Kerry Campaign "Imploding"

[DKW 86 7,440]

lnik

From The San Francisco Examiner!!!!!!!!

Backlash of Kerry claims

By Kathleen Antrim | Special To The Examiner

Published on Friday, August 13, 2004

URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/081304op_antrim

E-mail this story | Print this page

John F. Kerry's campaign for president is imploding. And he knows it.

The anti-war candidate went public as a pro-war candidate this week, and the members of his beloved "Band of Brothers" are exposing a whole book's worth of ugly lies. And they've got details, evidence, footnotes, signed affidavits and witnesses who back up their claims.

Kerry himself bestowed immense credibility on his "Band of Brothers" when he used a picture of some of them in his campaign ad titled "Lifetime."

Essentially, Kerry made Vietnam, and these men, the centerpiece of his campaign. Of course, that was when he thought they'd support his candidacy. No matter that he'd never bothered to ask their permission to use them to promote his political career.

Now, however, the Kerry campaign is on a search-and-destroy mission to attack the credibility of these same men -- calling them liars, all 60 of them, and saying they didn't serve in the military with him. Really? Then why'd Kerry use their pictures in his ad campaign?

These are the same men who Kerry hailed as his "Band of Brothers," who he implied knew him well and could vouch for him as a wonderful soldier and man.

These men, who Kerry inferred that we, the American people, could trust to tell us that he would make a great president, are suddenly liars. And why? Because they aren't saying what Kerry wants them to say. Because they aren't puppets. Because they're insisting on speaking the truth, a concept with which Kerry obviously isn't familiar.

Could this attack on their credibility be related to the fact that they've announced that he's unfit to serve as president? Looks to me like he wrote the wrong names down in the reference column of his resume.

The worst part of this political fiasco is that it could have been completely avoided. With a little work, preparation and organization, Kerry or his staff could have shown these veterans a little common courtesy by finding out where they stand regarding his candidacy and asking their permission to use them as references. This was a huge mistake, and it's costing Kerry dearly.

But like an old fish story in which the catch keeps getting larger with every telling, Kerry didn't stop at telling tales of war crimes.

He also told the Senate, in 1986, that he was illegally in Cambodia.

Kerry said, "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."

Utter lies, total and complete exaggerated lies, the Swift Vets claim. So, this fish tale stinks worse each time Kerry drags it out.

With accusations flying, Kerry's version of free speech has shrunk down to only one veteran: himself. All others must be silenced.

This is called "damage control," folks, and it's in high gear because Kerry knows he's in trouble here. Big trouble.

Of course, this whole matter could be cleared up if Kerry would release his Vietnam records and his personal journal. It's a simple matter to release these records, requiring only a standard Form 180.

So, Mr. Kerry, if you haven't been making up stories, and if the Swift Vets are lying, then release your records and prove your case. Trust the American people to discern the truth. Or have the courage to admit you lied, over and over again.

Let me be clear, Mr. Kerry, as a journalist, a columnist and most importantly as an American citizen, I am asking you to release your Vietnam records and your journal (in its entirety) to the American people.

But don't take my word for it; check it out for yourself at www.swiftvets.com.

[TrueBlue72 0]

WOW, to see that coming from the heart of liberal country in a newspaper that is known for its ultra-liberal stances, is amazing!

It is good to see a that there are journalists who are journalists in spite of politics.

[Ranger12 46]

All I can say is "Ouch!".

[tiger88 934]

john kerry=sacrificial lamb.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

WOW, to see that coming from the heart of liberal country in a newspaper that is known for its ultra-liberal stances, is amazing! 

It is good to see a that there are journalists who are journalists in spite of politics.

Before you wet yourself:

New owner is reclusive, a conservative Christian

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 02/20/04 | George Raine, Jenny Strasburg

Posted on 02/20/2004 7:50:10 PM PST by nypokerface

The new billionaire owner of the San Francisco Examiner hasn't given a substantive interview since 1974 and thoroughly protects his privacy. But it's clear that Philip Anschutz is a dealmaker of the first order.

A Kansas native who has lived in Denver for the past 42 years, the 64- year-old Anschutz is the chairman and owner of Anschutz Co., a highly diversified firm that owns or has investments in about 100 companies in energy, pipelines, railroads, agriculture, real estate, film production, movie theaters, telecommunications, sports, media and entertainment.

Most notably, Anschutz is the founder and largest shareholder of Qwest Communications International Inc., a telecom concern, and vice chairman of Union Pacific Corp., the nation's largest railroad. He is also a major investor in Major League Soccer, owns the Los Angeles Kings hockey team and is a minority owner of the Los Angeles Lakers.

