John Kerry History Page    |     home
Page 2   |    Page 3   |   page 4   |   Page 5   |   Page 6   |   Page 7   |   Page 8   |   Page 9   |   Page 10   |   War Record   |   Readers Comments   |   Interviews   |   Bushes War Page
Page 9

This is America, built on Dissent, right John?
Aaaah the smell of Napalm In The Morning.....Bring It On!
CW2 Richard Worthington 6 July 1970/Laos

Amendment XIV
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Is it time now to vote on Kerry's suitablitly to be President/Senator/Dog Catcher... under the Constitution  ?

Zell Miller appeared on the Don Imus show a couple of days ago and shared his thoughts on Jon Kerry. "Senator Kerry," he said, "has been in the Senate for a long time. And during his tenure, he's introduced 500 pieces of legislation, seven of which have been adopted. Two or three of those concerned renaming bridges. A couple involved research grants. And a couple were giveaway programs, small loans, etc. But, he has voted against virtually every defense weapons system bill that's come down the pike. Now in Georgia, we have a saying that pretty well sums up his record: All vines and no taters." ZELL MILLER (D-GA) ON KERRY........

Kerry On  Intelligence
Today, when reporters ask him to defend his record, Kerry notes that he was “ill-advised” and “stupid.”
 He’ll get no argument from me. But the question then becomes how we’re supposed to know he’s gotten any smarter.  
(He has, after all, consistently voted against intelligence.)-Isaiha Z. Sterrett

Vietnam Vets Against Kerry Buttons
$2 Ea
"In order to get to where he is today, to run for president, John Kerry had to wade through the blood of American servicemen still on the battlefield in 1971,"

Sign The Petition For Senator Kerry to open up and fork over his Medical and Service records
Kerry's War Record

ACU Challenges John Kerry to Prove His Whopper Is Not a Lie

The candidate's claim that he met with foreign leaders looks like boldfaced lie, says ACU's Lessner

Alexandria, VA -- John Kerry's claim that he met with foreign leaders who urged him to defeat President George W. Bush looks like an outright lie, said Richard Lessner, executive director of the American Conservative Union in a statement issued today.

"Senator Kerry has had two weeks to verify his claim that he met with foreign leaders," Lessner said. "He has failed to do so. He has been unable to substantiate his outrageous assertion or offer any proof that this is anything more than a total fabrication.

"Exhaustive investigations by various news organizations have pretty much proved not only that John Kerry has not met with any foreign leaders, but he has not even had the opportunity for such meetings.

"This looks like a boldfaced lie, a whopper, a total fabrication. It's shocking that a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would publicly utter such a reckless, irresponsible statement unless he were prepared to substantiate its truthfulness.

"As Secretary of State Colin Powell noted yesterday, it is easy to make wild, baseless allegations. But Sen. Kerry should back up his allegations with proof. If he cannot, then he should be branded a liar."

Sen. Kerry now appears to be backing down from his statement, claiming only that he has "heard" from these mysterious unnamed foreign leaders. But that is not what he said originally, Lessner noted. Kerry's exact words were: "I've met with foreign leaders who cannot go out and say this publicly. But, boy, they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.'"

"Ignore for a moment the eye-popping assertion that Americans should vote for Sen. Kerry to please foreign leaders," Lessner said. "John Kerry stated plainly that he had met, in person, with foreign leaders. If he did not, then his statement was an outright lie. This episode raises serious doubts about Senator Kerry's character and credibility."

Richard Lessner is executive director of the American Conservative Union.

Pinning one on Kerry | A blogger on the official John Kerry campaign Web site has offered a telling insight into the Kerry campaign in her account (since removed) of a December campaign party.

"We had 200 guests eating, drinking, and watching the MoveOn documentary 'Uncovered,' featuring Joseph Wilson and Rand Beers from the Kerry campaign," wrote blogger Pamela Leavey, describing a Kerry event that did not include John Kerry himself. "When Theresa Heinz-Kerry arrived, she handed me a pin that read in the center: 'Asses of Evil' with 'Bush,' 'Cheney,' 'Rumsfeld,' and 'Ashcroft.' surrounding it."

Asses of Evil — get it? And how fitting that 60-year-old Mr. Kerry, who finds a charge in likening America's 54th presidential election to "regime change," and in turning George W. Bush's words for America's enemies ("Bring 'em on") into a derisive campaign slogan, would have a wife who mocks both the Axis of Evil and the President of the United States with equal parts malevolence and vulgarity. Read On

Kerry Remark on Foreign Leaders Faulted
Published: March 15, 2004

BETHLEHEM, Pa., March 14 — A Republican business owner here in this November battleground state and Secretary of State Colin L. Powell had the same questions Sunday for Senator John Kerry: Which foreign leaders told you they support your campaign, and when did you meet with them?

The questions, in a volatile exchange at a forum here and in an interview on Fox News Sunday, stemmed from a comment that Mr. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, made last Monday at a Florida fund-raiser. It was the second time in recent days that stray comments by Mr. Kerry diverted attention from his themes of creating jobs and providing health insurance.

"I just want an honest answer," Cedric Brown, 52, who owns a small sign company, told Mr. Kerry.
"Were they people like Blair or were they people like the president of North Korea?" he asked, referring to the British prime minister, Tony Blair. "Why not tell us who it was? Senator, you're making yourself sound like a liar." Read On

Terrorists Favor John Kerry Poll Says
By J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Mar 15, 2004
United Press International reports that "a survey by a Washington pollster released Friday found a majority of those surveyed think terrorists would prefer to have Sen. John F. Kerry as president.

"’Who do you think the terrorist would prefer to have as president’ is what the poll asked. Sixty percent said terrorists would prefer Kerry. Twenty-five percent said terrorists would prefer President  Bush." Read On

John Kerry Kicks His Lie-Machine Into Overdrive

March 14, 2004

by Kevin McCullough

In almost Al Gore-like fashion the John Kerry machine is telling one tall tale after another. "He wants to be the second 'black' president", "He's met with foreign leaders who have looked him in the eye and said 'you gotta win this thing'", "His wife must be referred to as African American", and the list goes on.
But the one that is most glaring is the one he repeats on camera, every day, every place he goes, and every time he speaks.
He said it again this week in Illinois, "George Bush's tax cuts have not created jobs."

While this may tickle the ears of the average stump speech attendee, a tiny bit of research proves exactly the opposite.

In 2001 the President got through his initial package of tax cuts, but because those on capital hill played politics the real "bite" of the cuts (that which would do the most good) got tabled for future installment. The cuts that got through were important enough that it took the recessionary economy and began to make it bubble just a little. Growth was sluggish and job creation was the lagging indicator of economic growth. Add to that the impact of 9/11, the near collapse of the airline industry, the multiple scandals from Enron to Martha Stewart, and the economy was surprisingly still bubbling - but job growth was still slow. Then came what the President knew the country needed from the days of the campaign trail - important tax relief.

President Bush got his important round of tax cuts through in May 2003.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics the unemployment rate has declined unbroken in the nine months since - 6.3% at its high to its present day 5.6%. Over the last six months more than 345,000 jobs have been created. Since May of 2003, according to the BLS more than 1,075,000 jobs have been created. Economist Larry Kudlow cited this last week that since January of 2002 more than 1.8 million people have gone back to work.

