IT'S NOT ABOUT INTERNS
When John Kerry returned home from Vietnam with a chest full of medals, he had two choices. He could either support the hard work of his fellow heroes and defenders of freedom, or he could inspire his fellow countrymen to spit on them and call them baby killers. He chose the latter. He chose poorly.

Welcome back, Kerry.

WITNESSES TO BUSH IN GUARD

Turns out that there are people who remember working with President Bush in the National Guard. But you probably won't read about them in the "national" media.

Instead you have to look for local stories from places as far ranging as Western New York and the Deep South.

From the Buffalo, New York, area comes this account:

"A Town of Tonawanda man says he remembers George Bush working just as hard as any other young pilot in training when he served in the National Guard...Jack Lang ...was an Air Force flight instructor in 1968 at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia. He was one of eight instructors for Bush and other who were learning how to fly jet fighters for various units including the Air National Guard in Texas. Lang says he knows none of the instructors would cut any student a break in the training because they all needed to know how to fly the supersonic planes with the possibility they could be sent into combat."

And, according to the Birmingham News:

Joe LeFevers, a member of the 187th in 1972, said he remembers seeing Bush in unit offices ...in Montgomery."

The President has proven his service. First through official records, and now through eyewitnesses.

It's time for even the liberal media to move on, as much as they don't want to.

DOES KERRY HAVE A MONICA?
Drudge says maybe so. Perhaps this is why Dean and Edwards are still in the race. And who's pushing this besides Clark? Must be a Democrat, because the Republicans certainly would have waited until the nomination was locked up.

KERRY'S VEEP
So the speculation begins, and is often wrong when suggesting that a Kerry-Edwards ticket would have trouble winning North Carolina. With all of the Panthers-in-the-Super-Bowl like coverage the Edwards has been getting here, I'm sure that Kerry-Edwards would be the odds on favorites to snag the Tar Heel state's 15 electoral votes.

But I still think the safe pick is what Kerry will make. He's not shown much history of stepping out on a limb for principle. It's all about safe political calculation - so he'll probably pick Gephardt and hope to get Missouri's 11 electoral votes out of the Republican column.

Here's some other speculation from National Review. I've got one question: Jim Hunt? Are you serious. Can you imagine Jim Hunt and John Kerry standing side by side? Or a Hunt/Cheney debate?

REASONS WHY THEY ARE AGAINST THE LIBERATION OF IRAQ
Democrats, especially those who voted to authorize any military action the President deemed necessary, are having a particularly difficult time coming up with the reason they oppose(d) the war. Their reasons have evolved over time, and bear no relation to any facts available in 2002, when war was authorized by Congress. Here's their anti-war evolution.

First, Dems supported military action by passing the resolution authorizing the use of force.

Then, they said they didn't mean to vote for it, we shouldn't go unless the U.N. says (again) it's OK.

Then, when most of the Security Council said OK, they said we shouldn't go because France didn't say OK.

Then, when we found out that maybe Saddam wasn't getting uranium from Africa, they said we shouldn't have gone because they only voted for the resolution because Bush said Saddam was getting uranium from Africa.

Then, they realized Bush didn't say this (if at all) until after the vote, so they said they opposed the war because it was almost summertime.

Then, they argued that it was too dangerous to go to war because Saddam would surely use chemical and biological weapons.

Then, they argued it was too dangerous because we might actually destroy some chemical and bio weapons and release them into the air, just like we did in 1991, causing Gulf War Syndrome.

Then, they opposed the war because we didn't win in 1 week.

Then, they opposed the war because we didn't win in 2 weeks.

Then, they opposed the war because we won in 3 weeks, which proved that Iraq wasn't really dangerous.

Then, they opposed the war because it didn't take 3 days to reestablish stability and security in Baghdad.

Then, they opposed the war because Saddam escaped and was leading a resistance.

Then, they opposed the war because we didn't have a plan for capturing Saddam.

Then, we captured Saddam and they opposed the war because Saddam wasn't really dangerous anyway and we weren't any better off having caught him.

Then, they opposed the war because David Kay only found weapons labs and illegal missiles but no actual WMDs.

Explaining why John Kerry is against the war may be more simple than all that. Because Bush is for it. Although, it could be because he thinks that the United Nations should control our military. In 1970, he said:

I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.

