posted May 24, 2004 04:20 PM              

I know that we don't talk much, but I wanted to ask you a few things about John Kerry.

I know that you don't like him, so I will ask you first to save your biased opinions. Because you have so much political knowlegde, I want to know what are the FACTS about John Kerry, facts that make him the wrong candidate to vote for? What did he exactly do in Vietnam? Do you know what he is lying about, and also telling the truth about? Do you think he will be the next president? How do you know if the facts are really true, and not just rumors being spread by the Bush camp?

Okay now you can be biased: What do you think of John Kerry personally?

This is also an open discussion so anyone can add their opinion in a polite manner.

-StarLover

posted May 24, 2004 10:23 PM            

If you really want to know why I think what I think about Kerry, we need to start at the beginning. These are articles about Kerry's service in Vietnam, what people who served with him think of him and when you read along you'll get a picture of where his sympathies lie.

If you get through these, I'll start filling in the gaps of his voting record. These articles are in no particular order. Most are from the NewMax site because they have a searchable database of articles by subject or name. The real story is in who is being quoted in the article and what they are saying, not the spin the writer puts on what they say, if any.

Kerry and McCain Shield Communist Vietnam's Slaughter of Christians
David Thibault, CNSNews.com
Thursday, May 20, 2004

The Vietnamese communist government's alleged murder of hundreds of tribal Christians requires a response by the U.S. government, but any effort to sanction Vietnam is being blocked by Sens. John Kerry and John McCain, according to a Washington, D.C., human rights group.
International Christian Concern President Jeff King also alleges that he's heard complaints about Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat running for president, and McCain, an Arizona Republican who ran for president in 2000, from some of their congressional colleagues on Vietnam's abuses.
"Senators have complained to us that these guys are the fast friends of the Vietnamese, and they've blocked any real attempt at reform or punishment for these types of abuses, and so Vietnam continues to get away with murder," King told CNSNews.com.
http://64.135.21.3/archives/articles/2004/5/20/92912.shtml

Monday, April 19, 2004 1:09 a.m. EDT
Kerry Inflates Combat Action in 'Meet the Press' Account

In his account to "Tour of Duty" author Douglas Brinkley, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry described his first encounter with enemy forces in Vietnam as an inconsequential skirmish that "hardly qualified as combat."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/19/11810.shtml

Kerry's Anti-war Book Riles Former Green Beret
Marc Morano, CNSNews.com
Thursday, Feb. 19, 2004]

John Kerry downplayed any threat posed by the communist government of North Vietnam in his 1971 book, "The New Soldier," and instead charged that American soldiers "were killing women and children" and helping to create "a nation of refugees, bomb craters, amputees, orphans, widows, and prostitutes" in Vietnam.

The book, a copy of which CNSNews.com has obtained, is very difficult to find 33 years after it was written. Single copies of the book reportedly are selling for as high as $849.95 on the Internet.
The cover of the book displays long-haired, bearded men carrying an upside-down American flag in an apparent mockery of the famous planting of the American flag on Iwo Jima during World War II.
http://64.135.21.3/archives/articles/2004/2/19/160224.shtml

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 10:31 a.m. EDT
Kerry's War Wound Called 'Fingernail Scrape'

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry insisted on being awarded his first Purple Heart in Vietnam even though his injury amounted to no more than a "fingernail scrape," his commanding officer at the time now says.Retired Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard tells the Boston Globe that he can still recall Kerry's wound, and that "it resembled a scrape from a fingernail," the paper said."I've had thorns from a rose that were worse," Hibbard insists.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/14/103222.shtml

Accuracy In Media
AIM Report: John Kerry's Marxist Bedfellows
April 16, 2004

On February 27, one of the leading "America bashers" on the political scene endorsed John Kerry for president.

Speaking after a press conference at the National Press Club to rally support for Haiti's Marxist President Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Ramsey Clark said he's voting for Kerry because he would take U.S. foreign policy in a new direction.