There are more people employed now than when President Bush came into office. The BLS numbers show that when President Clinton left office 137.6 million people were working. Even though the Clinton economy was headed into a recession that 137.6 number was an all time high. The same table at the BLS shows that under Bush 138.3 million people are working. And unlike the Clinton economy this job growth was being built on real products and services - it is the "dot com anti bubble" - so to speak.

Simply put, if John Kerry's "magic number" of 2.3 million jobs were lost in Bush's first three years, then based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bush's tax cuts have created unparalleled job growth.

President Bush can't have expanded the overall number of people working without having a net jobs gain of between 900,000 to 1,000,000. That means the economy, once stimulated by the tax cuts, has grown close to 3.2 million jobs all total.

John Kerry likes to hit the campaign theme of "Outsourcing is bad". He is referring to mainly the information technology jobs that have gone to India and Asia. But he dishonestly refuses to acknowledge that because of the free trade that has allowed the outsourcing of those jobs, that other companies have brought jobs to the U.S. worker.

Nearly seven million U.S. workers presently work for companies like BMW, Toyota, and Nokia. Should the "free trade" go away so will the jobs of those seven million.

It is also important to keep in mind that John Kerry is attempting right now to raise your taxes by close to 3 trillion dollars. His actions (or lack thereof) in the Senate are attempting to undo these record breaking months of job growth and prosperity for the American worker.
3 trillion dollar tax increase? Seven million new jobs taken away? And a complete undoing of the fastest economic growth in the history of the nation?

The truth told, he better kick that lie machine into overdrive...

the student auxiliary at the University of Kansas

Leonard Magruder - Founder/President
Former professor of psychology, Suffolk College, N.Y.
Member: National Association of Scholars



Leonard Magruder, President of Vietnam Veterans for Academic Reform, the student auxiliary at the Univ. of Kansas, was interviewed last night on the half-hour Geoff Metcalf syndicated national radio talk show reaching not only the United States but Europe and Australia. Recent guests have included Pat Buchanan, Bernard Goldberg, David Horowitz, Bill O'Reilly, and John Stossel.

Mr. Magruder, whose new web site ( has been receiving thousands of hits in recent days, and whose articles are being reproduced on sites such as and, said that while there was not time to get in all he wanted to say, he was able to get in the most important points, the need to add a mututally assured destruction plan to the Bush Doctrine, the media cover-up of Vietnam vets against Kerry, and the superiority of Bush over Kerry on national security. These issues are covered again in this article which by fax and e-mail will also go out across the nation.

We note with interest the following remarks today by Dolph C. Simons Jr., Publisher of "The Lawrence Journal-World":

"It is understandable that Democrats would like to have Americans think the economy and jobs are the most important challanges facing Americans today , but the fact remains, terrorism and the war on terrorism should still be our number one priority. If terrorists win the battle, the economy and jobs will be of far less importance."

Could the terrorists win the battle ? Yes they could. Two nuclear devices could go off in the wastelands of Nevada. The President is then called and told there are fifteen more such devices in our fifteen largest cities. He will be told to surrender. It is going to take some pretty scary things to stop the terrorists but they must be done , as we discuss below. Meanwhile, Bush is far stronger on national security than Kerry, as we show in the following comparisons.

Kerry and National Security:

Kerry, in his '71 statement before Congress, which included wildly exaggerated descriptions of "atrocities", also said things that suggest he didn't seem to understand who the enemy was. He referred to the claim of Communist aggression as "mystical." He said the war was a "civil war,"meaning between indigenous 'freedom fighters' against an oppressive Saigon government being supported by the U.S.. He said the U.S. was the "criminal element", not the the Communist North.

This sounds very much like the New Left and S.D.S. pro-Hanoi rhetoric of the 60's. General George Patton 3rd, commander in Vietnam, said Kerry "gave aid and comfort to the enemy", because his testimony gave encouragement to the enemy to keep fighting. Nor had Kerry changed his views sixteen years later. Speaking at Yale in 1987 he said U.S. policy in Vietnam was "tantamount to genocide" and on Meet the Press said our soldiers were guilty of "all kinds of atrocities" and branded America's leaders as "war criminals."

Here is how one Vietnam veteran feels about Kerry:

Chuck Lawrence, Vietnam vet and author said, "Veterans for Kerry has a nice ring to it. It sounds like it shows solidarity amongst the veteran community. Yet, there is a hugh divide growing related to the issue. Voting for a fellow veteran simply because he is a veteran is not good enough. The conduct by Kerry and his friends played a significant part and role in Vietnam veterans being ostracized by our society. Do we really want a president who organized and led anti-war and anti-American protests and demonstrations under the flag of the enemy we were fighting ?"

But the media is not allowing any mention of this. The media and the university, having institutionalized the lies of the war protestors, (see Part 2) aren't about to let the issue of the Vietnam War come up again. One writer said, "Most Americans would likely find Kerry's past behavior regarding Vietnam important in their decision as to whether he should be president. But right now they have not been given this information.Another said, "the media have brushed off the issue as irrelevant or a pointless "re-fighting" of the Vietnam War."Another said "the conventional wisdom floating downstream from Washington is that Kerry's anti-war radicalism following his return from Vietnam shouldn't -
and won't be an issue in November. "

But here is what the media is hiding from the American people: there is a hugh mostly underground controvery going on in which Vietnam vets are voting overwhelmingly that they don't want Kerry as Commander-in-Chief, and they are the ones who would be expected to know most about war. is running 96% against, Wall Street Journal letters are running 66%, A San Diego editor reports 100 to 1 against, a major Texas veteran leader reports 99% against in his area, another, 1000 to 4 in his area. A major talk show host reports "the vast majority of those calling in are against." This election may well hinge on whether the media helps to raise these questions or are they again, like they did in the case of the Tet Offensive, going to rob the American people of the ability to make critical judgements about their most vital security interests in a time of war ?

Kerry was one of the strongest critics of the policy of Ronald Reagan of military resistance to Communist inroads in this hemisphere. He lent his name to aid Communist guerrillas in El Salvador and was a vigorous opponent of the anti-Communist Contras in Nicaragua.In a foreign policy address last December Kerry pledged that if elected he
will abandon the president's war on terror, begin a dialogue with the terrorist regimes, and take the first 100 days to travel the world to apologize for the Bush administration.
In the South Carolina debate Kerry said that the threat of terrorism has been "exaggerated."An e-mail sent overseas by Kerry ended up on the front page of the anti-American "Theran Times," Iran. This totalitarian regime was ecstatic over what they interpreted as support. The president of the student pro-democracy movement in Iran said "Kerry's statement smacks of lunacy." He immediately wrote Kerry, "You have given them credibility, comfort and embraced this odious theocracy. You have encouraged a tyrannical regime to declare open season on the freedom fighters in Iran." If Kerry is elected president the new first lady will have a track record of support for the causes of many radical, anti-American groups. One of her favorite charities is the Tides Foundation,, which supports a number of far-left groups such as The War Resisters League, Ramsey Clark's International Action Center, ANSWER, United for Peace and Justice, and also the Council for American Islamic Relations, which has links to the terrorist group Hamas.On his website Kerry says he wants the U.S. to work with the United Nations to secure a lasting peace so that "the conditions that gave rise to the terrorist threat can never recur." This statement reveals Kerry's ignorance regarding terrorism. The "conditions" are the "Sword Verses " in the Koran calling for violence. "Never recur" is not possible. Jihad is forever, unless the terrorists succeed in converting the whole world to Islam. Kerry's voting record on defense is appalling. He voted against the B-1
bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, the Apache helicopter, the Patriot missile, the F-15, the F-14, the Harrier jet, and the Aegis air defense cruiser. The Boston Globe reported he advocated cuts in other systems, including the Bradley vehicle, the Abrams tank, and Tomahawk missile programs, all critical to U.S. military success.


