Redstate

Well, not really -- unless you didn't know John Kerry is a serial exaggerator and embellisher-of-truths.  What the kids call "lying."

Dare we give away more?  Nah.

...and your teasers.  I hate waiting for stuff like this!

Dirt now, please.

Isn't this a few days early? The Bush DUI story came out on the Thursday before the election. If the story breaks a whole week before the election, it would give Kerry time to do damage control and cause a potential backlash.

BTW, Power Line is also reporting something similar.

If you know about it, and the Powerline boys know about it....you can bet Kerry knows about it and is going to be ready.

wonder how powerline heard?

you're all part of the vast Right-wing hive mind? LOL

However, given the fact that this is coming out on Monday instead of Thursday indicates that it's Republicans leaking this. Our guys are too stupid to wait until Thursday.

The Donks, otoh, will wait till Thursday to release a juicy sex charge involving either:

a. Bush and Condi Rice having an affair OR

b. Bush being exposed as SERIOUSLY closeted (which might make Andrew hold off on his long-awaited and tortured endorsement of Kerry...).

Now none of this will be true, of course, but enough libs will tut-tut about the "seriousness of the charge" that such a story might get legs before it begins to backfire.

Remember, nothing turns off Bush's base like a sex charge. The DUI thing came close, but it wasn't quite enough to turn the trick electorally. It did kill Bush in the popular vote, however. That's what the Dems want.

Trust me on this. I know my Donks. There WILL be a sex scandal, and it will break on Thursday.

There were no leaks on this story.  Just a group of bloggers who put two and two together and helped a story blossom to fruition.  Oh and it will be beautiful.

The lefties will probably be nuts by Monday.

Actually, I think the biggest story will break next Tuesday. It will be called, "Bush beats Kerry." Call it a "November Surprise."

The Dems have by now noticed that the MSM will feed on ANY anti-Bush story...and refuse to do anything approaching journalistic research on it!  

In the past there had to be a shred of evidence...no more.  This time it won't even matter if the ink is dry on the documents...they'll use them.  Then, AFTER the election, regardless of who wins they can get more mileage by exposing the scam.  

The thing messing with the Dems minds THIS time around is WHEN to release it???  The bloggers have shown more tenacity than anyone expected, and given enough time they can and will sniff it out.  Decisions...decisions...

However it pains me to say it. And I read it every day, generally. Saturday is the chess column and Civil War recollections.

Any story that breaks in the Washington Times will be ignored or get little play among the Kerryphiles in the Main Stream Media. For goodness sakes, have the Swiftboatvets or the "Stolen Honor" guys gotten a fair shake?

We're unduly exciting ourselves.

Given the (bullsh*t) "early voting" going on in several swing states, it can't hurt to get something that can hurt Kerry out there early.

I certainly hope that whatever this is- it is something that can be easily certified, not a complicated back and forth that can be glossed over like they did with the Swift Vet allegations.

pardon my ignorance, but what does "FUD" mean?

Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt.

There was the case of her introducing Bush as her "husband"....

Do we have a Lanny Davis type person that we just throw out there to refute these riduculous charges when the bomb is dropped on Thursday? Our biggest problem is that we never seem to have a whining Lanny Davis type person to throw out there.  If McCain could somehow be convinced to step up to plate, he would be be perfect to use in this situtation.

With the MSM it always the seriousness of the charge, not whether it has any validity.

Thanks, J!

as an early Christmas present, myself.

Kerry's been denouncing Bush for letting Osama escape from Tora Bora. Kerry is on the Intelligence Committee. The Intelligence Committee was told long ago that Osama was never trapped at Tora Bora- that he had escaped to Iran before we ever started bombing. Yet, even knowing it wasn't true, Kerry still hammered Bush for letting Osama escape. Just my theory

some atrocious conduct he committed during his anti-war days.  I still think there's got to be some gold left in there that can be mined.  

I didn't like Kerry's speech about flying jets in Israel etc. How can a friend of the U.N. and Michael Moore be a friend of Israel's? So I hope it's a story that proves all that was made-up as his trip to Cambodia.

And if so, what is it?

I think the Vietnam thing is played out.  Anybody who would be persuaded about that has already made up their mind.

My guess:  Have they busted him for the claim that he met with the UN Security Council before the vote authorizing the war.

