Friday, August 27, 2004
Hating Bush, Loving Yourself
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
August 27, 2004
Charles Krauthammer in his op-ed in Townhall.com drops another nuclear strike on the rabid Bush haters in the Democratic Party. He postulates that they have reached their boiling point, and after two years of having to talk about how excellent President Bush has been in defending the country, they just can’t stand it any more. Go read the article. However, I have another theory.
All of the Democrats I have witnessed screaming their livers out about what evil creatures George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove are consistently display profound personal vanity and laziness. By personal vanity, I mean that they want to believe that they are infallible, morally invincible, and that they are superior to common people. They believe that they are correct, enlightened, and better educated. They believe that they are entitled to admiration. They believe that they have all the answers to every question. They are compelled to always have the last word. They constantly interrupt when other people are trying to talk. They are compelled to dominate conversations and relationships. They are highly dramatic, compulsively exaggerating events in their own lives while minimizing events in other people’s lives. They take responsibility for things they can’t control such as poverty and world peace, but consistently refuse to take responsibility for things they can control such as their personal finances and education. They display consistent self-defeating and self-destructive behavior that is obvious to people who know them, but which they themselves are completely unaware of. They constantly complain that no one understands them.
By laziness, I mean that they consistently fail to recognize and accept their own inadequacies, choosing instead to give up. Accepting their own inadequacies sabotages their vanity. Vanity is an antidote to feelings of inadequacy. A good dose of grandiosity will help keep that gnawing anxiety under control, at least, as long as hard reality doesn’t intrude. And besides, complaining is a whole lot easier than working. Anyone can complain. But work, well, that takes work.
To the Bush haters, hating Bush equals loving yourself. In their minds, Bush opposes them because he hates them. The more they hate him, the more convinced they are that he hates them, and therefore, the more they love themselves for being victims of Bush’s evil. It goes like this: Bush is evil. We oppose him. Therefore, we are good. The more we oppose him, the more good we are. If our righteousness is in proportional opposition to Bush’s evil, it follows that the more evil Bush is, the more righteous we are. Our goodness entitles us to love. Therefore, the more we hate Bush, the more we are entitled to love ourselves.
This thinking is typical of people who have suffered trauma. The supposition is that in every relationship, there is a victimizer and a victim, and there is also the presumption that the victimizer is necessarily evil and that the victim is necessarily righteous. This leads to the muddled perception that Saddam Hussein was victimized by Bush, that Bush is just a bully. Reflexive compassion for the loser in any fight is an indication that the person observing the fight habitually loses fights himself.
Bush hating is vain, lazy people asserting their vanity and laziness. They don’t support their position with facts (what they call facts are only plausible suppositions, in other words, intellectual laziness). They don’t leave the country as many of them have threatened to do. They don’t run for public office. They don’t debate Bush or Bush supporters on the issues. They won’t join the armed forces and go fight the terrorists. They simply complain about how terrible Bush is. This is the give away.
Vain, lazy people constantly portray themselves as victims, meaning that they are not responsible for their own behavior. Bush, they complain, is victimizing them. He is responsible for their unhappiness, not them. George W. Bush’s great sin is that he is making victims of them once again. The Democrats are on the brink of yet another national election catastrophe, and all they can think to do is blame Bush.
Blaming is the lazy man’s solution. The vain, lazy Democrats blame Bush for everything, even when he agrees with them. Bush is at fault for the poor economy, they say, evidence to the contrary having no bearing on the discussion. Bush is at fault for the war in Iraq, evidence that most Democrats in Congress voted to authorize the war also having no bearing on the subject. No matter what the Bush haters are unhappy about, they always have an ace in the hole: Blame Bush first!
These are the same kind of people who blamed America first for everything that was wrong in the world during the 1960’s to the present. World hunger? Blame America first. War in the Middle East? Blame America first. Shortage of food in the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cuba? Blame America first. For the record, the blame-America-first crowd was crushed by some amiable dunce in 1984, losing 49 states in the Presidential election. Americans don’t like to be blamed for things that aren’t their fault.
The Democrat’s strategy of blaming Bush and the Republicans for everything is evidence that Democrats who make policy are themselves profoundly vain and lazy. They don’t seem to show any real commitment to reforming government, advancing national security, promoting freedom and prosperity throughout the world, or even preserving free speech. They avoid challenge and risk. They appease America’s enemies (kidnapping Elian Gonzales at gunpoint and deporting him to Communist Cuba to avoid confronting Fidel Castro being a sterling example), and they avoid resolute action (“I voted for the eighty-seven billion dollars before I voted against it”, said Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts).
Vain, lazy people are blamers. Blaming serves several purposes, the fundamental one being that it allows the blamer to be lazy, he never has to worry about facts. Another is that it allows the blamer to flatter himself, flattery being false praise. And this is the point. After all, if it’s not your fault, you can’t possibly be a bad person, now can you?
The problem for the vain, lazy Bush haters is that they have convinced themselves that cowardice is courage. When people like the swift boat vets come out in public and display real courage, the vain, lazy Bush haters have no defense. They are exposed.
The Bush haters will not stop. They are vain and lazy. When Bush is gone, they will find another target to hate. It’s their preferred lifestyle. When the going gets tough, the lazy start complaining.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
August 27, 2004
Charles Krauthammer in his op-ed in Townhall.com drops another nuclear strike on the rabid Bush haters in the Democratic Party. He postulates that they have reached their boiling point, and after two years of having to talk about how excellent President Bush has been in defending the country, they just can’t stand it any more. Go read the article. However, I have another theory.
All of the Democrats I have witnessed screaming their livers out about what evil creatures George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Karl Rove are consistently display profound personal vanity and laziness. By personal vanity, I mean that they want to believe that they are infallible, morally invincible, and that they are superior to common people. They believe that they are correct, enlightened, and better educated. They believe that they are entitled to admiration. They believe that they have all the answers to every question. They are compelled to always have the last word. They constantly interrupt when other people are trying to talk. They are compelled to dominate conversations and relationships. They are highly dramatic, compulsively exaggerating events in their own lives while minimizing events in other people’s lives. They take responsibility for things they can’t control such as poverty and world peace, but consistently refuse to take responsibility for things they can control such as their personal finances and education. They display consistent self-defeating and self-destructive behavior that is obvious to people who know them, but which they themselves are completely unaware of. They constantly complain that no one understands them.
By laziness, I mean that they consistently fail to recognize and accept their own inadequacies, choosing instead to give up. Accepting their own inadequacies sabotages their vanity. Vanity is an antidote to feelings of inadequacy. A good dose of grandiosity will help keep that gnawing anxiety under control, at least, as long as hard reality doesn’t intrude. And besides, complaining is a whole lot easier than working. Anyone can complain. But work, well, that takes work.
To the Bush haters, hating Bush equals loving yourself. In their minds, Bush opposes them because he hates them. The more they hate him, the more convinced they are that he hates them, and therefore, the more they love themselves for being victims of Bush’s evil. It goes like this: Bush is evil. We oppose him. Therefore, we are good. The more we oppose him, the more good we are. If our righteousness is in proportional opposition to Bush’s evil, it follows that the more evil Bush is, the more righteous we are. Our goodness entitles us to love. Therefore, the more we hate Bush, the more we are entitled to love ourselves.
This thinking is typical of people who have suffered trauma. The supposition is that in every relationship, there is a victimizer and a victim, and there is also the presumption that the victimizer is necessarily evil and that the victim is necessarily righteous. This leads to the muddled perception that Saddam Hussein was victimized by Bush, that Bush is just a bully. Reflexive compassion for the loser in any fight is an indication that the person observing the fight habitually loses fights himself.
Bush hating is vain, lazy people asserting their vanity and laziness. They don’t support their position with facts (what they call facts are only plausible suppositions, in other words, intellectual laziness). They don’t leave the country as many of them have threatened to do. They don’t run for public office. They don’t debate Bush or Bush supporters on the issues. They won’t join the armed forces and go fight the terrorists. They simply complain about how terrible Bush is. This is the give away.
Vain, lazy people constantly portray themselves as victims, meaning that they are not responsible for their own behavior. Bush, they complain, is victimizing them. He is responsible for their unhappiness, not them. George W. Bush’s great sin is that he is making victims of them once again. The Democrats are on the brink of yet another national election catastrophe, and all they can think to do is blame Bush.
Blaming is the lazy man’s solution. The vain, lazy Democrats blame Bush for everything, even when he agrees with them. Bush is at fault for the poor economy, they say, evidence to the contrary having no bearing on the discussion. Bush is at fault for the war in Iraq, evidence that most Democrats in Congress voted to authorize the war also having no bearing on the subject. No matter what the Bush haters are unhappy about, they always have an ace in the hole: Blame Bush first!
These are the same kind of people who blamed America first for everything that was wrong in the world during the 1960’s to the present. World hunger? Blame America first. War in the Middle East? Blame America first. Shortage of food in the Soviet Union, North Korea, and Cuba? Blame America first. For the record, the blame-America-first crowd was crushed by some amiable dunce in 1984, losing 49 states in the Presidential election. Americans don’t like to be blamed for things that aren’t their fault.
The Democrat’s strategy of blaming Bush and the Republicans for everything is evidence that Democrats who make policy are themselves profoundly vain and lazy. They don’t seem to show any real commitment to reforming government, advancing national security, promoting freedom and prosperity throughout the world, or even preserving free speech. They avoid challenge and risk. They appease America’s enemies (kidnapping Elian Gonzales at gunpoint and deporting him to Communist Cuba to avoid confronting Fidel Castro being a sterling example), and they avoid resolute action (“I voted for the eighty-seven billion dollars before I voted against it”, said Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts).
Vain, lazy people are blamers. Blaming serves several purposes, the fundamental one being that it allows the blamer to be lazy, he never has to worry about facts. Another is that it allows the blamer to flatter himself, flattery being false praise. And this is the point. After all, if it’s not your fault, you can’t possibly be a bad person, now can you?
The problem for the vain, lazy Bush haters is that they have convinced themselves that cowardice is courage. When people like the swift boat vets come out in public and display real courage, the vain, lazy Bush haters have no defense. They are exposed.
The Bush haters will not stop. They are vain and lazy. When Bush is gone, they will find another target to hate. It’s their preferred lifestyle. When the going gets tough, the lazy start complaining.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Thursday, August 26, 2004
Granting Absolution
Grace and Wisdom © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
August 26, 2004
Enough.
For the last month, I have tolerated veterans of America’s war in Viet Nam trading accusations and counter accusations. The one that disgusts me is: Everyone who was not in Viet Nam, or in combat, has no right to criticize those who were. This is an attempt to assume a superior place in American society by those who have encountered enemy fire and survived. It is disgusting in that it presumes that the veteran is entitled to some special treatment, and that Americans owe something to the veteran. It is no better than panhandling, pleading for charitable treatment. It is undignified. It is contemptible.
As a veteran of America’s war in Viet Nam, I hereby grant complete and unencumbered absolution to all persons wishing to question or criticize veterans for any reason. You are hereby released from all presumed obligations to avoid discussing the conduct of veterans while they were on active duty. You are hereby notified that God granted you the right to free speech, and none of the heroic exploits of any veteran has ever abrogated or in any way diminished that right.
I want you to remember that one of the reasons I served in the Armed Forces was to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I defended every Americans’ right to criticize me, to question my conduct and motives, and to denounce me for wrongdoings.