Someone wrote recently: "While Kerry's many votes against weapons systems are a definite vulnerability, this may be offset by the fact that his personal record of bravery as a decorated hero of Vietnam gives him credibility on the national security issue. " We honor Kerry's service in Vietnam. But bravery shown in war, shown also by tens of thousands of others in Vietnam, is no guarantee of "credibility on national security issues." No president has to go out with an M-16 and shoot enemies personally. What counts in this area of national security is the method one uses to handle conflict, and Kerry has a long history of favoring negotiation, dialogue, compromise, and even appeasement, the typical tools of a liberal , 20th century diplomat in dealing with reasonably civilized nations, but useless in light of 9/11 and an enemy that has repeatedly said:

"We will offer no chance for America to come to an agreement with the righteous warriors , no possibility for compromise, no hope for a treaty, no attempt for solution. The war will be waged until the United States remains a memory."

Bush and National Security

Immediately after 9/11 George Bush had figured out the full implications of what had happened, and announced the Bush Doctrine, which contains three major components

pre-emptive strike
unilateral action
the statement that any nation that harbors terrorists is a terrorist nation.

The doctrine of pre-emptive strike says we will monitor any nation that shows an unusual interest in any nuclear or other weapon of mass destruction and if it reaches the point in development where we think it poses a threat to the U.S. we will strike first. There is an inevitable element of probability involved because it all rests on intelligence gathering and that can be of various degrees of accuracy. In the case some years ago of the Bojinka plot, very good intelligence enable authorities to stop a plot just in time by al-Queda to destroy 11 planes simultaneously in flight over the Pacific. In the case of Iraq, the probability of the intelligence being predictive was apparently low. But
this is the inevitable risk in any pre-emptive approach. The unilateral part simply says, we may or may not have allies, but in the final analysis we reserve the right to strike alone. In some cases there may be no time to consult allies. These two components flow with impeccable logic from the nature of the terrrorist threat. If someone is going to sneak up on you with a nuclear device you must strike first, and if necessary, alone. There is no alternative. From the Kerry website,"On December 3 Kerry laid out a
roadmap to reverse the damage to U.S. security and leadership caused by President Bush's flawed policies of unilateralism and pre-emptive war." Kerry must stop
trying to lead the public into thinking he has a better alternative to the Bush Doctrine, it is not logically possible.

Now, a great job is being done by our various agencies tracking down and eliminating threats by terrrorists. But America's war on terrorism has one vulnerability. While we are catching some, others are free to do damage. The element that must be added to the Bush Doctrine is one based on the conditional idea, "If you do that, we will do this." It is a variation on the old policy we had in the Cold War with Russia, mutually assured destruction, or MAD. That is, "If you attack Washington, our armies in Iraq , under that part of the Bush doctrine that says a nation that harbors terrorists is a terrorist nation, will invade Syria, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or all three. All the armies of the civilized or non-Muslim world should be a part of this, a great show of international force to show the terrorists they cannot succeed.Terrorists strike in the name of expanding the territory of Islam for the glory of Allah, converting, enslaving, or executing infidels. If they know that we will strike back and take half of Islamic territory each time, then they have no mission, no service to Allah. But there is one other part to this plan, one that will make us uncomfortable, even fearful, but is absolutely necessary if we wish to stop the terrorists. At the same moment of ordering invasions we will give the residents of Mecca 24 hours to evacuate the city as we will be destroying it with a nuclear bomb. This idea comes from a new and widely advertised book, "America's Answer" , by J.Patrick Griffin Jr.. He calls this striking at the psychological "generative core" of the terrorist movement. Doing what they never imagined in their worst moment that we would do, hampered, as they see us, by our Western values.Yet it was something like this, at Hiroshima, that ended the war with Japan by destroying the myth that Hirohito was a God and would bring Japan inevitable victory. Nobody, not even bin-Laden, thought the Twin Towers would fall. Everyone assumed the buildings would be badly damaged , but not fall. When they did, this was taken by bin-Laden as unquestionable proof that Allah was going to deliver America into his hands. Striking at Mecca will end that delusion. We are a superpower - THE superpower. We must use that power to end this threat to the world now, or live with it for decades to come during which time there will be successes by the terrorists, they will get through on occasions and
destroy our cities one by one. After their first success, the loss of our first city to a nuclear device, the outcry for retaliation will be so terrible, why not put this threat in place now, in hopes of averting even that one ? We were thrilled by the 11 million Spaniards who rose up in outcry against the bombings in Madrid, shouting "assassins." The whole civilized world should be doing this, crying out their revulsion against these Islamic thugs, these mass murderers of women and children. The media should be showing films on the horrors of Islam and its Sharia law every night, universities should stop teaching sugary nonsense about Islam and start telling students the truth.

Maybe it is time to remind ourselves of what bin -Laden said in his "Declaration of War" on Feb. 23, 1998.

"We, with God's help, call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God's order to kill the Americans and plunder their money...divide their nation, tear them to shreds, destroy their economy, burn their companies, ruin their welfare, sink their ships, and kill them on land, sea, and air...May Allah torture them by your hands. In compliance with God's order we issue the following to all Muslims. The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians - and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible."

What does Al Qaeda want to do? They want to kill you.

Kerry, in his speech to the Council on Foreign Policy pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terrorism and begin a dialogue with the terrorists.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for national suicide. 785-312-9303
this article may be reproduced in any form LM

John Kerry - Prince of Hypocrites
by John Jakubczyk, Esq.
13 March 2004
While no one will take anything away from Kerry's heroism during the war, his subsequent actions upon his return reveal an anti-American hostility or self-hatred worthy of scrutiny.

While the media continues its love affair with Senatohn Kerry and beves that, he has an advantage over President orge Bush because he served in Viet Nam, the truth is Senator Kerry will have to address more than his Viet Nam rerd during his quest for the White House.

The junior senator from Massachusetts will have to explain to the American people how he can swear to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States when he supports the killing of an entire class of people.

Kerry has been a persistent supporter of the right to kill children, euphemistically called the “right to choose.” He has turned his back on protecting the right to life and then has the nerve to question the actions of the president who sought to protect the American people from the threat of terrorism and a madman named Saddam Hussain.
In the latest assault on the intelligence of the American people by Kerry’s minions, Democrats are trying to make the president’s service in the National Guard an issue. Ignoring the fact that the last Democratic president was a draft dodger who loathed the military, Democrats are trying to have the press focus on Bush’s time in the Guard, while they hold up Kerry’s service in Viet Nam.