In the course of looking for his specific quote, I found this story:

Kerry Says He Met With UN Security Council

This story, dated October 23, says in part:

The Washington Times conducted interviews with embassies of countries opposing the war in Iraq and concluded that there had been no meetings between Mr. Kerry and foreign heads of state since the beginning of 2003. After a review of Mr. Kerry's schedule, it was shown he had no opportunities for personal meetings with foreign heads of state, save one on September 24 when the New Zealand Foreign Minister was in Washington. Several foreign leaders including Germany's Schroeder and the Australian Foreign Minister deny any contact with Kerry.

So this shows that the Washington Times has been pursuing this story.  Maybe they have on-the-record statements contradicting Kerry.

Sorry, the story is not dated October 23.  It just shows today's date in the header of the webpage.  The actual release is from August.

But I stand by my theory...

I would say it has something to do with Iran. I suggest it has something to do with rumors of Iran connected contributions to the Kerry campaign.

"The Kerry-Edwards campaign is headed toward a campaign finance scandal involving contributions on behalf of a foreign power, similar to allegations that plagued Bill Clinton's re-election in 1996. Instead of Communist China, this time the foreign power seeking to influence a U.S. presidential candidate is the Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's premier state sponsor of international terror."

October Washington Times Commentary

I visited Powerline and the host stated it was about foreign policy, which Kerry's anti-war conduct is not.  Knowing that, for it to be effective, it must create a visceral reaction among voters, such as what the respondent below suggests -- receving illegal contributions from Iran.  Otherwise, I don't think it will be effective if it's too convoluted or esoteric -- e.g. Kerry claims to have met with members of the U.N. Council yet hadn't.  

Even if this has zero effect, it'll almost be worthwhile for what it does to the Left's fever swamps.

Thats it.

It's about Kerry's torrid mid-90s affair with Sid Blumenthal.

you just had to give away the story, didn't you.  "Ride me white boy" will soon be spread across the front page of the Washington Times.  

Dangit, Thomas.  You've spoiled everything.

If I might be only half-cheeky, let me say this:

I like it that we have to wait for the announcement -- because it means Kerry must wait also.

So why is that a good thing?

Because Kerry's emotional secret closet is walk-in size. So for two days he might have to wonder between his 'shoes, pants and shirts' trying to figure out just WHICH scandal will pop up.

But then, politics has a funny side -- if you can laugh at nuclear suitcase bomb destruction. Because why is a scandal needed to bring Kerry down when the clueless candidate promised to provide Iran with uranium. I mean, isn't that more than enough to make him unfit to screen passengers at the local airport, let alone run for elective office??  

"I would say it has something to do with Iran. I suggest it has something to do with rumors of Iran connected contributions to the Kerry campaign."

Does it have anything to do with his Iranian contributors trying to shut down the Iranian student movement? It could be that the contributors are connected with the mullahs. . . .

and it could tie in to the "giving nuclear fuel to Iran" issue. . . .

Links:

http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_3130.shtml

http://www.daneshjoo.org/smccdinews/article/publish/article_4293.shtml

http://www.daneshjoo.org/article/publish/article_3241.shtml

If "Cheney's daughter is a LESBIAN, but hey, there's nothing wrong with being a LESBIAN" hasn't scared away the religious right at this point, no stupid rumors about Bush and Condi will. Or Bush and McGreevy, or whatever they are going to try to sell.

Also, people remember the DUI surprise from 2000, they've seen the media whore for Kerry for 6 months, and they are much less credulous this time around. I think Bush is pretty bulletproof.

what makes you think kerry and his campaign don't already know what this is all about?

i think they already know, and they'll be prepared.

The Left is barely literate. They'll spend the next two days looking up "torrid," before they get to the rest of the sentence.

The greater power and harnessing of effective, underestimated resouces in putting together a powerful story in a short amount of time.

Kerry will be knocked off his feet by this one.

Even if I'm wrong, there aren't many ways to rebut this.

"i think they already know, and they'll be prepared. "

Right. Just like Kerry was prepared for the Swifties. He knew about O'Neill for 30 years, and it didn't occur to him that it might not be smart to base his entire campaign on Vietnam. Kerry isn't prepared for anything, which is one good reason not to let him in the White House.

erick, you say kerry will be knocked off his feet by this one. so YOU know what the story is, too?

and thomas, you say there aren't many ways to rebut this, but you have NO CLUE as to what "this" is.

both of you guys -- give me a break.

