Dems: Kerry's Senate Record Off-Limits, Too
September 3, 2004
Democrats are afraid the people are going to find out about John Kerry's Senate record. That's the only way you can explain their incessant accusations that Republicans are being mean and angry when they merely discuss his record.
The idea that Democrats have been selling is that a factual airing of their default presidential candidate's record is dirty politics.
Following Sen. Zel Miller's convention speech, the cable shows were flooded with handwringing liberals beside themselves over the "meanness" of Miller's remarks. The newspapers followed with "news" stories and editorials registering the same complaint.
The Associated Press reported, "Republicans are satisfying their convention delegates with an angry vision of the presidential race and attacks on Democratic nominee John Kerry, but it won't play well with voters in the closing weeks of the campaign, Democrats said Thursday."
Sen. Edwards told "Today" show anchor Matt Lauer, "What we heard from the Republicans in that hall last night was an enormous amount of anger." Edwards called the GOP criticisms of John Kerry "completely over the top" and said they made him mad. Watch that anger there, Senator.
I don't deny that Zel Miller delivered his remarks with a healthy flavor of righteous indignation at a party that has left him and other conservative Democrats, a party whose presidential candidate is the most liberal senator in America with an abominable record on defense.
Senator Miller has a right to be upset. We're in the middle of a war, and his party has selected a man who has made a career of emasculating our intelligence services and our military readiness. We are not playing games here.
That's why I was incredulous when Chris Matthews asked Miller last night how his speech was going to further the goal of promoting harmony among the parties and the people (my crude paraphrase). These conventions are not about promoting national harmony, but the business of selecting candidates who can lead the nation in these exceedingly dangerous times.
But Chris Matthews' question reveals the liberal mindset. They act more interested in advancing the Rodney King credo: "Why can't we all just get along?" than in adopting proactive policies to safeguard our national security. That explains why John Kerry is always so preoccupied with currying the favor of French and German leaders.
But the dirty little secret is that Democrats just pay empty lip service to promoting harmony. They've been sniping at President Bush for four years now, and it has been petty, nasty, mean-spirited and, yes, angry.
Their real gambit was to keep the public's eye off John Kerry's Senate record. Their bizarre premise has been that Kerry's allegedly distinguished combat record alone qualifies him to be commander in chief -- no matter what he has done since.
Putting aside damning questions about Kerry's Vietnam service and his anti-war crusade thereafter, it is simply ridiculous to say that one's ostensible heroism of 35 years ago justifies a gag order on his record ever since.
Yet that's what Chris Matthews implied when he said, "The idea that (Kerry) is going to shoot spitballs in defense of a country that he risked his life to defend some years ago is a personal attack on the guy." Then he asked Sen. Miller: "Do you believe … Senator, truthfully, that John Kerry wants to defend the country with spitballs? Do you believe that?"
Of course he believes that, Chris, which is why he said it. And he cited Kerry's Senate record to prove it. And it is not a personal attack, unless you consider the accurate depiction of Kerry's anti-defense record a personal attack.
What are personal attacks are when Sen. Kerry, during his convention speech, said he will not mislead the nation into war and will restore trust to the office. And it's a personal attack for Matthews to suggest that Sen. Miller is lying -- saying something he doesn't believe to pander to the GOP audience. But he does believe it, Chris, or he wouldn't even be speaking at the GOP convention.
People should be very suspicious that Kerry put all his presidential eggs in his Vietnam basket, especially since that basket is so full of holes. We have a right to know what Sen. Kerry is hiding? I'm talking about his Senate career here. Why is he trying to cover it up?
Nothing could be more preposterous than for Democrats to cry foul when the Republicans are merely trying to publicize the truth about Sen. Kerry's voting record. If that's dirty politics, then Democrats must think Kerry's Senate record is shameful. And they're right.
Sinclair...No Guts, No Glory!
Written by JB Williams
The much anticipated broadcast of Stolen Honor turned out to be a non-report. By the time Sinclair Broadcasting Company finished editing to suit the Kerry camp and the DNC, almost all of the story ended up on the cutting room floor…
The most important questions surrounding Senator John Kerry’s fitness for office of Commander-in-Chief remain unasked and unanswered, even after the Sinclair broadcast.
Why has Senator John Kerry refused to confront his accusers personally, even after being chased across the country by Sinclair?
If he is right, and has nothing to hide, why has Senator John Kerry still not signed DOD Standard Form 180 releasing his secret military records, as Al Gore, John McCain and George W. Bush did before the 2000 election?
Why did Senator John Kerry not receive an honorable discharge from the Navy until March of 2001?
Did John Kerry personally witness Vietnam atrocities, or was he simply grandstanding under oath, repeating rumor and innuendo in 1971, for political purposes?
How is it possible that 254 SwiftVets, countless POW’s, almost 80% of our active duty military and more than 70% of our retired military could be wrong about John Kerry, which is what would have to happen in order for John Kerry to be right?
With only ten days remaining until Election Day, it is clear that we will never get the answers to these questions… Kerry has succeeded in making his challenged 3 month war career the center piece of his candidacy, while avoiding answering any of the questions surrounding those 3 months, or the years that followed…
Sinclair set out to tell the most important story of this election, one no mainstream media outlet would touch with a ten foot pole. But even Sinclair lost their nerve when push came to shove, and the Kerry camp once again blocked an attempt to let the truth come out.
In the end, the Sinclair story was a complete waste of 60 minutes of airtime, an embarrassment to the network, and a resounding message to the American people concerning the future of free speech in America.
Those who wish to see Stolen Honor in its entirety can do so at the link provided below.
What a sad day it is in America, when the truth about someone seeking the office of Commander-in-Chief, is intentionally kept from the very people who must choose who will fill that seat.
Major networks bow to Kerry camp
Posted: October 23, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
"Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" is a documentary that deals with John Kerry's testimony to Congress in 1971 – in which he testified that U.S. forces routinely committed atrocities in Vietnam.
This film includes interviews with 13 former U.S. prisoners of war who recall that their Vietnamese captors used Kerry's comments to undercut prisoner morale.
Would any of America's major TV networks be willing to televise this undeniably newsworthy and deeply moving documentary?
Not surprisingly, they refused.
So, Sinclair Broadcasting, nationally headquartered in Hunt Valley, Md., agreed to feature much of this documentary on all 62 television stations it owns – with its pre-empting whatever was previously scheduled – two weeks prior to election day.
Sinclair is the largest broadcast group in the U.S. and reaches 24 percent of all U.S. households with television.
This decision made the Kerry campaign absolutely livid. Spokesman David Wade called the film "lies" and "a smear" while denouncing Sinclair as "another one of Bush's corporate friends trying to help him."
But Sinclair's vice president of corporate relations, Mark Hyman, said: "This is a powerful story. The networks are acting like Holocaust-deniers and pretending the POWs don't exist. It would be irresponsible to ignore them."
I learned from Hyman, a 1981 graduate of the Naval Academy, that this documentary was first offered to ABC, CBS, NBC and Public Broadcasting – all of whom refused because the Kerry campaign refused to provide anyone to refute it.
It is interesting indeed to learn from whom these Democrat-dominated networks take their orders.
Chad Clanton, a Kerry spokesman, declared:
"It's hard to take an offer seriously from a group that is hellbent on doing anything to help elect President Bush, even if that means violating basic journalism standards."
But Hyman noted: "Clearly, John Kerry has made his Vietnam service the foundation of his presidential run; this is an issue that is certainly topical."
The New York Times reports:
"A group of Democratic senators, including Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Dianne Feinstein of California, readied a letter calling for the Federal Communications Commission to investigate the move, arguing that the documentary was not news but a prolonged political advertisement from Mr. Bush and, as such, violated fairness rules."
Is there any evidence at all that any funds for this documentary came from the Bush campaign?
If there were, we can be near-certain that the New York Times and these Senate letter-writers would have listed it.
Among the 13 former prisoners of war in this documentary, there are two recipients of the Medal of Honor.
Kerry spokesman Wade and everyone else in the campaign should be asked:
"Which one of these Medal of Honor recipients and other former POWs does Senator Kerry believe is telling either 'lies' or 'smears' as Wade claims?"
And why, if there are any lies or smears, is John Kerry unwilling to appear on 62 TV stations – with all his military records – to try to prove these POWs and Swift Boat Veterans are not telling the truth?
Kerry's Dishonorable Discharge
October 23, 2004
"Never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing..."
"Reporting for duty"? For a guy who's hitched his entire presidential campaign to his military service record, John Kerry sure is parsimonious when it comes to releasing that record. As noted in this column on more than one occasion, Kerry has consistently refused to sign a Standard Form 180 authorizing the Department of Defense to release all of his records.
George W. Bush's military records were so spotless that Dan Rather gleefully trotted out some fabricated documents in order to kick up a little dust. Of course, if Rather were a real journalist rather than just a TV talking head, he might actually develop a source who could find out what the remaining (approximately 100) pages in Kerry's DoD service jacket reveal.
What, exactly, is Kerry hiding? It is already common knowledge that most of his celebrated heroics were spurious, and that most of his medals were without merit (see "Kerry's Quagmire" at http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/ ). But given that the cat's already out of the bag, why not just sign the Standard Form 180?
For his part, Kerry claims he received an "Honorable Discharge" and that all his records have been released and are posted on his website, Kerry-04.com -- uh, make that JohnKerry.com. But Kerry has refused to say when he received an Honorable Discharge. Indeed, some of his military records are posted on his site -- but not all of them. Here, an experienced eye can read enough into what has been released by Kerry to develop a good profile of what hasn't been released.
It is our considered opinion, therefore, that John Kerry was separated from the military under a less than honorable discharge.
Among Kerry's released records is a 1977 cover letter from Jimmy Carter's Navy Secretary, W. Graham Claytor. What is revealing about this document is that it notes Kerry's original discharge was subject to review by a "board of officers" -- yet no such review should be necessary for an Honorable Discharge.
The review was conducted in accordance with "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163," which pertains to grounds for involuntary separation from military service.
As many Vietnam veterans who served their nation with dignity and honor will recall, Jimmy Carter's first official act as president was the signing of Executive Order 4483 --less than an hour after his inauguration on 21 January 1977. EO 4483 provided general amnesty for draft evaders, war protesters and other offenders of that era. Its corresponding, and equally dubious, DoD directive took effect in March of 1977, expanding that amnesty to include separation from military service by other than honorable discharges. The DoD specified an appeal procedure whereby discharges could be reviewed on an individual basis to determine whether the status of a particular discharge could be revised.
Having lost his first bid for Congress, Kerry no doubt decided that his political future would be brighter as a war hero rather than a war protestor. While there are several categories of discharges beneath honorable, including general, medical, bad conduct and other than honorable, it is very likely that Kerry's discharge was dishonorable.
Supporting this assertion is the fact that Kerry had all his medals mysteriously reinstated in 1985. He claims that he lost his medal certificates (perhaps these are what he famously threw over that Capitol fence in protest), but when a military officer is subject to a Dishonorable Discharge, in addition to the loss of pay benefits and allowances, all medals and honors are revoked. In any case, it would be a cinch for John Kerry to refute our claim by simply signing that Standard Form 180. But he won't. Nor will hard-hitting journalists like Katie Couric and Dr. Phil press him on this issue.
Thus, while Kerry can correctly say -- thanks to Jimmy Carter -- that he received an Honorable Discharge, he could also say with equal precision that he received "other than honorable discharge." His activities as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were, indeed, forgiven by Carter's EO 4483 and the subsequent DoD directive.
However, according to legal scholars, John Kerry's meetings with enemy agents from Communist North Vietnam on multiple occasions between 1970 and 1972 are not covered under EO 4483. For that reason, we delivered to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft on Monday of this week a "Petition for Investigation and Indictment," calling on the Department of Justice to determine conclusively whether Kerry's actions, in direct violation of UCMJ (Article 104 part 904), U.S. Code (18 USC Sec. 2381 and 18 USC Sec. 953) and other applicable laws and acts of Congress, constitute treason. (To read the text of the petitioners' request, go to http://patriotpetitions.us/kerry/letter.asp )
Why prosecute Kerry now?
In October, 2003, Mr. Kerry chose to make his disputed Vietnam War record the centerpiece of his campaign for the presidency. In response, the more than 180,000 signatories of the above-referenced petition chose to make Mr. Kerry's war record the centerpiece of their campaign to determine whether his actions are subject to the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3.
The pertinent language states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
While it is clear that no action will be taken on the petitioners' request prior to 2 November, we remain committed to holding Senator Kerry accountable for his actions regardless of the outcome of his presidential bid. Indeed, we are all committed to serving Kerry with an irrevocable dishonorable discharge from public office.
Quote of the week...
"They're the men who served with John Kerry in Vietnam. They're his entire chain of command, most of the officers in Kerry's unit. ... And they're the men who spent years in North Vietnamese prison camps. Tortured for refusing to confess to what John Kerry accused them of being -- war criminals. ... Why is this relevant? Because character and honesty matter. Especially in a time of war."
--Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and POWs for Truth in their most recent ad on Kerry's war record and character.
"On more than one occasion, Senator Kerry has referred to the fight at Tora Bora in Afghanistan during late 2001 as a missed opportunity for America. He claims that our forces had Osama bin Laden cornered and allowed him to escape. ... As commander of the allied forces in the Middle East, I was responsible for the operation at Tora Bora, and I can tell you that the senator's understanding of events doesn't square with reality. ... Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never 'took his eye off the ball' when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist cells are operating in some 60 countries, and the United States, in coordination with dozens of allies, is waging this war on many fronts."
--General Tommy Franks
Operation Red Nuisance Rising
When: Saturday, 23 Oct. 2004, 12:00 - 6:00 pm
Where: Union Square, NYC, near N/R Subway Stop
Who: Politburo and all Lumpenproletariat
Consider this an official call to arms. Mark your calendars! It is time to don your Communists For Kerry uniforms and rally with your Politburo in Soviet Union Square this Saturday. The hour is upon us to stage our final revolutions leading up to the last free election of our Motherland. We can NOT take over the Red House without your help! It is your duty to spread the word. We will have your favorite CommunistsForKerry Pink-O ladies on the front lines for photo archiving purposes.
Attendance is mandatory. We know where you live. If you are wheelchair bound we will send Komrad Kerry for emergency healing.
Viva la Revolucion!
My office is in the same building as the local office for the Terrorist Union. For the last month, I have been finding little notes on my car. The first one was a somewhat incoherent and rambling indictment against my President, George W. Bush. The last one simply called me an asshole.
That's okay, I can take it, I've been called worse, but quite frankly, these people scare me. They scare me almost as much as they scared three year old Sophia Parlock.
This is the United States of America, the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. They won't scare me into taking the Bush/Cheney sign off of my truck.
They are nothing but a union of terrorist wanna be thugs and they are the heart and soul of what is wrong with America today. There is no rationalization or justification for what those animals did Sophia Parlock.
To terrorize a three year old for the crime of holding up a Bush/Cheney sign is despicable. It is beyond my comprehension that any American can support Saddam Hussien and terrorize a three year old girl and yet, they do just that.
That is their vision for America. It ain't mine.
Now, they are at the polls in my state, and probably yours too, using intimidation tactics, and threatening physical violence to those who oppose their agenda.
Watch for those purple shirts people. They represent domestic terrorism and they symbolize the end of America as we know it.
October 22, 2004
Pa. Dems Working Hard to Cancel Military Vote
Some very disturbing reports out of Pennsylvania indicate that the hyper-partisan Democrat Gov. Ed Rendell and the former Kerry campaign official he just put in charge of monitoring the state's election for problems such as fraud are working overtime to make sure that the votes of some 16,000 military voters aren't counted. As polls show roughly 75 percent of the military vote is likely to President Bush, this represents a clear attempt to deny Bush as many as 12,000 votes in Pennsylvania. Remember that if the PA vote count is close.
Blogs for Bush and PowerLine have posts on the brewing story. The basics: Pennsylvania mailed out absentee ballots to residents currently living out of state, including military voters overseas but also voters temporarily residing in other states. Those ballots included Ralph Nader as one of the choices, but a Pennsylvania court later ruled Nader ineligible for the ballot. New absentee ballots were sent out just a few days ago, and Gov. Rendell - who chaired the Democratic National Committee during part of the Clinton presidency - is refusing to extend the deadline for voters to return them.
Meanwhile, vote already cast on absentee ballots that listed Nader will be tossed out. Those votes will not count and those voters will not have sufficient time to receive, complete, and return a new ballot.
The latest poll has Bush and Kerryy virtually dead even in Pennsylvania.
If you spot a news story about suspected voter fraud in your part of the country, please send me the link and a brief summary to voterfraud-at-gmail.com.
Thought for the day!
"Poor John Kerry:"
He throws away someone else's medals.
He drives someone else's SUV.
He marries someone else's wife.
And he inherits someone else's money.
I think we should all vote for him to be president of someone else's country
I am a Republican--AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE
The Ultimate Obituary
Thursday, Oct. 21, 2004
New York Times: Every Network Should Show 'Stolen Honor'
The first sentence of the New York Times' review today of "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" was what we expected: It said Sinclair Broadcast Group should not show the documentary. Then the pro-Kerry daily explained why in a stunning recommendation:
"It should be shown in its entirety on all the networks, cable stations and on public television."
This is the same paper that ran such a bizarre, hateful campaign against Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" and trashed "Unfit for Command" while touting Kitty Kelley's anti-Bush gossip?
TV reviewer Alessandra Stanley indicates she doesn't like the fact that "Stolen Honor" will hinder Sen. John Kerry's candidacy, but she nonetheless advises that "it does help viewers better understand the rage fueling the unhappy band of brothers who oppose Mr. Kerry's candidacy and his claim to heroism."
This film is payback time, a chance to punish one of the most famous antiwar activists, Mr. Kerry, the one who got credit for serving with distinction in combat, then, through the eyes of the veterans in this film, went home to discredit the men left behind. The film begins with dirgelike music and a scary black-and-white montage of stark images of soldiers and prisoners as a deep voice sorrowfully intones, "In other wars, when captured soldiers were subjected to the hell of enemy prisons, they were considered heroes." The narrator adds, "In Vietnam they were betrayed."
The imagery is crude, but powerful: each mention of Mr. Kerry's early 1970's meeting with North Vietnamese government officials in Paris is illustrated with an old black-and-white still shot of the Arc de Triomphe, an image that to many viewers evokes the Nazi occupation of Paris. ...
The film's producer, Carlton Sherwood, a former investigative reporter and a Vietnam veteran, gives his own testimony, explaining that even though he has uncovered all kinds of misdeeds in his career, the history of Mr. Kerry's antiwar activism is "a lot more personal." He recalls listening to Mr. Kerry's testimony in 1971, saying, "I felt an inner hurt no surgeon's scalpel could remove."
That pain is the main theme of the documentary, which can be seen in its entirety on the Internet for $4.99. One former P.O.W., John Warner, lashes out at Mr. Kerry for having coaxed Mr. Warner's mother to testify at the Winter Soldier Investigation, where disgruntled veterans testified to war crimes they committed. Calling it a "contemptible act," Mr. Warner, who spent more than five years as a prisoner, tells the camera that Mr. Kerry was the kind of man who preyed on a mother's grief "purely for the promotion of your own political agenda."
Little Saigon voters aren't rushing to embrace John Kerry
WESTMINSTER, Calif. - Here in the teeming markets and cafes of Little Saigon, the shifting political loyalties of Vietnamese American voters are evident when conversation turns to November's presidential election.
Westminister and neighboring Garden Grove, which make up the nation's largest Vietnamese community, have long been Republican strongholds, but generational changes and misgivings over President Bush's policies have weakened GOP support among Vietnamese Americans.
Still, despite concerns about Bush, the Iraq war and a lackluster economy, few are rushing to embrace his Democratic challenger, Sen. John Kerry, who has made his Vietnam War military service a centerpiece of his presidential bid.
Most Vietnamese Americans respect that Kerry, unlike Bush, risked his life and fought the Communists as a swift boat captain on the Mekong Delta. It's what Kerry did when he returned from the battlefield that angers them.
Many here resent the Massachusetts senator for protesting the Vietnam War as a young veteran, engaging with Vietnam's Communist leaders and not taking a tougher stance on human rights and democracy in their homeland.
Bush also supported engagement with Vietnam, but Kerry gained notoriety in the Vietnamese community as the senator who worked to normalize U.S.-Vietnam relations and blocked legislation that would have tied U.S. aid to improvements in Vietnam's human rights record.
That has provided plenty of ammunition for Vietnamese Republicans to blast the Democratic presidential hopeful, and made it difficult even for Democratic activists to vote for Kerry, let alone stump for him.
"It's a very sensitive issue for anyone who's a registered Democrat," said Xuan Vu, 31, a community activist and Democrat in Orange County. "People feel very hesitant about Kerry. If they vote for Kerry, it's really about how much they dislike Bush."
Russ Lopez, California spokesman for the Kerry-Edwards campaign, declined to comment.
In the decades since the Communists prevailed in Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese, many with links to the South Vietnamese government and army, have immigrated to the United States. More than 1 million now live in the United States, with growing communities in San Jose, Houston, Northern Virginia. Orange County has the most people of Vietnamese descent - 130,000 according to the 2002 census.
Their story is similar to that of Cuban Americans, another traditionally Republican voting bloc whose loyalties are shifting along with a new generation of voters. But Cubans have much more influence, since they're concentrated in the swing state of Florida. Vietnamese are more scattered, with their largest communities in solidly Democratic California.
In Little Saigon, the broad boulevards are lined with shopping centers packed with restaurants, banks, realtors, doctors, travel agents and supermarkets catering to Vietnamese patrons. Reflecting their growing political clout, the streets are plastered with campaign signs for Vietnamese candidates running for the school board, city council, and mayor's office. This year, there's also a state assembly candidate, Van Tran, who would be the nation's highest-ranking Vietnamese-American if elected to the California Legislature.
Opposition to Vietnam's Communists remains fierce here, at least among the most politically vocal. Earlier this year, the city councils of Westminster and Garden Grove passed resolutions to ban Communists from visiting their communities. Five years ago, some 15,000 people demonstrated for nearly two months when a video store owner displayed a Vietnamese flag and a portrait of communist leader Ho Chi Minh.
As voters, Vietnamese Americans have traditionally backed the GOP because of the Republican Party's strong stance against Communism. But that's changing. Between 1992 and 2002, the share of Vietnamese registered Republicans in Orange County fell from about 60 percent to about one-third, as more voters identified themselves as independents and Democrats, according to Christian Collet, a political scientist at the University of California, Irvine.
"The segment of the community that participates remains in vigorous opposition to the government of Vietnam," Collet said. "What you have seen in recent years, however, is a greater willingness of younger Vietnamese Americans to speak out and oppose this view."
Vietnamese who grew up in the United States tend to be more socially liberal and less Republican than their parents. They worry more about education, jobs and the economy than about communism and U.S.-Vietnam relations.
"The party of Bush is bringing America down. We need to change to the Democrats," said Dang Tran, 37, a truck driver who lives in Lawndale. "We don't need to talk about the Vietnam war anymore. That was a long time ago."
But growing support for the Democrats doesn't necessarily translate into votes for John Kerry.
Many older immigrants remember him as the angry young veteran who railed against the Vietnam War and tossed his medals at an anti-war rally in the nation's capital.
"He's a communist sympathizer like Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden," said Ky Ngo, 51, a longtime Republican activist in Orange County. "We lost the country because of him. He helped the Communists when he spoke very badly about the war. He slandered our soldiers."
Kerry is also remembered as the Senate subcommittee chairman who blocked the Vietnam Human Rights Act after it passed 410-1 in the House two years ago. Fellow veteran John McCain, R-Arizona, and many foreign policy experts agreed with Kerry, who argued that engaging Vietnam was the best way to promote human rights, and passing the legislation would only boost the country's hard-liners.
Nevertheless, the Vietnamese-language media accused Kerry of coddling Vietnam's communist leaders.
"When he opposed the Vietnam Human Rights Act, it was like stabbing a knife in the chest," said Duc Nguyen, 32, a community activist and registered Democrat in Fountain Valley. "I hope that he reconsiders the wishes of Vietnamese voters."
Some older veterans of the South Vietnamese army have become disillusioned with President Bush, but still can't bring themselves to vote for Kerry.
Ngoc Tran, 58, of Westminster, is a former air force officer, isn't sure he'll vote for either candidate.
"I respect all U.S. soldiers who fought in Vietnam, but when (Kerry) returned, he told a lot of lies," Ngoc said, discussing politics with fellow veterans over iced French coffee and jasmine tea.
Elsewhere in the country, Vietnamese Americans also have mixed feelings about Kerry.
Hung Nguyen, 32, of Fairfax, Va., disagrees with Kerry's stance on Vietnam, but argues that since both candidates support engagement with the Communists, other issues are more important. Still, he's cautious.
"I don't want to damage my reputation with the community by completely supporting Kerry," said Nguyen, a Democratic activist in the Washington, D.C. area. "It's an uphill battle for us to convince the rest of the community."
Nope... No Terrorists Here II
Back in September, it was noted here how incredibly ignorant The Great Pretender is concerning the terrorists who threaten our safety and our way of life.
"Iraq was not a terrorist haven before the invasion. Iraq is now what it was not before the war, a haven for terrorists." John F. Kerry, September 24, 2004
You couldn't be more wrong John Kerry. Deroy Murdock at the NRO reminds us yet again that anyone stupid enough to believe that Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorists or to al Qaeda in particular needs to visit Hussien and Terror on the internet. The website is adapted from a speech by Deroy Murdock on September 22 at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
Hussien and Terror has undeniable proof that Saddam Hussein supported terrorists, providing them with, yes, safe haven, cash, diplomatic assistance, training, and even medical care.