It may turn out to be a tactical error. While no one will take anything away from Kerry’s heroism during the war, his subsequent actions upon his return reveal an anti-American hostility or self-hatred worthy of scrutiny.

Here is Kerry, the anti-war activist, trading on his military service while he attacks his fellow soldiers still slugging it out in the rice fields.
Here is Kerry, shoulder to shoulder with “Hanoi” Jane Fonda and accusing his fellow servicemen of wartime atrocities.

Here is Kerry, scion of privilege, joining the anti-American pro-Communist sentiment that gave aid and comfort to the enemy.

Here is Kerry, conspiring with the real enemies of America and then having the nerve to insult the memories of those who gave their lives for a concept called freedom.
The Left is very targeted in the wars they support. World War II was a politically correct war because we were fighting the Nazis. Ignore for a moment that Hitler led the National SOCIALIST Workers Party. He was a fascist. As for the Cold War and the fight against communism, the left conveniently ignores the tens of millions murdered by the communists. Instead they write about the McCarthyism of the 50s and how repressed American society was following WWII.

Today the Left attacks religion and anything that supports family values. Abortion is a right according to Kerry and his friends. Perverse sexual practices are portrayed as normal and the sanctity of marriage is considered a quaint relic of the past. Consider the idea of having more than 1.3 children and the Left cries that the world is overpopulated. And of course let us not forget the sacred cow of the left – abortion.

Kerry and his friends in the Senate refused to vote on the candidates for the federal bench. Why? Because – dare I say it – the candidates may have reservations as the legal basis for killing 4000 children a day in this country. Ignore the fact that they all passed muster by the liberal ABA. The extreme, pro-abortion feminists own Kerry and his friends. With traitors to their heritage like Terry McAulliffe, these liberals have literally sold their souls for the ring of power. So what do they have in common with the working man? Face it – has John Kerry ever done manual labor? Has he ever cleaned bathrooms with people of color? Has he ever really considered how the average person really lives? Does he even have a clue?

As he represents those who wish to continue the exploitation of women through abortion, he violates the basic precepts upon which this nation was founded. He would deny women the respect which derives from the fact that they alone have the awesome responsibility and privilege of nurturing the next generation of human beings. By supporting abortion, Kerry ridicules the essential role that the woman undertakes in continuing the culture. By dismissing her critical importance and disregarding the value of her child, he insults two classes of people and reveals his incredible stupidity in understanding life at its essential components.

A man who supports killing babies, who said 30 years ago that his actions in Viet Nam violated the Geneva and Hague conventions, and who does not revere the bond between a mother and her child, should not be president. He can say all he wants about President Bush and his service in the Guard. John Kerry needs to look at his own history and come clean.
John Jakubczyk is a lawyer and President of Arizona Right to Life. He has been a frequent speaker on life issues throughout the country.

John Kerry: A Man For All Sides

March 14, 2004

by Thomas D. Segel

Senator John F. Kerry is known to have asserted that anyone who has not served in Vietnam has no right to question his actions during that conflict. Using that observation as a guideline, it can be argued that thousands upon thousands of Vietnam veterans, including this writer, do have the right to question him…and he has an obligation to answer those questions. To date, the few answers he has given are in conflict with earlier statements.

At the top of the list is the fact that presidential candidate Kerry strongly denies ever accusing members of the American armed forces of committing war crimes in Vietnam. Yet, in 1971 he wrote “We were sent to Vietnam to kill Communism. But, we found instead that we were killing women and children.”

Kerry now claims he always supported and always fought for the soldiers. Yet when reviewing his book, The New Soldier much of the text is found to be anti military, including charges that our service personnel committed unspeakable atrocities against the Vietnamese, including rape, torture, disfigurement and murder.
The senator further claims that his four-month combat experience in Vietnam was an awakening because he “saw Vietnam ravaged equally by American bombs and search and destroy missions…” He further says that “because of all that I saw in Vietnam, the treatment of civilians, the ravaging of their countryside, the needless, useless deaths, the deception and duplicity of our policy, I changed.”

But, according to the Boston Globe, one of Kerry’s former crewmembers, Steven M. Gardner, does not see the former lieutenant as ever being heroic. “He absolutely did not want to engage the enemy when I was with him,” said Gardner. “He wouldn’t go in there and search. That is why I have a negative viewpoint of John Kerry.” Gardner, who served with three additional skippers on Swift boats, felt he had seen enough to make such a comparison.

Gardner also recalls a shooting incident when his Swift boat came across a sampan in the darkness. There was a curfew and sampans were not allowed on the rivers at night. Gardner, who was in a machine gun 'tub', shined a spotlight on the sampan and was answered with gunfire. He fired his machinegun at the boat and saw one person fall overboard. All of the Swift boat crewmembers fired upon the sampan, with the exception of Kerry. When the firing ceased the crew examined the sampan and found one woman alive and a boy who was dead.

Kerry started “screaming at the top of his lungs”, says Gardner. “He threatened me with a court martial. ‘What the hell do you think you’re doing? I ought to have you court-martialed’, he yelled.”

Gardner claims the only thing, which quieted the incident, was the other crewmembers telling Kerry that the sampan had been firing upon them…and that they too had returned fire.

The former crewmember also recalls a time when the boat was engaged in a combat action and he was slightly wounded. He claims this wound was “no big deal” and he kept on firing his weapon at the targets.

When Kerry learned the crewmember had been wounded he turned the boat around and left the battle scene to get medical treatment for Gardner. “I said, Lieutenant Kerry, I’m fine, nothing’s wrong. I got a little flesh wound here.”

Gardner argued the retreat was unnecessary and that leaving the scene might endanger other boats on the mission, but that Kerry “was already backing out of the canal and getting ready to make a run for it.”

Claims from the Kerry camp are the usual, “politically motivated” response to the former enlisted man’s recollections. However, it should also be pointed out that Gardner never came forward with any of these statements. It was only after journalists tracked him down and asked specific questions that these responses became public.
Another Vietnam veteran who is well aware of John Kerry’s record is retired Navy Admiral and former United States Senator Jeremiah Denton. His opinions are very pointed.
“When Kerry joined me in the Senate,” he says, “I already knew about his record of defamatory remarks and behavior criticizing U.S. policy in Vietnam and the conduct of our military personnel there. I had learned in North Vietnamese prisons how much harm such statements caused. To me, his remarks and behavior amounted to giving aid and comfort to our Vietnamese and Soviet enemies. So, I was not surprised when his subsequent overall voting pattern in the Senate was consistently detrimental to our national security.”

The admiral has written on the topic of the Kerry candidacy in the Mobile Register. One of the strongest charges he makes in his article proclaims, “As a nation, we are at the point of no return. The good guys are finally angry enough to join the fray, and I pray we are not too late. John Kerry is not among the good guys.”

There once was another American cited for brave deeds and victory in battle. He attacked and secured enemy emplacements. He made our first amphibious landing. He displayed intellect and valor. He was seriously wounded. Though promoted to high military rank, few remember what he accomplished or how brave he was in combat. Instead, he is forever erased from the roster of American heroes because he gave aid and comfort to the enemy and for his traitorous actions. His name…Benedict Arnold.

