Kerry Turned Away at Bush Camp
Ok... Click Here and read this article that was on page three of the Houston Chronicle today.
Title: Swift Boat Vets' ads still at center stage
Sub-Title: Kerry Camp's protest letter turned away at Bush Ranch.
“The Vietnam attack ad controversy
(the ad in question was a Kerry attack ad, not a Vietnam attack ad. Attacking the Vietnam War was what Kerry did 30 years ago)that has dogged the presidential campaign almost consumed the race Wednesday.
Vietnam veteran and former Democratic Sen. Max Cleland traveled to President Bush's ranch, but was not allowed to give him a letter protesting ads challenging John Kerry's military service."
Ok here is my problem with this. It is not true, period. The Texas Land Commissioner, Jay Patterson, tried to accept the letter on the behalf of George Bush, but Cleland refused to give it to him. He kept trying to force it on the State Troopers and the Secret Service. They said that they did not accept letters for the President. Patterson was there specifically to accept the letter and to provide a response to the Kerry camp in the form of a written letter. Cleland would not take his letter, nor give Kerry's letter to Patterson.
After reading 3/4 of the article bashing bush and his supporters while praising Kerry and his, you get a sentence about Patterson being there to accept the letter, but goes on to bash even Patterson by saying that one of Patterson's major contributors was Bob Perry who helped finance the Swift Boat Vets.
This is pretty sad reporting by the Chronicle. The bias is just blatant. Yet another embarrassment from the Kerry Camp and their partners, the liberal news media.
Another laughable article is in the LA Times. It states that Kerry is losing gound in the polls due to the Swift Boad Ads. Well, the ads started it, but Kerry's own handling of the the ads and constant negative campaigning is what is causing the drop in polls. He's an idiot.
posted by John at 7:14 AM
.gif)
1 Comments:
It's pretty scary how the mainstream media is doing its level best NOT to cover this and other anti-Kerry stories. Can you imagine the hysterical uproar if they were doing this for Bush? It's amazing they are doing this- at least the blogosphere is there to counter-balance this obvious left-leaning bias. Even here in the UK the media is pro-Kerry; he's always described as "war hero John Kerry". You'd think that with so much to question Kerry on- from his exorbitant mortgage on his Boston home, his anti-war slander of US forces, his treasonous meeting with North Vietnam (when he may still have been a serving member of the Navy- there's still a question of whether he did his full time, he should have been in the reserve for a few years after Vietnam), the link between the Heinz Foundation and his campaign, his lack of attendance at Congress, his links with lobby groups (didn't he live in a house paid for by a lobby for a while?), his nothing record for 20 years service in the Senate, his baselss attacks on Bush's own service (does flying fighter jets count for nothing?, his pro- and then anti-war stance depending on the polls and his nothing campaign- just what does he stand for?
Not only is the media not covering these points but Kerry has won the nomination from the Democratic Patry- why is all I can ask? Is this the best they can do? Is this the man that the Democrats really want to run the country?
Post a Comment
<< Home