"Iraq was not a terrorist haven before the invasion. Iraq is now what it was not before the war, a haven for terrorists." John F. Kerry, September 24, 2004
You won't be surprised to see copies of checks given to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers in Israel, as well as pictures of the terrorists and their victims.
But you may be surprised to read the words of former Italian prime minister Bettino Craxi explaining that terrorist Abu Abbas — ring leader of the October 1985 Achille Lauro cruise-ship hijacking — was freed from Italian custody because he traveled on an Iraqi diplomatic passport.
"Abu Abbas was the holder of an Iraqi diplomatic passport…The plane was on an official mission, considered covered by diplomatic immunity and extra-territorial status in the air and on the ground." Bettino Craxi, Italy’s prime minister, October 14, 1985
After escaping Italian police in October 1985 following the Achille Lauro hijacking (thanks to his Iraqi diplomatic passport), Abu Abbas finally ended up in Baghdad in 1994, where he lived comfortably as one of Saddam Hussein’s guests. U.S. soldiers caught Abbas in Iraq in April 2003. This time, he did not get away. He died last March 9, in American custody, reportedly of natural causes.
But... but... but...
"Iraq was not a terrorist haven before the invasion. Iraq is now what it was not before the war, a haven for terrorists." John F. Kerry, September 24, 2004
Visit Hussien and Terror and read about the May 7, 2003 decision by Clinton-appointed U.S. District Judge Harold Baer Jr. to award the families of two September 11 victims $104 million in damages after their attorney proved that Saddam Hussein's government provided "material support" to al Qaeda in the September 11 massacre.
"Iraq was not a terrorist haven before the invasion. Iraq is now what it was not before the war, a haven for terrorists." John F. Kerry, September 24, 2004
"Iraq was not even close to the center of the War on Terror before the president invaded it." John F. Kerry, Presidential Debate, September 30, 2004
Oh yes, John Kerry. You are wrong, very wrong, as is The Junior Achiever and Senator Killer.
"There is no connection between Saddam Hussein and the attacks of September 11th — period." John Edwards, Vice Presidential Debate, October 5, 2004
"Iraq was not a breeding ground for terrorism. Our invasion has made it one." Senator Ted Kennedy, October 16, 2003
"I never believed in the link between Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda and Islamist terrorism." former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, October 21, 2003
"The evidence now shows clearly that Saddam did not want to work with Osama bin Laden at all." Al Gore, August 2003
Today, John Kerry, you and the entire Democratic Party combine to be the number one threat to America.
John Kerry Is Modern-Day Benedict Arnold
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Kerry is a modern era Benedict Arnold. Like Arnold, Kerry was a hero to both sides in a war.
Kerry served four months in Vietnam plus two months shipboard duty behind a carrier in the South China Sea. Kerry was decorated for bravery in combat. Kerry returned to the United States and, while still a U.S. naval officer, joined Jane Fonda and other anti-American radicals in actively undermining our nation's support of South Vietnam.
Kerry traveled to Paris and secretly met with both the North Vietnam and the Viet Cong communist delegations.
Kerry then returned home and publicly advocated the communist position for concluding the war. He testified before U.S. Senate and lied under oath about American military atrocities in Vietnam. His sworn testimony was almost verbatim from the propaganda papers previously distributed worldwide by the Soviet KGB. Kerry did this in 1970-71 while Americans were fighting, dying, missing in action and imprisoned in Vietnam.
John Kerry's contribution to the North Vietnamese Communists during the war with South Vietnam was rewarded with his picture and laudatory recognition at the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City in a special room dedicated to foreign activists who contributed to the communist victory. General Giap and other communist leaders have publicly attributed their success in the Vietnam War to anti-American activists who led protests in the United States. The protesters were anti-American not antiwar. They carried North Vietnam and Viet Cong flags and desecrated the American flag.
Kerry's anti-American activities significantly contributed to three million Cambodian, Laotian, and Vietnamese deaths that came with the communist victory in Southeast Asia. John Kerry gave ''aid and comfort'' to the enemy in time of war. He is a traitor. John Kerry should be tried for treason.
Altamonte Springs, Florida
John Kerry is a threat to the 2nd Amendment
October 21, 2004
Gun owners out there in the tall grass need to be aware that in spite of John Kerry's lip service and pheasant hunting and skeet shooting ops with borrowed firearms, he is the most anti-gun presidential nominee to ever run for the Oval Office.
John Kerry has been on the wrong side of every Second Amendment battle for nearly a quarter of a century.
John Kerry revealed his true colors when he earlier this year canceled presidential campaign appearances to return to Washington and help defeat S.1805, legislation that would have ended the predatory and baseless lawsuits designed to bankrupt the American firearms industry.
John Kerry won't tell gun owners the truth, neither will the media elites who are helping Kerry hide his anti-gun stance from the American people.
You and I must vote for freedom by voting for George Bush!
Kerry's Senate Record Is a 78 Played at 33 RPM
BY JAMES LILEKS
In his recent speech in New Jersey, President Bush hammered on John Kerry's Senate record. Such as it is. It's like taking a blacksmith's hammer to a sheet of tinfoil. Can't get any thinner.
Granted, the bare bones of a voting record don't tell the whole story. Saying someone "voted against a weapon system" can be misleading. A parsimonious senator might have voted against a bill declaring May 2nd National Mandatory Spam Consumption Day because it had a rider adding $20 billion to develop robot sharks with laser-beam eyes. While such weapons might be handy, a senator may wish to address the issue separately from the issue of spurious meat. You have to look at the details, in other words.
Say what you will about Bush, the record is clear and blunt and simple.
Taliban: gone. Saddam: gone. Tax cuts: booyah! Deficit: (cough). No Child Left Behind still strikes most as a catch-phrase and a talking point. Prescription drug entitlement hasn't quite penetrated the national consciousness. Perhaps the most vivid part of his record: 9/11 wasn't followed by 5/25 or 2/03. We know what Bush has done, in other words.
An examination of Kerry's record shows that he's done very little in two decades. Bush says Kerry passed five bills. Kerry says he passed 56.
Well, according to FactCheck.org, a Web site run by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, the story is a bit different. Kerry authored seven bills that passed, co-authored four, and co-authored four joint resolutions.
This is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact it almost seems counterintuitive for a Republican to hammer a Democrat for insufficient legislating. Imagine if he had belonged to the Bill of the Month Club:
S. 146 -- Changed the generally accepted pronunciation of "Genghis Khan" to "Jen-jis."
S. 189 -- Petioned the International Olympic Committee to include the 30-meter medal toss as a recognized event.
S. 346 -- Congratulated Dick Cheney on his daughter's birthday, and let the Congressional Record show she's a lesbian.
You'd expect such things from an average senator. We don't expect the Senate to generate good ideas. Senators are the great mediators.
The Senate is the saucer in which the nation's passions are cooled, then dribbled out onto the tablecloth and blotted up by the servants who apologize even though they didn't spill the coffee. It's a millionaire's club whose occupants run the range from ancient steam-powered devices like Robert Byrd, to Mark Dayton, the Minnesota newbie who made headlines when he rabbited out of D.C., citing a fortune cookie message that could have been construed as a terrorist warning.
There are guys like John Edwards, who breeze in for a term, make serious faces on a few committees, and appear to enjoy being a senator in the sense that Gidget enjoyed being a girl. There are serious types like Daniel Moynihan, the gold standard for steel-trap intellect and decency. Then there are the Kerrys.
So what did he do? He authored a save-the-dolphins bill that he might have withdrawn if the dolphins had ever come out against the Sandinistas. He took co-authorship credit on several "joint resolutions," including one to make Oct. 22-28, 1989, "World Population Awareness Week." Remember that? All the parties, the street festivals, the lovely collectible snowdomes? Good times. And it was such a success, he co-authored another joint resolution in 1991, just to recapture the magic. There were two other joint resolutions to establish more special days, both in 1992 -- which means he hasn't even come up with one of those rote ceremonial flourishes in 12 years.
Again: Thank you, Sen. Kerry, for not doing any more damage than you might have done. But if one is going to insist that one has fought for working families, fought for health care, fought for defense, it might be helpful to show where one led the charge. Otherwise, "fighting" sounds a lot like nodding your head as the parade goes by, and imagining you're the guy with the baton.
Incidentally, John Kerry has a plan to strengthen America's parades. And he'll fight for it.
Oct. 20, 2004
An Appeal to Vietnam Veterans
Justin Darr thinks its sweet irony that Vietnam veterans hold the keys to this year's election.
by Justin Darr
October 18, 2004
One of the darkest scars of shame America must bear is its treatment of returning veterans after the Vietnam War. Despite the fact that the actions, courage, an bravery of our Vietnam vets is equal to any displayed by American soldiers from Bunker Hill to Iwo Jima, American leftists singled them out as criminals and robbed them of the dignity and respect they earned. It was not enough for the left to undermine America’s will to fight and win the Vietnam War, they had to destroy the lives of thousands of men who did nothing but risk their lives to preserve the freedom the left abused. After decades where countless vets have been forced to live through their own private hells, one of those responsible for their plight wants to be President of the United States. Finally, Vietnam Veterans have the chance to strike back against those who so unfairly marred their lives.
Throughout the entire 2004 election season, John Kerry has been attempting to pull a bait and switch on the American public. He has been walking the tight rope of parading is military service as one of his chief qualifications for office and proof of his support for veterans, but at the same time stifling any attempts to discuss his anti-American and anti-veteran actions after he returned home. He wants all the respect and honor that Vietnam veterans have earned, but wants to suffer no accountability for his role in personally denying that same respect to his brothers in arms. There is nothing more insulting or duplicitous.
It would be one matter if Kerry took the time to explain himself and his actions in the early 1970’s. We have all said and done things we regret in our lives, and it is a mark of superior moral fiber to admit your mistakes and beg forgiveness from those you have harmed. However, John Kerry is doing none of this. Instead he is systematically assaulting the character and motivations of any veterans who try to draw attention to Kerry’s past record. Just look at the leaders of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who have been forced to endure the full force of the Democratic Personal Destruction Machine and their cronies in the liberal media. Kerry has tried to parley the opinions of scarcely over a dozen vets to call literally hundreds of others, including his entire chain of command, liars. He is doing this for one reason. John Kerry does not want anyone to remember that he was willing to stoop so low as to lie about his fellow veterans and betray his country in order to start his political career.
Now there is another group of Vets who has drawn Kerry’s ire by having the audacity to make a documentary about how communists used Kerry’s words and actions at home to torture them while they were POW’s in Vietnam. While Kerry has already started his hysterical attempts to silence these vets as well, with complaints to the FEC and attacks on Sinclair Broadcast Group’s advertisers, there is no telling what lengths he will go to take away these veterans freedom of speech. One thing is certain, however. John Kerry is yet once again lying about and demonizing his fellow veterans for no reason other than they are getting in the way of his political ambition.
Enough is enough. The time is now for Vietnam Veterans to step forward and stop this cycle of abuse and save their nation once again. America hardly deserves it. After all that has been done to them, it would be no wonder if many Veterans disavowed the political process completely. Who are we to come, hat in hand, and beg for the help of those we treated so terribly? But to veterans I say that there is something far larger than a presidential election at stake here. I am asking you to vote for George Bush not just to stop Kerry and toss him and his failed ideology into the past forever, but for the current soldiers in Iraq. John Kerry and the left are once again undermining America’s will to fight and win, and, if they are allowed, will turn Iraq into another Vietnam in every way; complete with the demonization of our soldiers. What do you think our Iraqi veterans will return home to if Kerry is elected? Only the Vietnam veterans can prevent another Vietnam. Whether you call it irony, fate, or justice, John Kerry’s political future lies in the hands of those he betrayed.
COUNTDOWN TO ELECTION DAY
Sinclair: Kerry's attacks waged amid private talks
Broadcaster says campaign's public war obscured efforts to make balanced show
For the past two weeks, Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign has waged a multi-pronged attack on the Sinclair Broadcast Group even as the Democratic nominee's representatives privately have engaged in negotiations over the airing of "Stolen Honor," an executive with the television chain contends.
Mark Hyman (Courtesy Fox News)
In an interview with WorldNetDaily, Sinclair's vice president for corporate relations, Mark Hyman, said the discussions have taken the form of meeting face-to-face with Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill, telephone calls and written correspondence.
Hyman, who said the latest contact with Kerry's campaign was today, asserts "flawed reporting" repeated by numerous outlets has contributed to the perception that Sinclair planned to run the entire 42-minute program as a right-wing hatchet job on Kerry and then scaled back as Democrats launched a full-fledged attack.
"We told [the Kerry campaign] the entire show format was on the table and it was contingent on the level of [their] participation," Hyman said. "We also told them we were willing to travel to any location in order to accommodate the senator's campaign schedule. We finally left it that we will accommodate the senator right up until air date should he change his mind and elect to participate."
The only requests have been, he said, that Kerry "or a reasonable designee with some standing on the subject" participate and that the interview would not be restricted by requiring provision of questions in advance or narrowing the topic.
Cahill did not immediately respond to WND's request for a response.
John Kerry in scene from documentary 'Stolen Honor'
Sinclair announced yesterday that stations in its markets, covering 24 percent of the country, will broadcast a program Friday titled "A POW Story: Politics, Pressure and the Media," examining allegations concerning Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities and the role of media and the use of documentaries in influencing voters.
As WorldNetDaily first reported, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal" presents former POWs who tell how Kerry's 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was used as propaganda against them by their North Vietnamese captors, allegedly intensifying their persecution and prolonging the war and imprisonment.
Democrats have responded on many fronts to Sinclair's announcement to air the charges in "Stolen Honor."
"All of this has been intended to draw attention away from the heart of the matter which are the allegations made by the 13 men -- including two Medal of Honor winners -- who appear in the documentary," Hyman said. "These POWs allege that John Kerry's 1971 testimony before the Senate had a direct impact on them during their captivity in North Vietnam."
The challenges to Sinclair include:
The Democratic National Committee filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission charging that the broadcast would amount to an illegal campaign contribution.
A group of 18 Democratic senators asked Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell to probe whether the program would violate regulations on the use of public airwaves.
The Kerry campaign wrote a legal brief to the president of Sinclair, insisting the Democratic presidential nominee should be given equal time and allowed to run his own program.
Sinclair received a letter from a Democrat comptroller in New York on behalf of a retirement fund that holds 256,600 shares of the broadcast company, warning the controversy could damage the investment.
A Vietnam veteran and anti-war activist who appears in the documentary has announced the filing of a libel suit against filmmaker Carlton Sherwood, claiming he was falsely characterized as a "fraud" who charged soldiers with war crimes but "never set foot on the battlefield."
Hyman said he is perplexed by Kerry campaign officials and surrogates referring to the POWs statements as as "lies" and "scurrilous."
"We're not certain what part of the POWs story they label as lies," he said. "Is it that they served in Vietnam? Were captured? Were held in captivity? Or that they suffered horrific abuse and unspeakable torture for years?"
He also noted that critics have referred to Sherwood as a "Washington Times reporter" in an attempt to show the left he is beholden to a conservative bias.
"They don't mention that he has had a 36-year career in journalism that includes winning both the Pulitzer and the Peabody, the most prestigious journalism awards in both print and television, respectively," Hyman said. "He also has Emmys in TV journalism. He has worked for Gannett, CNN and at local television stations. Out of a 36-year career they cite the less than one year he spent at the Washington Times."
Hyman maintained no one has earned the right to speak out on Vietnam more than the POWs.
"For the news gatekeepers to ignore them when they've ended 31 years of self-imposed silence is shameless," he said.
News and politics
Hyman sees hypocrisy in news organizations advancing the contention that Sinclair has a political agenda.
According to Sherwood, he notes, ABC News had no interest in speaking to the POWs in the film. Yet, last week "Nightline" aired a program based on Vietnamese villagers' accounts of disputed claims surrounding Kerry's Silver Star medal.
"ABC can send a crew halfway around the world to interview people in a communist country, but it declines to speak to American servicemen -- including two Medal of Honor winners -- who collectively spent almost 84 years in the same communist country being tortured and abused," Hyman said.
"Tell me ABC News isn't pursuing a political agenda. Of course they are."
Jerome Corsi, co-author of "Unfit for Command," said he sees the Kerry campaign operating in a similar manner to its reaction to the Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth best-seller, which documents the charges of more than 250 of Kerry's colleagues in Vietnam.
"It's John Kerry who doesn't want both sides of the story told," said Corsi, who helped line up Sinclair with Sherwood's film. "He wanted 'Unfit for Command' pulled off the bookshelves, and he went to all the stations showing television ads, threatening to sue."
The swifboat vets group has produced nine television commercials that have run in crucial swing states and nationally on cable channels.
"Kerry's band of lawyers is trying to reinterpret the First Amendment, trying to suppress any view that is unfavorable," Corsi said. "Even when they get a forum offered, they turn around and attack Sinclair."
Voters Predict Kerry Will Lose;
He Plots to Steal the White House
Will both major candidates be claiming victory in the presidential election? Could be.
John Kerry realizes that the worst blunder Al Gore made in his coup attempt four years ago was not immediately claiming, however falsely, that he had been elected. Thus "Kerry, bracing for a potential fight over election results, will not hesitate to declare victory Nov. 2 and defend it, advisers say. He also will be prepared to name a national security team before knowing whether he's secured the presidency," the Associated Press revealed today.
Goodness, he hasn't been so quick to move since that time he fled his photo opportunity at Wendy's for his own private gourmet feast.
Gore "never declared victory, an omission Kerry's advisers - many of whom worked for Gore - now believe created a sense of inevitability in voters' minds about Bush's presidency," AP reported.
Kerry's mouthpiece Stephanie Cutter said, "We will be ready to hit the ground running and begin a fresh start in this country, given that so many critical issues are before us."
Kerry's squad of election thieves, in addition to all the voter registration fakers and those Democrat judges who are allowing the fraud, includes six "'SWAT teams' of lawyers and political operatives [that] will be situated around the country with fueled-up jets awaiting Kerry's orders to speed to a battleground state. The teams have been told to be ready to fly on the evening of the election to begin mounting legal and political fights. Every battleground state will have a SWAT team within an hour of its borders," AP reported.
'Big Cause for Concern'
But should the Massachusetts leftist be so sure of his chances when even many of his own supporters expect him to fail?
The Washington Times noted today, "While the various national polls show that voters prefer the president over Mr. Kerry by an average of four points, those same surveys place Mr. Bush some 20 points ahead on the question of which candidate is expected to win."
A fourth of Kerry's supporters who predicted the outcome of the election thought he would lose, according to polls by Fox News and TechnoMetrica Institute of Policy and Politics. Only one in 18 of Bush's supporters thought the president would lose, the Times reported.
Vicki Morwitz, a professor at New York University, warned: "This could be a big cause of concern for Kerry. If people really think Bush is going to win, they may have a slight tendency to shift their preference and ultimately vote for Bush, even though they were a Kerry supporter to begin with."
Even Mark Halperin, the anti-Bush political director of ABC "News," agreed. "If more people (regardless of whom they support) don't start telling pollsters that they believe Kerry will win, he probably can't," he wrote.
Heated exchanges after film canceled
By JODI ARTHUR
Bucks County Courier Times
Police had to separate two war veterans after one grabbed the other by the neck Tuesday as tempers flared outside Abington's Baederwood Theater following the cancellation of a premiere showing of a film critical of Sen. John Kerry's anti-war testimony.
Frustrated by the theater's decision, several prospective viewers of "Stolen Honor, Wounds that Never Heal" got into shouting matches with opponents of the documentary.
Among them was Joanne Dalbey of Warrington. "My rights as an American were denied," she said. "Soldiers are dying for my right to choose what movie I want to see."
Dalbey was one of about 50 people who showed up at the theater on The Fairway. Some were there to get copies of the movie on DVD or videotape from filmmaker Carlton Sherwood, who was autographing them, and some were there to protest it. Others arrived unaware that the showing had been canceled.
Theater manager Robert Smith and several others sat just outside the theater doors giving refunds to ticket holders. He said he had "no comment" about the theater's decision not to show the film as promised. Sherwood said 600 tickets had been sold.
During one heated exchange, Korean War veteran Dan Sweeney of Philadelphia grabbed Bill Perry, a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, by the neck. Asked why, he said, "because I felt like it, that's why."
"Kerry can't handle the words that he said himself. Otherwise this film would be shown tonight," Sweeney said. "They don't want anybody to see what he said."
Perry, who said he was one of 120 soldiers who testified during the 1971 "Winter Soldier Investigation" of atrocities they witnessed in Vietnam, called the film no good.
At one point, he and Dalbey stood nose-to-nose arguing its merits.
"The movie's a sack of lies," Perry said. "I was in Vietnam. I witnessed these things."
"How can you comment about what you haven't seen," Dalbey shouted, referring to the 42-minute film. "Get him here to debate this. Get Kerry here."
Others, although opposed to the film, did not object to the right of others to see it.
Holding a sign that read, "Kerry Supporters Support the Troops," Evan Machlan of Pennington, N.J., a self-described devoted Kerry supporter, said he believed the theater should have shown the film. That's despite the fact, he said, that "I think it's full of lies."
Sherwood said the film is about the direct and indirect consequences of Kerry's anti-war testimony. It is told, he said, by the men who were most affected by it - prisoners of war being held in North Vietnam.
"He placed their lives in jeopardy," Sherwood said. "He increased their peril."
Perry said Kerry was quoting those who testified in the Winter Soldier Investigation. "When he testified to Congress, he was quoting us directly," Perry said.
Sherwood said his production company started getting indications from the theater owners last week that they were having second thoughts about showing the film, which was being hosted by conservative talk radio station 1210 AM. He said the cinema "claimed they were getting threatening calls and e-mail and just threats generally."
A fax came from the theater's attorney Monday, saying they were canceling the showing "due to threats of civil disobedience," Sherwood said.
Perry said that's untrue. He said the theater was afraid of being included in a class action libel suit. "There were never any threats of civil disobedience."
On Monday, Kenneth J. Campbell, a University of Delaware professor who is one of the veterans included in the film, sued the producer for libel, saying the film falsely portrays him as a fraud and a liar.
Jodi Arthur can be reached at 215-957-8148 or jarthur@phillyBurbs.com.
ABC News or ABC spin
by Thomas Sowell
As if Dan Rather's use of forged documents to try to discredit President Bush shortly before the election was not enough of a clue to the mainstream media's political agenda, ABC News has now joined CBS News in the political spin game.
What ABC News has done was too elaborate to be called a "mistake." Now that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have become too well known for the mainstream media to continue ignoring them, ABC's Nightline with Ted Koppel has broadcast its "investigation" of one of the Swift Boat veterans' charges against John Kerry.
The charge was that Kerry received a medal for an incident in Vietnam that he falsely reported. How did ABC's Nightline try to establish the truth? Interview crew members who were on Kerry's boat at the time? No! Interview veterans who were in other boats near John Kerry's boat at the time? No!
Nightline went to Vietnam to interview people whom they had been told were among the Communist guerrillas involved in the disputed incident.
It would be an unwarranted insult to Ted Koppel's intelligence to believe that he does not understand the unreliability of what is said publicly by people living in a totalitarian society, especially when it is said in the presence of a Communist official who took Nightline to the people who were to be interviewed.
What is the Communist government's stake in all this?
In recent years, high officials of the Vietnamese government have openly admitted that they were losing the Vietnam war on the battlefields but hung on, waiting for a political victory, based on their belief that the anti-war movement in the United States would eventually force American withdrawal.
When much of the American media became part of the anti-war movement, the gamble obviously paid off. One of the Vietnamese Communists' museums pays tribute to the American anti-war movement in general and features a picture of John Kerry in particular.
Against that background, how surprising is it that what was said in the interview backed up John Kerry's version of the disputed incident? Yet Ted Koppel described the people interviewed as "witnesses" who "have no particular axe to grind."
The clincher, according to Mr. Koppel, is that the interviewee's version of what happened matches the combat report and the official Navy citation with the medal. Surely ABC News knows that the combat report was written by John Kerry and that the Navy citation was based on what Kerry said in his report.
Nevertheless, according to Koppel, John Kerry's awards "should have been the most unassailable part of Kerry's record."
This kind of reasoning reminded me of an episode in a New York department store some years ago when I bought a sweater and gave the sales lady a credit card. She pointed out that there was no signature on the back of the card.
After I signed the credit card in her presence and then signed the bill, she compared the two signatures that she had just seen me write and, since they matched, it was OK with her. But at least she didn't say that this procedure was "unassailable."
Who would have dreamed that ABC News would compare what Kerry said in his report with what was said in a citation based on that report and find it convincing that they matched?
Everything about the Nightline program reeked of contrived "ambush journalism," to ambush John O'Neill with the words of Vietnamese villagers who were put on the program before him, and thereby exonerate John Kerry from O'Neill's charges.
If this program were a serious attempt to get at the truth, it would hardly have completely ignored all those Americans who were on the scene during the disputed incident and instead go to the other side of the world to talk with people in a Communist country with a Communist official present.
Other boats from John Kerry's unit fought that day in the same vicinity. Even with the best of intentions, the Vietnamese villagers interviewed on Nightline had no way of knowing which of the many Americans who opened fire that day 35 years ago was John Kerry. The Americans in that unit knew -- but they were not interviewed on Nightline.
That is what stamps this as spin, rather than news.
Do media elites think we are all fools? Probably.
THE WARNING KERRY IGNORED
By PAUL SPERRY
March 15, 2004 -- SEN. John Kerry boasts how he "sounded the alarm on terrorism years before 9/ 11," referring to his 1997 book "The New War." Too bad he didn't blast it when it really counted - four months before the hijackings, when he was hand-delivered evidence of serious security breaches at Logan International Airport, with specific warnings that terrorists could exploit them Former FAA security officials say the Massachusetts senator had the power to prevent at least the Boston hijackings and save the World Trade Center and thousands of lives, yet he failed to take effective action after they gave him a prophetic warning that his state's main airport was vulnerable to multiple hijackings.