This is certainly true. Despite his reputation as a flip-flopper on major issues, Kerry has made it clear that he would have risked the lives of U.S. military personnel to protect the Marxist ruler of Haiti, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.---------------------------
http://www.aim.org/aim_report/1445_0_4_0_C/

Kerry on the Record: Ties With Vietnam
Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2004

Editor’s note: This is Part 3 in a series revealing the Democratic front-runner's track record on the important issues of the day.
Part 1: POWs and MIAs
Part 2: Defense
WASHINGTON – One of the issues sure to be dogging Democrat presidential front-runner John Kerry will be whether a member of his family improperly benefited from the senator’s leading role in “normalizing” relations between the U.S. and Vietnam.
http://64.135.21.3/archives/articles/2004/2/17/164944.shtml

Sunday, April 11, 2004 9:22 p.m. EDT

Kerry Talks With Hanoi Delegation Detailed in Missing FBI Files

FBI files stolen from the home of Vietnam war historian Gerald Nicosia detail at least one secret 1970 meeting in Paris between future Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and representatives of the communist government of North Vietnam during the height of the Vietnam War.In an interview last week with California's Marin County Independent Journal, Nicosia said the FBI files contained information on Kerry's May 1970 trip to Paris, where he spoke to Hanoi negotiators who were beginning peace talks with the Nixon administration.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/11/212859.shtml

Tuesday, May. 04, 2004 11:20 PM EDT
Kerry's Vietnam Doc: Wound Accidentally Self-Inflicted

The Navy medic who treated Sen. John Kerry after he sustained his first battlefield wound in Vietnam said Tuesday that he thought that the injury had been inadvertently self-inflicted - raising new questions about why Kerry sought a Purple Heart after the incident.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/4/232350.shtml

Swift Boat Veterans Condemn Kerry as Unfit to Command
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, May 4, 2004
WASHINGTON –

It was the news conference John Kerry did not want to see happen.
In a standing-room-only suite at the National Press Club, former “Swiftee” John O’Neill, spokesman for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, told reporters that the junior U.S. senator from Massachusetts spent 45 minutes on the phone with group founder Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, USN (Ret.), trying to “discourage” the band of brothers from going public with their united sentiment that Kerry is unfit to be the nation’s commander in chief.
http://64.135.21.3/archives/articles/2004/5/4/132751.shtml

Friday, May 14, 2004 12:06 p.m. EDT
Sen. Miller: Kerry a National Security Threat

In the most scathing attack yet against Sen. John Kerry delivered by one of his peers, Sen. Zell Miller warned yesterday that the likely Democratic presidential nominee would be a threat to U.S. national security if elected.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/14/130904.shtml

Monday, May 17, 2004 12:50 p.m. EDT
Swift Boat Vets Accuse Kerry of Vietnam Photo Fraud

Eleven out of a group of 19 Vietnam Swift Boat veterans pictured in Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign literature demanded on Monday that he stop misrepresenting them as supporters.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/17/135458.shtml

Former Military Colleagues: Kerry 'Unfit to Be Commander in Chief'
Marc Morano, CNSNews.com
Monday, May 3, 2004

Hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democrat nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter that he is "unfit to be commander in chief." They will do so at a press conference Tuesday in Washington.
http://64.135.21.3/archives/articles/2004/5/3/92240.shtml

Author: Kerry's Meeting With Communists Broke U.S. Law
Marc Morano, CNSNews.com
Thursday, May 20, 2004

The 1970 meeting that John Kerry conducted with North Vietnamese communists violated U.S. law, according to an author and researcher who has studied the issue.
Kerry met with representatives from "both delegations" of the Vietnamese in Paris in 1970, according to Kerry's own testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971. But Kerry's meetings with the Vietnamese delegations were in direct violation of laws forbidding private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers, according to researcher and author Jerry Corsi, who began studying the anti-war movement in the early 1970s.
http://64.135.21.3/archives/articles/2004/5/20/91603.shtml

Monday, April 26, 2004 11:01 p.m. EDT
Kerry Boatmate: Vietnam Troubles Just Beginning

Sen. John Kerry's Monday morning meltdown on "Good Morning America" may be just the beginning of his troubles, according to one of his Vietnam boatmates, who is warning that more of the men who served alongside the Massachusetts Democrat are preparing to go public with their accounts.Texas lawyer John O'Neill, who served on Kerry's Swift Boat after he left Vietnam just four months into his tour, told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg on Sunday: "I was in exactly the same unit. There were many people who were there simultaneously with him who are all about to speak."O'Neill gained brief fame in 1971 when he debated Kerry on "The Dick Cavett Show" and forced him to admit he never personally witnessed the war crimes he'd been accusing U.S. troops of committing.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/4/26/230236.shtml

Saturday, May 1, 2004 10:57 a.m. EDT
Gen. Giap Thanks Kerry & Co. for Anti-war Protests