Have read, but can't remember where, that Mr. Edwards may have something to do with the lack of US production of flu vaccine. It seems that Edwards successfully sued the vaccine's manufacturer after it failed to protect his client from the flu. US production was shut down after this as the liabilities were deemed to out weight the benefits.

Your initial premises are incorrect.

Someone at LGF speculated:

It's something that the Kerry campaign will be forced to address regarding a previous criticism of Bush's foreign policy.

Bingo!

Proof that Osama is dead.

Based on this and whatever other info has been dug up.

I would rather it was something about Iran, which is more important, but this will do.

It would be fun if the exact "October surprise" that the moonbats are most afraid of turned out to be true. . . .

There are a few of us who know and know enough to have kept our mouths shut.

so there's proof that osama is dead -- but W had to keep it quiet?

so we're to believe NO ONE in the islamic world had any clue of this? NO ONE would've spread this info before this?

sorry, that's hard to believe.

If it's something the guys that run this site put together, then it can't be Tora Bora. It has to be something Kerry claimed he did but, after a lot of research, it was discovered he really didn't. SnowyF came up with the thing about Kerry claiming to fly a jet upside down in Israel. But that doesn't really have anything to do with Kerry criticizing Bush's foreign policy, so I'm not sure that qualifies. But it is a story he's been telling to audiences recently- especially Jewish ones in Florida and Ohio. Of course, kerry has been slamming Bush for his close ties to the Saudis. Perhaps Kerry has some close ties as well.

But, it's not so hard to pick up the phone and talk to people, conduct interviews, and examine evidence if you know where to look.

because finding OBL has nothing to do with Kerry directly.

I seriously doubt it is anything to do with OBL.  If there were evidence that he was dead, and administration has withheld it, it could very easily be spun as a trick by the Bush campaign.

I don't really see how evidence of OBL's death would damage Kerry's credibility.  True, he has been claiming that Bush let Osama escape, but compared to the effect of proving his death, that rhetorical BS would be a footnote.

I disagree that proving Kerry fabricated meetings with the Security Council wouldn't be a big hit.  If I'm not mistaken, he's said that multiple times, including once in a debate.  His whole foreign policy (such as it is) is predicated on his alleged diplomatic prowess.  If it turns out that he's just making up meetings with the security council, it will definitely hurt, although probably not as much as the DUI.

The main effect would be to put him on the defensive, and perhaps delay the media's final assault on Bush, which we all know is coming...

I don't think the newsroom at the Washington Times is as good. I'll bet the Kerry campaign knows what's coming; or, they'll have at least 12 hours notice. That doesn't mean they'll have an adequate response, but I don't think this will catch them flatfooted.

Great site by the way...

Iran backs Bush. All this who backs whom discussion is just garbage.

Has Saddam endorsed anyone? What about Kim Jong-Il? Castro?

Let's make it really dramatic:

Proof that Ta-RAY-za recruited Kerry to off her rich Republican husband.

Sort of a Double Indemnity thing. But with ketchup.

"because finding OBL has nothing to do with Kerry directly. "

It would make the "Tora Bora" accusations sound really dumb.

But the others have good points about how this could rebound.

I bet it's something about his Iranian supporters being connected to the mullahs.

If any media outlet had conclusive evidence that UBL is dead, I can't see sitting on it over a weekend.

More likely they would put out an "Extra" edition, to get the story on the street before tomorrow morning...

It may make the accusations sound dumb, but no one would fault him for the accusations unless he knew they were false when he made them. And if he knew they were false, this is no "surprise" to him.

Remember, someone said it would force Kerry to answer. I don't see any news about OBL forcing Kerry to do anything other than say "its news to me too". It would hardly be trapping him into any kind of lie he made. That is why I think OBL has nothing to do with any impending story that is going to make Kerry have to respond.

I saw this story, but, it never got any traction. Can anybody actually verify that the purported Iranian endorsement of Bush was valid? And even if it is the real McCoy, how do we acertain whether or not their intentions were true? Might they in fact fear a re-elected Dubya, and hope their "endorsement" of his candidacy will really help their preferred candidate, Mr. Kerry?