"He just did the Pontius Pilate thing and passed the buck" on back through the federal bureaucracy, said Brian Sullivan, a retired FAA special agent from the Boston area who in May 2001 personally warned Kerry that Logan was ripe for a "jihad" suicide operation possibly involving "a coordinated attack."
Rewind to May 6, 2001. That night, a Boston TV station (Fox-25) aired reporter Deborah Sherman's story on an undercover investigation at Logan that Sullivan and another retired agent helped set up. In nine of 10 tries, a crew got knives and other weapons through security checkpoints - including the very ones the 9/11 hijackers would later exploit.
The next day, Sullivan fired off a two-page letter to Kerry highlighting the systemic failures.
"With the concept of jihad, do you think it would be difficult for a determined terrorist to get on a plane and destroy himself and all other passengers?" he warned. "Think what the result would be of a coordinated attack which took down several domestic flights on the same day. With our current screening, this is more than possible. It is almost likely." The toll from such an attack would be economic, as well as human, he predicted with chilling accuracy.
Sullivan followed up by having the undercover videotape hand-delivered to Kerry's office.
More than 11 weeks later, Kerry finally replied to his well-informed and anxious constituent. "I have forwarded your tape to the Department of Transportation's Office of Inspector General [DOT OIG]," he said in a brief July 24, 2001, letter, a copy of which I've obtained.
Yet Sullivan had made it clear in his letter that going to his old agency was a dead end. He and other agents had complained about security lapses for years and got nowhere. "The DOT OIG has become an ineffective overseer of the FAA," he told Kerry. Sullivan suggested he! show the tape to peers on committees with FAA oversight. He even volunteered to testify before them.
But he never heard from Kerry again.
At that point, Steve Elson, the other agent who'd teamed up on the TV sting, decided to take a crack at the junior senator. A fiery ex-Navy Seal, Elson spent three years as part of an elite FAA unit called the Red Team, which did covert testing of airport security across the country, before retiring as a field agent in Houston. He offered to fly to Washington at his own expense to give Kerry a document-backed presentation about the "facade of security" at Logan and other major airports.
But a Kerry aide said not to bother. "You're not a constituent," Elson was told just a few weeks before the hijackings. He went ballistic, warning that if Kerry didn't act soon he'd risk the lives of planeloads of his actual constituents. That warning now looks like prophecy: At least 82 Kerry constituents were murdered aboard American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175.
"Enhanced security would have prevented the hijackings, virtually without question," Elson now insists. If nothing else, it might have discouraged ringleader Mohamed Atta, who monitored security procedures at Logan weeks before the hijackings.
Yet the warnings apparently did stick in Kerry's mind: In the days after 9/11, Kerry told the Boston Globe that he'd triggered an undercover probe of Logan security by the General Accounting Office in June 2001.
But he wrote Sullivan no such thing in his July letter, stating only that he passed his warning and tape on to Transportation, not GAO. And GAO, though it is the investigative arm of Congress, didn't seem to know what the senator was talking about. The agency had tested security at two airports before 9/11, but neither one was Logan. And Kerry confessed he didn't know the outcome of the probe he says he triggered.
Some follow-up, senator.
Sullivan and Elson, joined by aviation-security experts David Forbes and Andrew Thomas, want to see Kerry hauled before the 9/11 Commission to answer questions about what he knew about Logan's lapses, and specifically what he did about them, before that fateful day. It's a reasonable request - especially since Kerry has complained that President Bush will only give the panel an hour of his time.
Where was Kerry's sense of urgency? Where was his leadership? These are fair questions to ask of someone vying for Bush's job.
"We don't have to wait for a tragedy to occur to act," Sullivan urged Kerry in his letter. But tragically, that's exactly what happened - at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, and on both sides of the aisle.
Infiltrators reported at U.S. borders while Gitmo releases return to terror business
It has been widely reported in Washington that more than two dozen radical Islamic terrorists from Russia may be inside America's borders. Newspaper and terrorism experts are concerned about a recent incident along the U.S. Southern border. Jim Phillips of the Heritage Foundation says, "Roughly 25 Chechens were seen in northern Mexico getting ready to cross the border, and it points out the continuing threat of terrorism and the continuing vulnerability of our borders -- not just the Mexican border but also the Canadian border." Those terrorists are believed to be part of the same radical Islamic group that attacked the elementary school in Beslan, Russia, killing hundreds of children. Also, Phillips says the U.S. military has documented that up to seven former detainees at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba have returned to their terrorist activities in Iraq and Pakistan -- something the Heritage Foundation spokesman says he expected would happen. Before being freed from Guantanamo Bay, detainees are required to sign a pledge to renounce violence. Nevertheless, an additional five former detainees have been killed or recaptured in terrorist attacks on U.S. troops. [Bill Fancher]
Muslim Thug Prefers Kerry
According to Gary Bauer of Campaign for Working Families, Senator and Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has managed to win the trust and support of one religious group -- Muslims. According to Bauer, virtually every major national Islamic group in the United States has endorsed the Kerry ticket, and now even Muslim leaders abroad are joining the Kerry "bandwagon." He says the prime minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mahathir bin Mohamad, even sent an open letter to American Muslims urging them to vote for John Kerry and asserting that President Bush "is the cause of the tragedies in Afghanistan, Palestine, and Iraq," while voting for Kerry would be an "ibadah" -- an act of religious devotion and worship. But Bauer says Dr. Mohamad is "a notorious anti-Semite and all around thug" who "thinks Afghanistan was a good place when the Taliban were in control." Also, the U.S. conservative pundit says, Mohamad preferred Iraq under Saddam Hussein's rule and sees Yassir Arafat as "the hope of the Palestinians." Bauer feels it is significant that the Malaysian leader has chosen Kerry as "his man and suggests it might be worth asking, "why a notorious 'hate America' demagogue like Mohamad thinks it is a religious duty for Muslims to vote for Kerry." [Jenni Parker]
Paul Sperry is a Washington investigative reporter and author of "Crude Politics."
Former POW: Kerry Preyed on My Family
A former Vietnam War prisoner of war charges that as he was being tortured by his communist captors, John Kerry was preying on his family to denounce the United States.
The new allegation against Kerry is made in the controversial documentary "Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal" by James H. Warner, a former Marine Corps naval flight officer who won the Silver Star after spending more than five years in a North Vietnamese prison.
Warner's sensational charge against Kerry is just one of the fresh allegations that Kerry did more than protest U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War - he also worked to help the North Vietnamese by getting families of POWs to criticize the U.S. government.
When Capt. James (Jim) Howie Warner was shot down on Oct. 13, 1967, he could hardly have known at the time that his pain and suffering would be enhanced by a recently discharged naval officer-turned-war protester named John Kerry.
As Warner suffered brutal treatment in Vietnam, young Kerry was helping to organize the infamous Winter Soldier hearings held in Detroit, Mich., at the end of January and into early February of 1971.
Warner recounts that Kerry personally recruited his grieving mother to testify at the Winter Soldier hearings - testimony that Warner was confronted and taunted with while in captivity, testimony that later appeared in John Kerry's infamous wartime book, "The New Soldier."
In "Stolen Honor," Warner says, "They showed me a transcript of testimony that my mother had given at the Winter Soldier hearing. I read her testimony; it was not particularly damning, but I wondered how did someone persuade her? Then they showed me a statement by John Kerry. I know that he did talk to her and my sisters. It is really a contemptible act to take a grieving old lady and prey upon her grief and manipulate her grief purely for the promotion of your own political agenda."
In his interview with NewsMax, Warner's anger toward Kerry for involving his family is still very much alive and well: "There's not a single thing Kerry has done - except to marry a rich woman - that didn't show bad judgment."
From his Winter Soldier hearings, which have largely been discredited by historians, Kerry gained national publicity for himself and furthered the anti-war cause. The POWs claim Kerry and his fellow anti-war protesters helped prolong the war - and their brutal captivity - by two years or more.
For his efforts, Kerry has been lauded in Vietnam and is featured as one of the Vietnamese communists' heroes in their national war museum.
Warner says that while Kerry was having his various dialogues with the enemy in Paris and using Warner's family for his ends, he still could have intervened to help the POWs.
Warner says with some anguish that Kerry didn't "even ask them to stop the torture. While he was making friends, why didn't he do something to get us letter privileges with our families? My mother didn't know if I was alive or dead."
B.G. Burkett, Vietnam historian and author of "Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History," tells NewsMax that Warner's family was not alone in their experience.
Burkett said that Kerry's Winter Soldier group contacted the families of several POWs to denounce the United States.
"It's a pretty horrendous thing, these family members being called by Kerry or his group while their son or husband is being tortured in a Hanoi prison," Burkett said. "And the message to the POW families was clear: If you speak out against the U.S., the communists will go easy on your loved one."
Burkett said the effort to involve the POW families in the anti-war movement was one of the most "evil things Kerry and his group ever did."
When Virginia Warner did testify, she did not denounce the U.S. but she spoke as a mother would: "My name is Virginia Warner, and I am the mother of James Warner, who has been a prisoner in Vietnam, North Vietnam, since 1967 in October. I'm here to ask the American people to help get this thing over with."
Having his mother's testimony included with the "testimony" of those who claimed to be veterans, with the left-wing activists present, gave a dignity to the whole proceeding that it did not merit, Warner argues.
Kerry's work on behalf of North Vietnam and his use of Warner's mother were not overlooked by Warner's communist captors.
A Captor Taunts the Marine Aviator
In a recent essay, Warner writes about the interchange between himself and one of his tormenting captors - a man he refers to as "Boris."
"Then Boris reached behind his back and pulled out some clippings from a left wing newspaper in the U.S. He showed me several articles about an event, which had been held in Detroit, called 'The Winter Soldier Hearings.' He left me to read the articles while he left the room. The articles reported alleged "testimony" from people who claimed to be Viet-Nam veterans who allegedly claimed that they had done things which, if true, would have [led] to courts martial for each of them.
"Suddenly, I read an article about my mother testifying. Unlike the leftists, she did not condemn the U.S., she merely stated that she hoped the war would end soon and I would be released. The next article mentioned testimony from my father. His was like my mother's testimony, merely expressing hope that the war would end soon and that all who suffered from war would find relief. Nothing they said fit with the virulent anti-American sentiments that the leftists had expressed. But having their testimony included in with the Ã¢â‚¬Ëœtestimony' of those who claimed to be veterans, and the left wing activists present, seemed to give a dignity to the whole proceeding which it did not merit."
Boris told Warner to note especially the former U.S. military officer who had accused American soldiers of war crimes.
"Ã¢â‚¬ËœThis man was an officer in your navy. He says that the war is illegal, immoral and unjust. Read what he says.'
"I read the words of John Kerry. What John Kerry said, according to the clippings, was that the U.S. should abandon South East Asia, unilaterally and immediately. This, of course, would not only leave the Prisoners of War in the hands of the communists, but far worse, there was not a sane person in the universe who did not know that the instant the countries of South East Asia were abandoned, the blood bath would begin."
Warner wondered why Kerry did what he did.
"When John Kerry said that Vietnam vets were criminals, did he not know that the communists would use his words against the POWs?" Warner asked. "He feels insulted when someone questions his patriotism. What other conclusion would you come to, if you were in my shoes? Kerry, from what I read, did not criticize the tactics or strategy we were using in Vietnam. If that was what he wanted to say, I am sure that most Vietnam vets, who saw first hand that McNamara's strategy was foolish, would have agreed with him."
Warner is just one of 17 POWs who appear in "Stolen Honor" and who accuse John Kerry of betrayal.
Warner is frustrated that his story, and that of the other POWs, is being denied to the American people and efforts have been made to stop Sinclair Broadcasting from airing the documentary.
"They should have read the McCain-Feingold law that most of them voted for," Warner says. "In the black letter law of the act, the restrictions do not apply to one who owns or operates a media outlet."
Burkett argues that new revelations, such as Kerry's use of POW families, need to be revealed to the American people before they make a historic decision on Election Day.
"These POWs more than anyone else have a right to be heard and should be heard by all Americans," Burkett told NewsMax, adding, "They each spent additional months if not years in prison because of John Kerry."
Editor's Note: Get your copy of "Stolen Honor" and find out why John Kerry is afraid you and millions of Americans will see it - also find out how to help "Stolen Honor" - Go Here Now.
How to support Kerry for President
Written by JB Williams
In order to cast a vote for John Kerry, you first have to believe he is fit to be Commander-in-Chief. Now some don’t believe he is, namely 95% of all the decorated vets who served beside him in Vietnam, more than 70% of all living retired military personnel, and more than 80% of those serving in combat today. But what do they know?
Besides, as the Democratic Party points out at every opportunity, what Right do these people (who spill their blood for our freedom) have to speak anyway, or even vote for that matter?
In order to cast a vote for John Kerry, you also have to believe that he knows better how to secure America. Not only better than George W. Bush, but better than Condi Rice, Don Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Gen. Tommy Franks, Tom Ridge, Tommy Thompson, John McCain, Zell Miller, Rudy Giuliani, and again, more than 75% of all men and women who serve or ever have served in the military. A vote for John Kerry is a vote against all of these people and a whole lot more.
In order to cast a vote for John Kerry, you have to believe that he will do something in the next four years that he hasn’t done once in the last twenty, be strong on defense and intelligence.
You have to believe he will do something else in the next four years that he hasn’t done in the last twenty, advance a single social program on health care, welfare, job creation, or economic growth.
In order to cast a vote for John Kerry, you have to completely dismiss his entire senate record, a record that earned him the title of our nation’s most liberal senator, and believe that what he says now during this campaign means more than everything he has or has not done over the last 35 years in the public eye.
You have to believe that he can curtail the proliferation of nuclear weapons in third world countries. Of course this means you will have to overlook the fact that North Korea and Iran got them from China, who bought them from Bill Clinton via the healthy illegal campaign contributions to both Clinton and Kerry that landed Johnny Chung in prison.
You have to believe that Kerry will create jobs by taxing, regulating and litigating employers throughout the country into bankruptcy, or until they move operations off shore to defend their assets.
In order to cast a vote for John Kerry, you have to look past the fact that manufacturing jobs have been leaving America since the end of the industrial revolution, and that the loss of manufacturing jobs accelerated in the late 90’s and beyond as a direct result of the China free trade agreement that has produced the single largest trade deficit in history. Then you have to ignore the minor fact that it was Clinton, Kerry, and the Democrats who made this deal that cost us those American jobs.
You have to believe that socialized medicine is the answer to the health care crisis in America, even though every country that has socialized medicine today offers substandard medical treatment, too little too late, and that all of these countries are going bankrupt while they do it.
In order to vote for John Kerry, you have to honestly believe that even though Kerry and every other public figure in the free world was singing the same tune as Bush concerning Iraq, that it was only George Bush who lied. Now, Kerry’s statements over the years won’t support this view, so you will have to ignore those too.
You have to believe that Sandy “Burglar” steeling top secret documents from the national archive to benefit Kerry’s campaign is not a big deal. That Dan Rather and Mary Mapes were perfectly justified in their attempt to promote forged government documents in a failed coup effort to smear a sitting President. That Joe Lockhart’s phone conversation with Burkett, who most likely forged the documents himself, was an innocent coincidence that never broached the subject of Bush’s Guard service.
Then you have to believe that Kerry means it when he talks about running special interests out of Washington, despite the fact that his entire campaign is underwritten by a handful of socialist billionaire’s via sleazy campaign finance tricks. That Bush is for special interests, despite the fact that more than 98% of his funding comes from individual average Americans within campaign finance laws, including McCain-Feingold.
You also have to believe that the world would be better off with Hussein still in power and that America should never act in its own security interests without France’s approval. Because according to Kerry, he would NOT have removed Hussein from power, and he certainly would NOT have done it without full UN support, which was blocked by a single vote, France.
You have to believe Kerry is strong on foreign policy, including humanitarian concerns. To believe this, you will have to forget that he voted against use of military power to eject Hussein from raping and plundering Kuwait in 1990, even after the UN approved it.
You will also have to believe that the 1.3 million Iraqi people who were either taken from their homes, shot and bull dozed into mass graves, or starved to death during the oil for food scam operated by the UN, was more welcome to the Iraqi people than American liberators. That 10,000 dead enemy combatants, is worse than 1.3 million innocent civilians who died in the last ten years alone, more than 300,000 of which died in 1998 while we had Hussein “contained”.
In short, you will have to believe all of these things, cast a vote against all of these people, in order to cast a vote for John Kerry. You will have to believe basically that everyone besides John Kerry is a liar. Most of all, you will have to believe in form over fact, in words over deeds.
In order to do this, you will have to continue sucking down the socialist liberal swill being shoveled down your throat daily by a mainstream media who has lost the ability to even pretend to be fair, honest, or balanced.
If America really is at the point where a majority can meet these qualifications, God help us.
Those who can’t meet these qualifications need to wake up and realize that too many in our country today can, and that not one of them will miss an opportunity to vote. America can not afford for one decent American to miss voting this time around. Our very existence is at stake…
Letter to the American people from a soldier in Iraq,
In response to the 1st Presidential debate!
The 1st debate in the campaign for presidency of the United States raised some crucial issues that are still a cause for confusion to the American people. I decided it’s time for a viewpoint from someone who is in the middle of this war and has no room for debating this issue.
I have been in Iraq almost 9 months and I have seen the good and the bad of this war. Terrorists from other regions have been “pouring over the borders”, but certainly not for the first time. They are making contact with other members of Al Qaeda and other terrorist supporters on the inside of Iraq.
There are many tribes in the Sunni Triangle that openly invite foreign terrorists and provide refuge to those who join and help them. Tribes that are so dedicated to their cause of preventing a free Iraq, a Middle Eastern US ally, that even amid extreme impoverished living conditions, they will not respond to rewards offered for key Al Qaeda leaders.
25 million US dollars for Zarqawi should be enough to influence someone to provide information on his whereabouts, but apparently it’s not. The roots of terrorism run deep with some tribes in the Sunni triangle in Iraq. Terrorism was not born when the US rolled in on March 19th, 2003! Terrorism has been networked across the globe, and Iraq has been a major hub for terrorist activity long before we arrived.
The 1st debate between Bush and Kerry has highlighted a chasm between the two campaigns, more importantly, the two men regarding the question of Iraq and its role in terrorism. This is a split that is impossible to comprehend from where I stand!
Of course the war in Iraq is part of the war on terror! When Senator John Kerry said “the president made a colossal error of judgment by diverting attention from the war on terrorism and the hunt for terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden”, he could not be more wrong.
When Senator Kerry said that “Mr. Bush was not candid with the public about his reasons for invading Iraq or the difficult fight ahead”, besides exhibiting a poor memory, he showed an incredible lack of ability to see that no mission will ever go exactly as you plan it.
A candidate for the US presidency ought to know that your enemy is going to have something to say about how the fight is fought. The enemy is going to do the unexpected, and plans will change. I am sorry that it’s not an ideal scenario for Senator Kerry, but no war is.
I am repeatedly asked what the soldiers feel about the war in Iraq. Soldiers in the US armed forces come in all shapes and sizes… and viewpoints. I don’t pretend to speak for all soldiers, but I do believe that most men and women in today’s military share something very close to these same beliefs.
Most soldiers here believe in the mission in Iraq. They know, like I do, that the former regime in Iraq was an important component in the war on Terror. There is no doubt that terrorist cells have been allowed to operate within these borders for some time, and that Hussein’s regime most likely provided financial support as well!
Do the soldiers want to be here? I have not met a soldier yet that does not want to come home, who wouldn’t? But they do believe in this mission. Most soldiers believe that it is imperative to keep the mission going at least until security is established in Iraq.
There is no greater dishonor to the 1350 plus coalition and contractor deaths, and over 7,000 wounded men and women, than to plan a retreat before a reasonable assurance for the success of the new Iraqi government can be attained.
I don’t know where this concept of get in and get out was started, but sometimes wars are not accommodating to that theory. The United States has earned a poor reputation for resolve to finish the job, and it’s time the proponents of that trend, like Senator Kerry, realize it and correct it by stopping their efforts to politicize our mission.
Kerry’s message to the troops was, “Help is on the way!” In what form Senator Kerry?
You have alienated the coalition countries that we fight beside every day. You cannot articulate a plan for success, and you have no grasp that this war was even necessary. Thanks, but no thanks!
"Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time?" You tell that story to the millions of impoverished, and persecuted Iraqi people who for the past generation have lived with the fear of being marched out into the desert and shot for their beliefs.
You tell that story to the families of those bodies recovered from the dozens of mass graves throughout Iraq. Try to sell that load of bull to the little kids who were denied access to their water in the Marshlands of Iraq and left to starve to death. Sell it to someone else, but not me!
Senator Kerry sent a message to the American people in his closing remarks that said that he will “get your kids home and get the job done and win the peace”.
I am a 38 year old man who joined the military 18 years ago, and I have yet to find a “kid” in Uniform from the United States. I have however found many good young men and women who are proudly serving their country.
Men and Women from all over the United States have joined the military of their own free will, knowing that one day they may be asked to put their lives in harms way. Very few of these men and women want to be here, it’s just a commitment that we made, and one that we intend to honor.
I sincerely hope that you enjoy your moment in the spotlight Senator Kerry! I know that in the end, the bull that you have been selling to the American people will be recognized and that the voters will let you know what they think of it come November.
American’s need a president who will make sound decisions, and not be afraid of what the global community thinks. That man is already in office, and will remain in office for four more years!
Captain Ron Hayes
US Army, Iraq
WHERE BUSH GOT HIS ORDERS FOR IRAQ....just a reminder
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of ! a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry ( D-MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the devel! opment of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL,) and others, December 5, 2001
"We begi n with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and w! ill likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
- Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA), Oct! . 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapon stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly! grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation .. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D-MA), Jan. 23. 2003
SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION, AND THAT HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY !
TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT THE PRESIDENT LEADING US TO WAR.
Media Watchdog: Kerry Needed Boost, So Networks Give Him 3rd Debate
By Chad Groening
October 18, 2004
(AgapePress) - The Virginia-based Media Research Center (MRC) says the liberal media was true to form when it declared John Kerry the winner of last week's final presidential debate.
Tim Graham, director of media analysis at MRC, says he was hoping the mainstream media would actually surprise him and give an accurate assessment of the debate. He felt President Bush came across as "human and genuine" in the debate, while Kerry came across as "someone with an icy, aristocratic demeanor."
But Graham says the media was compelled to declare Kerry the winner because he needed a boost.
"I think there is a feeling on both sides that President Bush is better on the stump," the MRC spokesman says. He contends the mainstream media felt they needed to pronounce Kerry the winner of the third debate to give the Democratic candidate a boost going into the end of this campaign.
"[They] certainly [didn't] want the momentum to seem to be shifting back toward the incumbent with three weeks to go, so they were very invested in trying to declare this a win for Kerry," he says, "whether the people at home thought so or not."
According to Graham, the liberal-dominated media knew the Massachusetts senator would be at a distinct disadvantage coming down the homestretch.
"The Kerry campaign has put a lot of emphasis on how it needed to win this final debate to have momentum going into these last three weeks," he says. "The Democrats have an inherent pessimism about the ability of Kerry on the campaign trail, on the stump, in staying focused, compared to President Bush."
If Graham is correct in his assessment, the media may not have as much influence as it thinks. A front-page story in USA Today says the president now has an eight-point lead over John Kerry. The USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll has Bush with 52 percent of likely voters while Kerry has 44 percent. The race is closer among registered voters. That group favors Bush over Kerry by a three-point margin (49 to 46 percent).
The poll was taken Thursday through Saturday last week -- the three days following the third and final debate. The USA Today report notes that one week earlier, Kerry had a one-point lead.
'Stolen Honor' Fuels Fire Over Kerry War Record
Monday, October 18, 2004
NEW YORK — A Vietnam veteran shown in the new documentary "Stolen Honor: Wounds that Never Heal" filed a libel lawsuit Monday against the movie's producer, saying the film falsely calls him a fraud and a liar.
Kenneth J. Campbell, now a professor at the University of Delaware, said in the lawsuit that the film combines footage of him appearing at a 1971 war protest with narration that claims that many of the supposed veterans who took part in the event were later "discovered as frauds" who "never set foot on the battlefield, or left the comfort of the states, or even served in uniform."
The lawsuit said viewers would be left with the perception that Campbell had lied about his military service. It names film producer Carlton Sherwood and his company, Red White and Blue Productions, as defendants.
"The defendants' malicious, reckless and scandalous misrepresentations and false light presentations of Dr. Campbell were done with the specific intent to defame Dr. Campbell and place him in a false light, and with a reckless and outrageous disregard for the truth," Campbell's attorney wrote in the lawsuit.
Campbell attached copies of his military records to the lawsuit, showing that he received the Purple Heart medal and eight other medals, ribbons and decorations for his service as an artillery forward observer in Vietnam in 1968 and 1969.
The 42-minute film, described in online marketing as "a documentary exposing John Kerry's record of betrayal," explores his 1971 testimony before the Senate and links him to anti-war activist and actress Jane Fonda. Vietnam prisoners of war and their wives claim in the film that his testimony demeaned them and led to prisoners being held longer.
In the film, former POWs tell stories of their "brutal" life as prisoners of war in North Vietnam and the additional suffering and extended captivity they endured after their North Vietnamese captors read to them Kerry's words accusing American soldiers of atrocities and demanded the POWs confess to Kerry's "war crimes" allegations.
"Everyone knows about this … this is the elephant in the room — no one wanted to talk about it," Sherwood told FOX News on Monday.