Since he once argued that we shouldn't go to war in Iraq (he didn't seem to think this way about Serbia) without the approval of France and Russia, perhaps he still thinks this way. Sounds like a job for Tim Russert.

WHY DO VETERANS SUPPORT KERRY?
Maybe there's something about the camaraderie and shared experience that would lead veterans to support John Kerry. I keep hearing how they love him, and Democrats think it is so important to support someone who fought in Vietnam over someone who avoided the fighting to serve in the National Guard. I'm guessing these are the same Democrats who supported George H.W. Bush, who volunteered at 17 and fought in the Pacific, in 1992 and Bob Dole, who lost the use of his right arm in WWII, in 1996 over the military-loather-in-chief.

It's even harder for me to understand how Vietnam Veteran's can support John Kerry after he called them rapists and war criminals. Or when he equates National Guard service to fleeing to Canada or jail to avoid the war.

And now, there's a lovely picture of him with Hanoi Jane herself. Maybe veterans are getting to know the person now being called Hanoi John by Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry.

YOU CAN WASTE TIME WITH YOUR FRIENDS WHEN YOUR CHORES ARE DONE
Finally, some really important news. The original Star Wars trilogy will be released on DVD in September. Finally. And to all the fanboys who complain about George Lucas raping their childhood memories by only releasing the Special Editions, then be sure to turn off the 5.1 Dolby Digital surround sound when watching your old VHS tapes.

MORALLY BANKRUPT ARGUMENTS
To highlight the ignorance and outright lies of the Democrats and other second guessers and monday morning commanders-in-chief, President Bush needs to be, well, more articulate. Here's what he needs to say:

I understand the complaints about the faulty intelligence that said Iraq had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and we will do everything we can to make the CIA better at its central mission and to prevent such intelligence failures in the future. Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about the intelligence agencies of the rest of the world who also concluded that Iraq had stockplies of WMDs. It was that very conclusion, which was reached by Republicans, Democrats, British, French, German and Russian alike, as well as Kofi Anon, that led the U.N. Security Council to unanimously approve Resolution 1441.

Based on the best facts that we and the rest of the world had available, and that we and the rest of the world believed, we took action. No one argued that the intelligence was false or that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. In fact, by resolution overwhelmingly passed in 1998, the U.S. Congress (including John Kerry) agreed with the Clinton Administration that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and that regime change was necessary.

Those who argued last year that we shouldn't go to war to take down Saddam Hussein never argued against war because they thought the intelligence was wrong. They argued that, despite the presence of such dangerous weapons, they would choose to do nothing.

That's the debate I look forward to in this campaign. Why would you do nothing if faced with facts that were universally accepted? Why would you risk the security of our people? I wouldn't take that risk, I didn't take that risk, and I don't regret any decision I made.

BUSH 290 KERRY 248
Electionprojection.com has it's new data up and it shows a very close race. The difference from 2000 is that Bush wins Iowa and New Mexico, although Election Projection indicates that these numbers are soft. Based on this, I'd say a lot of states are in play. Louisiana, West Virginia, New Hampshire and Florida certainly shouldn't be taken for granted by Republicans, and the Democrats should focus on protecting Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Oregon. And Kerry's VP pick could put any number of states into play. He won't make the same mistake that Al Gore made. He'll pick someone that will ensure a win in a state that Gore lost. Evan Bayh of Indiana, maybe? For this reason, he may not pick Edwards. Conventional wisdom is that Edwards would not have retained his North Carolina Senate seat and Bush had a big win in NC in 2000.

For similar reasons, I wouldn't be suprised if Cheney decided to step down "for health reasons." Wyoming's 3 electoral votes aren't much help and they are guaranteed Republican votes anyway. If Cheney goes, look for Bush to put New York into play.

STICK A FORK IN 'EM
Unless Kerry has a Muskie Moment, a Dean Scream or a Hart "follow me" incident, it's all over for Clark and Edwards, which means Edwards won't have to answer meaningless questions from George Stephanopolous that are designed to bleed off any remaining support by getting him to admit he'd be OK as the number 2 on the ticket. It also means the Democrats have picked a Massachusetts liberal and former lieutenant governor to electoral monster Mike Dukakis as their nominee.