America, it is your right, and clearly it is your responsibility, to question any veteran about anything. You are entitled to do so, and it is your duty. No veteran is entitled to immunity because of service in combat, or any other service.
If combat veterans have earned your respect and admiration, then good for them. However, they have not earned immunity from criticism. If you want to make heroes out of them, then be advised that you run the risk of willfully forgiving unforgivable behavior they may commit later in life. No one is entitled to that kind of blanket exemption.
Many veterans have shown themselves to be brave in combat, but otherwise not very good at anything else. Senator John McCain serves as a fine example. His leadership, perseverance, and dedication while facing the enemy was astounding. His military record is superior. However, his record as a Senator is atrocious. He has done more to defeat the First Amendment than any foreign enemy. (It tends to be that way with career officers. They just don’t seem to have a handle on this freedom business. They expect people to follow orders, and they won’t tolerate insubordination. Well, too bad, sir; you’re NOT in the Army, now.)
Those of us who served our country in the military should not be treated any differently than those who serve in non-military or in paramilitary service such as firefighters, police, health care professionals, and all other public service jobs. We didn’t do it for fame or for glory. We did it for YOU. America’s soldiers are accountable to the American people. We did not fight to conquer, rape, pillage, burn, mutilate, and slaughter. We did not fight for the love of war. We fought for the love of freedom and the love of America. Though America’s love for us has failed, our love of freedom and our country has remained. We did it before, and if we weren’t so damned old and worn out, we’d do it again.
America, I defended your right to criticize everyone, including veterans. You don’t owe me anything. For thirty-five years, we have endured slander and revulsion by our own country. Now, out of the blue, we are revered. Knock it off! WE ARE NOT CELEBRITIES! All we want is the legitimacy that we have earned.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Grace and Wisdom © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
August 26, 2004
Enough.
For the last month, I have tolerated veterans of America’s war in Viet Nam trading accusations and counter accusations. The one that disgusts me is: Everyone who was not in Viet Nam, or in combat, has no right to criticize those who were. This is an attempt to assume a superior place in American society by those who have encountered enemy fire and survived. It is disgusting in that it presumes that the veteran is entitled to some special treatment, and that Americans owe something to the veteran. It is no better than panhandling, pleading for charitable treatment. It is undignified. It is contemptible.
As a veteran of America’s war in Viet Nam, I hereby grant complete and unencumbered absolution to all persons wishing to question or criticize veterans for any reason. You are hereby released from all presumed obligations to avoid discussing the conduct of veterans while they were on active duty. You are hereby notified that God granted you the right to free speech, and none of the heroic exploits of any veteran has ever abrogated or in any way diminished that right.
I want you to remember that one of the reasons I served in the Armed Forces was to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. I defended every Americans’ right to criticize me, to question my conduct and motives, and to denounce me for wrongdoings.
America, it is your right, and clearly it is your responsibility, to question any veteran about anything. You are entitled to do so, and it is your duty. No veteran is entitled to immunity because of service in combat, or any other service.
If combat veterans have earned your respect and admiration, then good for them. However, they have not earned immunity from criticism. If you want to make heroes out of them, then be advised that you run the risk of willfully forgiving unforgivable behavior they may commit later in life. No one is entitled to that kind of blanket exemption.
Many veterans have shown themselves to be brave in combat, but otherwise not very good at anything else. Senator John McCain serves as a fine example. His leadership, perseverance, and dedication while facing the enemy was astounding. His military record is superior. However, his record as a Senator is atrocious. He has done more to defeat the First Amendment than any foreign enemy. (It tends to be that way with career officers. They just don’t seem to have a handle on this freedom business. They expect people to follow orders, and they won’t tolerate insubordination. Well, too bad, sir; you’re NOT in the Army, now.)
Those of us who served our country in the military should not be treated any differently than those who serve in non-military or in paramilitary service such as firefighters, police, health care professionals, and all other public service jobs. We didn’t do it for fame or for glory. We did it for YOU. America’s soldiers are accountable to the American people. We did not fight to conquer, rape, pillage, burn, mutilate, and slaughter. We did not fight for the love of war. We fought for the love of freedom and the love of America. Though America’s love for us has failed, our love of freedom and our country has remained. We did it before, and if we weren’t so damned old and worn out, we’d do it again.
America, I defended your right to criticize everyone, including veterans. You don’t owe me anything. For thirty-five years, we have endured slander and revulsion by our own country. Now, out of the blue, we are revered. Knock it off! WE ARE NOT CELEBRITIES! All we want is the legitimacy that we have earned.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Tuesday, August 24, 2004
Picking Up the Gauntlet
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
August 24, 2004
President George W. Bush has thrown down the gauntlet. A gauntlet is an armored glove worn by knights. In the days of knights in armor, throwing down the gauntlet was an open challenge. Picking up the gauntlet meant accepting the challenge.
President Bush, I am picking up the gauntlet and accepting your challenge.
The challenge that President Bush has issued is to stifle free speech in the United States by halting the operations of 527 non-profit corporations such as MoveOn.org and SwiftVets.com. Such organizations sponsor political advertisements, and are outside the control of any political party. They are free to say whatever they like without the restraint of political operatives telling them what to say and how to say it. There are dozens of such organizations sponsoring advertisements on dozens of candidates and issues. In other words, they are engaging in our fundamental right to free speech as recognized and protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
President Bush is opposed to “soft money” in political campaigns. So called soft money that used to go to political parties before the current “reform” laws went into effect is now being donated to organizations not affiliated directly with political parties. In a way, this is the best thing to happen to American politics since 1789.
All this free speech is too much for the political parties to tolerate. It’s too free as far as they are concerned. But the real problem for both the major parties is that all this unregulated free speech distracts the public from the carefully engineered political messages (propaganda) that the Democrats and Republicans want to feed us. The major media and the political parties have lost control, and they want it back.
It’s too late for that. The free speech genie is out of the bottle. The internet has become the virtual plaza. Everyone who wants to drop in an say a few words is now free to do so, and also has the means to reach a vast audience for very little money. You can’t shut us up.
So, Mr. President, I pick up the gauntlet and slap you directing in the face with it. I meet your challenge, and issue one of my own: Silence me if you dare. I will not stop talking about issues and candidates of interest to me. Nor will I take direction from you or any political party about what issues I will discuss and what issues I will avoid.
I will exercise my God given right to free speech, and if you or anyone else thinks that what I am doing is “bad for the process”, then you can bite me hard. And just for saying that 527’s are bad for America, I’m going to donate some money to a few of them instead of giving money to the Republican Party or to your re-election campaign.
Let me know, Mr. President, when you decide that free speech is a good thing. Until then, I will not back down.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
August 24, 2004
President George W. Bush has thrown down the gauntlet. A gauntlet is an armored glove worn by knights. In the days of knights in armor, throwing down the gauntlet was an open challenge. Picking up the gauntlet meant accepting the challenge.
President Bush, I am picking up the gauntlet and accepting your challenge.
The challenge that President Bush has issued is to stifle free speech in the United States by halting the operations of 527 non-profit corporations such as MoveOn.org and SwiftVets.com. Such organizations sponsor political advertisements, and are outside the control of any political party. They are free to say whatever they like without the restraint of political operatives telling them what to say and how to say it. There are dozens of such organizations sponsoring advertisements on dozens of candidates and issues. In other words, they are engaging in our fundamental right to free speech as recognized and protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
President Bush is opposed to “soft money” in political campaigns. So called soft money that used to go to political parties before the current “reform” laws went into effect is now being donated to organizations not affiliated directly with political parties. In a way, this is the best thing to happen to American politics since 1789.
All this free speech is too much for the political parties to tolerate. It’s too free as far as they are concerned. But the real problem for both the major parties is that all this unregulated free speech distracts the public from the carefully engineered political messages (propaganda) that the Democrats and Republicans want to feed us. The major media and the political parties have lost control, and they want it back.
It’s too late for that. The free speech genie is out of the bottle. The internet has become the virtual plaza. Everyone who wants to drop in an say a few words is now free to do so, and also has the means to reach a vast audience for very little money. You can’t shut us up.
So, Mr. President, I pick up the gauntlet and slap you directing in the face with it. I meet your challenge, and issue one of my own: Silence me if you dare. I will not stop talking about issues and candidates of interest to me. Nor will I take direction from you or any political party about what issues I will discuss and what issues I will avoid.
I will exercise my God given right to free speech, and if you or anyone else thinks that what I am doing is “bad for the process”, then you can bite me hard. And just for saying that 527’s are bad for America, I’m going to donate some money to a few of them instead of giving money to the Republican Party or to your re-election campaign.
Let me know, Mr. President, when you decide that free speech is a good thing. Until then, I will not back down.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Friday, August 20, 2004
Kerry’s Pathology of Betrayal
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
John Kerry has displayed inconsistency on almost every issue he has addressed, the war in Iraq (supporting it, then opposing it), and his service in the U. S. Navy (several military awards including the Silver Star, then slandering American servicemen as barbarians and war criminals) being two fine examples. His famous flip flopping on many issues has become a topic of discussion unto itself, and the impression is that Kerry is simply unreliable on any subject. However, John Kerry has been consistent, even predictable, on one matter, his pathology of betrayal.
1. He betrayed the trust of his fellow sailors with his vain and irresponsible behavior during his tour of duty.
2. He betrayed the trust of all Viet Nam veterans by accusing them of committing war crimes and atrocities.
By telling gigantic lies about being in Cambodia on December 24, 1968,
3. He betrayed the trust of the few veterans who support him in his bid for the White House.
4. He betrayed the trust of the journalists who wrote about this event.
5. He betrayed the trust of his fellow Senators who were discussing the matter of sending U. S. troops into harm’s way in 1986.
6. He betrayed the trust of his campaign advisors.
By failing to own up to his lies,
7. He is betraying the trust and soiling the reputations of the major news media who are trying to cover for him.
8. He is betraying the trust of the Democratic Party.
9. He is betraying the trust of the American people.
John Kerry is consistent in this regard, he betrays the trust of everyone who sticks up for him, and thereby soils their reputations and their credibility. John Kerry has no credibility of his own to speak of, and his reputation is average overall. While he showed some good qualities during his tour of duty in the U. S. Navy, according to reports by his fellow officers during his tour of duty in Viet Nam, he was repeatedly criticized for improper ship handling, substandard leadership, and for being vain and unreliable.
To compensate for an insubstantial personal history, John Kerry has chosen to make up false stories about his own heroism. Some of these falsehoods are now being exposed.
I have often wondered what goes through the mind of a man in his late fifties who has been telling lies designed to astound his audience, to create the impression that before them stands a man of incredible stature, fortitude, and accomplishment. This is a trick common among young children, telling tall tales to enhance their standing with the other children knowing that none of the others will ever find out the truth.
But, children never consider what will happen when someone actually uncovers the truth. John Kerry seems to be the same way. After more than thirty years of telling the story about being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968, and being shot at by the Khmer Rouge (who, by the way, did not appear on the battlefield until 1972), and hearing President Nixon tell the American people that there were no American troops in Cambodia (Nixon was not inaugurated until January, 1969), and finishing the whole shaggy dog story off by declaring for dramatic effect that the terrible events of that day were “seared, seared” into his mind, John Kerry has been found out to be an unmitigated and unrepentant liar. Kerry’s story is no mistake. It is a bald-faced lie. It is the kind of lie that children tell. And, John Kerry never considered what to do if the lie was ever exposed. He never considered that anyone would ever find out.