"All we're doing at this point is asking [Kerry] to be accountable for what he did ... there were direct and dire consequences for what he did in 1971 and he's never been made to answer for those consequences," Sherwood told FOX News.
For its part, the Kerry campaign argues that the film is just more propaganda stemming from the Bush campaign aimed at smearing their candidate.
The producer said that no one has ever asked Kerry for proof of the claims made in his Senate testimony, in which the Democrat inferred that the 2.5 million men who served in Vietnam were akin to "Genghis Khan’s barbaric hordes," who wantonly plundered the Vietnam countryside, murdering, raping and bombing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians every day.
Sherwood said he has interviewed many former Vietnam POWs who link Kerry's comments directly to their treatment in prison and that in some cases, Kerry's testimony was piped into their cells, demoralizing them and leading their captors to threaten them with war-crime trials and possible execution.
"Certainly all of them … they were all pawns in Paris peace negotiations so anything at all — and here you have a naval officer coming forward saying he and all of us were war criminals — anything at all would place their lives in greater peril than it already was," Sherwood said.
But Amb. Pete Peterson, a former Vietnam POW and former Democratic Florida congressman, questioned the content and motivation behind the film.
"I think the title itself says a lot, in fact, the idea of the title being 'Stolen Honor,' I think is correct — I think Mr. Sherwood is stealing the POWs' honor and using it for political purposes" and to take focus off the Iraq war, Peterson told FOX News. "I'm shocked that Mr. Sherwood would say his testimony was beamed into us in our cells — give me a break — I didn't know anything about John Kerry until years after I returned" from the war.
Peterson said that he believes Kerry actually helped save lives with his testimony and perhaps shorten the war.
Asked if the POWs in the film are therefore lying, Peterson said: "I think they're either stretching or they're having some memory lapses, frankly, because none of us that I can recall ever talked about John Kerry while we were in prison."
The film will be aired by Sinclair Broadcasting Group, based near Baltimore, Md., which has asked its 62 television stations to pre-empt regular programming to air the film. Many of the stations are in swing states that could decide the outcome of the Nov. 2 election.
Campbell's lawyers have threatened legal action against Sinclair. The Kerry campaign has requested time on each station to refute claims made in the film. It wants the response to be broadcast at an hour when an audience of similar size could be expected to be watching.
But the Federal Communications Commission has said that the "equal time" rule of campaign advertisements and the media doesn't apply in this case, because Bush doesn't actually appear in the film; therefore, Kerry isn't automatically guaranteed a chance to rebut the film on those stations. The Democratic National Committee has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission contending that airing the film should be considered an illegal in-kind contribution to the Bush campaign.
Sherwood said he's received no political money whatsoever for the film, and said he went knocking on doors to raise the nearly $220,000 for the project.
FOX News' Liza Porteus and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
No matter your party affiliation, everyone needs to read this.
HEINZ JAPAN LTD - Tokyo, Japan
HEINZ-UFE LTD. - Guangzhou, People's Republic of China
HEINZ COSCO - Qingdao, People's Republic of China
HEINZ KOREA LTD. - Inchon, South Korea
HEINZ WIN CHANCE LTD. - Bangkok, Thailand
HEINZ INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED - Mumbai, India
PT HEINZ ABC INDONESIA - Jakarta, Indonesia
PT HEINZ SUPRAMA - Surabaya, Indonesia
HEINZ UFC PHILIPPINES - Manila, the Philippines
HEINZ HONG KONG LIMITED - Wanchai, Hong Kong
H. J. HEINZ (Botswana) (Proprietary) LTD. - Gaborone, Botswana
KGALAGADI SOAP INDUSTRIES (Pty) LTD. - Gaborone, Botswana
REFINED OIL PRODUCTS (Pty) LTD. - Gaborone, Botswana
OLIVINE INDUSTRIES (Private) LIMITED - Harare, Zimbabwe
CHEGUTU CANNERS (Pvt) LTD. - Chegutu, Zimbabwe
HEINZ SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD. - Johannesburg, South Africa
HEINZ WELLINGTON'S (PTY) LTD. - Wellington, South Africa
HEINZ EUROPE - Hayes, Middlesex, England
H. J. HEINZ COMPANY LIMITED - Hayes Park, Hayes, Middlesex, England
H. J. HEINZ COMPANY LIMITED - Rovereto, Italy
H. J. HEINZ COMPANY LIMITED - Telford, England
JOHN WEST FOODS LIMITED - Liverpool, England
H. J. HEINZ FROZEN & CHILLED FOODS LIMITED - Hayes, Middlesex, England
H. J. HEINZ COMPANY (IRELAND) LIMITED - Dublin, Ireland
H.J. HEINZ COMPANY OF CANADA LTD - North York, Ontario, Canada
OMSTEAD FOODS LIMITED - Wheatley, Ontario, Canada
ALIMENTOS HEINZ C.A. - Caracas, Venezuela
DISTRIBUIDORA BANQUETE, S.A. - San Jose, Costa Rica
HEINZ ITALIA S.r.l. - Milan, Italy
FATTORIA SCALDASOLE, S.p.a. - Monguzzo, Italy
COPAIS FOOD AND BEVERAGE COMPANY, S.A. - Athens, Greece
HEINZ POLSKA Sp. Z.O.O. - Warsaw, Poland
PUDLISZKI S.A. - Pudliszki, Poland
WODZISLAW, S.A. - Wodzislaw, Poland
ETS. PAULET S.A. - Douarnenez, France
H. J. HEINZ FROZEN S.A.R.L. - Paris, France
HEINZ IBERICA S.A. - Madrid, Spain
IDAL (Industrias de AlimentacÃ£, Lda.) - Lisbon, Portugal
MIEDZYCHOD S.A. - Miedzychod, Poland
HEINZ C.I.S. - Moscow, Russia
HEINZ GEORGIEVSK - Georgievsk, Russia
CAIRO FOOD INDUSTRIES SAE - Cairo, Egypt
HEINZ REMEDIA LIMITED - Tel Aviv, Israel
STAR-KIST FOOD DÃ,'OR LIMITED - Haifa, Israel
H. J. HEINZ GMBH - DÃÂ” ÃÂ“Â¥ldorf, Germany
SONNEN BASSERMANN - Seesen, Germany
KONINKLIJKE DE RUIJTER BV - The Netherlands
HAK BV - The Netherlands
FOODMARK - The Netherlands
HONIG MERKARTIKELEN BV - The Netherlands
DRUKKERIJ DE GROENBOER - The Netherlands
H. J. HEINZ B.V . - Elst, The Netherlands
H. J. HEINZ BELGIUM S.A. - Brussels, Belgium
SERV-A-PORTION - Turnhout, Belgium
Arimpex Industrie Alimentari S.R.L. - Rovereto, Italy
Comexo S.A. - Chateaurenard, France
HEINZ EUROPE - UK and IRELAND - Factories: Chorley, Fakenham, Grimsby, Kendal, Kitt Green, Leaminton, Luton, Okehampton, Telford, Westwick
Think of the conflict of interest a President would have who's wife owns business interests in all of these countries.... I don't think John Kerry's Vietnam service is going to make people look the other way on this stuff.
THIS NEEDS TO BE SENT TO EVERYONE!! CAN YOU IMAGINE HOW THIS WOULD IMPACT HIS PRESIDENCY?
The Petition for Indictment of John Kerry reached its target of 150,000 signatures in September. (This petition for indictment will remain online for informational purposes
[see http://patriotpetitions.us/], and will accept additional signatures, which we will report each quarter after the petition for indictment is filed.) Dear Fellow Patriot, The petition for indictment of John Kerry, for "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," and, thus, to disqualify him for national office, has reached its goal of more than 150,000 signatures. On Monday, 18 October, the petition will be delivered by registered courier to Vice President Richard Cheney (in his capacity as Senate President), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Attorney General John Ashcroft today. Though John Kerry has an extensive and well-documented record of anti- American activities over the past three decades [see "John Kerry: More aid and comfort..." at http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/], it is his acts of treason in 1970-71 that are the subject of this petition for indictment. Our appeal notes both Kerry's violations of the UCMJ (Article 104 part 904) and U.S. Code (18 USC Sec. 2381 and 18 USC Sec. 953), and calls for his disqualification for public office in accordance with the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, which states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice- President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Why prosecute John Kerry now? In October 2003, Mr. Kerry chose to make his Vietnam war record the centerpiece of his campaign for the presidency; this has been especially true since his primary victory in March 2004 [see "Kerry's Quagmire..." http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/]. In response, more than 165,000 signatories of the above-referenced petition for indictment have made his war record the centerpiece of their campaign to disqualify Kerry from public office. We understand that no action is likely to be taken on this petition until after the 02 November election. Be it known, however, that on 03 November, we will seek full recourse in an effort to have John Kerry prosecuted for acts of treason and disqualified from any future campaign for any national office. We are thus committed to holding Mr. Kerry accountable for his actions, as there is no statute of limitations for acts of treason. Thank you for taking the time to sign this petition for indictment. Rest assured that your voice will be heard. Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander Publisher, The Federalist Patriot
MEDIA CONTACT: John Machen
John Kerry: More "aid and comfort"...
10/8/2004 1:06:04 PM
"In a word, I want an American character, that the powers of Europe may be convinced we act for ourselves and not for others; this, in my judgment, is the only way to be respected abroad and happy at home." --George Washington
In recent months, this column has set about to distinguish manifestly between President George W. Bush and Sen. John F. Kerry in regard to character, policy matters and competing visions for our nation's future.
After George Bush's razor-thin and highly contested victory over Albert Gore in 2000, many political observers argued (and continue to insist) that there are few distinctions between the Republican and Democrat parties. Indeed, in regard to some seminal issues that once distinguished party lines -- most notably central government spending -- those lines are now blurred. Additionally, the recent Republican National Convention headlined party moderates like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Arnold Schwarzenegger, who disagree with significant elements of the Republican Platform, while also featuring Democrat Zell Miller, who agrees with most of the GOP Platform. This, understandably, leaves some with the impression that the two parties have all but merged.
To be sure, there is a semblance between the background of the presidential incumbent and his challenger. Bush and Kerry are contemporaries who hail from wealth and privilege, from prestigious prep schools and Ivy League universities, and from political dynasties in their respective home states. During their tenures in national office, both Bush and Kerry have advocated, respectively, for big and bigger central government spending programs.
But are there notable variances in policy matters between George Bush and John Kerry? You bet -- which is precisely why this presidential campaign is being bitterly waged, mostly between centrist Republicans and leftist Democrats. While the national party lines may seem fluid, the political lines which separate Bush and Kerry and their respective ranks are cast-iron.
Volumes have been written about the sizeable chasm separating the character of President Bush and John Kerry -- the distance between their values as reflected in their disagreement over public policies concerning family and faith, their diametrical selection criteria for federal-bench nominees, and their opposing views on taxation. While these are important distinctions, their most significant policy divergence relates to U.S. national security -- the first order of a president's Constitutional duties, the palladium without which all other duties become meaningless. And it is this critical difference which should be foremost in the minds of voters on 2 November.
Indeed, this difference couldn't have been any clearer than during the first presidential-candidate debate (see "We will not waver..." at http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/). In a discussion about the President's obligation to protect the country with pre-emptive military action, Kerry insisted that such pre-emption must first pass "the global test." In other words, any pre-emptive action by a "President Kerry" would first require a thumbs-up from the likes of France, Germany and the perennially hostile United Nations.
For his part, George W. Bush has steadfastly advocated Ronald Reagan's foreign policy dictum -- Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum (to maintain peace, prepare for war), which has deep roots in our national foundation. George Washington, in his first address to the nation (8 January 1790), proclaimed, "To be prepared for war, is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace."
That resolve notwithstanding, on 11 September 2001, after eight years of military-budget depredation, foreign-policy ambiguity and outright appeasement under the Clinton regime (with full collusion from John Kerry), George Bush and our nation were dealt a heretofore-unimaginable blow by a suicidal gang of Islamist cutthroats. As a result, President Bush was forced to demonstrate not only his commitment to military readiness, but also his willingness to use the ultimate instrument of diplomacy, military force, in defense of our nation. Consequently, his proficiency as Commander in Chief is well established.
John Kerry, on the other hand, has spent much of his political career denigrating American military personnel and the nation they defend, while advocating for policies of appeasement -- the same policies that made lower Manhattan, Northern Virginia and a field in Pennsylvania the front lines in our war with Jihadistan (see "Jihadistan: A clear and present danger..." at http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/).
On its face, Kerry's endorsement of appeasement resembles the yellow streak of his contemporary Leftist ilk; long gone are the days of robust, hawkish Democrats like Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson. But on closer examination, Kerry's sordid history of collaboration with Communist regimes for more than three decades, even in times of war, raises much more serious questions about his motives and his fitness for the highest office in the land.
Kerry is, indubitably, the Left's most "useful idiot" (as V.I. Lenin famously labeled Western apologists for socialist propaganda) in contemporary politics. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, said of Kerry's anti-American activities during the Vietnam War, "KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment and credibility. ... As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements."
But Kerry's infamous (and unlawful) coddling of Vietnamese Communists some 35 years ago (see "Aid and comfort to the enemy: The Kerry Record..." at http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/) was not his last rendezvous with the Reds. After his election to the Senate in 1984 (as Ted Kennedy's understudy), Kerry spent years dismissing claims by POW family groups that some Americans were still being held in Vietnam and Cambodia. And he has, since, given aid and comfort to plenty of other Red regimes, including some in this hemisphere.
For example, in 1985 Kerry courted Daniel Ortega and his Communist regime in Nicaragua, even traveling to visit his "Dear Comandante" in Managua. Kerry returned to the U.S., where he advocated a policy of appeasement rather than continued funding of Ortega's opponents, the anti-Communist Contras. In 1988 Kerry attempted to make political hay of U.S. policy in Central America by using his Senate committee as a launch-pad to accuse George H.W. Bush of sanctioning a Contra drug-smuggling operation that was importing cocaine into California. The unfounded charges were, not surprisingly, timed to coincide with the elder Bush's campaign against Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis, under whom Kerry had served as lieutenant governor.
In 1996, Kerry accepted a $10,000 campaign contribution in return for arranging a meeting between Honk Kong businesswoman Liu Chaohying and a senior Securities and Exchange official in order to get Chaohying's company listed on the U.S. Stock Exchange. Chaohying was a lieutenant colonel in Red China's People's Liberation Army. That same year, Kerry traveled to Beijing on a "U.S. trade mission." Here it's worth noting that the ChiComs never forget their useful idiots; the People's Daily, the official newspaper of the Communist Party of China, has endorsed Kerry's presidential bid.
But Kerry's fondness for despotic regimes did not subside in the '90s. In March of this year, Kerry was asked on a campaign stop in Florida about his affiliation with Cuba's Fidel Castro and his oppressive regime. Given the number of Cuban expatriates in Florida who fled Castro's slave island, Kerry answered, "I'm pretty tough on Castro. ... I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him." (Would someone kindly cue the laugh track?)
Helms-Burton, you may recall, strengthened the U.S. embargo against Cuba after Fidel's fighter jets shot down two single-engine civilian aircraft over international waters, killing four Cuban ex-pats. The small planes belonged to Brothers to the Rescue, an organization of small aircraft owners who volunteered their time flying over the waters between Cuba and the Keys, and alerting the Coast Guard when they came upon Cuban refugees on makeshift rafts who needed rescue.
However, Kerry voted against Helms-Burton, and he later clarified his support for Castro by arguing that the embargo should be lifted. "The only reason [Cuba is treated differently from other Communist nations] is the politics of Florida," said Kerry. Of course, the ever-opportunistic Kerry wasn't campaigning in Florida at the time of that "clarification."
Indeed, John Kerry has a well-documented record of anti-American activities, especially aiding Communist regimes. But the "aid and comfort" he gave to North Vietnamese Communists in 1971 (while still a U.S. naval officer, and while Americans were still fighting, dying, and being held captive by that regime) is the most grievous of these transgressions.
His treasonous actions in 1970-1971 are the subject of an indictment that will be delivered to Senate President Dick Cheney, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Attorney General John Ashcroft on 12 October. The indictment [http://www.PatriotPetitions.US/Kerry] notes both Kerry's UCMJ and U.S. Code (18 USC 2381) violations, and it calls for his disqualification for public office in accordance with the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, which states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President...having previously taken an oath...to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."
Why issue this indictment now? Because John Kerry chose to make his Vietnam war record the centerpiece of his presidential campaign (see "Kerry's Quagmire..." http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/). In response, more than 160,000 signatories of the aforementioned indictment have made it the centerpiece of their campaign to disqualify him from public office.
Clearly, there will be no determination on these charges until after 2 November, but Kerry will be held to account for his treasonous actions -- for there is no statute of limitations on treason.
For those who would argue that Kerry's anti-American activities in 1971, which clearly cost American lives in Vietnam, do not reflect the nature of the man today, we refer you to this statement from Kerry from the first debate. On the subject of our troops engaged in Iraq, Kerry remarked, "It is vital for us not to confuse the war -- ever -- with the warriors. That happened before."
Indeed, it did happen before, and it is happening again today.
Kerry can't have it both ways. There is a direct correlation between his undermining of U.S. and Allied resolve in the war against terrorism -- specifically on the Iraqi warfront with Jihadistan -- and American and Allied causalities on that front. Those forces, including countless Iraqis, are being injured and killed in larger numbers because of the political dissent Kerry and his ilk are fomenting.
During Tuesday night's vice-presidential debate, John Edwards unwittingly provided the evidence for this very correlation: "We lost more troops in September than we lost in August; lost more in August than we lost in July; lost more in July than we lost in June."
As the hand-wringing of the Kerry/Edwards ticket grows stronger, so too does the spirit of the enemy. And while the net effect can certainly be felt in American and Allied casualties in Iraq, it may also yet be felt more dramatically in al-Qa'ida's efforts to ensure the election of its useful-idiot appeasers.
Perhaps the most instructive question that can be asked regarding U.S. national security, the protection of Americans and our vital interests, is this: Given the chance, would Saddam Hussein, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong-Il, Mohammad Khatami, Moammar al-Ghadafi and Hu Jingtao vote for a) George Bush, or b) John Kerry? How would Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder and Kofi Annan vote?
Editor's Note: A Correction, sort of...
In Patriot 04-29, we mistakenly stated that the Communist Party USA (now there's an oxymoron) had "endorsed" Comrade Kerry for president. The CPUSA website has since corrected the record by saying, "We do not endorse the candidates of other political parties. We have refrained from fielding our own candidate so as not to distract from the main effort of defeating Bush and the ultra-right extremist agenda."
Former POW 'Astonished' By Kerry's False Testimony Charging War Crimes
America's Most Highly Decorated Living Veteran Calls Kerry 'a Man of Benedict Arnold Qualities'
by David Freddoso
Posted Oct 15, 2004
Col. George E. "Bud" Day is America's most highly decorated living veteran officer. He served in World War II, Korea and Vietnam, receiving more than 50 combat awards and the Congressional Medal of Honor.
What he wants now is to stop John Kerry from being elected President.
Day traveled from his home in Florida to Washington, D.C., last week to participate in the filming of two new ads by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In one of the spots, he directly addresses Kerry: "How can you expect our sons and daughters to follow you, when you condemned their fathers and grandfathers?"
During his five-plus years of captivity he was brutally tortured. Now he is one of several former POWs featured in Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, a documentary about the effect of the anti-war movement on American POWs in Vietnam. The film, which portrays John Kerry in an unsympathetic light, will soon air in part on 62 broadcast stations owned by the Sinclair Broadcast Group, despite loud protests from the Kerry camp. Many of the company's stations are in swing states.
HUMAN EVENTS Assistant Editor David Freddoso interviewed Day October 13 on his decision to publicly oppose Kerry:
You are a winner of the Congressional Medal of Honor, and well known among people familiar with the history of Vietnam. What is so important to you about this election that you have decided to get involved in the efforts of the Swift Boat veterans?
COL. BUD DAY: I felt a terrible sense of outrage when the Kerry campaign attacked President Bush about his National Guard qualifications, because I was the advisor to a Guard unit that got called up for Vietnam, and we lost three friends of mine. And I thought it was a very mean thing for him to be discounting that military service in the Guard, because that unit likewise could have been called up. They were flying 102s out of Thailand during the Vietnam War. It wasn't probable, but it certainly was possible. I thought it was a very unfair thing. And then, when his campaign began playing Kerry up as a war hero, I thought that was very questionable, considering the fact that while his service might have been satisfactory, what he did in 1971 after coming back was quite unsatisfactory.
What was your first exposure to Kerry's 1971 testimony?
DAY: At the time I was a POW, but I didn't connect it up with him, because there were a lot of loonies out there protesting the war. I had just heard that a Naval officer was badmouthing our performance and basically saying we ought to get out of Vietnam and the war was wrong and so forth. I wasn't aware that it was him until well after I was back from Vietnam.
Did it surprise you to hear of an officer's giving such testimony?
DAY: It astonished me, because basically it was a breach of faith with those people he had served with. It was absolutely untrue that we were committing atrocities there. It was absolutely untrue that we were raping women and murdering children and doing all those kinds of things. And either he knew that was untrue, or he should have known just from his own experiences . . . Later, I found out that he had made these two visits to meet with Le Duc Tho in Paris, and push the enemy's seven-point piece plan--which amounted to us tendering some kind of ransom for the POWs, and under that condition we would come home, and then we would apologize for ever having been in the war. It told me that he really was a man of Benedict Arnold qualities, because that's what Benedict Arnold did. He fought for the country and then crossed over to the British…
Did it undermine your morale to hear that a fellow officer of the U.S. military was essentially parroting what your captors were telling you and torturing you to get you to say?
DAY: Yes. And I have to be straightforward. I did not know who this Naval officer was, and I didn't know exactly what it was he was supposed to be saying. I just heard this story that a Naval officer was basically saying the same stuff that Jane Fonda was saying. Now, of course, in 1972, she was over there posing on gun sights, as were several other anti-war people who wanted the Communists to win. And so to be frank with you, in my mind in jail at that time, I just suspected that it was some sort of hanger-on with Jane Fonda. I just assumed that it was some Naval officer that had kind of gone around the bend, and I certainly never connected it up with him specifically. I had no clue who John Kerry was. I was skeptical of that story, and I thought it might just be some more propaganda from the Vietnamese...
Had John Kerry's plan to unilaterally withdraw from Vietnam been put into effect, would your life, as a POW, have been in greater or less danger, and would there have been a greater or a lesser chance of your going home?
DAY: It would have been in far greater danger. They always called me a war criminal, they threatened several times to shoot me after the war. Frankly, I didn't go to sleep every night sick with worry because in my gut I knew that our government was going to bomb them out, and we were going to get out under different conditions. But had the surrender occurred, it would have been a totally different thing, because then those people would have been totally able to do anything they wanted to do with us. They could have turned us loose, they could have not turned us loose, they could have shot us, they could have put us on trial. They could have done anything they wanted to. And not only that, but there would have been a blood bath of the South Vietnamese that would have been in the hundreds of thousands, that would have died and been tortured. . . .
On "Meet the Press," Tim Russert brought up Kerry's 1971 testimony. Kerry said that some of the language he used might have been inappropriate, spoken as an angry young man. Does that cut it for you as an apology?
DAY: It wasn't even in the ballpark. It was no apology--it wasn't even an explanation. He dodged the question, is what happened. . . . He blackened every Vietnam veteran's name when he came back and told all of those terrible stories about what we were supposedly doing. And he is just one of the reasons that the myth exists about all of the crazy, nutty, dope-addicted, booze-addicted failures that came out of Vietnam because of that awful war. Col. Bui Tin of the North Vietnamese government said words to this effect: that every day, the North Vietnamese listened to the radio to see what was happening back here in the United States. And what they heard from Kerry was exactly the kind of propaganda that they wanted to hear, because their claim was they were going to win this war on the streets of San Francisco and New York City. And it was clear that John Kerry was helping them do that. That was also part of the Soviet Union's disinformation program, which was saying exactly the same thing that John Kerry was saying… He basically functioned as a propaganda minister for both the Russians and the North Vietnamese. He basically was advocating that the Communists win.
Have you ever been active in politics before?
DAY: Yes. I supported Harry Truman in 1948. I supported Ronald Reagan. I supported George Bush Senior. I supported John McCain [in 2000], and I went with John's campaign to New Hampshire and Virginia and all around the country quite a bit. I was his commander in jail.
Kerry and CAIR for president?
Posted: October 16, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Joe Kaufman and Larry Klayman
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
The November presidential elections are weeks away, and the quest to get out the vote is in full swing. But when some swing voters have links to radical Islam, motives for eliciting their support must be questioned.
An e-mail announcement, dated Oct. 13 was sent out by the president of the Muslim Student Organization of Florida Atlantic University, Asmaa Metwally. It stated the following:
"Former Ambassador Osman Siddique, a representative from the John Kerry campaign will be coming to the Pompano Beach Masjid this coming Saturday, Oct. 16 at 7 p.m. (iftar time), to rally up the Muslim vote for John Kerry."
It's surprising that Asmaa Metwally would be the dispatcher of an announcement for a campaign for president of the United States, as his name appears on an endorsement of another event put on by the Palestine Solidarity Movement, a group that has, on numerous occasions, turned a blind eye to terrorist attacks against innocent Israeli civilians.
But then, as we read on in the e-mail, we find out that the Kerry event is being hosted by a Dr. Maged Metwally, an obvious relation to Asmaa.
Following this bit of information comes the real surprise. The event – again, an event for a campaign for president of the United States – is being held, as stated in the e-mail, "in coordination with the Pompano Beach Masjid and CAIR." As the late announcer of the New York Yankees, Phil Rizzuto, would say, "Holy Cow!"