Forbes.com puts his net worth at $4.9 billion, ranking him number 62 on Forbes' annual list of the world's richest people. Anschutz's wealth is self- made, after his father, who worked wildcat oil wells, asked him to take over the family business when he fell ill in 1961.

A conservative Christian, Anschutz, who could not be reached for comment, has long contributed money to political causes and candidates, including former Sen. Bob Dole. Anschutz also backed the 1992 campaign in Colorado that opposed municipal ordinances that would provide civil rights protections for gays and lesbians.

"He's a very religious man -- it's very important to him,'' said Martin Fridson, a Wall Street specialist in the high-yield bond market who included a chapter on Anschutz in his book, "How To Be a Billionaire.''

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1082490/posts

[DKW 86 7,440]

Here, you forgot this quote...

He said that Anschutz is "a strong Christian, a strong believer in religion,'' but said "it is more personal than it is promotional, in the sense that he is not seen (promoting his religious opinions) in the paper or as a religious leader.''

Of the same-sex marriage story the Examiner is covering along with other media, Monaghan said, "What I know for certain is that there have been no instructions or guidance (from Anschutz) to the Examiner staff, nor would there be on things like that.''

[DKW 86 7,440]

http://www.kathleenantrim.com/

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Here, you forgot this quote...

He said that Anschutz is "a strong Christian, a strong believer in religion,'' but said "it is more personal than it is promotional, in the sense that he is not seen (promoting his religious opinions) in the paper or as a religious leader.''

Of the same-sex marriage story the Examiner is covering along with other media, Monaghan said, "What I know for certain is that there have been no instructions or guidance (from Anschutz) to the Examiner staff, nor would there be on things like that.''

Didn't forget it. If you went to the link for my post, you'll see I included that poster's excerpt in full. But since you brought it up, who is "Monaghan?" The personal aide to the billionaire. What do you honestly expect him say? His boss is gonna place his conservative stamp on the paper?

News is news. A paper could hardly exist in San Fransisco or anywhere else and not cover the gay marriage story. Editorial pages are where publishers views are often expressed. But even then, it is not unusual for most papers to have conservative and more liberal opinion writers. Kathleen Antrim was recently hired by the paper, since the new owner, and she is decidedly conservative. She's been active in Republican politics, has a book out about a deviously cunning First Lady based on you-know-who and her columns are conservative.

The Examiner is simply not "ultra-liberal". William Randolph Hearst was a conservative and he brought it to prominence. Anschultz appears to be leaving his mark, as well:

                The Examiner's apparently conservative choice as its new executive editor, squares nicely with Anschutz' own well-known politically conservative ties as well as the newspaper's recent hire of Kathleen Antrim, the politically conservative columnist.  Couple these devlopments with a glance at Examiner editorials over the last several months (not strictly conservative but still wide right of the Chronicle) and there is the inevitable sense that the San Francisco Examiner intends to stake its claim as a daily conservative newspaper alternative to the San Francisco Chronicle.

http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentD...e=10&mode=print

So view this as some tide turning moment if you wish.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Couple these devlopments with a glance at Examiner editorials over the last several months (not strictly conservative but still wide right of the Chronicle)

Simple statement: I bet almost any organized endeavor in the world would fall right of the Chronicle.

Will give the talking points award though.

If you cannot debate the point, talk about the people.

Let me see, isnt there someone with a sig that says something about talking about people...If I could only find it.....

[TexasTiger 13,006]

Couple these devlopments with a glance at Examiner editorials over the last several months (not strictly conservative but still wide right of the Chronicle)

Simple statement: I bet almost any organized endeavor in the world would fall right of the Chronicle.

Will give the talking points award though.

If you cannot debate the point, talk about the people.

Let me see, isnt there someone with a sig that says something about talking about people...If I could only find it.....

You're amazing. Give no ground on any point no matter how trivial.

The simple point I was responding to was this:

WOW, to see that coming from the heart of liberal country in a newspaper that is known for its ultra-liberal stances, is amazing!

You seemed equally excited about the source of the editorial:

From The San Francisco Examiner!!!!!!!!

"WOW...amazing...!!!!!!!!!!"

Not so wow, not so amazing, not so !!!!!!!!!!

"Talk about the people?" Huh? You guys are indicating the source is ultra-liberal, I'm merely point out that it isn't. I didn't demean, denigrate or deride Ms. Antrim or Mr. Anschultz in any way. I merely said they were conservative, which I doubt they would argue with or take offense at. Didn't call 'em wing-nuts, fascists, right wing wackos, etc. Give it a rest David, I'm not even trying to argue with you, brother. Peace out.

[rexbo 104]

Before you wet yourself:...

If you don't like the message, shoot the messenger!!!