John Kerry’s consistent and predictable pathology of betrayal may be the result of a reflexive aversion to trust, a fear of intimacy, and terror at the thought that people will find out who the real John Kerry is. He is compelled to think of himself as the supreme character in his life’s drama. This is characteristic of adults who suffered repeated trauma in childhood.
John Kerry cannot accept the idea that he may, in fact, be merely ordinary. But, he is. He has few actual achievements worthy of note, and none worthy of the awe and adoration he wishes to receive from his audience. There are tens of thousands of other Viet Nam veterans whose accomplishments are far more noteworthy than John Kerry’s. His record in politics is unremarkable. He has no groundbreaking legislation to his name. His public speaking style is onerous. He looks gray and old. In his public manner and speech, he is a poor imitation of his hero, President John F. Kennedy.
To be fair, Kerry is an accomplished man. He married two wealthy women (most men don’t marry any wealthy women, he married two). He used their wealth to help fund his political career. Considering how profoundly lazy he actually is, he has done well for himself.
But, for all his accomplishments, he continues to betray the trust of everyone who ally themselves with him. John Kerry’s pathology of betrayal boils down to one consistent behavior: He has a bizarre vision of his own self-entitlement. He believes that he is entitled to greatness, even though he has done nothing great in his life.
The truth is that John Kerry is not entitled to be awed and admired. He is not entitled to be believed when he tells gigantic lies. He is not entitled to leadership. He is not entitled to success. He is not entitled to unquestioning loyalty. He is not entitled to be excused for his reprehensible behavior. He is not entitled to have everything his way. He is not entitled to think and behave like a young child for the rest of his life.
The real choice this November is not to get rid of Bush, but to choose between Bush and Kerry. John Kerry is not entitled to your trust--he certainly hasn’t done anything to earn mine. And, ask yourself, what has John Kerry actually done to earn your vote?
Vote Republican in 2004.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
P.S. It seems divine justice that the last casualty of America’s war in Viet Nam may be John Kerry’s campaign for President. How do you ask John Kerry’s lifelong ambition to become President of the United States, the next JFK, to be the last one to die for a mistake? LOL!
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
John Kerry has displayed inconsistency on almost every issue he has addressed, the war in Iraq (supporting it, then opposing it), and his service in the U. S. Navy (several military awards including the Silver Star, then slandering American servicemen as barbarians and war criminals) being two fine examples. His famous flip flopping on many issues has become a topic of discussion unto itself, and the impression is that Kerry is simply unreliable on any subject. However, John Kerry has been consistent, even predictable, on one matter, his pathology of betrayal.
1. He betrayed the trust of his fellow sailors with his vain and irresponsible behavior during his tour of duty.
2. He betrayed the trust of all Viet Nam veterans by accusing them of committing war crimes and atrocities.
By telling gigantic lies about being in Cambodia on December 24, 1968,
3. He betrayed the trust of the few veterans who support him in his bid for the White House.
4. He betrayed the trust of the journalists who wrote about this event.
5. He betrayed the trust of his fellow Senators who were discussing the matter of sending U. S. troops into harm’s way in 1986.
6. He betrayed the trust of his campaign advisors.
By failing to own up to his lies,
7. He is betraying the trust and soiling the reputations of the major news media who are trying to cover for him.
8. He is betraying the trust of the Democratic Party.
9. He is betraying the trust of the American people.
John Kerry is consistent in this regard, he betrays the trust of everyone who sticks up for him, and thereby soils their reputations and their credibility. John Kerry has no credibility of his own to speak of, and his reputation is average overall. While he showed some good qualities during his tour of duty in the U. S. Navy, according to reports by his fellow officers during his tour of duty in Viet Nam, he was repeatedly criticized for improper ship handling, substandard leadership, and for being vain and unreliable.
To compensate for an insubstantial personal history, John Kerry has chosen to make up false stories about his own heroism. Some of these falsehoods are now being exposed.
I have often wondered what goes through the mind of a man in his late fifties who has been telling lies designed to astound his audience, to create the impression that before them stands a man of incredible stature, fortitude, and accomplishment. This is a trick common among young children, telling tall tales to enhance their standing with the other children knowing that none of the others will ever find out the truth.
But, children never consider what will happen when someone actually uncovers the truth. John Kerry seems to be the same way. After more than thirty years of telling the story about being in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, 1968, and being shot at by the Khmer Rouge (who, by the way, did not appear on the battlefield until 1972), and hearing President Nixon tell the American people that there were no American troops in Cambodia (Nixon was not inaugurated until January, 1969), and finishing the whole shaggy dog story off by declaring for dramatic effect that the terrible events of that day were “seared, seared” into his mind, John Kerry has been found out to be an unmitigated and unrepentant liar. Kerry’s story is no mistake. It is a bald-faced lie. It is the kind of lie that children tell. And, John Kerry never considered what to do if the lie was ever exposed. He never considered that anyone would ever find out.
John Kerry’s consistent and predictable pathology of betrayal may be the result of a reflexive aversion to trust, a fear of intimacy, and terror at the thought that people will find out who the real John Kerry is. He is compelled to think of himself as the supreme character in his life’s drama. This is characteristic of adults who suffered repeated trauma in childhood.
John Kerry cannot accept the idea that he may, in fact, be merely ordinary. But, he is. He has few actual achievements worthy of note, and none worthy of the awe and adoration he wishes to receive from his audience. There are tens of thousands of other Viet Nam veterans whose accomplishments are far more noteworthy than John Kerry’s. His record in politics is unremarkable. He has no groundbreaking legislation to his name. His public speaking style is onerous. He looks gray and old. In his public manner and speech, he is a poor imitation of his hero, President John F. Kennedy.
To be fair, Kerry is an accomplished man. He married two wealthy women (most men don’t marry any wealthy women, he married two). He used their wealth to help fund his political career. Considering how profoundly lazy he actually is, he has done well for himself.
But, for all his accomplishments, he continues to betray the trust of everyone who ally themselves with him. John Kerry’s pathology of betrayal boils down to one consistent behavior: He has a bizarre vision of his own self-entitlement. He believes that he is entitled to greatness, even though he has done nothing great in his life.
The truth is that John Kerry is not entitled to be awed and admired. He is not entitled to be believed when he tells gigantic lies. He is not entitled to leadership. He is not entitled to success. He is not entitled to unquestioning loyalty. He is not entitled to be excused for his reprehensible behavior. He is not entitled to have everything his way. He is not entitled to think and behave like a young child for the rest of his life.
The real choice this November is not to get rid of Bush, but to choose between Bush and Kerry. John Kerry is not entitled to your trust--he certainly hasn’t done anything to earn mine. And, ask yourself, what has John Kerry actually done to earn your vote?
Vote Republican in 2004.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
P.S. It seems divine justice that the last casualty of America’s war in Viet Nam may be John Kerry’s campaign for President. How do you ask John Kerry’s lifelong ambition to become President of the United States, the next JFK, to be the last one to die for a mistake? LOL!
Wednesday, August 18, 2004
The More They Lie...
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
...the more they are loved.
August 18, 2004
Professor David Allen White reviewed Shakespeare’s Sonnet 88 yesterday on the Hugh Hewitt show.
The liars lie, and the more they lie, the more they are loved. Shakespeare says, “O, love's best habit is in seeming trust”. Habit in this case means attire or clothing.
This explains the appeal of such notable liars as Adolph Hitler, Michael Moore, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry. They create a theatre in which their audiences are the heroes and their enemies the villains.
Vilification is critical to this theatre of the mind. The Nazis vilified Jews. The Democrats vilify Republicans. Michael Moore vilifies President Bush. John Kerry vilifies Viet Nam veterans. The tactic is the same in all cases: the villains vilify their victims. The opponents are villains, and by implication the audience are heroes. It is pure flattery, unadulterated false praise. In accepting the vileness of the foe, the audience evades their own faults.
There is an art to political flattery. The demagogues study carefully which lies will keep the illusion alive and which will not. Hitler spent years studying the reactions of his audiences before embarking on his mission to “save Germany from Communism”. Hitler understood the importance of theatre. His speaking method was carefully rehearsed to turn off his audiences’ ability to think, and appeal directly to their emotions.
So it is with Shakespeare’s Sonnet 88. The facts are carefully disregarded because facts interfere with the lovers’ desire to be flattered. “And in our faults by lies we flatter'd be.” Flattery is false praise. Flattery is the currency of demagogues. Aristotle noted that demagogues are to democracy what flatterers are to monarchs. The more they lie, the more they are loved.
I have seen this effect first hand. People who consume demagoguery behave as though they know everything about everyone simply by asking who they voted for in the last election. “Aha!”, they say. “You’re one of THEM!” These are people animated by the flattery of propaganda. They are told how wise they must be to have finally seen the truth, how enlightened they have become, and how they have “grown”. They are told how much progress they have made. Knowing that they are being lied to, they choose to believe the liar.
Demagogues and flatterers sing false praises to their audiences, and their audiences, even knowing that they are being lied to, love to hear the song of lies. The beautiful lie is preferable in the hearts of weak little men to the terrible truth.
The terrible truth is that we are at war with Moslem fanatics who operate on the premise that God has commanded them to slaughter millions of Americans and to destroy our nation. The beautiful lie is that we can contain them, or negotiate with them, or ignore them, or treat them as a problem instead of a threat. (In case you are unaware, Michael Moore has said, “There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told.”)
The Democratic Party has decided that flattery will suffice to persuade voters to support them. I, for one, have no use for flattery, especially when the terrible truth was so clearly displayed on September 11, 2001, as charred, half dead people threw themselves out of the Twin Towers, plummeting one hundred stories to certain death on the streets below.
The terrorists accomplished their mission that day. I was terrorized. Don’t tell me there is no terrorist threat.
The problem I see for the Democratic Party is that since the 1960’s, they have built their entire platform on a series of obvious lies (Communism is not a real threat, poverty can be wiped out with welfare spending, Social Security will take care of retired people, criminals aren’t at fault for their behavior, higher than average crime rates among black Americans are due to white racism, America is the greatest threat to world peace, etc.), and they have relied more and more on accomplished liars like Bill Clinton to advance their cause. However, lately, they seem to have run out of talented liars. Al Gore’s lies were bizarre. John Kerry’s lies are so obvious that even he is now recanting some of them. Michael Moore is unpersuasive even with Democrats. The strategy of lying and flattering are not succeeding in recruiting people to the Democratic point of view.
The campaign of lies currently under way seems to be intended to keep people from defecting from the Democratic Party. This will only work for willing followers. People who are committed to the Democratic Party vision will believe anything the Party leadership says. Therefore, the lies aren’t convincing these loyalists, they only confirm their loyalty. Eventually, however, the flattery fails, and the reality of the situation has a sobering effect.
I really don’t care how the Democratic Party conducts their business. It is, after all, their business. However, the danger to our nation is that if their strategy of intoxicating the American people with lies, flattery, fantasy, demagoguery, and slander succeeds, then the foundation of self-government will have crumbled. Self-government depends on the voters knowing the facts and making up their own minds, one at a time. Lies are fraud. When voters are defrauded, they are deprived of their right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
The recent interest in the lies that John Kerry has been telling for thirty-five years gives me some measure of satisfaction. The horror of the matter is that these lies were not exposed until now. John Kerry’s lies about American soldiers committing atrocities in Viet Nam still influence American culture. The image of the drug-crazed, baby-killing, walking-time-bomb Viet Nam veteran is as much a part of American popular culture as shiftless niggers, drunken Indians, thieving Mexicans, conniving Jews, or any of the other malignant stereotypes that have populated American mythology for the last several hundred years.