CAIR, or the Council on American-Islamic Relations, is an organization that purports to be a harmless civil-rights group fighting against discrimination of the Muslim community. Yet, evidence shows that CAIR is nothing more than a militant Islamist organization.
CAIR is a spin-off of the Islamic Association for Palestine, an organization that was founded by current Hamas leader Mousa Abu Marzook. CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad, himself, has stated that he supports Hamas.
Numerous leaders of CAIR have been cited for their involvement in nefarious activities. They include:
Ghassan Elashi (founding board member of CAIR's Texas chapter) – was chairman of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, which was shut down by the United States for raising millions of dollars for Hamas; in July of 2004, was convicted of conspiracy, money laundering and making false statements about shipments of high-tech equipment to countries deemed state sponsors of terrorism.
Randall Todd "Ismail" Royer (national staff member of CAIR) – past communications director of the Muslim American Society, an organization that publishes materials calling suicide bombings against Israelis justifiable; in April of 2004, was sentenced to 20 years in prison for his participation in a network of al-Qaida-related militant jihadists centered in northern Virginia.
Bassem Khafagi (CAIR's community director) – was co-founder and past president of the Islamic Assembly of North America, an organization that has been investigated for possible funding to terrorist-related groups and publishing of materials calling for suicide bombings in the United States; in November of 2003, was sentenced to prison for bank fraud and making false statements on his visa application; was later deported to Egypt.
Rabih Haddad (fund-raiser for CAIR's Ann Arbor chapter) – was co-founder and past executive director and public relations director for Global Relief Foundation, which was shut down by the United States for its financing of terrorist groups, specifically al-Qaida; was arrested by INS for visa violations, in December of 2001 and was later deported to Lebanon.
Siraj Wahhaj (national board member of CAIR) – in February of 1995, was named by federal prosecutor Mary Jo White as a possible co-conspirator to the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center; was a character witness for Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who is serving a life sentence for his part in the '93 bombing conspiracy; currently sits on the board of directors of the radical Islamic Society of North America.
Steven Pomerantz, former FBI assistant director and chief of the FBI's Counter-Terrorism Section, has stated, "CAIR, its leaders, and its activities effectively give aid to international terrorist groups." And "CAIR is but one of a new generation of groups in the United States that hide under a veneer of 'civil rights' or 'academic' status but in fact are tethered to a platform that supports terrorism."
Why would John Kerry, a candidate for president of the United States, allow himself or his campaign to be involved with such a group as this? And will a vote for John Kerry for president mean a vote for CAIR in the White House, as well?
U.S. Economy Growing at Fastest Pace in Industrialized World
Kerry's Wrong on the Economy, Too
by Stephen Moore
Posted Oct 15, 2004
Just as he has in stump speeches all year, John Kerry used Wednesday's final presidential debate to paint a wildly inaccurate portrait of U.S. economic performance under President Bush. "The American middle-class family isn't making it right now," he claimed.
The economy, as Kerry falsely depicts it, is in the worst shape it's been in many, many years. Bush, he claims, has the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover and the worst growth record since World War II.
As an antidote Kerry promises higher taxes on the "rich" (i.e. the small business owners who create jobs) and more big government programs.
But the hard facts refute Kerry's doom-and-gloom demagoguery.
In fact, considering the external shocks to our economy over the past several years--9/11, the stock market collapse, the recession, the corporate scandals--it is remarkable it is growing much at all, let alone at the fastest pace in the industrialized world.
To be sure, Bush has made some damaging economic and fiscal decisions. These include the steel trade tariffs and a vast expansion in government spending that has caused debt and deficits to soar. For these transgressions, Bush deserves demerits. But Bush has gotten many policies right, not the least of which has been tax policy. The acceleration of growth and productivity and the rebound in the stock market correspond directly with the Bush capital gains and dividend tax cuts of May 2003.
So here is a quick summary of what is right about the U.S. economy in 2004:
1. The misery index (inflation plus unemployment rate) is about the same today as it was when Clinton ran for reelection in 1996 (8.4 versus 8.5) as Democrats proclaimed boundless prosperity. The misery index has not been this low in a reelection year for any of Bush's other predecessors back through LBJ.
2. The unemployment rate of 5.4% today is among the lowest of all our industrial competitors and compares favorably with a jobless rate of 8% on average in Europe. If we had an unemployment rate of 8%, it would mean 3 million more unemployed workers, which would be equivalent to putting every worker in the state of Colorado out of work.
3. Interest rates are still very low in historical terms--and that is despite high budget deficits. (Perhaps, just perhaps, the one does not cause the other.)
4. Our growth rate of 5.1% since the 2003 tax cuts were enacted is substantially higher than that of our competitors, and the standard projection of 4.5% growth for next year is almost twice the rate of growth that Europe is expected to achieve.
5. The stock market has risen at a brisk pace since the May 2003 tax cuts on capital gains, dividends, and income. Even though the 2004 stock market performance has been only so-so, the stock market has increased by more than 20% since the tax cut was signed into law.
6. Productivity rates have grown at a healthy pace of 4% since the tax cut was enacted.
7. Social statistics have also generally improved. Two are worth mentioning because they impact the economy. The violent crime rate has hit its lowest level in 40 years. The rate of births to unwedded mothers has finally started to decline after a 30-year surge in the wake of the Great Society welfare state.
8. Financial wealth is way up for average middle-income families, according to the U.S. Federal Reserve Board. Housing values have exploded since 2000.
Homeownership has risen to its highest levels ever and so has stock ownership. The boom in the stock market and housing market has helped improve mightily the balance sheet of the average household.
Bush's major failing has been in converting the budget surpluses of the late 1990s into staggering levels of deficit spending. Bush inherited a $200 billion federal budget surplus. Now we have a $400 billion deficit. At most, 25% of that debt surge is a result of tax cuts. Most of the debt explosion results from a spending bonanza on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.
After four years, it is worth asking how Bush's overall economic performance ranks among other recent Presidents. The chart on this page shows Bush has a record comparable to the two Presidents re-elected in recent times: Bill Clinton (whose good economic record was really the work of a Republican Congress, see coverbox story) and Ronald Reagan. His record is far superior to the one-termers: Ford, Carter, and Bush Sr.
While Bush does not lead in every category, there's a lot here for him to be proud of. On the misery index, only Clinton had a comparable record among his six predecessors. On gas prices, Bush is not nearly as vulnerable as he might seem to the casual observer. Prices are about the same today as they were in 1984 when Reagan was re-elected. Mortgage rates are lower and homeownership is higher than in any of the other re-election years. Overall economic growth is running at a faster rate than in 1996 when Clinton was re-elected.
The most significant number of all is the federal tax burden, the lowest it has been since 1955. Bush's tax policy is a success. The U.S. economy is now well into its recovery and is the engine driving global economic growth.
Not surprisingly, the media and John Kerry are hiding this good news. Republicans should trumpet it.
Bush Compares Favorably With Predecessors
Real Gas Price
Violent Crime Rate
Read GDP Growth
Real Stock Market Growth
Federal Tax Burden
Probe: 46,000 New York City Voters Also Registered in Florida
At the request of Florida Secretary of State Glenda Hood, the Justice Department has initiated an investigation following a report that 46,000 New York City voters are also registered to vote in Florida and that as many as 1,000 may have already voted in both states in the same election.
On August 24, the New York Daily News published the results of an investigation by reporter Russ Buettner. Buettner determined that 46,000 New York City residents are also registered to vote in Florida. Of these, the investigation "found that between 400 and 1,000 registered voters have voted twice in at least one election." This is a federal offense punishable by up to five years in jail.
Not surprisingly, these twice-registered New York voters are overwhelmingly Democratic, 68% to only 12% registered as Republicans. Another 16% did not list a party affiliation. This would mean about 31,280 are Democrats, while only about 5,520 are Republicans, giving the Democrats a 25,760-voter advantage among those who--at least theoretically--could vote illegally in both New York City and Florida on November 2.
In 2000, Bush beat Gore by only 537 votes in Florida--thus securing an Electoral College victory.
The Daily News cited by name only six people who had voted in both New York and Florida in at least one previous election. Ironically, of these six, the paper identified two as Republicans and only one as a Democrat, with no party affiliations given for the other three.
On October 4, Florida Secretary of State Hood announced that the U.S. Justice Department and the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission are investigating the Daily News's revelations, and that she did not believe New York was the only state whose residents were double-registering in Florida.
"The FBI has assured us that the Department of Justice is investigating this issue," Hood was quoted in the Tampa Tribune. "Today I met with the chairman of the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission, and their general counsel has been reviewing it. . . . We are sure there are other states involved." In an August 26 letter, the Tribune reported, Hood told the FBI that federal action is "necessary to send a strong message that this type of illegal behavior and manipulation of the election franchise will not be tolerated."
Media Bend Over Backwards to Help Kerry
by Thomas Sowell
Posted Oct 15, 2004
A joke has President Bush and the Pope sailing down the Potomac on the Presidential yacht. The wind blows the Pontiff's cap off and it falls into the water. President Bush orders the yacht stopped, gets off and walks across the water to retrieve the Pope's cap.
The next day's headline in the New York Times reads: BUSH CAN'T SWIM.
It is hard to know whether media bias is getting worse or whether the mainstream media are just getting caught more often because of alternative sources of news like Fox News, talk radio and a growing number of Internet sites. Twenty years ago, CBS News and Dan Rather might have been able to continue to bluff their way out of the forged documents scandal because the other members of the big-three broadcast networks were unlikely to press the issue.
The biggest mistake of Dan Rather and CBS News was in not realizing that it was not 20 years ago any more.
According to the Drudge Report, an official of ABC News recently sent out a memo saying that "Bush attacks on Kerry involve distortions and taking things out of context in a way that goes beyond what Kerry has done" and that ABC News needs to "help voters evaluate what the candidates are saying" in the public interest.
Apparently none of that "We report, you decide" stuff for ABC News.
There is always a temptation for the media to go beyond the role of reporting to the dicey role of spinning -- and to do that, not just in opinion columns, but in what are presented as news reports. The front page of the New York Times is perhaps the most blatant example of editorials disguised as news reports, but by no means the only one.
A gimmick used increasingly to avoid even discussing some arguments on public issues is to focus on the emotions -- or presumed emotions -- of those making the arguments, rather than on the arguments themselves.
This gimmick was widely used in news reports of Democratic Senator Zell Miller's devastating recitation of all the anti-military votes of Senator Kerry over the years. Whether Senator Miller's facts were accurate or his conclusions logical was a question either not addressed at all or buried under discussions of his anger.
A recent New York Times review of the book about John Kerry in Vietnam -- Unfit for Command by John O'Neill -- simply ignores or arbitrarily dismisses the book's charges while calling O'Neill "curdled with hatred for Kerry" and having "a fixation on attacking Kerry."
Much of the mainstream media has likewise ignored or dismissed this book, without ever letting the readers or viewers know what the facts are for or against its serious charges. Twenty years ago, that would have been enough to bury it.
But, again, it is not 20 years ago any more. The Internet, talk radio and Fox News made enough people aware of this book that the big three broadcast networks and the New York Times could no longer continue indefinitely to act as if it didn't exist. Not without losing more of their own credibility.
This is not to say that bias in the mainstream media has been completely neutralized. Lots of people still depend on CBS, ABC and NBC for their news and still regard the New York Times as the paper with high journalistic standards that it once was.
The same media gimmick of turning questions of fact into questions of emotion is still being used as a way of avoiding inconvenient arguments by focusing on the person making charges instead of on the substance of the charges themselves.
Thus critics of the public schools are accused of "bashing" teachers. Criticisms of Dan Rather are explained away by the fact that conservatives have long been "hostile" to Dan Rather.
It may well be true that many Jews have been bitter against Hitler. But does that prove that the Holocaust never happened?
Emotions neither prove nor disprove facts. There was a time when any rational adult understood this. But years of dumbed-down education and emphasis on how people "feel" have left too many people unable to see through this media gimmick.
But, then, that can be dismissed as "bashing" the schools.
Dr. Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Mr. Kerry, where was your ready reserve drills held at, and did you attend?
You see when someone joins the Navy, there are two main ways they come in. Active Duty or Naval Reserve. Active duty serve 4 to 6 years on your first enlistment. There also is a little known fact that when you join your enlistment is actually 8 years. When I joined in 1982, I went in under the AEF program (Advanced Electronic Field) the enlistment was 6 years active, vice the usual 4 years. There was an added 2 years of inactive reserve time at the end of my first enlistment, which was waived when I reenlisted. If I had done the 4 year active duty the there would have been 2 years of active reserve and 2 years of inactive reserve.
When someone joins the "Ready Reserve" (Naval Reserve) they come in under three programs. These determine how much active duty time you are required to perform prior to your active reserve drills. The programs are 2x4, 3x3, 4x2, i.e. in the 2x4 program you would perform 2 years active duty, 4 years drilling reserve then you 2 years of inactive reserve. John Kerry joined the Naval Reserve in 1966 as an inactive member, was activated and deployed in 1967. He left active duty in 1970.
That means that he still had 3 years of active, drilling one weekend every month, two weeks a year, reserve duty.
I want to see any pay stubs, muster sheets, page 13's or any other official documentation that he attended those drills.
Kerry wants 'equal time' to counter 'Stolen Honor'
In letter to Sinclair, asks to air own program, has rejected offer to appear after POW film
Posted: October 15, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Sen. John Kerry's campaign has written a legal brief to the president of a broadcast chain that plans to air a film by his opponents, asking that the Democratic presidential nominee be given equal time.
The Maryland-based Sinclair Broadcast Group has ordered its 62 stations to air during prime time a documentary critical of Kerry, "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," contending it is a news program of importance to viewers.
As WorldNetDaily first reported, the 42-minute documentary presents former POWs who tell how Kerry's 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was used as propaganda against them by their North Vietnamese captors, intensifying their persecution and possibly prolonging imprisonment.
Sinclair has invited Kerry to appear on the program after the film is shown, but his campaign has declined.
The letter, complaining that the planned program constitutes an attack on the Democratic presidential nominee, points out that its legality already has been questioned by the Democratic National Committee, which filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell has said none of its agency's rules prevent Sinclair from airing the program.
The DNC argues the "broadcast does not qualify for the exemption afforded to news stories under federal campaign finance law and thus would constitute an illegal corporate expenditure."
The Kerry campaign brief, written by attorney Marc E. Elias, contends that while the Fairness Doctrine has been repealed, "a broadcasting station that permits supporters of a candidate to use its facilities to advance that candidate's campaign must provide supporters of the opposing candidate 'quasi-equal opportunities.'"
"The documentary is clearly intended to advance the campaign of President Bush by attacking Senator Kerry's record," the Democratic candidate's team asserts.
The program does not meet exemption requirements, the brief says, arguing it is not regularly scheduled on Sinclair's stations and will not be shown when news programming is regularly aired.
It cannot qualify as a bona fide news program or news interview, the campaign says, as the "content of the program will not be controlled by Sinclair or an independent journalistic organization."
"The program instead is intended to be an attack on Senator Kerry and thus is not the result of decisions made on the basis of newsworthiness rather than to advance or retard a particular candidate," the letter says.
The campaign also argues the film cannot be viewed as an exempt documentary because the FCC has ruled that "exemption explicitly applies only if the appearance of the candidate is 'incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary.'"
"If Sinclair does air this program in which supporters of President Bush attack Senator Kerry, it must provide a similar opportunity for Senator Kerry's supporters," the letter says.
"Please consider this a request that each Sinclair station that airs the documentary provide supporters of the Kerry-Edwards campaign with a similar amount of time on that station before the election at a time where an audience of similar size can be expected to be viewing the station."
The producers of a pro-Kerry documentary about the candidate's time in Vietnam already has challenged Sinclair to air their film, "Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry."
"We will provide any media representative with a copy of 'Going Upriver' and challenge any reporter to compare the two films for historical accuracy and journalistic standards," said Bill Samuels, an executive producer of the film, in a statement.
Yesterday's Lies: Steve Pitkin and the Winter Soldiers
My name is Steve Pitkin, age 20, from Baltimore. I served with the 9th Division from May of '69 until I was airvaced in July of '69. I'll testify about the beating of civilians and enemy personnel, destruction of villages, indiscriminate use of artillery, the general racism and the attitude of the American GI toward the Vietnamese. I will also talk about some of the problems of the GIs toward one another and the hassle with officers.
-- Steve Pitkin, Winter Soldier Investigation, February 1, 1971.
Steve Pitkin never intended to speak at the Winter Soldier Investigation. He agreed to come to Detroit in January of 1971 mostly to support his fellow veterans, but also to see David Crosby and Graham Nash perform and hopefully meet a few girls. He didn’t really have any place else to go.
Unlike most members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Pitkin had seen combat in Vietnam. He was caught in a mortar attack shortly after arriving in country as a Private First Class, and suffered minor wounds to both legs. During the months that followed his injuries became infected and "jungle rot" set in. He was eventually medivaced to an Army hospital in Okinawa, where the doctors gave him anti-fungals and antibiotics, and managed to save his feet. Specialist Pitkin would leave the Army with a Purple Heart, an honorable discharge, and a lifetime case of hepatitis C from the transfusions.
Back in the States, Pitkin did not receive a hero's welcome. At Travis Air Force Base in California he was showered with feces thrown by anti-war protestors. Later, while he waited in his Class A uniform for a plane at San Francisco International Airport, people stopped to snarl obscenities and occasionally spit. Even a World War II veteran paused to come over and call him a coward. He went back home to Baltimore, but it wasn’t home any more. Steve Pitkin was 19 years old.
"I was in bad shape," Pitkin recalls. "My family was against the war, and so were all my old friends. I had things I wanted to say, but there was nobody to listen. I was angry at our government which should have known better than to let us die in a conflict it had no intention of winning, and I was furious at the American media for making us out to be baby-killers and telling lies about what they saw."
Confused and depressed, Pitkin signed up for classes at Catonsville Community College outside of Baltimore. There he met recruiters talking up a new organization they described as a "brotherhood" of Vietnam veterans. Pitkin started going to Vietnam Veterans Against the War meetings at the campus, hoping to find some people he could talk to about his experiences. Pitkin says he "had no inkling" that VVAW leaders were meeting with North Vietnamese and Vietcong representatives, or that the VVAW consistently supported their positions. He thought the VVAW was just an alternative to older organizations such as the VFW, where so many Vietnam vets felt unwelcome.
In January of 1971, Pitkin was invited to go to Detroit for the VVAW's "Winter Soldier Investigation," a national conference intended to convince the public that American troops were routinely committing war crimes in Vietnam. "I was just going to show support for the guys who were already picked out to testify," said Pitkin. "Fighting in the war was terrible enough -– I shot people -- but I never saw any atrocities against civilians. The Vietcong hung up tribal chiefs and disemboweled them in front of their own families –- they did that to their own people. I never saw Americans do anything like that."
The Baltimore contingent met up with other VVAW members in Washington, where they were loaded into rental vans with no back seats. It was freezing cold in Pitkin's van, and Kerry and another former officer were in the front where all the heat was, which made for a long drive. Pitkin was unimpressed with the tall, aloof Kerry, who rarely spoke to anyone other than the organization’s leaders, and tagged Kerry with the nickname "Lurch" after the Addams Family TV character. The ragtag group eventually made it to Detroit, got lost for a while, and then spent the night at somebody's house. The conference was held at a Howard Johnson’s motel, in a room Pitkin remembers as having big concrete posts and no windows, with press lights glaring down on the participants. An entourage of VVAW leaders and reporters always surrounded John Kerry, who, Pitkin thought, looked like he was running for President.
Pitkin watched for a day or so while his fellow VVAW members told stories about horrible things they claimed to have done or witnessed in Vietnam. He noticed other people, civilians, going around to the VVAW members and "bombarding them, laying on the guilt," as they told the veterans they had committed unspeakable crimes, but could make amends by testifying against the war.
On the second day of the conference, Pitkin was surrounded by a group of the event's leaders, who said they needed more witnesses and wanted him to speak. Pitkin protested that he didn’t have anything to say. Kerry said, "Surely you had to have seen some of the atrocities." Pitkin insisted that he hadn't, and the group's mood turned menacing. One of the other leaders leaned in and whispered, "It’s a long walk back to Baltimore." Pitkin finally agreed to "testify." The Winter Soldier leaders told Pitkin exactly what they wanted -– stories about rape, brutality, shooting prisoners, and racism. Kerry assured him that "the American people will be grateful for what you have to say."
Many of the vets, particularly the vets participating in this panel, have expressed the fact that they could go on and on for a long time, talking about various instances of brutality, torture, rape, everything that's been talked about here for the last two days. But one thing they felt was very important and which hasn't, in a sense, been done by many of the veterans was to say why this happened. What happens to them that this happens and how these things came about. Steve Pitkin in particular felt the need to try and express something about how these men become animals in a sense. I know several of the other vets on the panel want to mention it very briefly. So Steve why don't you start off?
-- Moderator, Miscellaneous Panel, Winter Soldier Investigation, February 1, 1971 [Note: the moderators for this session were VVAW founder Jan Crumb and Executive Committee member John Kerry]
Pitkin appears several times in the documentary film "Winter Soldier," where he comes across as vague and somewhat stunned, especially while being questioned by John Kerry in a preliminary interview. He seems overwhelmed at having to relive his harrowing experiences in Vietnam. But Steve Pitkin says today that what the film actually shows are his efforts to avoid answering Kerry’s questions at all.
During the formal hearings, Pitkin started to slam the press for misrepresenting what GIs really did in Vietnam, but a woman he believes was Jane Fonda shot him an astonished look and started to stand up. Steve could see other members of the group getting ready to cut him off, so he changed course and made up a few things he thought they would be willing to accept. "Everything I said about atrocities and racism was a lie. My unit never went out with the intention of doing anything but its job. And I never saw black soldiers treated differently, get picked out for the worst or most dangerous jobs, or anything like that. There were some guys, shirkers, who would intentionally injure themselves to get sent home, so I talked about that for a while. But the fact is I lied my ass off, and I'm not proud of it. I didn't think it would ever amount to anything."
After the 3-day conference ended, everybody piled back into the vans and headed home. Nobody had much to say to Pitkin. A month or two later he was contacted by a reporter for Life Magazine who asked about war crimes and atrocities. "I didn’t tell him what he wanted to hear," said Pitkin. Nothing he said was included in the final story.
In April, Steve Pitkin went down to Washington to check out the VVAW's weeklong "Dewey Canyon III" protest, where he "ran into a lot of guys who couldn’t answer questions about what unit they were in." At one point he met up with leftist icon Jerry Rubin, who was wrapped in a Vietcong flag. Pitkin told him to take it off. Rubin shrugged, dropped the flag, and walked away. Pitkin and two or three like-minded veterans formed a patrol, confiscating Vietcong flags and T-shirts from protestors and daring them to start something. Nobody took them up on it.
Pitkin was present for the infamous "medal toss" event on Friday, where VVAW members yelled obscenities and threats against the government into a microphone, then threw military decorations and papers over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol. A guy with long hair stood nearby holding a bag filled with military ribbons and a few medals, handing them out. Pitkin noticed that most of the decorations weren't right for Vietnam combat veterans -– some, in fact, were from the Korean War -– and overheard remarks that the VVAW had cleaned out the local Army-Navy stores the day before. Disgusted, he grabbed a handful of ribbons and threw them, not at the Capitol, but at the throng of reporters crowding close to the microphone, and stalked away.
After Dewey Canyon III, Pitkin was no longer invited to VVAW meetings or events, which was fine with him. He soon went back into the military, joining the 5/20th Special Forces Group of the Maryland National Guard in 1974, and graduating from paratrooper "jump school" with honors in 1976, but was unable to get back on full time active duty in the Army. Pitkin joined the Coast Guard in 1978 and served there until his retirement in May 1997.
Steve Pitkin wants to apologize to Vietnam veterans for what he did and said at the Winter Soldier Investigation. "The VVAW found me during a difficult time in my life, and I let them use me to advance their political agenda. They pressured me to tell their lies, but that's no excuse for what I did. I just want people to know the truth and to make amends as best I can. I'd hate to see the troops serving today have to go through what Vietnam veterans did."
ELECTION PLATFORM 2004, COMMUNIST PARTY USA
Build Unity! Defeat Bush and the Ultra Right!
What we need today -- a program for working people
This is almost verbatim the Democrats Platform
This is no ordinary election year. Across our country, people are searching for security, hope and peace.
The George W. Bush administration and the Republican controlled Congress have delivered unemployment, economic insecurity, inequality, fear and war. Instead of freedom and democracy, the people of our country and the world have been subjected to unilateral military aggression and curtailment of democratic rights based on lies and deceit. The young generation is being shut out of education and good job opportunities.
These policies are not accidents. They flow from a campaign by the biggest, most aggressive capitalist interests for complete control over all the world’s resources, markets and labor. The shocking disparity between wealth and poverty worldwide, and the never-ending search for new sources of profit, set the stage for sharp conflict.
The 2004 elections are a test of history in our country’s quest to build a democracy “of, by and for the people.” For too long, big money corporate politics has turned away millions of voters from participation. In 2000 the Supreme Court disregarded the voters’ choice and installed George W. Bush. Now is the time for all democratic minded people to stand united, march on ballot boxes and vote in massive numbers to defeat right-wing Republican control of the White House and Congress.
Nothing can be taken for granted. No state should be conceded in this national crusade to take our country back from extremist, life-threatening policies.
The power of the movement to defeat Bush on November 2 goes far beyond this election. The new alliance of labor, African American, Latino, women, youth, seniors, glbt, peace and environmentalists who make up this movement holds in its hands the potential to win much bigger change. The upsurge of independent activity to defeat the ultra-right opens new possibilities toward a people’s party free of transnational domination.