Thomas D. Segel

Thomas D. Segel is a twice wounded, former combat correspondent who saw enemy action during the Korean War and two tours of duty in Vietnam. He retired from the Marine Corps as a Master Gunnery Sergeant after 26 years of service. His next assignment was as Director of Information and adjunct faculty member of the Marine Military Academy. He then completed a new career and recently retired from service with the State of Texas, where he was Director, Division of Information, Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation, Rio Grande State Center. He holds the Thomas Jefferson Award for Journalistic Excellence, The Marine Corps Combat Correspondents Association Distinguished Performance Award and six Armed Forces Writers Association Distinguished Achievement Awards. Segel has authored four books, including "Men in Space" which received the honor of being placed on both the National High School and National Junior High School Library Lists. He currently writes for several on line publications, national magazines and newspapers. His writings are distributed nationally to more than 1,300 publications by the Paragon Foundation News Service. He holds an undergraduate degree from the University of Texas Pan American and earned his masters degree at Vanderbilt University. He is a past national president of the United States Marine Corps Combat Correspondents Association. Segel resides with his wife, Pattie, in Harlingen, Texas.

On Veterans Health Care
By Brit Hume
Vet Benefits
John Kerry -- running in part on his record as a Vietnam veteran -- insists President Bush -- "[has] not kept faith with veterans across the country, and one of the first definitions of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wore the uniform of our country."

Kerry specifically accuses the president of cutting the Veterans Administration budget. But, in fact, that funding is now higher than at any point in the past ten years, and it's going up twice as fast under President Bush than under President Clinton.

What's more, according to the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center, the number of veterans receiving health benefits is going up 25 percent under President Bush's budgets.

Kerry’s Top Donors Favor Bush

The latest breakdown on who's contributing what to George W. Bush and John Kerry may tell the American public all they need to know.
According to, the Web site which tracks donors and recipients of campaign contributions, nearly half of Kerry's biggest financial supporters contributed more money to Bush through January 30 of this year.

During the first 13 months of the election cycle, Bush raised $145 million - more than four times Kerry's $33 million.

Of course, donors often wait to see who a party's clear-cut primary winner will be before going all out with their support. And it wasn't until the Iowa caucus at the earliest when Kerry truly emerged as the Democrats' clear choice, and that was in February.
But for now some of the major Kerry donors break down like this:

Citigroup Inc. -- $187,500 to Bush vs. $79,400 to Kerry
Goldman Sachs -- $282,725 to Bush vs. $64,750 to Kerry
Harvard University -- $8,250 to Bush vs. $53,100 to Kerry
Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance -- $69,000 to Bush vs. $50,250 to Kerry
Time Warner -- $63,050 to Bush vs. $41,950 to Kerry
Morgan Stanley -- $177,075 to Bush vs. $40,000 to Kerry

Nine of Kerry's top 20 donors favor Bush with their contributions.

It is interesting to note that, for all Kerry's talk about special interests, trial lawyers and other attorneys comprise at least half of his core contributors.

And for all the whining by the media and the Democrats over the non-existent job loss and the often mythical evidence of outsourcing, two-thirds of Bush's core donors represent the financial services industries, which apparently are much more bullish on America's economy under its current leader.

Fundraiser Writing Hillary Tell-All
Convicted Hollywood fundraiser Aaron Tonken, who helped organize an August 2000 star-studded tribute to Bill Clinton's presidency that doubled as a fundraiser for Hillary's Senate campaign, is writing an October-surprise tell-all book that could cause trouble for the entire Democratic Party.

"He has a book coming out in October in which he's promising to reveal all sorts of things," Fox News reporter Eric Shawn told WABC Radio's Monica Crowley Wednesday night. "I think we're in the beginning of what could turn out to be a major brewing story dealing with campaign financing in Mrs. Clinton's campaign."
That may be an understatement, if what the New York Post's Cindy Adams says about Tonken's book turns out to be true.

After getting a peek at his manuscript, Adams reports that in Chapter 13 alone there's enough material to keep a battery of Clinton damage controllers working overtime.
During seven White House stays in the last three months of the Clintons' term, Tonken says, he became so cozy with the first couple that he and Hillary once sat in their pajamas together eating popcorn and watching TV in her bedroom.

He also says, according to Adams, that he smoked pot with Bill's brother, Roger.

When the fun and games were over, the Hollywood moneyman says, he handed out checks to "certain pols" that were "illegal." And he personally witnessed a "brown bag" stuffed with cash going "someplace it shouldn't."

Tonken claims the illegal campaign contributions he personally doled out totaled over $100,000.
And from the sound of the Hollywood fundraiser's statements under oath in legal proceedings against him last year, he isn't talking through his hat.
"I'm a star witness against President and Mrs. Clinton," he told attorneys in an unrelated civil case. "I'm a star witness in New York in the grand jury regarding the Marc Rich pardon and regarding the fundraising activities that I've done on behalf of the Clintons."

Tonken's story could impact the entire Democratic Party, since Harold Ickes, who masterminded Hillary's 2000 Senate race, is now busily raising tens of millions of dollars for the Democratic Party's presidential "Media Fund."

In December, Tonken pleaded guilty to federal charges that he diverted hundreds of thousands of dollars from donors and underwriters of Hollywood events he organized.

Woman Tells John Kerry She Regrets Her Abortion, Staffer Destroys Her Sign
by Steven Ertelt Editor
March 12, 2004

Tampa, FL ( -- As the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry backs abortion. But a woman in Florida who wanted Kerry to know she regretted her abortion says she is glad he saw a sign she carried at a recent campaign event -- even though his staff tore it up afterwards.After watching the nightly news, Rebecca Porter had a dream envisioning herself letting Kerry know she had an abortion and regretted her decision. Porter told that she and a friend went to an event the Kerry campaign had scheduled in Tampa. She brought along a sign that simply read, "My abortion hurt me."

She hoped Kerry would see it, but knowing only a limited number of people were being allowed inside the event, her best prospects were to show it those attending.
"I almost didn't go because doubt and fear was beginning to set in," Porter said. "But I went to hold my sign for the people walking in. I did not go as a Bush supporter or as a Republican, but as a woman hurt by abortion."

Dozens of people walked by and saw her sign.

Some looked away. Wives talked with their husbands. Friends whispered to each other in hushed tones after passing by.

Other came to talk with her and Cindy, but few had anything negative to say.

Porter tells that one detractor told her he wished the abortion had killed her. His wife elbowed him in the stomach afterwards."There was no protest. We were not there to say anything. Just to let our signs speak for us -- and they did, powerfully," Porter, the Florida director of the Operation Outcry Silent No More, said.

The two women were finally able to go inside the event and stand at the back of the crowd. As Kerry finished his speech, he closed by saying he would guarantee that "women would have the right to choose" abortion.

Not long after, Porter made her way to an area where Kerry was shaking hands with a large group of people. She eventually found herself exactly where she hoped she would be -- a few feet away from the man some hope will be the next president.

She held up her sign.

"Then it happened," Porter explains. "He reached up to shake a hand in the back and his eyes went up to my sign. He read it and then he looked into the crowd to see who was holding it -- and he looked me directly in the eyes."