Celebrating the 29th anniversary of the fall of Saigon, the North Vietnamese general who led his forces to victory said Friday he was grateful to leaders of the U.S. anti-war movement, one of whom was presidential candidate John Kerry.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/1/110432.shtml

Why Families Say Kerry Betrayed POWs and MIAs
Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Friday, Feb. 13, 2004
Editor’s note: This is Part 1 in a series revealing the Democratic front-runner’s track record on the important issues of the day.
Putative presidential nominee Sen. John Forbes Kerry, D-Mass., began his involvement with the nation’s painful POW/MIA drama long before entering the hallowed halls of American political power.
In April 1971, when as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War he gave his infamous war-bashing testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry did not stop at declaring that he and many other veterans of that conflict were war criminals.
Pointedly, Kerry also insisted that the United States had a definite obligation to make extensive economic reparations to the people of Vietnam.
Specifically, the newly discharged Navy veteran was an advocate of the so-called “People’s Peace Treaty,” a tome reportedly drafted in communist East Germany. Its nine points closely followed the enemy Viet Cong’s proposals being touted at the Paris peace talks as a quid pro quo for ending the fighting.
What rankles many Vietnam veterans today is that Kerry’s blatant advocacy of the enemy's position occurred while hundreds of captured American fighting men suffered and languished as prisoners of war in North Vietnamese prisons.
http://64.135.21.3/archives/articles/2004/2/13/165004.shtml

posted May 27, 2004 03:39 PM              

I read the articles about John Kerry trying very hard to see your point; however, maybe I read too fast, but all I got from these articles is how John Kerry claimed that soldiers were brutally murdering women and children (which is fact), and that he came back to protest against the war while for the most part, there were still good men fighting. Everyone knows The Vietnam War was stupid, and I don't see where he went wrong in protesting since many had done the same.
However, the articles say that he was a false witness, and that there were no such war crimes he could have seen. The articles mention how his fingernail injury was so small and minor he should have never deserved a purple heart. The article mentions how John Kerry is sympathetic to communists, and that he's possible a traitor. I also read how there are many war veterans who signed a petition claiming that John Kerry is unfit to be the president. But I couldn't find exactly why, just that he was unfit since he was against the war, and was nice to communists. However, I did not find any REAL reason why he shouldn't be the president compared to George Bush. Bush still has more holes in his record than Kerry. To give me a better picture of what is really going on, I would love if you could explain in your own words.

posted May 27, 2004 05:43 PM            

quote:

---

John Kerry claimed that soldiers were brutally murdering women and children (which is fact)
, and that he came back to protest against the war while for the most part, there were still good men fighting. Everyone knows The Vietnam War was stupid

---

StarLover

If it's fact that American soldiers were brutally murdering women and children in Vietnam, you won't have any trouble posting that proof here.

Kerry reported to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 that such acts were widespread, everyday occurrences. Prove it.

posted May 27, 2004 06:10 PM              

P.S. I can just feel there is something terribly wrong about John Kerry, but I just don't know what, and that is why I'm asking you. So I ask you, what is wrong with John Kerry?

posted May 27, 2004 07:15 PM            

Kerry came back from Vietnam and almost immediately began to smear the entire American military in Vietnam, he talked about atrocities being daily occurrences, widespread, tolerated by military commanders and attempted to use his protester status as a springboard to elected office in Massachusetts.

The real John Kerry is a man who has consistently voted to weaken the US, military, intelligence, FBI, the whole banana. He voted against every major weapons system in use now. He voted to cut the budget of the CIA repeatedly and at a time when the US was under attack by terrorists organizations abroad. He voted to cut the number of US military personnel. Before Clinton, the US had 18 divisions of regular Army troops. During the Clinton years our military was cut to 12 divisions, all voted for by Kerry.

It seems every vote of John Kerry reduced the ability of the US to respond abroad. Kerry once said the only way US troops should be deployed abroad was under the control of UN commanders.

The man who would be President cannot also be a man who would relinquish sovereignty of the US to any foreign body.

Bush stirs lots of emotions in people. It doesn't matter to him whether he's liked or not, to him that goes with the territory. He does what he thinks needs to be done. He never takes the easy path, the popular path, unless that path is the right path. He may have put his political career in jeopardy but you haven't seen him back away from what he thinks needs to be done---not an inch.

posted May 28, 2004 11:55 AM            

From the beginning, these people and groups were against Bush and produced a maximum effort to get Algore elected. Bush beat them. They attempted to obstruct his policies, tax cuts, the war, terrorism in general and virtually every other program he brought to the Congress. He beat them, sweeping tax cut legislation passed, the Taliban government is gone in Afghanistan, Saddam is out of power in Iraq and in about 30 days the government of Iraq will be controlled by Iraqis.