I’ve heard some people blame the left leaning media for this. Not so fast. John Kerry didn’t invent anything that he said about American atrocities. He merely repeated the anti-American propaganda of the times. He lied. His audience had a choice; they could disbelieve his lies, or they could believe them. The American people chose to believe him.
In believing his lies, the American people excused themselves from their responsibility for the war, and for the behavior of American troops. Kerry’s lies were willingly accepted by the American people, and it is the American people who have kept the figment of the drug-crazed, baby-killing Viet Nam veteran alive for over thirty years. The entertainment industry shares some of the blame, but let’s be honest, audiences have bought the image of the crazy, war mongering, Rambo-ized, Viet Nam vet for over thirty years. It sells. It’s a lie that the audience wants to hear over and over.
John Kerry is no leader. He didn’t invent the lies. He is an opportunist who said what he thought would win him the most support. He said what he was convinced the American people wanted to hear. At the time, it worked. He has had a successful political career in America (Massachusetts is still technically part of America) trafficking in anti-American propaganda and in the mythology of America’s war in Viet Nam. His American audiences love to hear him spew hate at America. In the 1970’s, they loved to hear him spew hate at his fellow veterans. John Kerry, being a liar, a flatterer, and a lazy opportunist, is a reflection of America’s abhorrence of Viet Nam era veterans, not the cause of it. He gets blamed because he told the lies. The American people must now accept the blame for believing them.
Search your heart. What images and emotions to you associate with Viet Nam, the My Lai massacre, Richard Nixon, American troops in Cambodia, napalm, B-52 strikes, search and destroy missions, the Tet Offensive, Khe Sahn, Watergate, and so forth?
Either America’s war in Viet Nam was right or it was wrong. If it was right, then all Viet Nam era veterans who were not convicted of crimes deserve the respect and gratitude of the American people, and if it was wrong, then they still deserve the respect and gratitude of the American people.
John Kerry’s lies about soldiers in Viet Nam were pure demagoguery. He said in effect that the soldiers are to blame, but the American people are innocent. This was pure flattery. At the time, the American people were partly responsible for the conduct of the war because they elected the politicians who actually funded and conducted the war. To blame the horrible events of the war entirely on the soldiers who were actually on the ground, and with no more evidence than a diarrhea of lies spewed from the mouths of overtly anti-American propagandists like John Kerry and Jane Fonda, is to evade the reality of one’s own complicity.
But, then, to the American people at that time it was all just another show on T. V. There were good guys, bad guys, and an understandable, relatively simple plot. The producers had promised a positive outcome, just like all the other television shows. When the plot turned sour, and the good guys started looking like bad guys, and the promised outcome was in jeopardy, the American people wanted the show to be cancelled. This is a better explanation of the shameful retreat the American people demanded than anything else I can think of. Viet Nam was a bad T. V. show, and they wanted it cancelled.
The entire mythology surrounding veterans of America’s war in Viet Nam is that they are tarnished while the American people are pure. Since then, the American people have turned cowardice into courage, lechery into love, vulgarity into humor, viciousness into bravery, cynicism into wisdom, foolishness into enlightenment, perversion into honor, and flattery into sincerity all in what I think has been a vain attempt to evade the reality that they just didn’t have the guts to finish the job. By believing that cowardice is courage, Americans managed to excuse themselves for quitting a war that they had effectively won. However, once you accept that cowardice is courage, that weakness is strength, and that losing is honorable you have abandoned your right to self-respect. America lost (precisely, gave up) Viet Nam, and since then, many Americans have abandoned all that is good about America.
Willing suspension of disbelief and acceptance of obvious illusion are necessary in entertainment. In real life, however, this is dangerous. In history, there is no script; the outcome is unknown.
I have spent many decades wondering why people willingly believe liars. Now I know. Thanks to Professor White, Hugh Hewitt, and most of all to William Shakespeare.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
...the more they are loved.
August 18, 2004
Professor David Allen White reviewed Shakespeare’s Sonnet 88 yesterday on the Hugh Hewitt show.
When my love swears that she is made of truthThe conclusion that Professor White drew was that liars do not tell lies in a vacuum. They tell lies to an adoring audience. The liars lie to the audience, and the audience loves to be lied to. It is theatre.
I do believe her, though I know she lies,
That she might think me some untutor'd youth,
Unlearned in the world's false subtleties.
Thus vainly thinking that she thinks me young,
Although she knows my days are past the best,
Simply I credit her false speaking tongue:
On both sides thus is simple truth suppress'd.
But wherefore says she not she is unjust?
And wherefore say not I that I am old?
O, love's best habit is in seeming trust,
And age in love loves not to have years told:
Therefore I lie with her and she with me,
And in our faults by lies we flatter'd be.
The liars lie, and the more they lie, the more they are loved. Shakespeare says, “O, love's best habit is in seeming trust”. Habit in this case means attire or clothing.
This explains the appeal of such notable liars as Adolph Hitler, Michael Moore, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry. They create a theatre in which their audiences are the heroes and their enemies the villains.
Vilification is critical to this theatre of the mind. The Nazis vilified Jews. The Democrats vilify Republicans. Michael Moore vilifies President Bush. John Kerry vilifies Viet Nam veterans. The tactic is the same in all cases: the villains vilify their victims. The opponents are villains, and by implication the audience are heroes. It is pure flattery, unadulterated false praise. In accepting the vileness of the foe, the audience evades their own faults.
There is an art to political flattery. The demagogues study carefully which lies will keep the illusion alive and which will not. Hitler spent years studying the reactions of his audiences before embarking on his mission to “save Germany from Communism”. Hitler understood the importance of theatre. His speaking method was carefully rehearsed to turn off his audiences’ ability to think, and appeal directly to their emotions.
So it is with Shakespeare’s Sonnet 88. The facts are carefully disregarded because facts interfere with the lovers’ desire to be flattered. “And in our faults by lies we flatter'd be.” Flattery is false praise. Flattery is the currency of demagogues. Aristotle noted that demagogues are to democracy what flatterers are to monarchs. The more they lie, the more they are loved.
I have seen this effect first hand. People who consume demagoguery behave as though they know everything about everyone simply by asking who they voted for in the last election. “Aha!”, they say. “You’re one of THEM!” These are people animated by the flattery of propaganda. They are told how wise they must be to have finally seen the truth, how enlightened they have become, and how they have “grown”. They are told how much progress they have made. Knowing that they are being lied to, they choose to believe the liar.
Demagogues and flatterers sing false praises to their audiences, and their audiences, even knowing that they are being lied to, love to hear the song of lies. The beautiful lie is preferable in the hearts of weak little men to the terrible truth.
The terrible truth is that we are at war with Moslem fanatics who operate on the premise that God has commanded them to slaughter millions of Americans and to destroy our nation. The beautiful lie is that we can contain them, or negotiate with them, or ignore them, or treat them as a problem instead of a threat. (In case you are unaware, Michael Moore has said, “There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we've been told.”)
The Democratic Party has decided that flattery will suffice to persuade voters to support them. I, for one, have no use for flattery, especially when the terrible truth was so clearly displayed on September 11, 2001, as charred, half dead people threw themselves out of the Twin Towers, plummeting one hundred stories to certain death on the streets below.
The terrorists accomplished their mission that day. I was terrorized. Don’t tell me there is no terrorist threat.
The problem I see for the Democratic Party is that since the 1960’s, they have built their entire platform on a series of obvious lies (Communism is not a real threat, poverty can be wiped out with welfare spending, Social Security will take care of retired people, criminals aren’t at fault for their behavior, higher than average crime rates among black Americans are due to white racism, America is the greatest threat to world peace, etc.), and they have relied more and more on accomplished liars like Bill Clinton to advance their cause. However, lately, they seem to have run out of talented liars. Al Gore’s lies were bizarre. John Kerry’s lies are so obvious that even he is now recanting some of them. Michael Moore is unpersuasive even with Democrats. The strategy of lying and flattering are not succeeding in recruiting people to the Democratic point of view.
The campaign of lies currently under way seems to be intended to keep people from defecting from the Democratic Party. This will only work for willing followers. People who are committed to the Democratic Party vision will believe anything the Party leadership says. Therefore, the lies aren’t convincing these loyalists, they only confirm their loyalty. Eventually, however, the flattery fails, and the reality of the situation has a sobering effect.
I really don’t care how the Democratic Party conducts their business. It is, after all, their business. However, the danger to our nation is that if their strategy of intoxicating the American people with lies, flattery, fantasy, demagoguery, and slander succeeds, then the foundation of self-government will have crumbled. Self-government depends on the voters knowing the facts and making up their own minds, one at a time. Lies are fraud. When voters are defrauded, they are deprived of their right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
The recent interest in the lies that John Kerry has been telling for thirty-five years gives me some measure of satisfaction. The horror of the matter is that these lies were not exposed until now. John Kerry’s lies about American soldiers committing atrocities in Viet Nam still influence American culture. The image of the drug-crazed, baby-killing, walking-time-bomb Viet Nam veteran is as much a part of American popular culture as shiftless niggers, drunken Indians, thieving Mexicans, conniving Jews, or any of the other malignant stereotypes that have populated American mythology for the last several hundred years.
I’ve heard some people blame the left leaning media for this. Not so fast. John Kerry didn’t invent anything that he said about American atrocities. He merely repeated the anti-American propaganda of the times. He lied. His audience had a choice; they could disbelieve his lies, or they could believe them. The American people chose to believe him.
In believing his lies, the American people excused themselves from their responsibility for the war, and for the behavior of American troops. Kerry’s lies were willingly accepted by the American people, and it is the American people who have kept the figment of the drug-crazed, baby-killing Viet Nam veteran alive for over thirty years. The entertainment industry shares some of the blame, but let’s be honest, audiences have bought the image of the crazy, war mongering, Rambo-ized, Viet Nam vet for over thirty years. It sells. It’s a lie that the audience wants to hear over and over.
John Kerry is no leader. He didn’t invent the lies. He is an opportunist who said what he thought would win him the most support. He said what he was convinced the American people wanted to hear. At the time, it worked. He has had a successful political career in America (Massachusetts is still technically part of America) trafficking in anti-American propaganda and in the mythology of America’s war in Viet Nam. His American audiences love to hear him spew hate at America. In the 1970’s, they loved to hear him spew hate at his fellow veterans. John Kerry, being a liar, a flatterer, and a lazy opportunist, is a reflection of America’s abhorrence of Viet Nam era veterans, not the cause of it. He gets blamed because he told the lies. The American people must now accept the blame for believing them.
Search your heart. What images and emotions to you associate with Viet Nam, the My Lai massacre, Richard Nixon, American troops in Cambodia, napalm, B-52 strikes, search and destroy missions, the Tet Offensive, Khe Sahn, Watergate, and so forth?
Either America’s war in Viet Nam was right or it was wrong. If it was right, then all Viet Nam era veterans who were not convicted of crimes deserve the respect and gratitude of the American people, and if it was wrong, then they still deserve the respect and gratitude of the American people.