"I hope he saw my pain. I was not angry, just pleading with him to understand. You could see the shock and surprise on his face," Porter said.
But within seconds, a Kerry campaign staff member approached Porter and grabbed her sign.

"You can't have that sign here," the Kerry staffer said.

The sign tore and Porter let go. After he had possession of it, the Kerry staffer "tore it to pieces" and walked away. "He wouldn't even let me have the pieces," Porter said. spoke with a Kerry press assistant who declined to comment. Officials with the Florida Kerry campaign did not return a phone call. Onlookers were surprised by what they saw and expressed their disagreement. One man walked over to the two women, said he was pro-life and that what happened "wasn't right."

Looking back on her experience, however, Porter is not angry.

"I was not upset. I felt like I had done what the Lord had wanted me to accomplish," she says. "I hope [Kerry will] remember my sign and my pain in my eyes. I know there were many people laying in their beds that night thinking about their abortions."

Related web sites:
Operation Outcry -

"Spoiling for a Loss"

According to Democrats, Ralph Nader's just a spoiler. But exactly what is Nader spoiling? John Kerry's latest makeover? The senator's absurd attempt to be all things to all people?

Kerry has managed to compile a lifetime congressional voting record more liberal than Massachusetts's other senator, Ted Kennedy. The most liberal in the Senate, in fact. But Kerry also voted for huge chunks of the Bush agenda. Kerry's pro-Bush voting record hasn't stopped him, however, from attacking Bush for these Kerry-supported programs.

On trade, Kerry is furious with Bush -- but he voted for NAFTA, for "fast track" authority for the president, and for the president's Chilean, China, Singapore, Caribbean and African trade agreements.

So if you oppose Bush on trade, do you vote for Nader, who agrees with you, or for Kerry, who voted for the Bush policies?

On Iraq, Kerry voted against the Gulf War in 1991, but for giving our current president the authority to finish off Saddam. Nader, on the other hand, actually opposed both Iraq wars when it counted.

Nader may present a formidable challenge at even one percent of the vote, but for every voter Nader pulls from Kerry, how many others will simply not show up at the polls? After all, why bother to vote if the man of your principles is unelectable and the man supposedly electable is little more than a hairdo?

Kerry shouldn't blame Nader for representing a constituency he fails to. If Kerry loses, he will have spoiled the election all by himself.

This is Common Sense. I'm Paul Jacob.

Kerry no hero in ex-crewman's eyes
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff, 3/11/2004
Steven Michael Gardner served side by side with John Forbes Kerry in Vietnam, was wounded under Kerry's command, and was manning twin .50-caliber machine guns on a night that has forever haunted Kerry -- the night his crew killed a young boy in a sampan.

But unlike many of Kerry's crewmates, Gardner has not appeared at Kerry's side at campaign rallies, and his view of Kerry at war is far different from the heroic view presented by others. "He absolutely did not want to engage the enemy when I was with him," Gardner said in a recent interview. "He wouldn't go in there and search. That is why I have a negative viewpoint of John Kerry."

Gardner's view is dramatically at odds with that of many other crewmates whom the Globe interviewed, who praise Kerry's leadership and say he was one of the most aggressive skippers in the Navy at the time. Gardner, who said he intends to support President Bush for reelection, clashed with Kerry on one of the most memorable and haunting nights that the two sailors spent together in Vietnam. That story, which until recently has been told publicly only in fragmentary form, involved the killing of the young boy.

As Gardner recalls it, he was in the "tub" above the pilot house with the twin machine guns, and Kerry was in command, when the Navy swift boat came upon a sampan in the darkness. Gardner flashed a searchlight and ordered the craft to stop. Then, he said, he saw a figure rise up over the gunwale with a semiautomatic weapon. Spotting tracers in the sky and fearing an attack, Gardner said, he laced the sampan with bullets, and other crew members fired as well. Gardner recalls a man in the sampan falling overboard, presumably dead.

After the shooting had stopped and Kerry had ordered a cease-fire, Gardner said, the crew found a woman in the sampan who was alive. There was also the boy, dead in the bottom of the boat. Gardner said there is no way to know which crewmate fired the shots that killed the boy, but he said Kerry was in the pilot house and did not fire. Kerry was livid when he emerged, Gardner said.

"Kerry threatened me with a court-martial, screaming at the top of his lungs: `What the hell do you think you're doing? I ought to have you court-martialed,' " Gardner recalled. "Thankfully, the whole crew was there in the middle of it . . . they verified there were weapons being shot at us. That was the end of it."

To this day, Gardner said, he wonders whether Kerry had that day in mind when he became an antiwar leader in 1971 and reported that atrocities occurred in Vietnam. But Gardner said "the only atrocity that night was that the parents of that kid had him in that boat while running contraband." He did not know how old the boy was.
When Kerry was interviewed last year for the Globe's "Candidate in the Making" series and discussed what seemed to be the same shooting, he said he could not remember when the killing occurred or which crewmates were with him. But he characterized it like this: "It is one of those terrible things, and I'll never forget, ever, the sight of that child. But there was nothing that anybody could have done about it. It was the only instance of that happening."

"It angered me," Kerry added. "But look, the Viet Cong used women and children. Who knows if they had -- under the rice -- a satchel [containing an explosive], and if we had come along beside them they had thrown the satchel in [our] boat. . . . So it was a terrible thing, but I've never thought we were somehow at fault or guilty. There wasn't anybody in that area that didn't know you don't move at night, that you don't go out in a sampan on the rivers, and there's a curfew."

Gardner, who served on Kerry's first swift-boat crew, Patrol Craft Fast No. 44, said his view of Kerry is based on a comparison with three more-experienced skippers with whom Gardner served earlier in the Vietnam War. He said Kerry was new to combat and thus more tentative.

Gardner served with Kerry the month after the skipper had arrived in Vietnam.

In addition to the killing of the boy, the other combat experience that Gardner vividly recalls was when he was wounded Dec. 28, 1968, while serving as Kerry's gunner.
Gardner had looked down and saw blood in the gun tub, dripping over the boxes of bullets stored on the floor. After the momentary shock, he recalled, Gardner realized his injury was "no big deal" and kept on firing. But Gardner said that when Kerry learned of the wound, he ordered the boat turned around to get medical attention for his gunner. Gardner argued that the retreat was unnecessary and worried that leaving the scene might endanger others on the mission. "I said, Lieutenant Kerry, I'm fine, nothing's wrong, I got a little flesh wound here.' But [Kerry] was already backing out of the canal, getting ready to run for it," Gardner said.

Other crewmates who served at the same time have portrayed Kerry in the most admirable terms and praised his aggressiveness. Crewmate Stephen Hatch said Kerry turned back with the injured Gardner because "we didn't know how hurt he was."

James Wasser, who served with Kerry and Gardner, said that while he has great respect for Gardner as a "warrior," he does not agree with Gardner's view of what happened that day. "I would have done the same thing" as Kerry, Wasser said. "You don't stay in harm's way." Wasser does not believe anyone else on the mission was endangered by the way Kerry's boat exited the canal.