Normally I don't comment on peoples intellectual abilities but when those in certain quarters, those who consider themselves the intelligencia of America comment on someone else's level of intelligence I think it entirely just to point out their collective ignorance visa vie someone like Bush who is intellectually superior to them in every way.

Leftists Are Scarier Now Than They Were Then
Al Rantel
Thursday, May 27, 2004

America has just witnessed once again how dangerous it would have been had Al Gore become President in 2000 instead of George W. Bush.

On the very day that it was announced by the Attorney General and Director of the FBI that law enforcement needs help from the people to find seven suspected terrorists who might already be in the United States, Al Gore speaks to the rabid members of MoveOn.org.

From the news conference held by Attorney General Ashcroft and FBI Director Meuller we learn what we already know in our gut, that the terrorists are planning a massive attack on our nation perhaps as early as this summer during the upcoming conventions and leading to the elections.

We know the enemy wants to hit us even harder than on 9/11 not only to kill as many innocents as possible but to further damage our nation’s economic well-being and sense of security that Americans have always enjoyed here at home.

From Al Gore, who in his shrill put on a Southern tone makes Robert E. Lee sound like a Yankee, we learn that the terrorists hate us because President Bush and all the “incompetent members of the Administration” have enflamed them. The likes of Secretary Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz and Condi Rice are to blame for the dangers we face here and abroad and they, according the apoplectic Al Gore must resign immediately. Then of course the people must complete the job by installing John Kerry as president.

To Al Gore and the vicious and hateful partisans at MoveOn.org, America is in danger not by the likes of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, or the Taliban’s Afghanistan both of which have been removed by Bush, but by Bush’s own Administration. Funny how Gore never explains why al Qaeda was attacking us throughout the 1990’s while he and the certifiable liar were in the White House and was busy plotting the attacks of 9/11.

Surely no one in their right mind, and Al Gore is not in his right mind, believes that the attacks of 9/11 did not take years to plan. Those were the very years that the Clinton Administration was in power, and I suppose aggravating the enemies of America. This should demonstrate to everyone the danger we face should the Democrats return to power in the 2004 elections. This is a party that at its core believes that evil can be seduced or at least convinced to only eat one of your arms and legs.

But history teaches us this fact. During the height of the Cold War the Democrats demanded a nuclear freeze and disarmament in Europe along with their Green buddies in Germany. John Kerry was one of the leaders of this policy. Thankfully, Ronald Reagan was in the White House and we followed the opposite policy and won the Cold War and freed millions from the yoke of Communism.

They accused Reagan of the same thing they now say about Bush, that he is a war-monger who has alienated our Allies and is going to bring about the end of the world. It is eerie how the parallels continue from the Reagan years to the Bush years.

Back then they had their Hollywood accomplices make a movie called The Day After that depicted a nuclear war that started because of Reagan’s arms race. Now, they have the same Hollywood types rolling out a film called The Day After Tomorrow. This time, Bush is destroying the planet with an Ice Age brought about by Global Warming brought about by Bush’s "horrible environmental policy." Think of it. As I write these words, almost half of the American people in the latest polls want these clowns to take over our country at one of the most dangerous times in our entire history. The planet drifting into an Ice Age seems lame by comparison to what future might await us all if they win.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/5/27/111733.shtml

posted May 28, 2004 12:26 PM              

starlover,
here's one site that fact checks on both candidates: http://www.factcheck.org/

there are citations of how each side spins information to support a position (including the Kerry "flip-flop" issue - if carefully considering each instance and voting according to the context is flip-flopping, then that's fine by me!)

keep thinking for yourself - i find the best way to stay informed is to not watch television

posted May 28, 2004 12:53 PM            

If GW is so smart, why won't he release his IQ scores? Haven't most other presidents, atleast recently, done that?

posted May 28, 2004 01:22 PM            

The list of so called misstatements from the website you furnished carries a story that is at best disingenuous. The story states Kerry isn't supporting repeal of the Patriot Act----however these words mean exactly the same thing in reality. "It's true that last December, during the Democratic nomination fight, Kerry did call for "replacing the Patriot Act with a new law."