John Kerry’s lies about soldiers in Viet Nam were pure demagoguery. He said in effect that the soldiers are to blame, but the American people are innocent. This was pure flattery. At the time, the American people were partly responsible for the conduct of the war because they elected the politicians who actually funded and conducted the war. To blame the horrible events of the war entirely on the soldiers who were actually on the ground, and with no more evidence than a diarrhea of lies spewed from the mouths of overtly anti-American propagandists like John Kerry and Jane Fonda, is to evade the reality of one’s own complicity.
But, then, to the American people at that time it was all just another show on T. V. There were good guys, bad guys, and an understandable, relatively simple plot. The producers had promised a positive outcome, just like all the other television shows. When the plot turned sour, and the good guys started looking like bad guys, and the promised outcome was in jeopardy, the American people wanted the show to be cancelled. This is a better explanation of the shameful retreat the American people demanded than anything else I can think of. Viet Nam was a bad T. V. show, and they wanted it cancelled.
The entire mythology surrounding veterans of America’s war in Viet Nam is that they are tarnished while the American people are pure. Since then, the American people have turned cowardice into courage, lechery into love, vulgarity into humor, viciousness into bravery, cynicism into wisdom, foolishness into enlightenment, perversion into honor, and flattery into sincerity all in what I think has been a vain attempt to evade the reality that they just didn’t have the guts to finish the job. By believing that cowardice is courage, Americans managed to excuse themselves for quitting a war that they had effectively won. However, once you accept that cowardice is courage, that weakness is strength, and that losing is honorable you have abandoned your right to self-respect. America lost (precisely, gave up) Viet Nam, and since then, many Americans have abandoned all that is good about America.
Willing suspension of disbelief and acceptance of obvious illusion are necessary in entertainment. In real life, however, this is dangerous. In history, there is no script; the outcome is unknown.
I have spent many decades wondering why people willingly believe liars. Now I know. Thanks to Professor White, Hugh Hewitt, and most of all to William Shakespeare.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Thursday, August 12, 2004
Truth, Lies, and Vanity
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
August 12, 2004
John Kerry got caught telling a bald-faced lie, namely, Kerry said that on December 24, 1968, President Nixon said that there were no troops in Cambodia, but that Kerry and his crew were actually five miles inside Cambodia, and that they were afraid of being shot by South Vietnamese troops who were celebrating Christmas by firing their weapons indiscriminately. The lie is exposed by the facts that 1) Richard Nixon was not the President in 1968, 2) American and South Vietnamese troops were prohibited from entering Cambodia in 1968, 3) American forces patrolled the border inside Viet Nam to prevent unlawful border crossings, 4) it was impossible for Kerry’s swift boat to cross the border because obstacles were in place in the river to prevent boats larger than sampans from crossing the border, 5) Kerry’s commanding officer says that no orders were issued by him for missions into Cambodia, and 6) no other person besides Kerry can verify his story, not even his own shipmates who would have been in Cambodia with Kerry had he actually been there.
John Kerry openly lied about this matter for thirty years, and last week he got caught. So, how do you suppose he coped with being caught in an obvious lie? He evaded.
His campaign staff has issued a statement that Kerry was in Cambodia (which is still a lie), but that he was not there on Christmas Eve, 1968. His staff now says that part of the story is true, while the other part is not false, only that Kerry was “mistaken”.
We are supposed to believe that Kerry’s obvious lie is now only a mistake, a harmless error in recollection. It is not an attempt to capitalize on the ignorance of the audience by confusing the storyline of the movie “Apocalypse Now” with Kerry’s actual service in Viet Nam. It is not storytelling for the sake of enhancing Kerry’s prestige with his audience. It is not tailoring history out of the whole cloth of fantasy. It is not lying for no other purpose than to impress an impressionable audience. It is not reckless disregard for the truth. It is only a simple mistake. Kerry, we are supposed to believe, didn’t mean to make this little, insignificant mistake. That may explain why, for thirty years, he never bothered to research who the President of the United States was in December, 1968.
Kerry’s behavior in this matter is typical Kerry, vain, reckless, irresponsible, and self-serving. These are the very qualities that his fellow officers observed during his service in the Navy. To them, he was a menace, and they didn’t want him around.
The fact that everyone who knows any more about John Kerry than his public persona agree that he is vain, reckless, irresponsible, and self-serving should alert voters to the menace that John Kerry presents. Being the junior Senator from Massachusetts has not presented Kerry with the opportunities to cause great harm. The other Senators help keep him under control. He needs their support to accomplish anything, and according to his record, he hasn’t had much support from them for twenty years. Apparently, the other Senators also know that John Kerry is impossible to work with.
As President, John Kerry’s habitual recklessness would be disastrous. America’s vacation from history ended on September 11, 2001. The carefree days of the Clinton years are over. We can’t have any more party boys in the White House. We certainly can’t afford a vain, reckless, irresponsible, self-serving, proven liar in the charge of our national security.
So what, you say? Bush is just as bad, you say? Bush is a vain, reckless, irresponsible, self-serving, proven liar, you say? Bush lied about WMD to take America to war, you say?
Check your facts, Einstein. If Bush used WMD as one reason to go to war in Iraq, he did so because he believed there were WMD based on available information. Former President Clinton has agreed that Bush did the right thing under the circumstances. This week, even John Kerry said that he would have gone to war in Iraq based on the available information.
Here’s the critical difference: Bush made his decision to go to war based on information that he obtained from foreign and domestic intelligence agencies*, while John Kerry made his decision to tell his story about being in Cambodia on December 24, 1968, in spite of available information, and in spite of the fact that anyone could easily disprove his claims.
John Kerry has now proved beyond any doubt that he will tell a lie when he knows that he is lying, he will tell a lie when you know that he’s lying, and he will tell a lie WHEN HE KNOWS THAT YOU KNOW that he is lying. This tells me all I need to know about his trustworthiness; under no circumstances can John Kerry be trusted to tell the truth, even when he knows that you know that he is lying. Everything he says must be verified.
All of this suggests that Kerry is less interested in the truth than he is in his audience’s reaction. If he gets the reaction he wants (in this case, awe and admiration), then he will tell the lie again and again. When he stops getting the reaction he wants, then he will stop telling the lie. Pay attention to this behavior. Kerry is more interested in how people react to him than he is in the truth. He seems to be starved for attention, and afflicted with a compelling need for admiration.
John Kerry is fishing for admiration. He has demonstrated that he will say ANYTHING that he thinks will prompt the correct response, namely, your admiration. If he doesn’t get the desired response, then he thinks of something else to say.
Kerry surrounds himself with admirers. Those who do not admire him are enemies, as was the case earlier this year when a journalist--a Democratic Party loyalist--demonstrated that he did not openly admire Kerry by asking him some tough questions. Kerry responded by accusing the journalist of doing the work of the Republican National Committee. It’s not enough to FEEL admiration for Kerry; you have to SHOW it.
Webster’s Dictionary defines vanity as a state of being empty, ineffectual, or worthless. Empty, ineffectual, and worthless pretty well describes John Kerry’s career in both the Navy and the U. S. Senate. His insistence that he be openly admired is best described as vainglory. Comparing Bush’s career to Kerry’s makes Kerry’s lack of achievements all the more obvious. As to Kerry’s addiction to admiration, his new slogan should be, “I am marvelous! If you don’t recognize that, then you’re just psychotic scum.”
The United States of America cannot afford a President whose primary ambition is to secure an unending chorus of admiration. The President must be able to absorb ridicule and revulsion without flinching. Bush seems to possess these qualities in abundance. Kerry seems vulnerable to disapproval.
All Bush haters must face reality and ask the critical question: All illusions aside, is George W. Bush really worse than John F. Kerry in the position of President of the United States?
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
* Note to Bush haters, the only way to prove that Bush was right about WMD was to occupy Iraq and search the entire country. Likewise, the only way prove that Bush was wrong about WMD was to occupy Iraq and search the entire country. Either way, the U. S. had to occupy Iraq and search for WMD. In the mean time, the search for WMD isn’t finished. It will take years to verify what happened to the WMD. To say that Bush lied about WMD to take America to war when the search for WMD is years away from completion is simply to reach an unverifiable, and therefore indefensible, conclusion.
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
August 12, 2004
John Kerry got caught telling a bald-faced lie, namely, Kerry said that on December 24, 1968, President Nixon said that there were no troops in Cambodia, but that Kerry and his crew were actually five miles inside Cambodia, and that they were afraid of being shot by South Vietnamese troops who were celebrating Christmas by firing their weapons indiscriminately. The lie is exposed by the facts that 1) Richard Nixon was not the President in 1968, 2) American and South Vietnamese troops were prohibited from entering Cambodia in 1968, 3) American forces patrolled the border inside Viet Nam to prevent unlawful border crossings, 4) it was impossible for Kerry’s swift boat to cross the border because obstacles were in place in the river to prevent boats larger than sampans from crossing the border, 5) Kerry’s commanding officer says that no orders were issued by him for missions into Cambodia, and 6) no other person besides Kerry can verify his story, not even his own shipmates who would have been in Cambodia with Kerry had he actually been there.
John Kerry openly lied about this matter for thirty years, and last week he got caught. So, how do you suppose he coped with being caught in an obvious lie? He evaded.
His campaign staff has issued a statement that Kerry was in Cambodia (which is still a lie), but that he was not there on Christmas Eve, 1968. His staff now says that part of the story is true, while the other part is not false, only that Kerry was “mistaken”.
We are supposed to believe that Kerry’s obvious lie is now only a mistake, a harmless error in recollection. It is not an attempt to capitalize on the ignorance of the audience by confusing the storyline of the movie “Apocalypse Now” with Kerry’s actual service in Viet Nam. It is not storytelling for the sake of enhancing Kerry’s prestige with his audience. It is not tailoring history out of the whole cloth of fantasy. It is not lying for no other purpose than to impress an impressionable audience. It is not reckless disregard for the truth. It is only a simple mistake. Kerry, we are supposed to believe, didn’t mean to make this little, insignificant mistake. That may explain why, for thirty years, he never bothered to research who the President of the United States was in December, 1968.
Kerry’s behavior in this matter is typical Kerry, vain, reckless, irresponsible, and self-serving. These are the very qualities that his fellow officers observed during his service in the Navy. To them, he was a menace, and they didn’t want him around.
The fact that everyone who knows any more about John Kerry than his public persona agree that he is vain, reckless, irresponsible, and self-serving should alert voters to the menace that John Kerry presents. Being the junior Senator from Massachusetts has not presented Kerry with the opportunities to cause great harm. The other Senators help keep him under control. He needs their support to accomplish anything, and according to his record, he hasn’t had much support from them for twenty years. Apparently, the other Senators also know that John Kerry is impossible to work with.
As President, John Kerry’s habitual recklessness would be disastrous. America’s vacation from history ended on September 11, 2001. The carefree days of the Clinton years are over. We can’t have any more party boys in the White House. We certainly can’t afford a vain, reckless, irresponsible, self-serving, proven liar in the charge of our national security.
So what, you say? Bush is just as bad, you say? Bush is a vain, reckless, irresponsible, self-serving, proven liar, you say? Bush lied about WMD to take America to war, you say?
Check your facts, Einstein. If Bush used WMD as one reason to go to war in Iraq, he did so because he believed there were WMD based on available information. Former President Clinton has agreed that Bush did the right thing under the circumstances. This week, even John Kerry said that he would have gone to war in Iraq based on the available information.