On Saturday, a Kerry campaign official told the Globe he had learned that the newspaper had spoken to Gardner for a forthcoming biography of Kerry.
Later, Gardner said, a campaign official working with Kerry's crewmates contacted him to sound him out on his views about Kerry. Then historian Douglas Brinkley, who did not interview Gardner for his recent book about Kerry's Vietnam service, "Tour of Duty," called Gardner over the weekend. Brinkley told him there would be a firestorm if he went public, and the two discussed Gardner's views on Kerry's Vietnam service, Gardner said.

Brinkley then wrote an article, published on the website of Time magazine Tuesday night, in which he said Gardner's criticism was politically motivated. "After interviewing Gardner for over an hour, it essentially boils down to one word: politics," Brinkley wrote. "Gardner is sickened by the idea of Kerry as president."
The story quoted Gardner as saying Kerry is another "Slick Willy," a reference to former President Clinton.

Kerry, who has declined numerous interview requests this year to talk about his Vietnam experiences, was quoted in Brinkley's article as saying Gardner's stories "are made up. It's sad, but that's the way it goes in war, and especially in politics."

Gardner, in his interviews with the Globe, said he was upset with Brinkley's portrayal of him and said his memory of Kerry in Vietnam has nothing to do with his political views. "Absolutely not. I never made the first call to anyone," Gardner said. "Until somebody called me, I kept it to myself." With Gardner's name and viewpoint made public in the Time story, the Globe decided to publish this article, which is based on material in a forthcoming book, "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography." The book is written by three Globe staff members and based on a seven-part series that ran last June.

Gardner said yesterday that he wonders whether speaking critically about Kerry led to his losing his job as a home inspection field manager. The Brinkley story said Gardner "claims he works at Millennium Services." Within hours of the publication of the article on Time's website, Gardner said, he was fired from his job as a home inspection field manager.

Gardner's former boss, Randy Girton, of Millennium Information Services of Illinois, said Gardner's view about Kerry had nothing to do with it, adding that it was a "weird coincidence" that Gardner and some others were let go yesterday. "He was a great employee, but just in this economic situation we didn't have the volume in that territory to warrant a manager in that territory," Girton said. He said Gardner did not accept an offer to work as an independent contractor.
Michael Kranish can be reached at

Kerry Says Credibility Not Damaged By Former Comrade's Lie
By Melanie Hunter Deputy Managing Editor
March 11, 2004

( - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry Thursday said his credibility was not affected by his previous association with a man who fabricated his military credentials while serving as executive director of a prominent anti-war group that included Kerry.

Al Hubbard appeared with Kerry in 1971 on NBC's Meet the Press , was introduced as a former decorated Air Force captain who had spent two years in Vietnam and was wounded in the process. In reality, Hubbard had lied about his military rank and other issues, as later investigations revealed.

At the time, Kerry, Hubbard and other members of Vietnam Veterans Against the War were alleging that U.S. troops were committing widespread atrocities against Vietnamese civilians. Kerry even testified about the issue before a congressional committee around the same time he and Hubbard appeared on Meet the Press .

"I think our credibility was tremendous," Kerry told's Marc Morano during a press conference on Capitol Hill Thursday. Kerry was surrounded at the press conference by Democratic members of the U.S. Senate.

"I think that was one of the most moving and important weeks in an effort to end a war that needed to be ended, and I'm proud of the role that I played in helping to do that," Kerry said, referring to his television appearance with Hubbard and congressional testimony. "I think people all over this country joined together in trying to get our servicemen home," Kerry added.

After his lie was discovered, Hubbard appeared on NBC's Today Show and admitted lying about his rank because, he said, "he was convinced no one would listen to a black man who was also an enlisted man."

Kerry said he hasn't spoken to Hubbard since the week of April 19, 1971, "and everybody was disappointed by what they learned back in 1971. To his credit, [Hubbard] did serve his nation. He had simply exaggerated his particular position. But nobody knew it at the time, and those things happen."

But as previously reported, Hubbard had done more than just exaggerate his rank in the Air Force. CBS News reporter William Overend, a writer for the network's anchorman Walter Cronkite in 1971, investigated Hubbard's war claims even further and discovered that there was no record of Hubbard having ever served in Vietnam. In addition, Hubbard was not shot down as he alleged and did not receive a Purple Heart for injuries sustained during battle.

John Kerry: A Despot’s Best Friend
Joel Mowbray (archive)
March 11, 2004 | Print | Send

Turn on the Korea Central News Agency in recent days, and you’d be likely to hear John Kerry’s foreign policy speeches receiving lavish praise normally reserved for the man who runs the broadcaster—and pretty much everything else in North Korea: Kim Jong-Il.

Kim Jong-Il hates George W. Bush—his mouthpiece called a senior Bush appointee who is particularly tough on Pyongyang’s dictator “human scum” last year—and luckily for him, Bush’s Democratic opponent wants the same thing Kim does: one-on-one talks, which would help cement the perception North Korea wants to project of equal adversaries squaring off. So the “Dear Leader” supporting Kerry should come as little surprise.

Kerry didn’t ask for the endorsement, so to attack him with it is a cheap shot. The problem, though, is that the man who wants to be the next president would do exactly what Kim and other thugs and tyrants would want.

The Massachusetts liberal has criticized the Bush administration approach, saying that, if elected, he would approach North Korea with a “sincere attitude.” But what, pray tell, is a “sincere attitude” toward a tyrant responsible for the deaths of two million innocent people in the past decade alone? For most people, greeting the “Dear Leader” with a “sincere attitude” would be some combination of mutilation and strangulation.

But not for Kerry.

Ted Kennedy’s protégé has slammed Bush’s “arrogant” foreign policy and vowed to repair relations with, among other dictatorships, Syria, Iran, and North Korea. To the virtuous and high-minded foreign policy elites, there is no greater goal than “talking.”

Kerry supports “talking,” but more important, he doesn’t support action—at least not when it favors freedom. In the most recent tales of two tyrants, Kerry has sided with despotism over democracy each time.

Though he, at times, supported the war to remove Saddam Hussein, the final verdict—based on the cumulative weight of statements on each side of the issue—seems to be that Kerry would have left in place Saddam’s reign of terror. Pleading an ignorance that 99 other Senators do not, Kerry claims that he had no idea he was voting to authorize war in Iraq last fall. After Saddam was ousted and the Democrat had the chance to support democracy and rebuilding efforts in the war-ravaged nation, Kerry voted against Bush’s $87 billion request for aid.

While Kerry opposed funding for Iraq’s burgeoning democracy, he promised recently that if he had been president, he would have risked American lives to prop up a tyrant. As Haiti was starting to pull itself out of the chaos created by now-ousted despot Jean-Bertrand Aristide, Kerry last week told the New York Times that he have sent troops to protect Aristide from the rebels. “I would have been prepared to send troops immediately, period,” Kerry stated unequivocally.

The presumptive Democratic nominee conceded that Aristide was “no picnic,” but said Bush was “shortsighted” for not stopping the rebels’ march. The evidence shows, however, that Kerry was “shortsighted” for thinking that Haiti’s former oppressor was merely “no picnic” and worthy of protection provided by American men and women.
After being reinstated in 1994 with the political muscle of 20,000 Marines (sent by President Clinton) behind him, Aristide turned from democrat to despot. To short-circuit the Haitian constitution’s one-term limit, Aristide had a puppet, Rene Preval, keep the seat warm for him from 1995 to 2000. In lieu of legislative elections in 1999, Preval dissolved the legislature. With corruption rampant, most Haitians boycotted the sham 2000 presidential elections, and Aristide was “elected” with less than ten percent of the population actually going to the polls.

