None of them are good choices - but I would guess it was a combination of the last two, after all he lied about the Cambodia incident and he re-enacted battlefield scenes for the sake of filming them for his future political use. In addition he is the Senator who demands front of the line treatment in Boston asking others, "DON'T YOU KNOW WHO I AM?"
In addition to that on C-Span Elizabeth Edwards was caught telling a supporter that they didn't need to worry about riots or violence as long as Kerry/Edwards wins! Didn't I just talk about that in my last post right below here! Is she really saying that her supporter needs to barricade the doors if they lose - I wouldn't put it past them!
What's it all about? The Trek:
Well, as you can see in this video (The Daily Recycler) John Kerry stated that he had met with the entire UN Security Council before he voted to authorize the Iraq war. This was at least the second time he made this claim. But the problem is that it just didn't happen! The Washington Times investigation proves that he met with 3, and perhaps one more, but that is unconfirmed. There are 15 member council. That is a HUGE difference! Were these 3 the same for who he earlier claimed wanted him to win? Amazing to no one is that France was the only confirmed meeting with a permanent member of the Security Council.
Here is what he said:
"This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with the members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them, to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable," -- JFKerry(D)
Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the "real readiness" of the United Nations to "take this seriously" because he met "with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein."
Lori at Polipundit has this:
Quite a few Polipundit readers are disappointed that this story is another one about Kerry lying. I guess when it is an everyday occurrence it ceases to be big news.
But it really isn't, it is HUGE, this is the man who's entire campaign was based on lies and exaggerations. From Vietnam to his claims that he would be better at building alliances, but it seems his only real concern is France!
In the Mideast, Bush dared to be different That is what the Philly.com says. I said this earlier this month and I agree with when they make these points:
War rather than law enforcement
Democracy rather than stability
Preemption rather than deterrence
Leadership rather than reaction in setting the goals for an Arab-Israeli settlement.
I would have to add the false alliances that were bought by the highest bidders. Hmmm, that is of course Russia and Kerry's UN Security Council favorite FRANCE! Wonder if he picks his alliances based on the same criteria he uses to pick his wife's?
John Kerry was given money by an Albanian terrorist organization known as the Kosovo Liberation Army. They had assisted Chechen Terrorists in the past - the same terrorists that murdered children in their school! (Thanks Wizbang)
Compare this story from Slings and Arrows to the teacher who was fired for having a picture of the President in her grade school classroom:
In this required class, Snider asks students to think about: "Is it right for the Bush administration to use the War on Terrorism for political or commercial purposes? Should Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search) have been impeached for her partisan, political actions in the Bush v. Gore case? What evidence do we have that Mr. Bush and his cronies lied to the American people in promoting the Iraq war?"Was it Political Science class? No, it was English 101!
Snider also prohibits students from writing about prayer in public schools, same-sex marriage, the "so-called faith-based initiative (search)," abortion and "so-called creationism," which in his opinion, "[there is] no other side apart from chauvinistic, religious, or bigoted opinions."
I discussed the reasons Europe will never be a real European Union in the past and here is more confirmation of this from Captain's Quarters.
A campaign to make French the official language of European law has been launched in an attempt to show the world that France will not bow to the ascendancy of English without a fight. ...
Teaching unions and politicians have reacted with indignation to a report calling for English to be obligatory in the school curriculum, while one of President Jacques Chirac's objections to Peter Mandelson as an EU commissioner was that his French was not up to scratch.
The foreign ministry has called for a spirited campaign for the language in Brussels while the Académie Française, which campaigns relentlessly for pure French, says defence of the language should be "the major national cause of the 21st century".
English became the primary language of international trade and diplomacy not because governments imposed it but because of the ascendancy of American and British diplomatic and economic power. French influence has steadily declined since the collapse of the Republic in 1940. Instead of freeing the French to create an economic dynamo by abandoning socialism and embracing capitalism, the French have decided to just use Gallic arrogance and insist that everyone speak French because ... well, because they don't want to have to speak English.
The fact that France thinks that a popularity contest of languages is their most pressing national issue while Islamic terrorism threatens the West and their own exponentially-growing Muslim population causes increasing conflict at home demonstrates the essential irrelevancy of Paris. How can anyone take them seriously as a leader in the war on terror while they focus on their language obsession?
I would have to add that not only do they not get it, they believe the world is a zero sum game. As such they think the only way to increase their influence and power - so as to reclaim some of their past-lost greatness they have to hurt the standing of the US.
Ads like the new Moveon ad are a good example. In the ad they have a 9/11 widow who makes a very effective and emotional appeal in an attempt to get people to vote for Kerry. Unfortunately ads like these give an immediate reaction that is followed by a backlash against the candidate. The public reacts almost universally by thinking - bitter widow with misplaced anger that is being used by the candidate or organization to exploit the anger and grief. They definately remember this - but because the loon's are blinded by their hatred they are unable to see this. I wonder what happened to their media people.
UPDATE: Roger Simon wonders if Kerry is a sociopath?