Here’s the critical difference: Bush made his decision to go to war based on information that he obtained from foreign and domestic intelligence agencies*, while John Kerry made his decision to tell his story about being in Cambodia on December 24, 1968, in spite of available information, and in spite of the fact that anyone could easily disprove his claims.
John Kerry has now proved beyond any doubt that he will tell a lie when he knows that he is lying, he will tell a lie when you know that he’s lying, and he will tell a lie WHEN HE KNOWS THAT YOU KNOW that he is lying. This tells me all I need to know about his trustworthiness; under no circumstances can John Kerry be trusted to tell the truth, even when he knows that you know that he is lying. Everything he says must be verified.
All of this suggests that Kerry is less interested in the truth than he is in his audience’s reaction. If he gets the reaction he wants (in this case, awe and admiration), then he will tell the lie again and again. When he stops getting the reaction he wants, then he will stop telling the lie. Pay attention to this behavior. Kerry is more interested in how people react to him than he is in the truth. He seems to be starved for attention, and afflicted with a compelling need for admiration.
John Kerry is fishing for admiration. He has demonstrated that he will say ANYTHING that he thinks will prompt the correct response, namely, your admiration. If he doesn’t get the desired response, then he thinks of something else to say.
Kerry surrounds himself with admirers. Those who do not admire him are enemies, as was the case earlier this year when a journalist--a Democratic Party loyalist--demonstrated that he did not openly admire Kerry by asking him some tough questions. Kerry responded by accusing the journalist of doing the work of the Republican National Committee. It’s not enough to FEEL admiration for Kerry; you have to SHOW it.
Webster’s Dictionary defines vanity as a state of being empty, ineffectual, or worthless. Empty, ineffectual, and worthless pretty well describes John Kerry’s career in both the Navy and the U. S. Senate. His insistence that he be openly admired is best described as vainglory. Comparing Bush’s career to Kerry’s makes Kerry’s lack of achievements all the more obvious. As to Kerry’s addiction to admiration, his new slogan should be, “I am marvelous! If you don’t recognize that, then you’re just psychotic scum.”
The United States of America cannot afford a President whose primary ambition is to secure an unending chorus of admiration. The President must be able to absorb ridicule and revulsion without flinching. Bush seems to possess these qualities in abundance. Kerry seems vulnerable to disapproval.
All Bush haters must face reality and ask the critical question: All illusions aside, is George W. Bush really worse than John F. Kerry in the position of President of the United States?
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
* Note to Bush haters, the only way to prove that Bush was right about WMD was to occupy Iraq and search the entire country. Likewise, the only way prove that Bush was wrong about WMD was to occupy Iraq and search the entire country. Either way, the U. S. had to occupy Iraq and search for WMD. In the mean time, the search for WMD isn’t finished. It will take years to verify what happened to the WMD. To say that Bush lied about WMD to take America to war when the search for WMD is years away from completion is simply to reach an unverifiable, and therefore indefensible, conclusion.
Monday, August 09, 2004
Seething Bitterness
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
August 9, 2004
All I have to offer here is pure speculation. However, I think it is reasonable to consider these points. I am referring to the article in The American Thinker by John B. Dwyer about John Kerry’s tour of duty in Viet Nam in which his fellow officers informed John Kerry of the obscure provision that permitted him to request reassignment, and then insisted that he do so because they didn’t want him in their group anymore. This answers a question I have had for some time: Why did Kerry leave Viet Nam after only four months duty while suffering no injuries that would have caused him to be unable to fulfill his duties? I thought that he was wimping out. John Dwyer says in so many words that Kerry was given a swift kick in the rear and told not to come back. If this had happened to me, I would have been completely humiliated.
I can imagine that this would have been completely humiliating to young Lieutenant Kerry. Considering Kerry’s regal self-identity, criticism as severe as this would probably have been taken by Kerry as a heartbreaking rejection. He probably felt deeply wounded and angry.
He probably couldn’t talk about what was bothering him. My limited understanding of the culture of the Kerry family is that Kerry’s are never at fault for anything. They are sophisticated, enlightened, morally superior, and entitled to leadership. If his fellow sailors told him to take a hike, then it must have been because of their insufferable ignorance about how special John Kerry really is. Humiliation, rejection, resentment, and seething bitterness seem to explain John Kerry’s subsequent betrayal of his former colleagues.
In 1971, John Kerry embarked on a campaign of slandering all American soldiers in Viet Nam as horrendous, torturing, mutilating, murdering, raping barbarians. His campaign of slander lasts to this day. The wounded boy from Massachusetts got his revenge big time. The self-important, self-absorbed loner from the Swiss boarding school had his cherished identity of invincible, infallible savior shattered by the real men fighting the real war, and he was going to get even with them no matter what he had to do.
Shattering the identity of narcissists as invincible and infallible is the most destructive thing you can do to them. They must believe in their own preeminence, otherwise, they are worthless and helpless. Narcissists also assign total blame for any failure. They either totally blame themselves (usually for things they have no control over), or they totally blame someone else for their own failings. The fury behind Al Gore’s attacks on President Bush seem to be related to this same subject. Gore totally blames Bush for Gore’s failings during the 2000 election. Kerry totally blames his fellow sailors for his own failings.
If his comrades in Viet Nam rejected him, then where do you think Kerry would go to retrieve his sense of infallibility? That’s right. He ran straight into the arms of Jane Fonda and the defeat-America-first movement. Since he couldn’t be a Prima Donna in the United States Navy, then he would be a Prima Donna in the hate-America-always movement. Besides, hating America took him back to his home turf anyway.
Having actually seen combat in Viet Nam, Kerry added a much needed measure of legitimacy to the anti-America-pro-Soviet movement. They could always point to him and say that he knew the real story because he was there.
I have heard that Kerry enlisted in the Navy primarily to avoid service in combat, sort of dodging the draft from the inside. (I knew several young men my age who enlisted in the Navy when they got their draft notice, because you can’t sail an aircraft carrier into the jungle.) However, Kerry was assigned to combat operations in spite of his best efforts to avoid combat duty. When Kerry said, “Send me...”, what he was saying was, “...anywhere but Viet Nam!”
He may have taken his combat assignment as an opportunity to earn a reputation that would impress his distant, disapproving father. For those who have been raised by disapproving parents, it is unrealistic to believe that you can ever do anything to impress them because they use their disapproval to control you. They will never change because to do so would threaten their position of control over you. They will simply disapprove of anything you do to try to impress them, thereby crushing you once again. So, don’t bother. Don’t play the game.
Having been rejected by his fellow sailors, Kerry’s father probably smacked him down with a truckload of I-told-you-so’s. Kerry’s father probably compounded Kerry’s humiliation with further humiliation. Apparently, Kerry’s father was a master at crushing his son’s spirit. Kerry would have had no choice but to agree with his father that America is a fundamentally bad country and the Americans are fundamentally bad people, not like those enlightened and sophisticated French.
It is reasonable to speculate that John F. Kerry has been possessed of a seething bitterness against his fellow sailors, and that instead of truthfully facing his own shortcomings, he has chosen to blame the men who told him they didn’t want him in their unit, to blame all Viet Nam veterans, and ultimately to blame the United States of America for his rejection. It is Kerry’s pathology to always blame someone else for his failings. He is a pathological blamer. He has repeatedly displayed an absolute phobia about being held accountable for anything. He can’t tolerate taking responsibility for his own behavior. His ambition to run for President--the gargantuan responsibilities that the office entails notwithstanding--is to validate his sense of entitlement to rule, his infallibility, so that he can lord his position over the miserable commoners who rejected him in the first place. I can imagine him thinking to himself, “I showed you! I’M THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD! What do you think of me NOW?”
Again, all of this is speculation about what may be going on in the mind of John Kerry. I don’t know, and he won’t say. But, if Michael Moore can make millions of dollars “connecting the dots”, why hell, I should be on my way to my first million any day now? Hmm?
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
August 9, 2004
All I have to offer here is pure speculation. However, I think it is reasonable to consider these points. I am referring to the article in The American Thinker by John B. Dwyer about John Kerry’s tour of duty in Viet Nam in which his fellow officers informed John Kerry of the obscure provision that permitted him to request reassignment, and then insisted that he do so because they didn’t want him in their group anymore. This answers a question I have had for some time: Why did Kerry leave Viet Nam after only four months duty while suffering no injuries that would have caused him to be unable to fulfill his duties? I thought that he was wimping out. John Dwyer says in so many words that Kerry was given a swift kick in the rear and told not to come back. If this had happened to me, I would have been completely humiliated.
I can imagine that this would have been completely humiliating to young Lieutenant Kerry. Considering Kerry’s regal self-identity, criticism as severe as this would probably have been taken by Kerry as a heartbreaking rejection. He probably felt deeply wounded and angry.
He probably couldn’t talk about what was bothering him. My limited understanding of the culture of the Kerry family is that Kerry’s are never at fault for anything. They are sophisticated, enlightened, morally superior, and entitled to leadership. If his fellow sailors told him to take a hike, then it must have been because of their insufferable ignorance about how special John Kerry really is. Humiliation, rejection, resentment, and seething bitterness seem to explain John Kerry’s subsequent betrayal of his former colleagues.
In 1971, John Kerry embarked on a campaign of slandering all American soldiers in Viet Nam as horrendous, torturing, mutilating, murdering, raping barbarians. His campaign of slander lasts to this day. The wounded boy from Massachusetts got his revenge big time. The self-important, self-absorbed loner from the Swiss boarding school had his cherished identity of invincible, infallible savior shattered by the real men fighting the real war, and he was going to get even with them no matter what he had to do.
Shattering the identity of narcissists as invincible and infallible is the most destructive thing you can do to them. They must believe in their own preeminence, otherwise, they are worthless and helpless. Narcissists also assign total blame for any failure. They either totally blame themselves (usually for things they have no control over), or they totally blame someone else for their own failings. The fury behind Al Gore’s attacks on President Bush seem to be related to this same subject. Gore totally blames Bush for Gore’s failings during the 2000 election. Kerry totally blames his fellow sailors for his own failings.
If his comrades in Viet Nam rejected him, then where do you think Kerry would go to retrieve his sense of infallibility? That’s right. He ran straight into the arms of Jane Fonda and the defeat-America-first movement. Since he couldn’t be a Prima Donna in the United States Navy, then he would be a Prima Donna in the hate-America-always movement. Besides, hating America took him back to his home turf anyway.
Having actually seen combat in Viet Nam, Kerry added a much needed measure of legitimacy to the anti-America-pro-Soviet movement. They could always point to him and say that he knew the real story because he was there.
I have heard that Kerry enlisted in the Navy primarily to avoid service in combat, sort of dodging the draft from the inside. (I knew several young men my age who enlisted in the Navy when they got their draft notice, because you can’t sail an aircraft carrier into the jungle.) However, Kerry was assigned to combat operations in spite of his best efforts to avoid combat duty. When Kerry said, “Send me...”, what he was saying was, “...anywhere but Viet Nam!”
He may have taken his combat assignment as an opportunity to earn a reputation that would impress his distant, disapproving father. For those who have been raised by disapproving parents, it is unrealistic to believe that you can ever do anything to impress them because they use their disapproval to control you. They will never change because to do so would threaten their position of control over you. They will simply disapprove of anything you do to try to impress them, thereby crushing you once again. So, don’t bother. Don’t play the game.
