Barnes and Noble can’t keep up with the demand for Unfit for Command. Apparently copies are flying off the shelves, no doubt to much dismay from the Kerry campaign.
Meanwhile, Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute has a good summary piece of Kerry’s fictional exploits in Cambodia. As he notes:
Now a new official statement from the campaign undercuts Brinkley. It offers a minimal (thus harder to impeach) claim: that Kerry “on one occasion crossed into Cambodia,” on an unspecified date. But at least two of the shipmates who are supporting Kerry’s campaign (and one who is not) deny their boat ever crossed the border, and their testimony on this score is corroborated by Kerry’s own journal, kept while on duty. One passage reproduced in Brinkley’s book says: “The banks of the [Rach Giang Thanh River] whistled by as we churned out mile after mile at full speed. On my left were occasional open fields that allowed us a clear view into Cambodia. At some points, the border was only fifty yards away and it then would meander out to several hundred or even as much as a thousand yards away, always making one wonder what lay on the other side.” His curiosity was never satisfied, because this entry was from Kerry’s final mission.
Now, a war story that’s been embellished over the years is one thing. But an outright lie on the floor of the United States Senate designed to influence the policy of the United States is another. Kerry used his supposed time in Cambodia to argue against assistance to the Nicaraguan contras fighting against the Marxist guerillas that were threatening that country. Yet it is now clear that Kerry was not in Cambodia, and his entire argument was predicated on an utter falsehood.
This is more than just a political pissing match. The Democrats want to argue that Bush “lied” us into war. (A charge that a bipartisan Senate panel investigating the evidence found to be baseless.) They want to argue that they have more credibility – yet their campaign is not only based on events that occurred nearly four decades ago, but also on events that have been deliberately distorted.
Challenging the record of any political candidate is always fair game, no matter if they’re a veteran or not. Kerry said “bring it on” to his critics – and when they did he’s hiding behind lawsuits and cowardly attempts to ban book that are critical of him.
There’s the old saying that “patriotism is the refuge of scoundrels.” With Kerry’s attempts to use Old Glory as a shield, he’s sadly proving it true.
Now a new official statement from the campaign undercuts Brinkley. It offers a minimal (thus harder to impeach) claim: that Kerry “on one occasion crossed into Cambodia,†on an unspecified date. But at least two of the shipmates who are supporting Kerry’s campaign (and one who is not) deny their boat ever crossed the border, and their testimony on this score is corroborated by Kerry’s own journal, kept while on duty.
There’s only 5 people on Kerry’s boat.
Now, we have Kerry saying he was in Cambodia, Zaldonis, Wasserman, and Hatch saying that they could have been in Cambodia, because they were close enough and didn’t know exactly where they were (and that at one point, they were on the river that formed the border), and Gardner saying that at no point were they in Cambodia, even though there’s no way he could have known that.
And now you have “two shipmates”? Even if one of them is Gardner, that’s one more person than was on the boat.
Kerry has been caught red handed in a whopper of a lie and there is nothing he can do about it. So much for a memory “seared, seared” into him.
Also, so far as the book goes, I’ve talked to a few people who work at a local bookstore and they say that the Swift Vet book is hot…hot as in sizzling hot…hot as in the book everyone wants…hot as in the book everyone has to have…hot as in the book everyone is talking about…
I’ve talked to a few people who work at a local bookstore and they say that the Swift Vet book is hot
Really?
Do they hold the same opinion of the book when you tell them that the publisher is going to use the money to fund a whites-only dating service?
It’s another idiotic slur from the left. Regnery Publishing, the publisher of Unfit for Command (as well as a whole host of other conservative titles) was founded by Henry Regnery in the 1940s. The person running the whites-only dating service is William Regnery, a notorious white supremicist who is related to Henry but has absolutely nothing to do with Regnery Books. The actual operations of Regnery is conducted by a woman named Marji Ross and Alfred Regnery.
So basically, the left is once again trying desperately to engage in an idiotic smear campaign rather than answer the charges.
Absolutely pathetic.
Regnery Publishing, the publisher of Unfit for Command (as well as a whole host of other conservative titles)
For instance, In Defense of Internment, which purports to defend American concentration camps, or Outrage, which makes a case against gay marriage.
If it’s books from the Looney Right you want, Regnery is your publisher.
The person running the whites-only dating service is William Regnery, a notorious white supremicist who is related to Henry but has absolutely nothing to do with Regnery Books.
Nothing to do?
He is, for one thing, heir to their assets. Moreover he’s a major figure in conservative/supremacist publishing, so I hardly see how one comes to the conclusion that he has “nothing to do” with Regnery Books.
The Swift Boat book makes money for Regnery Books. That makes money for William Regnery. He puts that money into his racist dating service.
Explain how what I said was a “slur” again?
So basically, the left is once again trying desperately to engage in an idiotic smear campaign rather than answer the charges.
The charges have been answered in other threads.
Well, I should say: I was wrong to say that the publisher was going to do that, but it’s certainly the case that proceeds from the Swift Boat book fund a number of unwholesome enterprises that persons of conscience should not be so excited to contribute to.
Are you equating the extremism of supporting american concentration camps with opposing gay marriage?
Well, I dunno.
They’re both questions of civil liberties. Does that make them equal? I don’t know that I’d say that. Fundamentally, though, they stem from the same issue – civil liberties.
I think it just makes me a civil libertarian.
I don’t think you can be a “civil libertarian” without upholding civil liberties, and choosing so-called “civil unions” over full-fledged marriage is a violation of civil liberties.
I’m sorry that you feel unfairly lumped with the rightists on this, but I don’t see how your position on civil liberties is substantially different.
I believe the whole area should be de-legalized.
I don’t really see how that makes sense. There’s a host of rights that come under the heading of marriage that couldn’t, for instance, be taken up via private contract law.
Unless what you mean is, you want the government to issue civil unions for everybody but churches to have the sole provenance of marriage?