Friday, August 20, 2004

I’m Telling the Truth, and I WILL NOT Prove It

I was always taught, as a young boy, that I should abstain from even the appearance of evil. Even if I am personally doing nothing improper, hanging around with reprobates or placing myself in compromising situations could certainly trump my (legitimate) claims of innocence.

For instance (and this is purely hypothetical), should my parents have accused me of smoking pot, denying them the right to search my bedroom at that moment, regardless of my innocence, would put me in a very bad light. If, for whatever reason, it was suspected on a trip to the store that I was shoplifting, refusing to empty my pockets would be rather damning. If indeed I was guilt-free, I would have thought it best to quickly and easily establish my innocence, and then question the reasoning and motives behind such insulting claims. I am a man of principles (certainly out of the norm for today’s society), but the principle of not answering what are, in my mind, insulting accusations can have serious negative repercussions. Sometimes it is best to destroy the charges and perhaps even make a power play out of it, rather than repeat “I am telling the truth” while offering no evidence to back it up.

Equally damning is Kerry's refusal to sign Form 180. If everything is as he says it is, and he is being maligned by people out to destroy him through any means for personal reasons (or through coordination with the Bush Campaign, why not?), what harm is there in releasing these records and destroying the libelous SBVT? The only reason any rational person can come up with is that he is indeed hiding from the truth. Such rational beings (i.e., me, Verny, and John Derbyshire) also realize that, should Kerry actually prove his veracity beyond a doubt (with a Form 180 disclosure backing up his claims) he would certainly destroy SBVT and probably even extend the destruction to the Bush campaign. We are forced to conclude that, in light of such a tantalizing and easily achieved political power play, Kerry is a lying sack of shit.

I would extend this recommendation of full disclosure to his divorce records. It was fine and dandy for the Democratic Machine to destroy Jack Ryan by demanding the unsealing of his divorce records, because of the embarrassing information therein contained. If Kerry has no such skeletons in his closet, why does he not prove it, now that his own party has established such practices as acceptable?

Kerry refuses to release any documents explaining, in credible and unambiguous terms, any of the controversial aspects of his past. Furthermore, he refuses to discuss any details of his plans for America in both domestic and foreign arenas, except to say he would do it "better." Apart from the fact that he isn't Bush this man is unknown, secretive, and very suspect.

Finally, to change the subject slightly, given the lack of a statute of limitations on war crimes, I think it would be nice to see him brought before a tribunal, using his own testimony under oath as evidence. Either he is convicted of the crimes he claimed, or else he's convicted of perjury. Either way, it's a win-win situation for America, with him sitting in a federal penitentiary and someone else sitting in the Senate Chamber (not that Kerry did so all that often anyway, but you get the idea).


At 11:11 PM, August 21, 2004 , Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Lying sack of shit" works for me.

Parkway Rest Stop


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home