Having been rejected by his fellow sailors, Kerry’s father probably smacked him down with a truckload of I-told-you-so’s. Kerry’s father probably compounded Kerry’s humiliation with further humiliation. Apparently, Kerry’s father was a master at crushing his son’s spirit. Kerry would have had no choice but to agree with his father that America is a fundamentally bad country and the Americans are fundamentally bad people, not like those enlightened and sophisticated French.
It is reasonable to speculate that John F. Kerry has been possessed of a seething bitterness against his fellow sailors, and that instead of truthfully facing his own shortcomings, he has chosen to blame the men who told him they didn’t want him in their unit, to blame all Viet Nam veterans, and ultimately to blame the United States of America for his rejection. It is Kerry’s pathology to always blame someone else for his failings. He is a pathological blamer. He has repeatedly displayed an absolute phobia about being held accountable for anything. He can’t tolerate taking responsibility for his own behavior. His ambition to run for President--the gargantuan responsibilities that the office entails notwithstanding--is to validate his sense of entitlement to rule, his infallibility, so that he can lord his position over the miserable commoners who rejected him in the first place. I can imagine him thinking to himself, “I showed you! I’M THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, THE MOST POWERFUL MAN IN THE WORLD! What do you think of me NOW?”
Again, all of this is speculation about what may be going on in the mind of John Kerry. I don’t know, and he won’t say. But, if Michael Moore can make millions of dollars “connecting the dots”, why hell, I should be on my way to my first million any day now? Hmm?
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Friday, August 06, 2004
Three Mistakes
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
August 6, 2004
This article in The American Thinker by John B. Dwyer about John Kerry’s tour of duty in Viet Nam stopped me in my tracks. Please read the entire article. Here is the part that stunned me:
Considering the choices in November, Bush’s competence eclipses Kerry’s, regardless of their positions on issues. The conclusion I draw is that even if Kerry’s radical left wing, anti-American positions are somehow good for America, he isn’t competent to enact them. A Kerry Presidency would be four years of bumbling, whining, blaming, and making excuses while America gets kicked around like a soccer ball and Americans are kidnapped, murdered, and blown to pieces by the thousands. A Kerry Presidency would signal open season on all Americans and all things American.
No matter how much you may hate Bush, he will do a better job of keeping you in one piece than Kerry will. Vote Republican in 2004. And quit your whining.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
August 6, 2004
This article in The American Thinker by John B. Dwyer about John Kerry’s tour of duty in Viet Nam stopped me in my tracks. Please read the entire article. Here is the part that stunned me:
As for medals, Commander Wright holds strong views: “No one was recognized for completely overwhelming the enemy with skill, courage and bravery. No one wanted a Purple Heart because it meant we had made a mistake. We made sure our crews were recognized, but no one took pride in a Purple Heart. Everyone who served is equally important, regardless of rank or awards.Three Purple Hearts for John Kerry equals three mistakes. According to the accounts given by people who served with him in Viet Nam, John “Boston Strangler” Kerry was a first-rate screw up.
Considering the choices in November, Bush’s competence eclipses Kerry’s, regardless of their positions on issues. The conclusion I draw is that even if Kerry’s radical left wing, anti-American positions are somehow good for America, he isn’t competent to enact them. A Kerry Presidency would be four years of bumbling, whining, blaming, and making excuses while America gets kicked around like a soccer ball and Americans are kidnapped, murdered, and blown to pieces by the thousands. A Kerry Presidency would signal open season on all Americans and all things American.
No matter how much you may hate Bush, he will do a better job of keeping you in one piece than Kerry will. Vote Republican in 2004. And quit your whining.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Tuesday, August 03, 2004
Kerry Was “Misled”
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
August 3, 2004
Oops. He did it again.
John Kerry claims that he voted to authorize military action against Iraq because President Bush “misled” him into thinking that the war was necessary and justified. Misled?
Well, well, well. John Kerry’s decision to vote for the war resolution was not his fault. Bush made him do it. It was a clever, willful, knowing deception on the part of Bush that misled Kerry to do what he did.
Anyone remember President George W. Bush, dumb as a doorknob, too stupid to think his way out of a paper bag, you know, THAT President Bush? Kerry is publicly admitting that Bozo the President outwitted him.
How, pray tell, is this supposed to inspire me to vote for John Kerry? If I am to believe John Kerry’s story, then he is admitting that Bush made a fool of him. The bumbling cowboy from Crawford, Texas pulled a fast one on the suave, sophisticated, enlightened, wise-in-the-ways-of-the-world junior Senator from Massachusetts. (I have no problem believing this because Bush is a master politician. I also don’t care if Bush “misled” the country to take us to war against Saddam Hussein. The United States has been in a state of war with Iraq since 1991. The latest shootout was nothing more than finishing the war that started twelve years earlier. I’m glad it’s finally over. And I’m glad Saddam Hussein is out of power, no matter how it was accomplished.)
I have studied truth testing at great length, and the only certain way to avoid falling victim to deception is to know the truth beforehand. Kerry and the Democrats are claiming, or at least suggesting, that Bush knew the truth and deceived them anyway. The North Koreans and the Iranians know the truth and are actively deceiving the entire world. If Bush can mislead Kerry, what do you think Cuba, Communist China, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and France are going to do?
By claiming that Bush “misled” him into voting for a war resolution that he would not have voted for had Bush not “misled” him, Kerry is admitting four things:
1. He would prefer that America and our allies had not gone to war to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
2. He doesn’t know enough to avoid being “misled”.
3. He can be played for a fool by anyone.
4. He’s a crybaby.
Claiming that he was “misled” does nothing to strengthen Kerry’s position, and does great harm to his image. He’s admitting that when things don’t go his way, it’s because some bad person got the best of him. Who is he going to blame after the next crushing terrorist attack? The FBI? The CIA? The Joint Chiefs of Staff? Anyone except himself or the terrorists, of course.
Bush did the best he could do with the information he had in trying to avert the threat that all major international intelligence agencies had concluded was real. Saddam Hussein challenged the United States and the United Nations to enforce their proclamations. So we did. Kerry is saying that he will not, under any circumstances, make any such proclamations because they carry the risk that he may have to enforce them. Kerry is suggesting, though he refuses to admit it, that he would have refrained from acting on the best available information to avert the perceived threat. In other words, Kerry would disregard the best information available to him and leave America open to attack for fear of being criticized three years later. Thousands more Americans would be killed because John Kerry wants to avoid criticism more than he wants to defend America.
Considering our enemies’ undeniable ability to mislead us, and considering John Kerry’s voting record to cut funding, resources, training, and manpower for America’s intelligence gathering agencies, how does John Kerry propose to gather necessary information to avert a threat? And how will John Kerry make decisions based on incomplete information? Or, is he just going to wait for the next massacre, and then strongly and swiftly respond? This is exactly what al Qaeda wants.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
August 3, 2004
Oops. He did it again.
John Kerry claims that he voted to authorize military action against Iraq because President Bush “misled” him into thinking that the war was necessary and justified. Misled?
Well, well, well. John Kerry’s decision to vote for the war resolution was not his fault. Bush made him do it. It was a clever, willful, knowing deception on the part of Bush that misled Kerry to do what he did.
Anyone remember President George W. Bush, dumb as a doorknob, too stupid to think his way out of a paper bag, you know, THAT President Bush? Kerry is publicly admitting that Bozo the President outwitted him.
How, pray tell, is this supposed to inspire me to vote for John Kerry? If I am to believe John Kerry’s story, then he is admitting that Bush made a fool of him. The bumbling cowboy from Crawford, Texas pulled a fast one on the suave, sophisticated, enlightened, wise-in-the-ways-of-the-world junior Senator from Massachusetts. (I have no problem believing this because Bush is a master politician. I also don’t care if Bush “misled” the country to take us to war against Saddam Hussein. The United States has been in a state of war with Iraq since 1991. The latest shootout was nothing more than finishing the war that started twelve years earlier. I’m glad it’s finally over. And I’m glad Saddam Hussein is out of power, no matter how it was accomplished.)
I have studied truth testing at great length, and the only certain way to avoid falling victim to deception is to know the truth beforehand. Kerry and the Democrats are claiming, or at least suggesting, that Bush knew the truth and deceived them anyway. The North Koreans and the Iranians know the truth and are actively deceiving the entire world. If Bush can mislead Kerry, what do you think Cuba, Communist China, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and France are going to do?
By claiming that Bush “misled” him into voting for a war resolution that he would not have voted for had Bush not “misled” him, Kerry is admitting four things:
1. He would prefer that America and our allies had not gone to war to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
2. He doesn’t know enough to avoid being “misled”.
3. He can be played for a fool by anyone.
4. He’s a crybaby.
Claiming that he was “misled” does nothing to strengthen Kerry’s position, and does great harm to his image. He’s admitting that when things don’t go his way, it’s because some bad person got the best of him. Who is he going to blame after the next crushing terrorist attack? The FBI? The CIA? The Joint Chiefs of Staff? Anyone except himself or the terrorists, of course.
Bush did the best he could do with the information he had in trying to avert the threat that all major international intelligence agencies had concluded was real. Saddam Hussein challenged the United States and the United Nations to enforce their proclamations. So we did. Kerry is saying that he will not, under any circumstances, make any such proclamations because they carry the risk that he may have to enforce them. Kerry is suggesting, though he refuses to admit it, that he would have refrained from acting on the best available information to avert the perceived threat. In other words, Kerry would disregard the best information available to him and leave America open to attack for fear of being criticized three years later. Thousands more Americans would be killed because John Kerry wants to avoid criticism more than he wants to defend America.
Considering our enemies’ undeniable ability to mislead us, and considering John Kerry’s voting record to cut funding, resources, training, and manpower for America’s intelligence gathering agencies, how does John Kerry propose to gather necessary information to avert a threat? And how will John Kerry make decisions based on incomplete information? Or, is he just going to wait for the next massacre, and then strongly and swiftly respond? This is exactly what al Qaeda wants.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Monday, August 02, 2004
BREAKING NEWS: AMERICA ANNOUNCES TERMS OF SURRENDER TO AL QAEDA!!!
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
August 2, 2004
This is not a joke. The United States of America has announced terms of surrender to al Qaeda. Here are the details.
The Democratic Party has announced the terms of America’s surrender to al Qaeda through their candidate for President, John F. Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts. The terms are:
The United States will not go to war unless and until we are attacked, or an attack is imminent and verifiable. The United States will not go to war even when war is declared on the United States. Finally, the United States will not go to war even after enemies launch devastating attacks on American soil.
The facts:
1. Al Qaeda declared war on the United States in 1998.
2. Al Qaeda launched attacks on American soil. U. S. embassies are American soil by law and treaty. New York City, Washington D. C., and Pennsylvania are also American soil.
3. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, supported al Qaeda with intelligence, training, and sanctuary.
4. Iraq may have supplied al Qaeda with funds and weapons as well; however, it is impossible to verify the extent of the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
5. The Democratic Party has responded by promising to withdraw American forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and to stop fighting in these two countries without regard to any lack of concessions by al Qaeda.
6. The Democratic Party has conceded that victory against al Qaeda is impossible; therefore, the Democrats will not commit American troops and resources to defeating al Qaeda, only to trying to stop terrorist attacks in our own country.
7. The Democrats and their candidate for President have openly declared that they will no longer seek victory over extra-national terrorist organizations.
