for people who rabidly hated Mr. Bush to begin with.

The points that the ads try to stress are:

1. What happened as a result of Clinton’s failure to take the growing terrorist threat against us seriously.

2. What could happen again if we elect another soft-on-terror Jackass to the White House.

Bush stands accused of milking emotions over 9/11, but Bush has been more serious in fighting the War on Terrorism than any other president – save for Reagan – would or could have been. He may have had to expand government and its powers, regrettably, in so achieving this goal, but so be it. Unconventional wars call for unconventional methods.

(If I have a choice between Bush’s Homeland Security and the ATF under Clinton, it’s no contest; and of all the stuff in Bush’s overinflated budget that I could complain about, Homeland Security is not very high on my list.)

Want to talk cheap shot advertising? John Kerry, the golden boy for the Dems, will no doubt trump up his military experience as a reason to win the presidency. Now, let me clarify that Kerry served his country and acted heroically in Vietnam. That fact cannot, and should not, be taken away from him.
But after getting back from service, Kerry immediately fell in with the subversive Vietnam Veterans Against the War whose sole aim appeared to be to disgrace the American soldier and protest on behalf of the Viet Cong. In his 1970 testimony before Congress, Kerry didn’t have enough bad things to say about American soldiers in Vietnam.

As if this wasn’t enough, Kerry fought endlessly over the years to resume normal trade relations with Vietnam even though the prerequisite for this was for the Vietnamese government to prove that it had released all POWs and accounted for MIAs. Sounds reasonable, right? Despite numerous documents detailing sightings of POWs in Vietnam, Kerry shredded copies to prevent the news from being leaked and, thus, derailing his trade normalization pet project.
In his guilt over his part in the Vietnam War, Kerry bent over backwards to aid the Viet Cong and bulldoze normal trade relations over the bodies of those soldiers tortured and/or dead in Vietnam.

You see, it’s not all about the fact that Kerry served and that he acted heroically in battle. That’s not enough. Kerry would have to have been proud of his service and to back his fellow Americans serving in the war accordingly. Yet his testimony before Congress, his ties to anti-war groups and activities and his Senate record demonstrate that this was not the case.

Want to argue that Bush assaulted the memories of the dead with his 9/11 ads? Fine. Just remember that the only viable alternative to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue has repeatedly assaulted the memories of MIAs and the sensitivities of POWs to assuage his guilt over his involvement in Vietnam.

Yet, he will not let us forget that he’s a war hero, and never mind the rent-a-Vietnam-Vet-mob, standing behind Kerry. Why was not Kerry behind them? That is what the smart, informed voter will be asking.

Powered by

About Nightdragon

  • Mark Saleski


  • Angelina Baker

    The Bush doctrine speaks for itself: complete failure.
    EARLY 2001 – MAJOR SURGE IN AL QAEDA ACTIVITY: “In late spring 2001, a sudden surge in activity began among known Al Qaeda operatives…a reporter from Middle East Broadcasting visited bin Laden at a camp in Afghanistan and noted that his supporters were preparing for attacks against American ‘interests.’”[Source: The Age of Sacred Terror, 2003]
    EARLY 2001 – WHITE HOUSE DEPARTS FROM EFFORTS TO TRACK TERRORIST MONEY: The new Bush Treasury Department “disapproved of the Clinton Administration’s approach to money laundering issues, which had been an important part of the drive to cut off the money flow to bin Laden.” Specifically, the Bush Administration opposed Clinton Administration-backed efforts by the G-7 and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that targeted countries with “loose banking regulations” being abused by terrorist financiers. Meanwhile, the Bush Administration provided “no funding for the new National Terrorist Asset Tracking Center.” [Source: The Age of Sacred Terror, 2003]
    JULY 2001 –ANOTHER WARNING THAT AL QAEDA PLANNED TO USE PLANES AS MISSILES: The LA Times reported that U.S. and Italian officials were warned in July 2001 that “Islamic terrorists might attempt to kill President Bush and other leaders by crashing an airliner into the Genoa summit of industrialized nations.” [Source: LA Times, 9/27/01]…this relates also to Condi and Cheney’s lies about having no idea that al Qeada might use airplanes as weapons.
    AUGUST 2001 – PRESIDENT PERSONALLY WARNED OF AL QAEDA AIRPLANE PLOT: ABC News reported, Bush Administration “officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden’s terrorist network might try to hijack American planes.” Dateline NBC reported that on August 6, 2001, the President personally “received a one-and-a-half page briefing advising him that Osama bin Laden was capable of a major strike against the US, and that the plot could include the hijacking of an American airplane.” [Source: ABC News, 5/16/02; NBC, 9/10/02]
    SO LITTLE CONCERN FOR COUNTER-TERROR THAT A WHITE HOUSE TASK FORCE NEVER MET: The increased warnings about an al Qaeda attack led President Bush in May of 2001 to appoint Vice President Cheney to head a task force “to combat terrorist attacks on the United States.” At the announcement, Bush said “I will periodically chair a meeting of the National Security Council to review these efforts.” But according to the Washington Post, neither “Cheney’s review nor Bush’s took place.” Meanwhile, Newsweek reported that when senators “sent a copy of draft legislation on counterterrorism and homeland defense to Cheney’s office on July 20,” they were told by Cheney’s top aide “that it might be another six months before he would be able to review the material.” [Source: White House release, 5/8/01; Washington Post, 1/20/02; Newsweek, 5/27/02] A vindication of Clarke.