The need for a system free of exploitation, racism, militarism and profit-driven policies that burden our country today is on the agenda for consideration, discussion and action.
Throughout our history, the Communist Party has recognized the need for fundamental change with a vision of a socialist United States built on the foundations of our Bill of Rights. In 2004, we project a program to meet the immediate needs of the people of our country.
The bottom line in this election year is that the devastating, dangerous, anti-human, Bush/ultra-right agenda be delivered a resounding defeat. The entire world is watching.
A 2004 People Before Profits Program
Living wage unionized jobs, health care, decent affordable housing, quality public education, racial equality, equality for women, a clean and peaceful environment, and civil liberties should all be basic human rights.
Tax cuts for the rich and limitless funds for war are bankrupting our government and making our nation less safe. A complete change in priorities is necessary to meet human needs, insure a certain future for the young generation and provide real security. No one should be forced into poverty in our wealthiest nation.
We offer the following People before Profits Program as a basis for movement-building. We support the many efforts of labor, community, civil rights, youth, peace and environment coalitions that move toward these goals.
JOBS AND ECONOMIC SECURITY
Almost 10 million workers are unemployed, 3 million more than when Bush took office. Millions more, including many youth, are stuck in low-wage, part-time jobs. Emergency action is needed to create good jobs.
Support the Employee Free Choice Act to allow workers to gain union representation without harassment or recrimination.
Create living wage, union jobs with a massive program to rebuild the bridges, schools, water treatment plants, and parks of our nation, while sending funds to cities and states to fully staff education, childcare, health care and other peoples’ needs.
Special measures for federal spending and job creation in the African American and Latino communities where jobless rates are up to twice as high because of overt and institutional racism.
Expand aid and job creation in rural areas with disproportionately high unemployment. Protect family farmers with price supports and no curtailment of subsidies.
Expand federal funding of youth jobs, vocational and apprenticeship programs and higher education especially geared toward low income and racially oppressed youth.
Raise the minimum wage to living wage standards taking into account cost of housing and other essentials.
Provide adequate federal funding to cities and towns for first responders and emergency personnel.
HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
Health Care for All
Over 43 million now have no health coverage, 4 million more than when Bush took office. The fake “Medicare reform” will not deliver prescription drugs, but will undermine the entire program. No one should be without healthcare.
Support the Medicare for All bill, HR 676, which provides full health coverage for everyone including prescription drugs.
Allow bulk government purchase of prescription drugs and re-importation of drugs as an emergency measure. Curb price gouging by the pharmaceutical industry.
Access to reproductive health care for young women. Expand funding for HIV/AIDS prevention programs.
Equal, Quality Public Education
The Bush administration eliminated $8 billion in funding to public education after creating new, costly mandates in the “No Child Left Behind” act, which undermines public education in favor of vouchers for some children to attend private or religious schools. Every child should have the best possible public education.
Guarantee full dedicated federal funding for quality, equal public education from pre-K through college.
Enact the DREAM Act and Student Adjustment Act to increase access to education for immigrants.
Increase Pell Grants. Repeal provisions that deny funds to students with drug convictions.
Social Safety Net
The Bush administration has slashed funding for human needs and
privatized services. The social safety net should be expanded and secured.
Extend unemployment compensation to include entire time without a job.
No privatization of Social Security or Medicare. Use the Social Security surplus to increase benefits instead of funding the Bush tax cuts and war in Iraq. Protect retirement funds.
Restore and expand the social safety net for women and children and victims of economic dislocation. Emergency measures to end child poverty.
Expand Section 8 and other affordable housing measures. Federal funding of construction and maintenance of housing for working class families.
END RACISM, DISCRIMINATION AND BIGOTRY – FOR FULL EQUALITY
The gap in equality of health care, education and employment has widened for African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans and Asian-Pacific Islanders. Immigrants, women and gays have been targeted. Winning equality is a vital interest for all working people.
Enforce and expand affirmative action to end racism and achieve equality in jobs, housing, health care, education (including university admissions), and all areas of life.
Outlaw racial profiling. Enact federal hate crime legislation.
Alternative sentencing for non-violent crimes. Abolish the death penalty.
Enact the SOLVE ACT (HR 4264/SB 238)to fulfill the goals of the Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride including a clear path to citizenship, equal rights on the job and civil liberties protections.
End the wage gap for women. Equal pay for equal work. Reject efforts to repeal Roe V. Wade which would restrict women’s reproductive rights.
Reject the Bush proposed Marriage amendment to the Constitution which would prohibit gay marriages. End discrimination because of sexual orientation.
PEACE AND FOREIGN POLICY
End the United States unnecessary and illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. Hundreds of young soldiers have been killed, and thousands wounded, along with many thousands of Iraqi civilians, while giant military contractors reap financial benefit.
Bring the troops home from Iraq. US out, UN in. Full funding for veterans benefits. Support HR 690 for a full investigation into prison abuses in Iraq, especially at Abu Ghraib.
End the policy of pre-emptive war, war without end and world domination and occupation. Foreign policy based on cooperation and negotiations utilizing the United Nations.
Stop procurement and testing of nuclear weapons. Stop deployment of nuclear weapons to outer space.
End the harmful buildup of the military budget. Transfer funds to human needs.
Repeal NAFTA and negotiate enforceable labor and environmental rights into the body of all new agreements.
Support Department of Peace as cabinet level position.
Remove military recruiters from public schools and campuses. Require parental agreement before students names are given to the military.
End the policy of promoting regime change in Cuba, Venezuela and other countries. End support for repressive governments around the world.
PRESERVE AND PROTECT OUR ENVIRONMENT
The Bush administration’s “Healthy Forests” and “Clear Skies” initiatives only further pollute land and water and deplete our natural resources. The environment should not be destroyed for profits.
Protect our natural resources. Repeal the Healthy Forests and Clear Skies acts. Prosecute corporate polluters.
Develop renewable clean energy alternatives.
Support the Apollo Project of labor and environment organizations to create environmentally friendly jobs in transportation and infrastructure.
Enact energy price controls and public ownership with investment in renewable and sustainable energy.
Ratify the Kyoto Treaty.
DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
The large-scale disenfranchisement of African American voters and the stoppage of the vote count in Florida in 2000 was an assault on the integrity of the entire election. Extreme infringements to democratic rights have escalated during this administration. Democratic rights and civil liberties make our nation strong.
Repeal the USA Patriot Act, which limits constitutionally guaranteed rights to free speech and dissent.
End appointments of right-wing, extremist judges to Federal Courts.
Funding for enforcement of the Voting Rights Act to ensure that no voters are denied their rights. Restoration of Voting Rights to ex-felons in every state. Same day voter registration to allow for the largest turnout.
Pass the Voter Confidence And Increased Accessibility Act of 2003 to require a verifiable paper trail for every electronic voting machine. (HR 2239)
Publically financed elections to take big money influence out of politics.
Expand opportunities for minority candidates by replacing the “winner take all” election system with Instant Runoff Voting and Proportional Representation which allow voters to rank candidates by choice and elect the candidate with the most overall support.
End monopoly control and censorship of the media.
TAX THE RICH
The Bush administration tax cuts to the rich forced a budget deficit and severe funding cuts to states, cities and towns for human needs and services. A fair tax system can provide the resources for strong communities and healthy families.
Repeal Bush tax cuts for the rich.
Restore tax rates on the rich and corporations to 1970 levels.
Restore and increase federal funding for human needs. Enact a refundable child tax credit.
Kerry Blames Bush for Democrats' Scheme to Revive Draft
There he goes again: Sen. John Kerry apparently thinks the American people are so stupid and uninformed that they'll blame President Bush for Democrats' efforts to renew the military draft.
Then again, Kerry's campaign of deceit has been working, according to a recent poll.
The Des Moines Register today quoted Kerry as claiming, "With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft."
When will Kerry tell fellow Democrats Charlie Rangel and lame duck Fritz Hollings to stop their sleaze?
And why was Bush too wimpy during the debates to ask the same question? When the issue was raised, all he did was sputter and deny without bothering to point out the facts.
Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt did point out today that Kerry's latest "fear-mongering" claim showed "that he is a candidate willing to do or say anything to score political points."
Kerry Evades Questions About Ties to Terrorist Iran
Wes Vernon, NewsMax.com
Thursday, Oct. 14, 2004
"Do I think they're running out the clock until after the election? Absolutely I do," responded Bob Jenevein, attorney for a top figure in the Student Movement Coordinating Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI).
In answer to a question from NewsMax.com, Jenevein said the Kerry-Edwards campaign was stalling on signing any deposition acknowledging that Hassan Nemazee, a New York investment banker, had "provided the campaign with advice and/or insight on matters relevant to Iran and U.S.-Iran relations." Nemazee is listed as a member of the board of American-Iranian Council, which SMCCDI says favors "eventually normalization of relations with Iran," a state sponsor of terrorism.
The attorney said Kerry’s campaign told him that even though he had sought since July to put the Democrat nominee’s foreign policy adviser Rand Beers under oath about Nemazee's relation to the campaign for the White House, Beers would not be available until Nov. 10, 8 days after the election. "That is unacceptable," Jenovein told NewsMax. SMCCDI has alleged Nemazee has used his position to advance the interests of Iran’s Islamic regime. Jenevein represents SMCCDI Coordinator Aryo Pirouznia. Nemaze had filed a $10 million suit against Pirouznia charging defamation of character and denying that he has served as an agent for the Iranian government. Pirouznia has counter-sued, and his attorney's effort to put Kerry’s campaign under oath is a part of that legal battle. Nemazee himself has been scheduled to provide a deposition on Monday in New York.
NewsMax has attempted without success to elicit comment from Kerry’s campaign on this. We were put in touch with an assistant to Beers, Greta Lundeberg, who refused comment and referred NewsMax to the campaign's press office. That phone went unanswered. A "fact sheet" issued by Jenevein cited reports from the mainstream media and from Kerry’s campaign itself that Nemazee had raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the senator's race.
John Corsi, who co-wrote the best seller "Unfit for Command," which contradicts many of Kerry's claims about his stint in Vietnam, reiterated at today's news conference that Kerry’s campaign had been backed by pro-mullah groups that are funding terrorists attacking U.S. troops in Iraq.
SMCCDI has cited Kerry's comment in the first debate with President Bush, where the candidate made the following statement regarding Tehran and nuclear weapons: "I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide [Iran with] nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes. If they willing to work a deal, then we could have put sanctions together."
Corsi compared that to handing a 5-year-old child a stick of dynamite to “see what happens." Or, he added, perhaps something similar to the mistake the U.S. made in the 1930s in selling scrap metal to the Japanese, only to have them shoot it back at us at Pearl Harbor.
In his most recent letter to Beers and Lundeberg of the Kerry campaign, attorney Jenevein urged them to "confirm under oath what you have already confirmed on the record with a reporter." The reporter in question was investigative journalist Ken Timmerman, who was also at the news conference at the National Press Club.
Timmerman said he had warned Nemazee against joining the board of American Iranian Council, telling him that freedom-loving Iranians would regard him "as a traitor" to their struggle. SMCCDI’s "fact sheet" notes that Nemazee nonetheless is on the council’s board.
As for SMCCDI Coordinator Pirouznia, he told the news conference that he had "no agenda against John Kerry" or for President Bush, that his only interest was in securing freedom for his native land and keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of the radical mullahs who rule it.
Kerry Backfire: New TV Stations Want to Air Vietnam Film
Complaints against the Sinclair broadcasting network by John Kerry's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee may have backfired, with non-Sinclair TV stations now expressing an interest in airing the documentary "Stolen Honor."
The film chronicles the top Democrat's role in the anti-Vietnam War movement.
"A few other TV stations around the country have contacted the producer of this documentary as well," Sinclair spokesman Mark Hyman told nationally syndicated radio host G. Gordon Liddy on Tuesday. "So there appears to be some growing interest in making this available to the nation's viewers."
Hyman said that Sinclair's decision to air the documentary was driven in part by a desire to pick up the slack from other broadcast networks, which have increasingly shunned news coverage in favor of entertainment programming.
Referring to the 13 Vietnam-era POWs who appear in "Stolen Honor" criticizing Kerry for protesting the war alongside the likes of anti-American actress Jane Fonda, Hyman told Liddy, "If anybody has earned the right to be heard on the subject of Vietnam, it's these men, who suffered such horrific abuse and unspeakable torture."
"For 31 years John Kerry has run away from that," he added.
Hyman said that while the exact format for the broadcast has yet to be determined, Sinclair has invited Kerry to give his side of the story after the broadcast.
Decisive Bush Victory
By Michael Ashbury
The DNC spin is that John Kerry scored his 3rd debate victory on Wednesday (Oct 13th) in Tempe, Arizona. Whereas the number 13 is unlucky for some it was a lucky night for George W. Bush, he scored a decisive victory over his opponent. That left the 3 debate series with one victory for Kerry, one tie and one victory for the President.
From the very start on Wednesday night the President had John Kerry on the defensive. John Kerry found himself on every question trying to defend his weak and liberal legislative record and his so called plans for this nation if elected President.
The President on a number of occasions pointed out that John Kerry's 20 years in the Senate had produced only 2 significant bills, which Kerry had championed. Kerry responded that his name appears on 56 bills but only as a cosponsor not as the leader who introduced the bill. That is how things are done in the Senate he responded, but even that was less than 3 bills a year, and he was hard pressed to defend why he hadnâ€™t taken a stronger leadership role during his 20 years.
The President aptly pointed out that the Junior Senator from Massachusetts was ranked as the most Liberal member of the US Senate, eclipsing his Senior Senator Teddy Kennedy who is usually considered one of the Senates most liberal members. The President pointed out time and time again how Kerry talks tax discipline and reduced taxes for the middle class, but he has never seen a tax increase that he didn't like and tax decrease that he liked. Kerry countered that he had voted to lower taxes 600 times during his 20 years, but the President, without calling Kerry a liar, aptly pointed out how Kerry had voted 350 times to either increase taxes or vote against tax decreases. The President pointed out how Kerry time and time again had voted against tax cuts for the middle class, to increase support for families, reduce the marriage penalty, and increase child credits. The President also pointed out how John Kerry voted several times to increase taxes on Social Security recipients, while Kerry struggled to defend how Social Security had to be protected.
When the discussion turned to plans for Social Security for the Seniors and Medicare the President stressed how he felt that it was time to revamp the Social Security system protecting current recipients and those about to move into the system, but offering more flexibility to strengthen the plan for younger voters. Kerry, again on defense, stressed that he would never change Social Security, even with the knowledge that younger voters were being subjected to an ever-increasing burden to support the system.
Education and jobs were a major focus of the night with Kerry claiming that the President had presided over the worst economy since the days of Herbert Hoover. The President countered with how his administration came into office with an economy, which was already sliding into recession. Then with the attacks on the World Trade Towers, corporate scandals and the war to make this country safe from terrorism jobs were lost. However, the President stated that his tax plan had kept the recession short and that the economy is now in strong recovery, with new job growth and renewed Wall Street optimism. The President also stressed that unemployment among the young is the result of a failure of the education system to prepare them for the demands of the job market in the 21st Century. He stated that his education initiatives which were supported by a major budget increase for education and the Senior Senator (Teddy Kennedy) from Massachusetts had established a program to help students early in their school years, preparing them to go on to college and meet the demands of the current job market.
The President also emphasized how 8,000 people try to come to this country every day to be a part of our growing economy and job opportunities. Kerry tried to defend his plan to limit illegal immigration, but he was offset by the President's plan to issue work cards that allow foreign workers to come to this country legally to do jobs which Americans consider unattractive.
Health care was a major topic of discussion. Kerry stressed how health costs had risen significantly under the President's watch and the fact that Medicare alone was scheduled to increase 17 percent next year placing an increasing burden on our seniors. The President countered as to the fact that the Medicare increase was a congressional mandated increase passed in the late 1990's and that Kerry had voted for the increase. Kerry wants every resident to have the same health care plan that members of Congress currently enjoy. The President pointed out how that plan costs around $7.500 per member and Kerry's proposed program would cost several trillion dollars further bloating what Kerry calls a deficit ridden administration. Kerry also wants to add Seniors over the age of 55 to the Medicare system and put uninsured residents under the states Medicaid system without any real plan to pay for the cost.
Kerry stresses that he will roll back the President's tax increase for those making more than $200,000 to pay for a whole litany of healthcare, jobs, education, energy, and military proposals by the Senator. The President pointed out how such a roll back would only yield about $800 billion far short of funding required to pay for the Senators proposals.
Kerry also tried to blame the ills of the nation on the Presidents failure to catch Osama Bin Laden and his ventures into Afghanistan and Iraq on the guise of countering the threat of terrorism. The President countered as to how his foreign policies have led to democracy in Afghanistan with millions of eager voters going to polls this past weekend to choose who they want to lead them for the first time in the history of their country. The first person to vote in Afghanistan was an 18-year-old woman bringing a new level of respect for women in the Middle East. It took almost 150 years for women to gain this right in the United States.
In the end Kerry came across as gray faced, tired, and without his usual enthusiasm even for his own proposals. The President on the other hand was energized, offering positive ideas and was able to counter the criticism that he gets on a daily basis from the Kerry/Edwards team. It was a clear win for the President.
About the Writer: Michael Ashbury, a noted researcher and author, is the author of ''Who is the REAL John Kerry?'' (Booksurge.com 2004). His website is at www.whoistherealjohnkerry.com. Michael receives e-mail at email@example.com
Medford, NJ 08055
Firestorm Erupts Over Kerry's 'Lesbian' Attack
The White House blasted John Kerry Wednesday night for outing Vice President Dick Cheney's daughter as a "lesbian" during the third and final presidential debate.
"I don't think it was appropriate to bring in the private life of Vice President Cheney and his daughter into this debate at all," White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett told Fox News Channel's Sean Hannity.
"I thought it was inappropriate and I don't think people like that type of personal politics being brought into the campaign this late in the game," he complained.
Kerry referred to Mary Cheney as a "lesbian" in answer to a question about whether he thought homosexuality was a choice.
"I think if you were to talk to Dick Cheney's daughter, who is a lesbian, she would tell you that she's being who she was, she's being who she was born as," Kerry told debate moderator Bob Schieffer.
While Ms. Cheney's sexuality has been reported previously, the information likely was news to most debate watchers.
As the controversy heated up over Kerry's lesbian reference, his campaign manager, Mary Beth Cahill, said that Mary Cheney's sexuality was "fair game."
"There are a lot of questions here about gay marriage and she is someone who's a major figure in the campaign. I think it's fair game," Cahill told Fox.
At least one debate focus group reacted sharply when Sen. Kerry mentioned Ms. Cheney's sexuality.
"That got a very negative reaction in the focus group," said Fox debate correspondent Jim Angle, who noted that even reporters were disturbed by the stunt. "Here in the pressroom, there was a low groan when Senator Kerry mentioned that," he said.
Fox debate panelist Mort Kondracke said Kerry's "outing" of Mary Cheney was a calculated effort to damage the Bush-Cheney ticket in the eyes of conservative voters.
"I think it was totally underhanded - the outing of Dick Cheney's lesbian daughter. ... And it struck me as a low blow designed to weaken the Bush-Cheney team with right-wingers who might not know that Dick Cheney has a lesbian daughter," he said.
"I think it's dirty pool on the Kerry-Edwards campaign's part."
Fox panelist Bill Kristol agreed, and wondered if the Kerry campaign would have to apologize for the gaffe.
"What John Kerry said was unbelieveable," he complained, zeroing in on Mary Beth Cahill's "fair game" reference.
"What has Mary Cheney done to make herself 'fair game' for John Kerry to gratuitously introduce this in the debate? I wonder if Kerry's not going to have to apologize tomorrow."
Former Clinton strategist Dick Morris said Kerry's lesbian tactic was "horrible" and "vicious."
"Its worse than the private detectives Bill and Hillary used to use" against opponents, he told Fox
Lynne Cheney: 'Tawdry' Kerry 'Is Not a Good Man'
Lynne Cheney is obviously disgusted by John Kerry's and John Edwards' obsession with her lesbian daughter. Mrs. Cheney, in introducing the vice president to hundreds of supporters after a debate-watching party in Coraopolis, Pa., noted that Kerry had invaded her family's privacy.
"Now, you know, I did have a chance to assess John Kerry once more, and now the only thing I could conclude: This is not a good man," she said.
"Of course, I am speaking as a mom, and a pretty indignant mom. This is not a good man. What a cheap and tawdry political trick."
A 55-point chasm in military support for Kerry and Bush
Ross Mackenzie (back to web version) | Send
October 14, 2004
Oct. 11 editions of Military Times publications (Navy Times, Army Times, Marine Corps Times, Air Force Times) carried an astounding story not likely to get much coverage in the establishment press.
Staff writer Gordon Trowbridge wrote as follows:
President Bush retains overwhelming support among the military's professional core despite a troubled mission in Iraq and an opponent who is a decorated combat veteran, a Military Times survey of more than 4,000 readers indicates.
Bush leads Democratic Sen. John Kerry 73 percent to 18 percent in the voluntary survey of 4,165 active-duty, National Guard, and reserve subscribers.
Although the results of the Military Times 2004 Election Survey are not representative of the opinions of the military as a whole, they are a disappointment to Democrats who hoped Kerry's record and doubts about Bush would give their candidate an opening in a traditionally Republican group with tremendous symbolic value in a closely contested election.
Officers and enlisted troops, active-duty members and reservists, those who have served in combat zones and those who haven't, all supported Bush by large margins. And the survey hints that Kerry's emphasis of his decorated service in Vietnam may have done more harm than good with those in uniform.
Duke poli-sci prof Peter Feaver, noting Kerry "has wooed the military more ardently than ever before," says of the survey: "Frankly, the margin (for Bush) greatly exceeds anything that I or any other analyst had expected."
The Military Times survey, with its yawning 55-point chasm between support for Bush and support for Kerry, confirms much about two cultures in America: one military and insistently conservative; the other civilian and far less so.
Specifically, the two cultures agree on little regarding the defense of the nation and the role of the military in it. And they share increasingly few values about life - especially the values inherent in political ideology as it spills into their daily routines - in these United States.
The survey may say greatly more about the effects of efforts by Kerry and his enthusiasts to garner support in this important segment of a broadly conservative electorate. Such as:
- Vietnam, as John McCain advised Kerry last spring, remains a third rail in American politics: touch it and you get a potentially fatal jolt. A vast segment of the electorate still regards peacenik activities then - including Kerry's - as repulsive, even anti-American, now.
- The Swift Boat veterans raised troubling questions about the very activities Kerry made central to his convention and campaign. The sheer numbers of Swiftees who oppose Kerry's performance in Vietnam and on the barricades with Jane Fonda thereafter overwhelm the "band of brothers" Kerry regularly trots out as campaign props.
- The bogus CBS memos, for which Dan Rather has yet to apologize to President Bush, did little to enhance the Kerry cause - and, particularly among the military, may have shined an unwanted bright light on suggested embellishments in the military record of Kerry himself. (Questions: Why won't Kerry sign Pentagon Form 180 authorizing release of all his military records? Indeed, why won't he authorize republication of his peacenik book "The New Soldier" that first appeared in the early 1970s?)
Finally, the Military Times survey may be telling Kerry and the Democrats that a hefty military majority sees through the careful veneer of moderation to the deeply ingrained leftism that drives him.
Kerry has been hostile to the military; probably since Yale - and certainly so since he returned from Vietnam, led peacenik demonstrations, decried the American military as reeking with war criminals, and first ran for Congress. His 20-year Senate record - marking him as the Senate's most liberal member - is one of uninterrupted hostility to almost every military weapons system and almost every military enterprise proposed during that time. (A 1984 Kerry campaign memo has the candidate saying: "We are continuing a defense buildup that is consuming our resources with weapons systems that we don't need and can't use.")
Kerry voted in 1991 against the first Gulf War; he voted a year ago against $87 billion to continue funding - and backing troops in - the second one. Again and again he has voted to slash, by many billions, appropriations for an intelligence community he blames Bush for undermining. Repeatedly - perhaps most recently in the second debate - Kerry states that Bush fired Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki for saying the U.S. needed additional troops in Iraq, when Shinseki's retirement was announced 10 months before he called for more troops.
The left detests the military, and the military knows it - and reciprocates, as the Military Times survey overwhelmingly testifies.
A functionary in the Clinton White House told a military aide to Colin Powell to leave his uniform at home the next time he visited. The story goes that Hillary Clinton wanted such aides to help pass out appetizers at White House parties.
And despite Kerry's conflicting attempts to reinforce his leftist base while simultaneously seducing the military, the latter obviously isn't interested. It spurns him. Those in the military resent the prospect of risking their lives with him as their commander in chief in a war he terms "wrong" and "a grand diversion" - with allies he terms "coerced and bribed."
Understandably, none of it computes for the military. And little of it translates into military votes for Kerry.
Why won't Kerry disclose Navy Discharge? Likely for a very good reason
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | An official Navy document on Senator Kerry's campaign Web site listed as Mr. Kerry's "Honorable Discharge from the Reserves" opens a door on a well kept secret about his military service.
The document is a form cover letter in the name of the Carter administration's secretary of the Navy, W. Graham Claytor. It describes Mr. Kerry's discharge as being subsequent to the review of "a board of officers." This in it self is unusual. There is nothing about an ordinary honorable discharge action in the Navy that requires a review by a board of officers.
According to the secretary of the Navy's document, the "authority of reference" this board was using in considering Mr. Kerry's record was "Title 10, U.S. Code Section 1162 and 1163. "This section refers to the grounds for involuntary separation from the service. What was being reviewed, then, was Mr. Kerry's involuntary separation from the service. And it couldn't have been an honorable discharge, or there would have been no point in any review at all. The review was likely held to improve Mr. Kerry's status of discharge from a less than honorable discharge to an honorable discharge.