In the minds of al Qaeda, the Democrats’ announcement that they no longer have the will to prosecute the war is a clear victory for al Qaeda. The entire purpose of terrorist attacks is to break the will of the people to continue to effectively resist. Their will broken, the people of democratic countries will elect politicians who reflect their broken will, politicians who will promise an end to the war. However, the war will not end; only American participation in the war will end for the time being. This was the case in Viet Nam. The war continued despite American withdrawal. The Democratic Party is doing exactly what al Qaeda predicted they would do; they are opposing the war on terror, and offering unilateral withdrawal. In the view of al Qaeda, America is offering to surrender.
Al Qaeda is correct in this view. What else can unilateral withdrawal be except surrender on the battlefield? Giving up the fight is surrender.
By offering John F. Kerry as a candidate for President of the United States, by adopting the fanatic anti-war (anti-American victory in any war) position, and by promising not to continue to pursue victory in the current war (the war of al Qaeda against the United States) the Democratic Party is offering the terms of America’s surrender to al Qaeda. By supporting the Democratic Party, and by opposing the war in Iraq (and in some cases, in Afghanistan), supporters of the Democratic Party are agreeing to those terms. Electing John F. Kerry as President of the United States will hand al Qaeda, and all of America’s other enemies, a victory they cannot hope to win on the battlefield.
As in Viet Nam, the anti-American-victory-in-any-war Democrats are trying to make us believe that surrender is victory. This intellectual shell game is played by switching the good of all Americans (the national interest) with the good of individual Americans (personal interest). Michael Moore is a master at this shell game. He asks individual Americans if they would sacrifice their children to secure a single military objective. The answer of course is that Americans will not “sacrifice” their children for anything. No one is “sacrificing” children for America’s good. So, the next time you here the question, “Would you sacrifice your child...?”, the only answer is, “If it is in America’s interest, then yes I would.” As for Michael Moore, would he “sacrifice” any of his children to defeat George W. Bush in the next election?
The Democrats play the game that no American family should ever lose a child to war to defend the United States. How, then, do the Democrats propose that we, as a nation, defend ourselves? With robots? How do we ask police officers to go to work everyday? The terrible truth is that some of us will die so that most of us may live. It can’t be any other way.
The same questions that arose during America’s war in Viet Nam arise today: We must confront and defeat our enemies. If not here, where? If not now, when? The Democratic Party’s plan since the Korean War has been to kick the political can down the road and let the next generation deal with the problem. With this strategy, we still have troops in Korea fifty year (FIFTY YEARS!!!) after a truce was signed, and to this day we do not have a peace treaty with North Korea. We still have troops in Germany nearly sixty years after the end of World War II. Fidel Castro still sits ninety miles off the coast of the U. S. and mocks us over forty years after seizing power in a coupe. The financial burden of Social Security--the greatest of all Democratic Party pyramid schemes--is always passed to the next generation. No matter what problem the Democrats face, they always have a plan for making it the next generation’s problem.
It’s time to stop kicking the can down the road and passing off our problems to our children and grandchildren. It’s time to take responsibility for ourselves and our time. It’s time to defeat our enemies, not merely withdraw to safer (for the time being) ground.
Every military strategist knows that it is impossible to win a war with defense. The enemy simply will never tire of the fight. Actions that are minuscule in our eyes will appear to them to be fantastic victories for their side, and in their superstitious, primitive minds, irrefutable evidence that their ultimate victory is surely the will of God. I am sure that al Qaeda considers the nomination of John F. Kerry to be the will of God, that God has changed the hearts of the American people, that his nomination and the anti-war movement in general is a clear sign that al Qaeda’s strategy is working, and that victory over the United States is both inevitable and close at hand.
Why would the Democrats want to publicly encourage al Qaeda? They don’t. They’re too foolish to understand that their actions offer encouragement to America’s enemies. Anti-war protesters in England during the late 1930’s never understood or acknowledged that their actions encouraged Nazi Germany to seize Austria and Czechoslovakia. Anti-war protestors in free countries never take responsibility for the encouragement they give the enemies of freedom. The Democratic Party lives in a delightful dreamland in which the world can be made perfect if only the greedy capitalists can be brought under control. They are obsessed with leveling standards of living, making poor people richer and making rich people poorer.
The economic naïveté of Democrats is matched only by their national security naïveté. They believe that if only we give enough free money to poor people around the world, then there won’t be any more attacks on America.
The problem for the Democrats, and for America, is that fascist Islamic movements are not motivated by poverty; they are motivated by religious fanaticism. Whether or not people have enough food to eat or new shoes to wear is the least of al Qaeda’s worries. They don’t care who’s rich and who’s poor. They only care who is devout according to their standards. If you are not devout according to their standards, then they think they are obliged to kill you.
Attacking Iraq was the right thing to do because attacking is the right thing to do. The question is not how do we secure ourselves from further terrorist attacks. The question is which one of the countries who have declared themselves to be our enemies--Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Communist China, Syria--do we liberate next.
The Democratic Party wants to save America from the Republicans. The Republicans want to save America from al Qaeda. If my choice is between Republicans and al Qaeda, then I’ll take the Republicans.
Save America from al Qaeda. Vote Republican in 2004.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
Opinion © 2004, by Guy L. Evans
August 2, 2004
This is not a joke. The United States of America has announced terms of surrender to al Qaeda. Here are the details.
The Democratic Party has announced the terms of America’s surrender to al Qaeda through their candidate for President, John F. Kerry, Senator from Massachusetts. The terms are:
The United States will not go to war unless and until we are attacked, or an attack is imminent and verifiable. The United States will not go to war even when war is declared on the United States. Finally, the United States will not go to war even after enemies launch devastating attacks on American soil.
The facts:
1. Al Qaeda declared war on the United States in 1998.
2. Al Qaeda launched attacks on American soil. U. S. embassies are American soil by law and treaty. New York City, Washington D. C., and Pennsylvania are also American soil.
3. Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, supported al Qaeda with intelligence, training, and sanctuary.
4. Iraq may have supplied al Qaeda with funds and weapons as well; however, it is impossible to verify the extent of the relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.
5. The Democratic Party has responded by promising to withdraw American forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, and to stop fighting in these two countries without regard to any lack of concessions by al Qaeda.
6. The Democratic Party has conceded that victory against al Qaeda is impossible; therefore, the Democrats will not commit American troops and resources to defeating al Qaeda, only to trying to stop terrorist attacks in our own country.
7. The Democrats and their candidate for President have openly declared that they will no longer seek victory over extra-national terrorist organizations.
In the minds of al Qaeda, the Democrats’ announcement that they no longer have the will to prosecute the war is a clear victory for al Qaeda. The entire purpose of terrorist attacks is to break the will of the people to continue to effectively resist. Their will broken, the people of democratic countries will elect politicians who reflect their broken will, politicians who will promise an end to the war. However, the war will not end; only American participation in the war will end for the time being. This was the case in Viet Nam. The war continued despite American withdrawal. The Democratic Party is doing exactly what al Qaeda predicted they would do; they are opposing the war on terror, and offering unilateral withdrawal. In the view of al Qaeda, America is offering to surrender.
Al Qaeda is correct in this view. What else can unilateral withdrawal be except surrender on the battlefield? Giving up the fight is surrender.
By offering John F. Kerry as a candidate for President of the United States, by adopting the fanatic anti-war (anti-American victory in any war) position, and by promising not to continue to pursue victory in the current war (the war of al Qaeda against the United States) the Democratic Party is offering the terms of America’s surrender to al Qaeda. By supporting the Democratic Party, and by opposing the war in Iraq (and in some cases, in Afghanistan), supporters of the Democratic Party are agreeing to those terms. Electing John F. Kerry as President of the United States will hand al Qaeda, and all of America’s other enemies, a victory they cannot hope to win on the battlefield.
As in Viet Nam, the anti-American-victory-in-any-war Democrats are trying to make us believe that surrender is victory. This intellectual shell game is played by switching the good of all Americans (the national interest) with the good of individual Americans (personal interest). Michael Moore is a master at this shell game. He asks individual Americans if they would sacrifice their children to secure a single military objective. The answer of course is that Americans will not “sacrifice” their children for anything. No one is “sacrificing” children for America’s good. So, the next time you here the question, “Would you sacrifice your child...?”, the only answer is, “If it is in America’s interest, then yes I would.” As for Michael Moore, would he “sacrifice” any of his children to defeat George W. Bush in the next election?
The Democrats play the game that no American family should ever lose a child to war to defend the United States. How, then, do the Democrats propose that we, as a nation, defend ourselves? With robots? How do we ask police officers to go to work everyday? The terrible truth is that some of us will die so that most of us may live. It can’t be any other way.
The same questions that arose during America’s war in Viet Nam arise today: We must confront and defeat our enemies. If not here, where? If not now, when? The Democratic Party’s plan since the Korean War has been to kick the political can down the road and let the next generation deal with the problem. With this strategy, we still have troops in Korea fifty year (FIFTY YEARS!!!) after a truce was signed, and to this day we do not have a peace treaty with North Korea. We still have troops in Germany nearly sixty years after the end of World War II. Fidel Castro still sits ninety miles off the coast of the U. S. and mocks us over forty years after seizing power in a coupe. The financial burden of Social Security--the greatest of all Democratic Party pyramid schemes--is always passed to the next generation. No matter what problem the Democrats face, they always have a plan for making it the next generation’s problem.
It’s time to stop kicking the can down the road and passing off our problems to our children and grandchildren. It’s time to take responsibility for ourselves and our time. It’s time to defeat our enemies, not merely withdraw to safer (for the time being) ground.
Every military strategist knows that it is impossible to win a war with defense. The enemy simply will never tire of the fight. Actions that are minuscule in our eyes will appear to them to be fantastic victories for their side, and in their superstitious, primitive minds, irrefutable evidence that their ultimate victory is surely the will of God. I am sure that al Qaeda considers the nomination of John F. Kerry to be the will of God, that God has changed the hearts of the American people, that his nomination and the anti-war movement in general is a clear sign that al Qaeda’s strategy is working, and that victory over the United States is both inevitable and close at hand.
Why would the Democrats want to publicly encourage al Qaeda? They don’t. They’re too foolish to understand that their actions offer encouragement to America’s enemies. Anti-war protesters in England during the late 1930’s never understood or acknowledged that their actions encouraged Nazi Germany to seize Austria and Czechoslovakia. Anti-war protestors in free countries never take responsibility for the encouragement they give the enemies of freedom. The Democratic Party lives in a delightful dreamland in which the world can be made perfect if only the greedy capitalists can be brought under control. They are obsessed with leveling standards of living, making poor people richer and making rich people poorer.
The economic naïveté of Democrats is matched only by their national security naïveté. They believe that if only we give enough free money to poor people around the world, then there won’t be any more attacks on America.
The problem for the Democrats, and for America, is that fascist Islamic movements are not motivated by poverty; they are motivated by religious fanaticism. Whether or not people have enough food to eat or new shoes to wear is the least of al Qaeda’s worries. They don’t care who’s rich and who’s poor. They only care who is devout according to their standards. If you are not devout according to their standards, then they think they are obliged to kill you.
Attacking Iraq was the right thing to do because attacking is the right thing to do. The question is not how do we secure ourselves from further terrorist attacks. The question is which one of the countries who have declared themselves to be our enemies--Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Communist China, Syria--do we liberate next.
The Democratic Party wants to save America from the Republicans. The Republicans want to save America from al Qaeda. If my choice is between Republicans and al Qaeda, then I’ll take the Republicans.
Save America from al Qaeda. Vote Republican in 2004.
Guy L. Evans
Aurora, Colorado