The Patriot Act cannot be replaced without repealing the Act itself.
I always look to see who is saying what and in this case it's the Annenberg Foundation, a group dedicated to communication, in theory at least.

I find it troubling that a group professing to goals of furthering communication doesn't understand the same general meaning of words like replace and repeal and especially when applied to a piece of legislation like the Patriot Act and further that a legislative act cannot be replaced without it first being repealed.

In the halls of Congress, modifying a law means amending it, not repealing it and then replacing it with another law.

Bush Ad Falsely Implies Kerry Would Repeal Wiretaps of Terrorists

"Repeal" Wiretaps of Terrorists?
It's true that last December, during the Democratic nomination fight, Kerry did call for "replacing the Patriot Act with a new law."
But Kerry is not calling for repealing the law-enforcement powers alluded to in the ad. He's calling for modification -- specifically tighter control by judges. There's a big difference between "repeal" and adding judicial oversight.

posted May 28, 2004 01:41 PM            

It should also not be forgotten that Reagan reined in the Sandinistas in Central America when they were attempting to overthrow the legitimate government of their neighbor, El Salvador.

No wonder the left hates Reagan, he destroyed not one but 2 communist governments.

OK, let's say for the moment that W got into Yale on the strength of his father being an alumnus. I'm not aware of any allegations of grade fixing to make sure those favored with famous parents get an automatic pass. Are you?

posted May 28, 2004 02:08 PM            

If Presidents have released their IQ scores, I'm not aware of it Harpyr. Why don't you post all those past releases by former Presidents?

While you're at it, perhaps you can get Kerry to release all his military records, including his fitness and incident reports filed by his commanders.

posted May 28, 2004 02:51 PM            

I guess, using your theory, Thomas Edison is a failure too. He only failed something over 1000 times to find a filament for the electric light bulb. How about Abe Lincoln who despite numerous and I do mean numerous failed businesses and runs at public office, became President of the United States too. Real failures those.

The President is on a hot streak XB. Successful Managing General Partner of the Texas Rangers, Successful Governor of Texas, twice and now, Successful President of the United States.

posted May 28, 2004 03:14 PM              

uh-oh - i forget, is the washington post run by commies, too?

posted May 28, 2004 03:50 PM            

I read the story and these are the facts about the President's role with Caterair as stated in the article. So, I hardly think one could say Bush ran down Caterair or caused it to fail in any way. The facts I stated above are beyond contradiction.

It was Malek who suggested that George W. Bush join the Caterair board in 1990

A March 2001 profile of Carlyle in the Times noted that the investment bank "gave the Bush family a hand in 1990 by putting George W. Bush, who was then struggling to find a career, on the board of a Carlyle subsidiary, Caterair, an airline-catering company."

Bush remained on the Caterair board until May 1994, according to a Sept. 17, 1994, article in the Dallas Morning News

Bush denied the company's financial problems had any effect on his decision to leave the board. He said its problems were "part of a business cycle" caused partly by the fact that "the airline food business is going from hot meals to peanuts

posted May 28, 2004 04:26 PM            

I was thinking the same thing. I do work for a corporation that has a board of directors and though they have voting power, they are not a part of the decision making process. In fact, one person can't do a whole heck of a lot on a board, nor are they paid anything with the exception of being provided stock options (sometimes grants) a small stipend and travel expenses.

I suppose it is just easier to assume the worst rather than to look up the facts. I keep seeing alot of that recently and it is starting to get old fast.

XB,

Have you ever known anyone to start a business and fail? Are you aware of the sheer number of businesses that don't make it in this country?

posted May 28, 2004 05:15 PM              

quote:

---

During Bush's four years as a director, Caterair's problems went from bad to worse to insoluble.

---

do i think bush is solely responsible for this? of course not. but i do know how a board of directors works, thank you very much. they do have power - individually as well as collectively. that's what they're THERE for. i'm surprised you're twisting this one around.

anyway, you were citing Bush's great business acumen. do you really think it was because he wasn't chairman that he left the Caterair directorship off his CV? not the fact that the company tanked?

as for Yale, you're right - C-students do pass! once in a university system students are defnitely given the benefit of the doubt, though scholarship kids have to work way harder to stay than those that pay out of pocket. you have to admit, though, some of the "words" that come out of Bush's mouth are pretty funny. maybe he does it on purpose to make himself seem more like a regular joe. or maybe not

and as for the texas rangers stadium, locals voted to raise the sales tax (*gasp*) in order to finance that venture. how nice of them to help Bush out! when the refurbished team and stadium was finally sold Bush made about $15,000,000. tidy sum. good for him - he learned that politics and business DO mix well.