A Kerry campaign spokesman, David Wade, was asked whether Mr. Kerry had ever been a victim of an attempt to deny him an honorable discharge. There has been no response to that inquiry.
The document is dated February 16, 1978. But Mr. Kerry's military commitment began with his six-year enlistment contract with the Navy on February 18, 1966. His commitment should have terminated in 1972. It is highly unlikely that either the man who at that time was a Vietnam Veterans Against the War leader, John Kerry, requested or the Navy accepted an additional six year reserve commitment. And the Claytor document indicates proceedings to reverse a less than honorable discharge that took place sometime prior to February 1978.
The most routine time for Mr. Kerry's discharge would have been at the end of his six-year obligation, in 1972. But how was it most likely to have come about?
NBC's release this March of some of the Nixon White House tapes about Mr. Kerry show a great deal of interest in Mr. Kerry by Nixon and his executive staff, including, perhaps most importantly, Nixon's special counsel, Charles Colson. In a meeting the day after Mr. Kerry's Senate testimony, April 23, 1971, Mr. Colson attacks Mr. Kerry as a "complete opportunist...We'll keep hitting him, Mr. President."
Mr. Colson was still on the case two months later, according to a memo he wrote on June 15,1971, that was brought to the surface by the Houston Chronicle. "Let's destroy this young demagogue before he becomes another Ralph Nader." Nixon had been a naval officer in World War II. Mr. Colson was a former Marine captain. Mr. Colson had been prodded to find "dirt" on Mr. Kerry, but reported that he couldn't find any.
The Nixon administration ran FBI surveillance on Mr. Kerry from September 1970 until August 1972. Finding grounds for an other than honorable discharge, however, for a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, given his numerous activities while still a reserve officer of the Navy, was easier than finding "dirt."
For example, while America was still at war, Mr. Kerry had met with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong delegation to the Paris Peace talks in May 1970 and then held a demonstration in July 1971 in Washington to try to get Congress to accept the enemy's seven point peace proposal without a single change. Woodrow Wilson threw Eugene Debs, a former presidential candidate, in prison just for demonstrating for peace negotiations with Germany during World War I. No court overturned his imprisonment. He had to receive a pardon from President Harding.
Mr. Colson refused to answer any questions about his activities regarding Mr. Kerry during his time in the Nixon White House. The secretary of the Navy at the time during the Nixon presidency is the current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner. A spokesman for the senator, John Ullyot, said, "Senator Warner has no recollection that would either confirm or challenge any representation that Senator Kerry received a less than honorable discharge."
The "board of officers" review reported in the Claytor document is even more extraordinary because it came about "by direction of the President." No normal honorable discharge requires the direction of the president. The president at that time was James Carter. This adds another twist to the story of Mr. Kerry's hidden military records.
Mr. Carter's first act as president was a general amnesty for draft dodgers and other war protesters. Less than an hour after his inauguration on January 21, 1977, while still in the Capitol building, Mr. Carter signed Executive Order 4483 empowering it. By the time it became a directive from the Defense Department in March 1977 it had been expanded to include other offenders who may have had general, bad conduct, dishonorable discharges, and any other discharge or sentence with negative effect on military records. In those cases the directive outlined a procedure for appeal on a case by case basis before a board of officers. A satisfactory appeal would result in an improvement of discharge status or an honorable discharge.
Mr. Kerry has repeatedly refused to sign Standard Form 180, which would allow the release of all his military records. And some of his various spokesmen have claimed that all his records are already posted on his Web site. But the Washington Post already noted that the Naval Personnel Office admitted that they were still withholding about 100 pages of files.
If Mr. Kerry was the victim of a Nixon "enemies list" hit, one might have expected him to wear it like a badge of honor, like many others such as his friend Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers, CBS's Daniel Schorr, or the actor Paul Newman, who had made Mr. Colson's original list of 20 "enemies."
There are a number of categories of discharges besides honorable. There are general discharges, medical discharges, bad conduct discharges, as well as other than honorable and dishonorable discharges. There is one odd coincidence that gives some weight to the possibility that Mr. Kerry was dishonorably discharged. Mr. Kerry has claimed that he lost his medal certificates and that is why he asked that they be reissued. But when a dishonorable discharge is issued, all pay benefits, and allowances, and all medals and honors are revoked as well. And five months after Mr. Kerry joined the U.S. Senate in 1985, on one single day, June 4, all of Mr. Kerry's medals were reissued.
Sinclair: Kerry Enemies List 'Just Astounding'
Reacting to a threat from a Kerry campaign official who was unhappy about Sinclair Broadcasting's decision to broadcast a documentary about John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War protests, Sinclair spokesman Mark Hyman said Tuesday that he was "astounded" to learn that the Kerry campaign was keeping a media "enemies" list.
"To imply that they might use something such as the independent regulatory process of the FCC to exact revenge against media organizations that they find to be enemies or not supportive of their cause is just astounding," Hyman told Fox News Channel's "Special Report with Brit Hume."
Earlier in the day, campaign spokesman Chad Clanton had warned, "Listen - they better look out there at Sinclair Broadcasting. ... They've stirred up a lot of hatred. ... I think they're going to regret doing this. They better hope we don't win."
Hyman said Clanton's words "certainly sounded like a threat" and that was cause for widespread concern.
"It's something that should cause concern for every media organization in the country - if this is going to be a precedent for this campaign or any other campaign should they win," the Sinclair spokesman told Fox.
Have you seen the John Kerry commercial in which George Bush pledges to help Seniors on Medicare and "the very next day imposes a 17% premium increase - the biggest in history"?
That ad is a stroke of genius on Kerry's part and will surely gain him many votes among the uninformed.
I found it so amazing that I did some homework on the issue. As it turns out the 17% increase was not imposed by President Bush but was mandated by the "balanced budget agreement" signed by President Clinton, voted into law by Senator John Kerry, and was scheduled to come into effect during the Bush administration. President Bush had no authority to reverse what had been voted into law by Senator Kerry during the Clinton administration
Once again Kerry is counting on the ignorance of the American people. Don't be duped by his mendacity. !!!
New movie supports Iraq invasion
'WMD' includes shocking footage of Saddam's tortures, murders
Posted: October 11, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
A new movie supporting the U.S. invasion of Iraq makes the case that a weapon of mass destruction was indeed found during the war – and he's sitting in prison awaiting trial on war crimes charges.
"WMD – The Murderous Reign of Saddam Hussein" is intended to remind Americans that Saddam Hussein was himself a weapon of mass destruction, responsible for the deaths of 1.3 million of his own people during his brutal 30 years of rule.
The documentary, set for theatrical release this week, is the first for Brad Maaske, a California businessman troubled by works like Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" and the efforts of some uninformed Hollywood filmmakers.
In fact, in "WMD" Michael Moore gets the ambush interview treatment he often reserves for others. The filmmakers staked out his New York residence for days until he came out to meet the camera.
But the hard edge of "WMD" are eyewitness accounts and never-before-seen footage of chemical attacks, murders and torture leveled agains the Kurdish population of Iraq dating from Saddam Hussein's rise to power and spanning more than two decades.
Pivotal to Maaske's decision to develop "WMD" was his meeting with Jano Rosebiani, an award-winning Kurdish movie director who had documented the atrocities in his film "Mass Graves." Rosebiani had lost family members during "Anfal," Hussein's carefully orchestrated campaign of genocide targeting Kurds in northern Iraq from 1986 to 1988.
"When I saw Jano Rosebiani's film, it broke my heart," Maaske said. "I knew this was a story that had to be told, but until now, no one had stepped up to the plate to tell it."
Also important to the story are scenes from "Chemical Ali," a documentary by Kurdish filmmaker Kawa Akrawi, who assisted in the production of "WMD."
At least 182,000 Kurds in Iraq were murdered or are missing and presumed dead. Entire villages were razed. Authorities on Iraq estimate that 1.3 million people have died as a direct result of Hussein's acts of terror since 1979.
The movie includes moments of comic relief and powerful imagery from the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
In the moving conclusion of "WMD," the townspeople of Exeter, Calif., gather on a high school football field for the memorial service of Army Spc. Daniel Unger, killed in action in Iraq.
'Stolen Honor' producer predicts Kerry apology
Democrats fiercely opposing TV broadcast of POW testimonies
Posted: October 13, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
The producer of a documentary critical of John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activity predicts the controversy surrounding the airing of his film on television will lead to some kind of apology by the Massachusetts senator for his 1971 war-crimes accusations against U.S. soldiers.
John Kerry in scene from documentary 'Stolen Honor'
"What he did was so reprehensible, so disgraceful, an apology isn't going to get it done," he said. "It's unprecedented in our history what he did. I can't find anything remotely like this, turning that kind of betrayal into a political career."
But Sherwood said as controversy grows over the broadcast of the film by the 62-station Sinclair Broadcasting group, he's willing to "put money" on the probability of Kerry making an attempt to apologize in order to remove the issue from the campaign.
What most veterans really want, Sherwood said, isn't likely to happen.
"I want him to stand up there and say, 'We lied for two-and-a-half hours to the Senate [in 1971]; I was an agent for the Viet Cong; I didn't care who I slandered, living and dead; it's all about me. This is the way I launched my political career."
Instead, he expects Kerry "to pull out his little 'Band of Brothers,'" men who served with him on his two swiftboats and now support his campaign, and offer a "weepy-eyed" apology.
As WorldNetDaily first reported, the 42-minute documentary presents former POWs who tell how Kerry's 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was used as propaganda against them by their North Vietnamese captors, intensifying their persecution and possibly prolonging imprisonment.
The station group, which reaches about 24 percent of U.S. households and is known for its conservative commentaries, has coverage in crucial battleground states.
The FCC has received a letter from 18 Democratic senators urging an investigation into Sinclair's decision, and the Democratic National Committee filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission, arguing Sinclair's broadcast would be an illegal contribution to President Bush's campaign.
Sherwood told WND the "fact that this has turned into a First Amendment issue is absurd."
"This is a news documentary, a historical documentary based entirely on John Kerry's known public activities and public testimony," he said. "It doesn't swerve from that."
"Nobody is questioning a single word in this, in terms of accuracy and facts," he said, "and yet people are saying, 'Let's spike this thing.'"
Sherwood called the effort to stop airing of the film "out and out thuggery."
Yesterday, Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton issued a veiled threat to Sinclair on the Fox News program "Dayside with Linda Vester."
"I think they are going to regret doing this, and they had better hope we don't win," Clanton said.
Sherwoord said a "Kerry operative" tried to disrupt the rollout of the documentary three weeks ago.
Wayne Smith, an ex-convict, came to the media event with press credentials, but instead of asking questions, began ranting against the film, POWs and President Bush, said Sherwood, who asserted Smith actually is a staff member of the Democratic National Committee, with a phone extension and office.
"Kerry has nothing but thugs out there," he said. "They can threaten, they can coerce, they can cajole -- Can you imagine 18 senators demanding censorship and getting away with it? If a single Republican anywhere attempted to do that, the press would be apoplectic."
Some have criticized his timing, just weeks before the election, but Sherwood says if the mainstream media would have done its job back in April or May, he wouldn't have had to produce the film.
Sinclair has invited Kerry to be part of the television program to respond to the documentary, but the campaign has refused, calling the film "lies" and a "smear."
Sherwood said, however, if he were Kerry, he wouldn't show up either.
"It's death by a thousand cuts," he said of the POW testimonies. "When you look at these men, you cannot doubt what they are saying. I certainly would not want to sit across the table and answer for what he did to all of us."
"This man has caused a lot of pain and suffering, and I think he should be held accountable," Sherwood added.
He sees a "tidal wave of anger and resentment" toward Kerry by Vietnam veterans but says there is "not a single one who wants to be out there doing this," including himself.
"They are doing it because they are compelled to do it," Sherwood said. "There is not a showboater in the bunch. They are doing it out of personal conviction. I am doing it out of personal conviction."
Sherwood emphasized he has been registered as an independent for 30 years and, as a journalist, does not make campaign contributions. He said he's received no political money or assistance from the Bush campaign, and "every dime" goes back into distribution of copies of the film.
He estimates about 10,000 copies have been sold and another 30,000 have been given away.
Lately, his effort has received promotional help from Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth, the 527 group that has criticized Kerry both for his war service and anti-war activities.
"Underlying resentment" toward Kerry's "betrayal" of American soldiers has bound them together, he said.
"There has always been a commonality of purpose in that regard," he said. "I'm sure there are other groups of Vietnam combat veterans who will join in on this before it is all over."
Sherwood won a Pulitzer Prize for his investigative reporting of a Catholic scandal involving the Pauline Fathers of Doylestown, Pa. He also is known for his inside investigation of Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. Sherwood said he entered the probe hoping to uncover dirt about the leader but ended up concluding Moon and his followers "were and continued to be the victims of the worst kind of religious prejudice and racial bigotry this country has witnessed in over a century."
BEFORE YOU VOTE, READ THIS AND IT INCLUDES THE WHOLE FAMILY TILL THEY
DIES. THAT IS A LOT OF TAX MONEY!!!!!!!!
Most of us haven't thought about this. WOW! Those figures have to be
Subject: You will pay upkeep/Secret Service for 5 Kerry mansions.
It is good to be John F. Kerry....... The F stands for Forbes in case you ever wondered. (I didn't know that either) He is one of the richest Senators in Government. When someone is elected president, it means the Secret Service has to protect the President and his family as well as his property.
The Kerry's have five US properties not counting the several foreign properties they own too. The cost to run these homes are more than what the average American could afford, even if the rent was free, and all you had to pay the water, gas &electric. Including ground keepers, maintenance, pool, and house keepers. To be President would require the taxpayers to pay for all that now if elected. Including a complete staffed Secret Service security 24 hours a day. In addition to that we will have to pay for each of their homes for security improvements even if they never go to them all, that is, that just in case. Who do you think will pay for all this? We Pay! This takes all the expense off Kerry and puts it on us.
Nevertheless, factor another major cost to Americans that Kerry does not want you to know about.
Becoming president would automatically include taking care of all their properties with Secret Service Agents that includes 5 agents per 6 hour shift 4 times a day 365 days of the year for the rest of their lives so long
as they own those properties. It comes with being President, once you are elected. It requires us the taxpayers, to pay for this as well as his annual salary, as well as his retirements including the cost of living adjustments to boot, plus salaries and protection for all their real estate property,plus Secret Service Agents, and pay the bills for the rest of his life. In addition, feed the Secret Service Agents and rotate new ones every 6 hours for the rest of his life.
Do the math. Five properties need to be protected. This requires five Secret Service Agents per shift, daily every six hours, per property! That is 20 Secret Service Agents per day per property everyday including
Holidays. Wow, what does that cost?
Lets say an average of 20 agents per property, each earning a about $60K per agent to survey the perimeters and protect. Now times that by five properties so far. That is if the Kerrys do not buy any more properties
afterwards. This also includes the Agents vehicles and repairs, gas, meals,days off, paid vacation, and medical plan visits etc per agent.
Who pays? YOU pay, the whole time they are alive after becoming President!
Is this the best use of our tax money electing Kerry to take care of all their properties, both foreign and domestic? On the other hand, shouldn't he pay for his own? Yet, the Presidential salary could not afford it.
The more I think about paying for Kerrys properties everyday, just makes me happy keeping President Bush all the more merrier. Without raising taxes to boot.
How on earth would Kerry pay for everyone to have Healthcare, increase our military, and have us pay to protect his investments, all without raising our taxes? Tax and spend Kerry is his party motto.
Which really has to make you wonder why anyone with his wealth, would take a salary of that of a U.S. Senator, never mind wanna be President? Do you believe now why he needs to be the Prez? To serve the people? On the other hand, the people serve Him and his wife!
Please pass the Mustard and do America a favor and pass this to your friends, lets keep Bush a resident in the White House, and not have to protect another Kerry house.
Kerry On Roe vs Wade
Been thinking about Roe v. Wade. I am trying to understand what the heck The Great Pretender meant when he was replying to a question about tax-funded abortion during the second debate.
"... you have to afford people their constitutional rights" ... "that means" ... "making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise." -- John Kerry
So. Did Roe v. Wade determine that there is a Constitutional "Right to Privacy" with respect to a woman's body, health and medical decisions? Or did Rove v. Wade determine that there is a Constitutional Right to an Abortion?
According to The Great Pretender, if you can't afford the right to privacy, the taxpayers must provide it for you. I would like to know, how much does the right to privacy cost? Last time I looked, it was free.
In a nutshell, what Kerry is saying is, not only does he support abortion, but he supports the notion that abortion should be funded by tax dollars.
Well. I'm thinking... tax funded boob jobs are next. Sure, a little lift, why not? After all, a boob job is a private medical procedure. I am a woman, I have a constitutional right to choose to have such a procedure. But, problem is, I can't afford to have a boob job.
Under the Kerry interpretation of the Constitution, I have a constitutional right to have a boob job. If you don't pay for my boob job, you are denying me my constitutional rights. So cough up some cash.
Abortion is a legal medical procedure that a woman can choose to have, if she so desires. Yeah well, a boob job fits that criteria as well.
To say I have a right to have one and if I can't afford to have one, then the taxpayers have to pay for it is as close to insanity as you can get.
My Comments: Reading Kerry's Statement:
you have to afford people their constitutional rights" ... "that means" ... "making certain that you don't deny a poor person the right to be able to have whatever the Constitution affords them if they can't afford it otherwise." -- John Kerry
Does that mean we have to pay for everyones college education too if they can't afford it, since education is in the constitution.?
Kerry accepting 'blood money'?
3 infamous partial-birth abortionists give cash to Democrat
Posted: October 12, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Three abortion doctors who specialize in partial-birth abortions – two of whom actually advertise their willingness to perform the grisly procedure – are all contributors to John Kerry's presidential campaign.
George Tiller and Warren Hern may be the only two abortionists in the U.S. who openly advertise that they perform third-trimester abortions, writes Douglas Johnson in the Weekly Standard. Johnson is legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee.
The third doctor is Martin Haskell. Together, the three have contributed a total of $7,000 to help put Kerry in the White House.
"These contributions are worth scrutinizing because of what they reveal about John Kerry," writes Johnson.
"Although Haskell, Tiller, and Hern have been controversial figures for many years in national debates about late abortions (as anybody can ascertain by entering their names into Google), the Kerry campaign apparently readily accepted the contributions – money that might very well have originated in fees charged to perform partial-birth abortions or other late abortions."
Despite his declaration that he thinks "life begins at conception," Kerry likely attracts dollars from abortionists due to his consistent record of voting against any restrictions on the procedure, Johnson writes.
During Friday's presidential debate, Kerry defended his votes against the ban on partial-birth abortions, saying, "I'm against the partial-birth abortion, but you've got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother."
Haskell wrote Kerry a check for $2,000 in June.
A nurse who worked briefly at one of Haskell's clinics, Brenda Pratt Shafer, witnessed close up the partial-birth abortion of a baby boy who she said was at 26 and a half weeks, Johnson writes.
"I stood at the doctor's side and watched him perform a partial-birth abortion on a woman who was six months pregnant," Shafer said. "The baby's heartbeat was clearly visible on the ultrasound screen. The doctor delivered the baby's body and arms, everything but his little head. The baby's body was moving. His little fingers were clasping together. He was kicking his feet.
"The doctor took a pair of scissors and inserted them into the back of the baby's head, and the baby's arms jerked out in a flinch, a startle reaction, like a baby does when he thinks that he might fall. Then the doctor opened the scissors up. Then he stuck the high-powered suction tube into the hole and sucked the baby's brains out. Now the baby was completely limp. I never went back to the clinic. But I am still haunted by the face of that little boy. It was the most perfect, angelic face I have ever seen."
Haskell was asked by Cincinnati Medicine whether or not it bothered him that a second-trimester fetus so closely resembles a baby.
He replied, "I really don't think about it. ... Many of our patients have ethical dilemmas about abortion. I don't feel it's my role as a physician to tell her she should not have an abortion because of her ethical feelings. ... I'm not to tell them what's right or wrong."
Tiller, whom pro-life activists have dubbed "Tiller the Killer," runs an abortion clinic in Wichita, Kan., and gave $1,000 to Kerry. Johnson notes Tiller, in a 1995 speech, spoke of performing abortions as late as 36 weeks.
Hern made three donations to two different Kerry accounts, totaling $4,000.
Johnson says Hern "wrote that pregnancy should be regarded not as a normal state but as an illness which 'may be treated by evacuation of the uterus.' Elsewhere he wrote that pregnancy is most appropriately compared to infestation by a parasite. He is a strong proponent of population control, who has written that population growth has made the human race itself an 'ecotumor' or 'planetary malignancy.'"
Kate Michelman, the longtime president of the National Abortion Rights Action League, told the New York Times, "Even on the most difficult issues, we've never had to worry about John Kerry's position," Johnson wrote, noting, "Like Kate Michelman, Doctors Haskell, Tiller, and Hern know their man."
The Petition for Indictment of John Kerry
DATE: 12 October 2004 CAMPAIGN UPDATE: The Petition for Indictment of John Kerry reached its target of 150,000 signatures in September. (This petition for indictment will remain online for informational purposes [see http://patriotpetitions.us/], and will accept additional signatures, which we will report each quarter after the petition for indictment is filed.) Dear Fellow Patriot, The petition for indictment of John Kerry, for "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," and, thus, to disqualify him for national office, has reached its goal of more than 150,000 signatures. On Monday, 18 October, the petition will be delivered by registered courier to Vice President Richard Cheney (in his capacity as Senate President), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and Attorney General John Ashcroft today. Though John Kerry has an extensive and well-documented record of anti- American activities over the past three decades [see "John Kerry: More aid and comfort..." at http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/], it is his acts of treason in 1970-71 that are the subject of this petition for indictment. Our appeal notes both Kerry's violations of the UCMJ (Article 104 part 904) and U.S. Code (18 USC Sec. 2381 and 18 USC Sec. 953), and calls for his disqualification for public office in accordance with the Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, which states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice- President ... having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof." Why prosecute John Kerry now? In October 2003, Mr. Kerry chose to make his Vietnam war record the centerpiece of his campaign for the presidency; this has been especially true since his primary victory in March 2004 [see "Kerry's Quagmire..."
http://FederalistPatriot.US/alexander/]. In response, more than 165,000 signatories of the above-referenced petition for indictment have made his war record the centerpiece of their campaign to disqualify Kerry from public office. We understand that no action is likely to be taken on this petition until after the 02 November election. Be it known, however, that on 03 November, we will seek full recourse in an effort to have John Kerry prosecuted for acts of treason and disqualified from any future campaign for any national office. We are thus committed to holding Mr. Kerry accountable for his actions, as there is no statute of limitations for acts of treason. Thank you for taking the time to sign this petition for indictment. Rest assured that your voice will be heard. Semper Vigilo, Paratus, et Fidelis! Mark Alexander Publisher, The Federalist Patriot MEDIA CONTACT: John Machen
The Prosperity Killer
STEPHEN MOORE, National Review
It's hard to remember the last time Wall Street was as repelled by presidential candidate as it is by John Kerry. Many stock analysts are convinced that the mere threat of a Kerry presidency has caused equity values to slump in the past two months. "No one wants to make major investments in the wake of a presidential candidate whose economic agenda
would substantially raise taxes on investment and thus substantially raise the cost of capital in America," says investment specialist Robert Grusky of New Mountain Capital.
What Grusky is referring to here is the Kerry-Edwards risk factor. Efficient markets trade ahead of anticipated policy developments. A new analysis by Eric Engen, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, finds that over the past several months there has been an inverse relationship between Kerry's poll numbers and the direction of the S&P 500: "The evidence suggests that when Sen. Kerry's political fortunes rise, the stock market
What do investors find so repugnant about Kerry-Edwards? In the past, the stock market has not performed, on average, much differently in Democratic and Republican administrations. What seems to have the markets especially spooked about this Democratic ticket is that it has embraced what I call the three terrible T's: tariffs, taxes, and trial lawyers.
Let's start with tariffs. Veteran political analyst Jeffrey Bell of Capital City Partners notes that if Kerry were elected, he would be the first protectionist to occupy the White House since Republican Herbert Hoover, whose policies helped start the Great Depression. While he touts, to some pro-business audiences, his vote for NAFTA, he tells labor-union voters
that he regrets that decision and would now vote against it. He recently lambasted U.S. trade representative Robert Zoellick as a traitor for negotiating free-trade agreements around the globe. As for Edwards, there is no ambiguity whatsoever: He is, and has always been, a devout protectionist. Earlier this year, he boasted that "I campaigned against NAFTA. . . . I voted against the Chilean trade agreement, against the Caribbean trade agreement, against the Singapore trade agreement, [and] against final passage of fast track for this president."
For Democrats, this is a distressing U-turn. The 1990s "New Democrats" promoted trade expansion, and Bill Clinton spoke wisely about the need for America to "compete, not retreat" in the arena of international competition. In contrast, Kerry insists that he would demand that draconian environmental standards and labor regulations - in reality, de facto trade walls that impoverish the developing nations they are supposed to benefit - be
imposed on our trading partners. Protectionism, as economist Arthur Laffer points
out, is historically a "prosperity killer." That's more true now than ever, given that about one-third of the growth of the U.S. economy today is in export markets.
A second prosperity killer is higher tax rates. Under a Kerry presidency, the capital-gains tax would rise from 15 percent to 20 percent; the dividend tax, from 15 percent to a high of 39.6 percent; and the top income-tax rate, from 35 percent to 40 percent. Kerry probably couldn't deflate the stock market any worse if he were doing it on purpose.