...about various sexual indescretions of the incumbent have been bandied about on various left-leaning sites now for months. One suspects similar rumors can be heard about most politicians this close to the election, because whisper campaigns are easy, and cheap, to implement. Those with substance may sometimes take root -- which tells me the efforts against this president are baseless (think Pinch Sulzberger would be sitting all this time on ammo that could remove a Republican from the White House?).

...it's a fairly damaging claim (though dodgy contributions can always be returned by a candidate who, perhaps rightly, claims his campaign can't be responsible for rapidly screening the identity of every contributor who comes along).

But, the thing is, this is the first I've heard of this particular week-old story. The MSM treat the Washington Times like the plague. So, just saying I hope this is not the only media outlet that's breaking the big story on Monday. It may as well "break" on a blogspot site that was abandoned last February.

Much Freeper speculation about Kerry getting contribution from the Kosovo Liberation Army.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1254938/posts?page=51

At the very least, there's some interesting video of Wes Clark and Rich Holbrooke yucking it up with this KLA frontman at a fundraiser.

The AFP (yes, the Agence France-Presse) article based on the same interview is (strangely) more accurate. The AP story left out the most important quote, which is highlighted below. Upon reading it is clear why.

TEHRAN, Oct 19 (AFP) - It makes no real difference to Iran whether US President George W. Bush or Democrat contender John Kerry wins the presidential elections, a senior Iranian official said Tuesday.

"It makes no difference for us which of the two parties wins the elections", Iran's top national security official Hassan Rowhani said in an interview on state television.

This was just the MSM looking for a way to combat Arafat's endorsement of Kerry.

snopes.com has looked into this one .

I knew the Iranian Bush endorsement sounded fishy. This MEMRI video transcript, from 6/19/2004, of Iranian Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli urging the American people to vote against Bush says otherwise.

The more I read the more weird this is... I am starting to think that it has something to do with the UN and the Iraq security counsel vote. Maybe Kerry pushing the French to veto the final Iraq resolution? They did tell Powell that France would not veto.. Just another steel pennies worth...

Mark

i think this story might be ignored -- tomorrow's going to be all about bill clinton returning to campaign for kerry.

Could it be about his ties to the Iranians?

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=14977

swhitebull

"The Left is barely literate..."

That's a new one on me, I thought the left was the party of effete intellectuals.  Thomas, where does that come from?

Cheers -

But you're probably right; I probably just read too much dKos.

Maybe it will be as earth-shattering as that PRROF of Iraq WMDs that was posted on CNS News that redstate linked to earlier. (Hmmm, whatever did happen to that?).

I think that we will find that Kerry himself or a very close connection was involved in the Oil for Food scandal and that this is not just coming out.  

Anything will do so long as it keeps that schmuck from getting elected.  I cannot even fathom just how bad a president Kerry would be.  He would even give Jimmeh a run for the money as worst president of all time.

i wonder what the kerry campaign will throw against bush this week?

any ideas about aqn october surprise from the democrats?

because there has been so much that has come out about Kerry which has been swept under the rug time and time again.  The Dems know what kind of person he is and they don't care.  We know what kind of person he is.  If it isn't big news it won't go anywhere and we're wasting our breath.  

That said, he probably bribed Saddam or some big figure or at least received a big quid pro quo like finding Kerry with his hands red from accepting North Korean money or diplomacy.  Or even in cahoots with the UN.  Hey! my imagination can be as good as the next person's.

Good stuff... but I think it will be buried.  So John Kerry lied in his debate.

The guy who said Clinton will trump it is right.  Drudge even buried it.

"The Dems know what kind of person he is and they don't care."

I agree there are rabid Dems who know and don't care.   Lots of them, really.

 But Moderate Dems, (who though an endangered species still exist), don't really know, since the legacy media has refused to tell them, ( and it refers to the Swifties as "disputed/discredited", etc, etc, etc), and those type of Dems perhaps don't spend time reading "screw them" Kos.

Ya know... If I never listened to talk radio, never read blogs, if, I say, "if" I got all my news from cBS and the L.a. Times, why, I might think that Kerry was a good guy too!