i agree with you, Starlover, that the democrats sabotaged Dean's chances in the primaries with a much fiercer sword than the republicans would have dared. i believe dick gephardt was found to have had ties to the reprehensible Dean-bin Laden ad. blech. i worked for the Dean campaign until he stepped out. sad day. whether you judge a candidate on his issues stances or his character is of course up to you.

jw, your argument about Kerry and the patriot act is semantics. i agree that factcheck chose the wrong word, perhaps, but that doesn't negate the left-out-of-your-argument fact that Kerry supported another law in its place.

of course newsmax is going to find the kerry-haters and highlight their "outcry" - just like the liberal outlets will do the opposite. there are many ways to look at a situation. newsmax doesn't provide the only lens. and personally i think they need a new set of binoculars

as for saving the world from communists, thank GOODNESS the bush administration has stopped dealing with those chinese that the clintons were in bed with!

seriously, i think it's disturbing when those who present dissenting views of the reigning administration are labeled as unpatriotic, dangerous, scary, vicious, hateful... as if we're all frothing at the mouth to bring down the U.S. how absurd. i and all the other dems i know LOVE this country. we disagree with the way things are being done BECAUSE we love this country. i'm speaking for myself and those i know personally. despite how gingrich-conservatives like to spin the branding of democrats as treasonous, i think it is more treasonous to blindly accept only what opinions are heard on morning talk shows (of EITHER persuasion).

x

posted May 28, 2004 05:42 PM              

your post came up while i was writing mine.

quote:

---

Have you ever known anyone to start a business and fail? Are you aware of the sheer number of businesses that don't make it in this country?

---

yup. i'm sure it's an occupational hazard - no risks no gain.

as for boards, my experience has been different. they vote on decisions, yes. they have the last word. i believe they have input. perhaps it varies from company to company and among industries. maybe you're right that in the airline catering business the board is more a figurehead. sort of like the monarchy in england.

posted May 28, 2004 06:57 PM            

I don't think Bush was responsible for Caterair going south. Market conditions and changing airline policies caused the losses. One of the problems when a business is aligned with or depends on one customer or one industry for it's revenues. When the airlines decided to cut costs because they were also cutting airfares, the obvious place to cut was meals. Can't cut fuel costs, can't cut employee salaries, pensions etc. Can't buy cheaper planes, so cut perks passengers were used to receiving. Good-bye Caterair.

I also doubt being a director of a company no one every heard of is an asset on a CV and I wouldn't have listed it either.

Yeah, the President sometimes talks funny but when he does say something he means it, as lots of people have come to find out. Too bad the same can't be said for John Kerry.

Whatever the merits of factcheck's material, the fact is that Kerry said what he said, what he said has definite meaning and that meaning is the repeal of the Patriot act. Kerry is a Senator, as such he knows what amend the law means and that isn't what he said. The Patriot Act is a lot more than wiretapping suspected terrorists. Kerry said he wanted to "replace the Patriot Act" but replace it with what? That isn't a question I'm asking you and there is no chance Kerry would ever commit to answering anything that can later be repeated back to him when he breaks his word. He's a guy that doesn't make specific statements, but generalizes to give himself wiggle room later.

I disagree the writers of those articles hate Kerry. More like they have utter contempt for him based on his record going back to the Vietnam War and forward to the present.

I can't ever remember the Republicans hogging the cameras, going on TV, writing news articles or giving interviews to the press where they attempted to undermine the nation by badmouthing the military, the President and the war effort. That isn't dissent. We'll see how that plays when the citizens vote in November.

Ted Kennedy's Jihad
By Jennifer Verner
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 28, 2004

While Senator Ted Kennedy, D-MA, has always been unhinged, his performance since the beginning of the Iraq War shows that he is becoming increasingly irresponsible, irrational, and dangerous.In a ranking member of the Senate Judicial and Armed Services Committees during a time of war, this kind of behavior poses a danger to national security. Case in point, Kennedy’s recent remarks at the Brookings Institute: “In our open society, it is essential to distinguish vigorous debate over honest differences of opinion from the repeated use of false and misleading arguments to persuade the American people. Integrity is the lifeblood of democracy. Deceit is a poison in its veins.”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13510