Then there is the issue of whether Kerry would be content with simply walloping the Bill Gateses of the world with higher taxes. He pledges that he would raise taxes only on those making more than $200,000 a year. (Reminder to middle-class voters: That's precisely what Bill Clinton promised a few months before he whacked everyone with a higher tax bill
in 1993.) But Kerry's Senate history reveals that he has never shown the slightest reluctance to raise taxes on those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder to sustain big government. He has, over the past quarter-century, voted for higher taxes on more than 300 occasions, and once supported a 50-cent hike in the gas tax. If you have a job, drive a car, collect Social Security, or are married, it's a decent bet your taxes are going up if Kerry is elected.
One reason to suspect this is that there is no other conceivable way for Kerry-Edwards to finance their grandiose spending plans or to come within Massachusetts mile of cutting the budget deficit in half, as the Democrats have promised. The Kerry economics team is fond of ridiculing the Bush administration for using "fuzzy numbers" to justify their tax cuts, but
get a load of Kerry's mathematical deficiencies: The National Taxpayers Union finds that the Kerry wish list of new government programs would cost about $2 trillion over the next ten years. Where will the money come from? Not by soaking the rich. His plan to rescind the tax cuts for higher-income Americans would, according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, reduce the existing budget deficit by, at most, 10 percent. By my calculations, the Kerry tax plan to sock it to the wealthy, combined with his shopping list of new entitlement programs, will add at least $1 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years. So to the extent that the financial markets fret over massive deficit spending, Kerry's plan for restoring fiscal sanity is about as uninspiring as Bush's: They both flunk on this score.
Now what if Kerry pulled a Bill Clinton and proposed a massive broad-based tax hike to close the budget gap? The average family would be forced to pay about $8,000 in higher taxes over the next decade. That may be chump change for the super-affluent - people like the Heinz-Kerrys - but for "the other half of America" to whom Democrats are trying to appeal, it would be devastating.
Finally, there are the trial lawyers. Edwards is, of course, a multimillionaire trial lawyer himself, and one of the biggest recipients,ever, of campaign contributions from the trial bar; Kerry doesn't rank too far behind. This investment has paid off handsomely for the legal
profession. Kerry and Edwards are so beholden to lawyers that they both once voted against any caps on legal fees in the tobacco-settlement cases, thus enabling several billionaire attorneys to walk off with fees of hundreds of thousands of dollars an hour - money that was supposed to be used to promote public health and reimburse people who got cancer from smoking.
More than any other profession, trial lawyers deter economic growth, slow innovation, and raise prices of almost every product we buy, from health care to jungle gyms. The Manhattan Institute, in its excellent report "Trial Lawyers Inc.," estimates that the net annual cost to Americans of frivolous lawsuits now approaches $500 billion. That is to say, Americans now pay the equivalent of a 5 percent trial-lawyer tax on every good and service they
purchase. This is the greatest income transfer from the working class to the truly undeserving rich in the history of the Republic. Not surprisingly, this invasion of the trial lawyers cripples profitability and reduces shareholder value; the Kerry-Edwards umbilical cord to the trial-lawyer profession is a direct assault on the investor class - and another
reason for Wall Street's hatred of Kerry.
And so we have an election that is shaping up to be a clash of two competing economic visions for America: the ownership society that George W. Bush embraces, and John Kerry's dream of a middle-class entitlement society. Bush recently announced in a major speech in Virginia that he seeks to expand broad-based ownership of assets in America, including stock ownership and home ownership, to all income groups. Most of his economic and tax policies have been designed to increase the value of assets: by cutting tax rates
on capital, by promoting personalized ownership of Social Security payments, by
calling for a vast expansion of IRAs, and by keeping interest rates low. As more and more Americans gain entrance to the ownership society, their dependence on government will theoretically subside; that quite understandably is a cause of serious trepidation to New Deal, welfare-state Democrats.
In stark contrast, John Kerry's program would - by design - vastly expand the dependency class in America through the creation of new welfare-style programs aimed at the vast middle class. Kerry craves a nationalized health-insurance program for all Americans, government-subsidized day-care programs, free or cut-rate drugs for seniors, and expanded college-tuition assistance for families. He would pay for all these programs by raising taxes on the very investor class that Republicans are trying to expand. With some two-thirds of Americans owning their own homes and almost three out of five American households now owning stock, the key for Republicans to win in 2004 is to educate voters about the dangers of the Kerry-Edwards program to their personal economic security. Wall Street understands the bearish implications of a Kerry presidency, and the wealth-destroying
effects of the terrible T's. The outcome of the election depends on whether the 120 million American shareholders do too.
Mr. Moore is president of the Club for Growth and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.
The local test
On Sunday the "Lowell Sun" of Lowell, Massachusetts endorsed President Bush in an eloquent editorial: "George W. Bush for President." The Sun played a key role in opposing Senator Kerry in the 1972 congressional race that preceded Kerry's decision to attend law school; the editorial evidences the paper's familiarity with Kerry. Here's what the Sun writes
John Kerry...has all the attributes of the shape of water when it comes to telling us what he believes and what he'd do for America. Like incoming and outgoing tides, Kerry is content to go with the flow. In a dangerous world infested with sharks, Kerry would be chum at America's expense.
We in Massachusetts know John Kerry. He got his first taste of politics 32 years ago in the cities and towns of Greater Lowell.
In his 20 years in the U.S. Senate, Kerry, a Navy war hero, hasn't risen above the rank of seaman for his uninspiring legislative record. He's been inconsistent on major issues. First he's for the 1991 Persian Gulf War, then he opposes it. First he's for the war in Iraq, then he's against it. First he's for a strong U.S. defense, then he votes against military weapons programs. First he's for the U.S. Patriot Act, then he opposes it.
Kerry's solution to stop terrorism? He'd go to the U.N. and build a consensus. How naive. France's Jacques Chirac, Germany's Gerhard Schroeder, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and other Iraq oil-for-food scam artists don't want America to succeed. They want us brought down to their level. And more and more, Kerry sounds just like them. In a recent
campaign speech, Kerry said America was in the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
No doubt John Kerry sincerely wants to serve his country, but we believe he's the wrong man, in the wrong place, at the wrong time.
Americans should think back three years ago to the smoldering ruins of the World Trade Center. There among the mist lay the images and memories of fallen firefighters, police, a Catholic chaplain and ordinary working citizens moms, dads, sons, daughters.
President Bush, through heartfelt tears, told us never to forget the twisted carnage and the massacre of the innocents. Yet some of us are forgetting.
President Bush told us the attacks must never happen again. Yet some of us are wavering because of the brave sacrifice of soldiers that our nation's security demands.
Well, President Bush hasn't forgotten. Nor has he lost the courage and conviction to do what is right for America.
We know if there is one thing the enemy fears above all else, it is that George Bush's iron will is stronger than his iron won't.
The Sun proudly endorses the re-election of President George W. Bush.
Injured, angry, determined, Swiftees unite to fight Kerry
By Stephanie Mansfield
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Midnight in South Vietnam, and the river is black. Past the rice paddies and shacks, small fires are burning by the shoreline as Lt. John H. Davis' 50-foot aluminum swift boat — PCF 19 — makes its routine patrol through the reeds.
In a split second, rocket fire shatters the silence, and through a plume of oily smoke, the boat sinks to the river's bottom.
"My whole crew lost their lives that night. I was the only one who survived," Lt. Davis says.
Lt. Davis, now 62, lost his left eye. The bones in both legs were shattered. But the scars of war are nothing compared to the demons that wake him from his sleep, leaving him drenched in sweat and trembling with fear.
"My latest nightmare was that I was pulling my crew out of the water. When it came to the last body, it was me."
Lt. Davis has come to Washington at his own expense, along with 89 other Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, to tape the eighth 60-second TV spot questioning Sen. John Kerry's fitness to be commander in chief.
They come from Oshkosh, Wis., and Orlando, Fla., San Francisco and Virginia Beach. One is on crutches. Others, former prisoners of war, walk stiffly, a result of being bound and tortured. Some wear their medals. Two are in cowboy boots.
Snow-haired Bud Day, a 79-year-old former POW, stands at attention. He is wearing a brown leather flight jacket befitting an Air Force major, complemented by the Medal of Honor around his neck. Others have donned "Swift Boat" baseball caps.
The silver-haired men — in natty ties, navy blazers and spit-shined shoes, their faces bronzed with Ben Nye matte foundation ("tan suede") — line up under the hot lights in the cavernous soundstage at Atlantic Video on Massachusetts Avenue.
One by one, they share their stories with the cameras and defend their honor.
These Swiftees, at times jocular (breaking into "Row, row, row your boat") and at other times on the verge of tears, are angry and frustrated. Not only because they say Mr. Kerry has lied about his service and refuses to sign the form that releases his military records to the public, but because 30 years ago, the candidate threw away his medals and called his fellow servicemen murderers, rapists, baby killers and cowards.
The weekend began with a dinner at the Key Bridge Marriott on Friday night, attended by a wealthy backer from Texas, T. Boone Pickens.
So far, they have raised more than $13 million — more than $4 million of which was contributed through their Internet site — and plan to step up their assault on the Democratic presidential candidate in the final weeks of the campaign. They raised an additional $2.5 million over the weekend and plan to spend $5 million more by Election Day.
The weekend shoot produced enough footage for two or three more ads, which the Swiftees plan to run starting Thursday in Pennsylvania and Ohio and in a few heavily military areas of Florida. Campaign analysts say the Swiftees have been highly effective in planting doubts about Mr. Kerry's fitness for office.
Vernon Smith, a 74-year-old Swiftee from Virginia Beach, didn't see any reason to come forward before, but when he read "Tour of Duty," Mr. Kerry's account of his Vietnam service as written by historian Douglas Brinkley, he got angry.
"I don't like the fabrications. Why does a man have to lie like that? He is totally unfit for command," he said.
Their beef with Mr. Kerry has driven them to action, the Swiftees say, as they search their collective memories for the truth. Many say they felt shame before, but now they are a band of brothers. "Unfit for Command," which was co-authored by a leader of the group, is a best seller. And on Saturday, they received a wire for $500,000.
"In more than one firefight, Kerry actually pulled our boat out of it and ran out of the canal. I don't think John Kerry was a coward," says 57-year-old Steve Gardner, from Clover, S.C., who spent more than two months with Mr. Kerry on PCF 44 as a gunner's mate 3rd class.
"I think John Kerry was an opportunist. And he was very ineffectual. He did everything in his own best interest. He was always carrying a little notebook with him. I assume it was his diaries. He was very aloof and disdainful of people under him," he said.
Sgt. Chris LaCivita stands behind the monitor, as the men rehearse their lines. He is producing the spot, with help from Republican media consultant Rick Reed.
Sgt. LaCivita, a tall energetic former Marine who received a Purple Heart after he was shot in the face in the first Persian Gulf war, defends the TV spots against critics who say what happened 30 years ago shouldn't matter.
"Character has always been and will always be a major focus on every candidate running," he said. "So many of the men who were there have legitimate questions about whether he deserved his citations. These men have earned the right to be heard."
But the group has become a lightning rod in recent weeks. In late August, Benjamin Ginsberg resigned his post as legal counsel for the Bush campaign when it became known that he was advising the Swiftees as well. Under scrutiny, several statements made by former "crewmates" of Mr. Kerry have been recanted.
One serious misstatement on Mr. Kerry's part, they say, was his claim that he was ordered to go to Cambodia in December 1968, an illegal act. Not true, says Mr. Gardner, who was on the boat with Mr. Kerry at the time.
"We were never in Cambodia," he says. "Not even close."
Some question Mr. Kerry's discharge from the Navy, information about which is still under wraps.
"If he's a war hero, why not release the missing information?" their thinking goes.
"Good question," Navy Lt. Paul Galanti says. "Everybody in this group wants to find out the truth about his service record. I think there's a lot more there."
Shot down over North Vietnam in 1967, Maj. Day suffered numerous injuries, managed to escape from his prison, walked for two weeks through the jungle eating live frogs before he was recaptured.
He then spent the next six years as a prison cellmate of John McCain, who would become a Republican senator, at the prison the Americans called, with bitter irony, the "Hanoi Hilton." Maj. Day's presence in the room is palpable. Even in a group of decorated war veterans, he stands out as a living legend.
The others sheepishly introduce themselves and are honored just to shake his still-firm hand.
"Kerry betrayed us by telling the people we were committing atrocities," Maj. Day says. "A man who does that is not fit to lead. It's impossible to let this man masquerade as a war hero and someone who has leadership. To imagine this guy who betrayed us becoming president and him being the leader of our armed forces is just unthinkable."
Standing next to the major, 57-year-old Jim Hoffman from Oshkosh, Wis., said Mr. Kerry was never a leader.
"He was an arrogant snob," said Mr. Hoffman, an engineman 2nd class on the swift boats, adding that he felt afraid and alone for many years, but now feels buoyed by his Swiftee peers and their mission.
Mr. Gardner says Mr. Kerry used to boast to his fellow servicemen that he would be the next JFK.
Says Sgt. LaCivita: "JFK must be rolling in his grave."
ARMY TIMES SURVEY
1. If the presidential election were held today, for whom would you
ACTIVE: Bush = 72% Kerry = 17%
NG & Reserve: Bush = 73% Kerry = 18%
2. Do you approve of the way Pres. Bush is handling the situation in
ACTIVE: Approve: 60% Disapprove = 23%
NG & Reserve: Approve: 63% Disapprove = 25%
3. What are the most important issues for you in deciding for whom you
War in Iraq Active = 66%
NG & Guard = 72%
Character of Candidate Active = 64%
NG &Guard = 66%
4. Number 1 above was asked of those NOT and Those recently deployed.
"Not on Active duty since 9/11;
Bush = 71% and Kerry = 21%
"Activated since 9/11" :
Bush = 76% and Kerry = 17%
"NOT deployed to a COMBAT zone since 9/11"; Bush = 73% and
Kerry = 19%
"Deployed to a COMBAT zone since 9/11"; Bush = 76%
and Kerry = 16%
[It is interesting to note that Bush scores highest among those NG &
Guard who have been activated and Deployed to a Combat zone, vs not
Deployed to a Combat zone. Andy]
5. "In making your decision about voting for president, how important is
the military record...?"
ACTIVE: Very Import. 12% Somewhat Import. 47% Somewhat Unimport. 19%
NG & Reserve: Very Import. 16% Somewhat Import. 54% Somewhat Unimport. 14%
6. [My parpharse que] "What effect did Bush’s NG service have on your
ACTIVE: Not Much Effect 73% Less Likely to vote for him 12%
NG & Reserve: Not Much Effect 68% Less Likely to vote for him 16%
7. Same question on Kerry;
ACTIVE: Not Much Effect 58% Less Likely to vote for him 21%
NG & Reserve: Not Much Effect 53% Less Likely to vote for him 26%
8. "Do John Kerry’s anti-war activities after he returned from serving in the Vietnam War make you more likely or less likely to vote for him–or will they not have much effect on your vote"?
ACTIVE: Less likely To Vote for Him = 65% Not Much Effect = 24%
NG & Reserve: Less likely To Vote for Him = 67% Not Much Effect = 20%
Kerry Aide Cuts Off Talk on Candidate's 'Plan' for Iraq
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
October 12, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - Two of Sen. John Kerry's surrogates on Monday accused President Bush of politicizing the military strategy in Iraq, but when a reporter asked how the senator's plan would be better than Bush's, a Kerry aide promptly halted the discussion.
The episode took place during a 2:15 p.m. conference call that featured two military advisers to the Kerry campaign. They spoke about a press report that suggested the United States would hold off on any major combat operations in Iraq until after the Nov. 2 election.
At the start of the question-and-answer portion of the call, Agence France-Presse reporter Stephen Collison asked retired Adm. William Crowe, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, how Kerry's plan would be better than what Bush already has in place.
"Senator Kerry's frequently talked about how he has a plan for Iraq, which is better than the Bush plan," Collison said. "The president has already called Senator Kerry's plan the Bush plan himself. Other than what he talks about getting Iraqi soldiers on a 747 and training them elsewhere, can you give any more concrete details of what Senator Kerry is actually planning to do and how it would be better than the Bush plan?"
But before Crowe could respond, Mark Kitchens, Kerry's deputy press secretary for national security, interrupted and said the question didn't pertain to the conference call.
"That's a question we could answer on another call," Kitchens said. "This call is about the three points that we mentioned, so we could just keep the questions specific to those issues. Thanks. Next question, please."
Kitchens opened the call by introducing Crowe and retired Gen. Merrill A. "Tony" McPeak. He proceeded to tell reporters about three developments on Iraq, which included articles in Monday's Los Angeles Times and the Baltimore Sun and an unfavorable report from the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University.
The question about Kerry's "plan" followed his performance at Friday's debate, when he used the words "I have a plan" 13 times. Not all the references were about Iraq, but a skit on "Saturday Night Live" repeatedly poked fun of the remark and Kerry's name-dropping habit.
Crowe and McPeak were recruited by the Kerry campaign to discuss the Pentagon's apparent decision to hold off on any major combat operation against insurgents in Iraq until after the Nov. 2 election. The Los Angeles Times quoted unnamed officials in its report Monday.
After Collison's question was brushed aside, CNSNews.com followed up with Crowe by asking what Kerry would do differently. This time, Crowe was allowed to respond.
"Our people on the ground, very many of them want more troops," Crowe said. "Whether that gets to Washington or why the administration is not doing it, I can't explain. [Kerry] also will listen more to the military and take professional military advice. He's made that clear, and that's hammered into him by all his lieutenants and all his military advisers."
Crowe also insisted, "I can assure you that Senator Kerry will not make a distinction between casualties before an election or casualties after an election."
Meanwhile, McPeak, who suggested on Friday that a military draft might be needed if Bush is re-elected, continued to blast the president.
"The report in the Los Angeles Times is a little bit troubling because it sort of flies in the face of what the president has been saying, especially in the last couple of debates, to give the impression to the American people that everything is going swimmingly in Iraq," McPeak said.
"Our government's attitude is apparently to hold down the casualties before the Nov. 2 election," McPeak added. "In other words, our tactics, in some respects at least, according to this report, are dictated by the U.S. electoral calendar."
White House spokesman Taylor Gross told the Los Angeles Times, "The commanders in the field will continue to make the decisions regarding military operations and will continue to assist the Iraqi people in the pursuit of a more peaceful and safer Iraq."
The Democrats' accusations came as Iraq continues to play a major role in the presidential campaign. It was addressed at length in both debates between Bush and Kerry, as well as the contest between Vice President Cheney and Sen. John Edwards.
CNSNews.com Publishes Iraqi Intelligence Docs
By David Thibault
CNSNews.com Managing Editor
October 11, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - When CNSNews.com published an article Monday, Oct. 4, entitled, "Exclusive: Saddam Possessed WMD, Had Extensive Terror Ties," we decided against publishing all 42 pages of the Iraqi intelligence documents in our possession and on which the article was based.
We published only the first page, fearing that if more were made widely available on the Internet, they might end up being altered or otherwise manipulated. We offered credentialed news organizations and counter-terrorism experts the opportunity to view and receive copies of the documents so that they might check for themselves on the authenticity of the documents and judge their importance in the debate over whether Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and/or had ties to international terrorist organizations.
Top Kerry Donor Faces Iranian Propaganda Allegations
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
October 12, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - A pro-democracy Iranian group based in the United States accuses a top fund-raiser for Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry of aiding radical Iranian clerics.
The Kerry fund-raiser is scheduled to be deposed in a civil lawsuit next week involving accusations that he has served as an agent for the Islamic government of Iran.
A group of Iranian expatriates, the Student Movement Coordinating Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI), and two American authors plan to hold a press conference this week to discuss the Iranian regime's influence on Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign. The event will take place Thursday at the National Press Club.
SMCCDI has alleged that Kerry presidential campaign fund-raiser Hassan Nemazee, a New York-based investment banker, has used his position to advance the agenda of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
That agenda includes normalizing relations between Iran and the United States and opening trade and investment, according to SMCCDI. The group has called Nemazee one of "Iran's American propagandists."
Nemazee has denied charges that he served as an agent for Iran's government, and he has filed a $10-million civil lawsuit in Texas against SMCCDDI's coordinator, Aryo Pirouznia, alleging defamation of character. Pirouznia has counter-sued Nemazee, and Nemazee is scheduled to give a deposition next week.
"Perhaps because [Nemazee] knows the suit would embarrass the Democrat nominee, Nemazee has sought to postpone if not avoid answering questions about his suit in a deposition. Thanks to [SMCCDI's] counter-suit, faith in democracy, and a clear-headed judge in Texas who refused [Nemazee's] delay, SMCCDI is going public with the evidence," read SMCCDI's press release for Thursday's press conference.
Author and political scientist Jerome Corsi, who plans to attend Thursday's press conference, told CNSNews.com, "The Democratic Party and John Kerry have been funded by pro-mullah groups who have Israel as their sworn enemy. They are funding insurgents to go against our troops in Iraq, and John Kerry wants to give them nuclear fuel."
Corsi, co-author of the best-selling book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, is working on another book called Atomic Islam: Iran, Oil, Terrorism and the Democratic Party. WorldNetDaily Books plans to publish it in 2005.
"Nemazee is one of Kerry's top fund-raisers. He is listed on Kerry's website as a top tier fund-raiser," Corsi said.
"Nemazee has raised over half-a-million dollars for Kerry. He has been at all kinds of events for Kerry, and Kerry is proposing normalizing relations with Iran and giving Iran nuclear fuel," he added.
Kerry called for normalizing relations with Iran in December 2003 in a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations: "As president, I will be prepared early on to explore areas of mutual interest with Iran, just as I was prepared to normalize relations with Vietnam a decade ago," Kerry said.
The U.S. State Department consistently has labeled Iran as a leading state sponsor of terrorism, and human rights groups have accused the Iranian government of human rights abuses. The Bush administration opposes normalizing relations with Iran and also has denied nuclear fuel to the country.
In the first presidential debate in Miami on September 30, Kerry said, "I think the United States should have offered the opportunity to provide [Iran] nuclear fuel, test them, see whether or not they were actually looking for it for peaceful purposes."
Corsi said Kerry's policy could prove very dangerous to the U.S.
"Trusting the Iranians not to make bombs when they have been funding Hezbollah and Hamas for a quarter century is like thinking [Japan's former Emperor] Tojo was not going to attack the United States when he had a chance," Corsi said.
Ken Timmerman, author of several books on the Middle East, believes that Kerry "has adopted many of the positions that Tehran's lobbyists in America are trying to champion."
"Mr. Kerry has not only adopted the policies that the Islamic government in Tehran would like to see pursued by the U.S., he has accepted money by their lobbyists and has been the featured speaker at prominent fund-raising events," Timmerman told CNSNews.com.
Iran and its ability to produce nuclear weapons has been raised during the presidential campaign; and on Tuesday, TehranTimes.com quoted the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, Hassan Rowhani, as saying that Iran no longer has to abide by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if the West "tries to deprive it of its legitimate nuclear rights."
Retired Gen. Franks criticizes Kerry
By MARTIN GRIFFITH, ASSOCIATED PRESS
RENO, Nev. (AP) - Retired Gen. Tommy Franks launched a four-state campaign swing for President Bush by criticizing Sen. John Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activities and voting record on the military.
Franks, former commander of forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, faulted Kerry's votes on major weapons systems and intelligence issues, and against the 1991 Gulf War.
"If his voting record ruled the day, Saddam Hussein would not only be running Iraq but Kuwait," Franks told about 200 people Sunday at a Reno rally.
"The choice is very, very clear. We need decisive, strong, no-backing-down and no-equivocating leadership," he said.
Franks praised the Democratic challenger's military service during the Vietnam War, but said Kerry's later anti-war activities upset him.
"The men I served with in Vietnam weren't war criminals and I'm proud I served with them," Franks said.
Kerry spokesman Sean Smith accused Franks of distorting Kerry's Senate voting record.
"He reads (Bush political aide) Karl Rove's talking points very well," Smith said. "John Kerry voted for the largest defense appropriation in American history and the largest intelligence appropriation in American history. No matter how many attacks they make on John Kerry, it won't obscure the fact that George Bush has gotten us into a quagmire in Iraq."
Kerry never branded any U.S. troops in Vietnam as war criminals, Smith added.
"The men who served with him in Vietnam are with him in his campaign and have been with him for 35 years," he said. "I think that says it all."
The rally in Nevada - a battleground state where polls show Bush and Kerry running about even - marked Franks' first appearance for Bush since the Republican National Convention.
Franks, a registered independent in Florida who has voted for both Republican and Democratic presidential candidates, said he decided to endorse Bush because of his handling of the war against terrorism.
Other terrorist attacks during the Clinton administration went largely unanswered by the U.S., he said.
"I know a commander in chief when I see one and there's only one on the ballot," Franks said. "After September 11th, we were blessed to have a commander in chief who said enough is enough.
"There are two options: to fight them (terrorists) over there or to fight them over here. I'm an over-there-kind-of-guy," he said.
In an interview before the rally, Franks said he doesn't foresee an endless cycle of violence in Iraq, and he thinks violence will diminish after the Nov. 2 election.
"I believe they (insurgents) are influenced by what they see in our media," he told The Associated Press. "They see if they blow something up it's front-page news ... (and) the presidential candidates will talk about it.
"After Nov. 2, that dynamic will leave. The problem won't go away, but it'll be diminished ... This will be a long process, but there will come a time when the insurgents have less opportunity to create mischief for us," he said.
Franks said he also expects the January elections in Iraq to be held as scheduled, and foresees the day when U.S. troops will leave there.
"Some say that day will never come, but I say it'll come and probably sooner than later," he said. "(But) we ought to stay away from time frames and time schedules. The quickest way to give an advantage to the enemy is to set deadlines."
The information on this page is of public record and not meant to infuriate but to inform, I take no side one way or