Things in Haiti only got worse from there, with murderous thugs roaming the streets, eliminating Aristide’s political enemies. “No picnic,” indeed.
None of this is to say that Kerry “likes” despicable despots. It could just be he has goofy elitist notions about evil. The New York Post reports that in his 1997 book, Kerry wrote that terrorists could be “encouraged” to become good guys “by Yasser Arafat’s transformation from outlaw to statesman.”
It seems that Kerry the candidate has shifted on Arafat, but why? Arafat hasn’t changed.

Then again, given the Democrat’s pledge to make friends with tyrants the world over, neither has Kerry.

Hillary, It's Now or Never

By Dick Morris | March 11, 2004
If Sen. John Kerry, D-MA, beats President Bush and Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, is not on the Democratic ticket as a vice presidential candidate, she will probably never be president of the United States. This cold, hard fact is staring the Clintons in the face as they assess the best way to inaugurate a new Clinton presidency.

Consider the options and their historic contexts:

If Kerry wins in 2004, he will very likely seek re-election. The last time a president served four years and didn’t try to succeed himself was back in 1880 and the president was Rutherford B. Hayes. So, unless Hillary wants to try to mount the first successful challenge to a presidential renomination since Gene McCarthy forced Lyndon Johnson into retirement in 1968, she will have to sit out the 2008 contest.

Should Kerry be re-elected, his vice president will probably be the Democratic candidate in 2012. All five times, since 1960, that a vice president sought the nomination for president after his party controlled the White House for at least two terms he has gotten it (Richard Nixon in 1960, Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Gerald Ford in 1976, George H.W. Bush in 1988, Al Gore in 2000). That means that Hillary would be out in the cold until at least 2016 and, if the Democrat won and was re-elected, until 2020. She’ll be 73 by then.

Even if Kerry is elected and loses a bid for a second term, his vice president would still be the favorite in 2012. Twice, since 1960, a man who served as vice president has come back in a subsequent year to win his party’s nomination — Nixon in 1968 and Walter Mondale in 1984. Humphrey failed to get the nod in 1972, but he had already run and lost four years before. Dan Quayle failed also, but he was, well, Quayle.

If Bush is re-elected, Hillary doesn’t need to have been on Kerry’s ticket. She can still prevail in 2008 over Kerry’s defeated vice presidential nominee. After all, neither Ed Muskie in 1972, Bob Dole in 1996 nor Joe Lieberman in 2004 was able to convert a losing bid for vice president into a successful race for president (two of the three weren’t even nominated).

But if Kerry wins and another person is vice president, how will Hillary keep fresh until 2012? In the Senate while all the Democratic action is at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue? And how will she compete with a sitting vice president who has all the resources of the White House at his disposal and eight years to build up his momentum?

She can’t, and she won’t.

So what should she do? If Kerry is anywhere close to Bush at convention time, she’d better go for the second spot. A close defeat wouldn’t hurt her and, if Kerry wins, it will be her only way to become the second President Clinton.

And don’t kid yourself; the decision is Hillary’s to make. The Clintons still control the Democratic Party. If Hillary wants to run for vice president, Kerry has to go along. For him to spurn the former first lady would be to cause a schism in the party. He’ll be pulling knives out of his back for the entire race.

In any case, it is in Kerry’s interest to ensure that the Clintons will work for him and not undermine his candidacy. The logic of their need for a Bush re-election to assure a Hillary presidency is just too compelling. Kerry needs to put Hillary on his ticket as a kind of hostage to be certain of the Clintons’ strong and full support. There are just too many ways that the Clintons can sabotage his candidacy without seeming to be doing so. (For example, Bill can publish his memoirs in September or October of 2004 and create a massive distraction that would force Kerry off center stage).

Kerry needs Hillary on the ticket. A vice presidential candidacy by her would turn his campaign into a crusade and would energize her supporters to a fever pitch. It would summon all the good memories of the Clinton prosperity without the bad reminders of Monica, et. al. But, most of all, Kerry cannot afford to leave the Clintons sulking, like Achilles, in their tent. Otherwise, Troy will go Republican.

Harshest Attacks on Kerry Come From Democrats Wires
Friday, March 5, 2004

WASHINGTON – John Kerry has been described as a waffler who blathers, a son of privilege who won't stand up to millionaires, a Washington insider who's a handmaiden to special interests and an inconsistent candidate whose word is no good.
All of that comes from fellow Democrats.
They ran against Kerry in the presidential primary race but now are pledged to help elect him president. The also-rans in the race for the party's presidential nomination have supplied plenty of rhetorical ammunition that Republicans could refire in the fall campaign, although the strategy is not without risks.
It happens every primary election season, to one degree or another: Rivals for their party's nomination criticize one another, then drop out, shake hands, plaster a smile on their faces and close ranks behind whoever ultimately gets the prize. All those nasty sound bites are forgotten, unless somebody from the other side decides to dredge them up.

'Never Plays It Straight'

Here is what Wesley Clark had to say about Kerry (and fellow rival John Edwards) on Feb. 5: "The American people don't want another Washington insider who never plays it straight. They don't want a follower who makes decisions by licking his finger and sticking it up in the wind."

This is what Clark had to say about Kerry eight days later, after abandoning his own quest for the presidency:

"I believe John Kerry has the right experience, the right values and the right leadership and character to beat George W. Bush."
More comments from Clark:

"We need leadership that will take responsibility in this country, and I'm very disturbed that John did not do that." – on Kerry's comments related to racial preferences.
"With all due respect, he's a lieutenant, and I'm a general."

Maybe Because They Are Millionaires

"Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards are good men, but they don't have the leadership to stand up to millionaires."
"I don't think people understand in this country how politicians in Washington can say one thing and do something else."

"Part of the Washington way of doing things." – again on Kerry and Edwards.

Edwards, known as the nice guy in the campaign, soft-pedaled his criticisms, but nonetheless was happy to cast the four-term senator from Massachusetts as "somebody who spent most of their life in politics" and unlikely to bring about needed changes. Stressing his own working-class upbringing, Edwards argued on Feb. 24, "this is something that crowd in Washington just doesn't get."

One week later, when he dropped out of the race, Edwards praised Kerry as a man who has "fought for and will continue to fight for the things that all of us believe in. ... The truth of the matter is that John Kerry has what it takes, right here in his heart, to be president of the United States."

Tool of Lobbyists

More comments from Edwards:

"What he's saying now [on trade] is different than what he did in the past."
"Do you believe that change is more likely to be brought about by someone who has spent 20 years in Washington or by someone who is more of an outsider to this process?"
"I don't take contributions from lobbyists. He obviously does."
"I think he's said some different things at different points in time. So I think there's been some inconsistency."

Some of the harshest criticism of Kerry came from former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who pledged to support the Democrat nominee when he pulled out of the race. Despite a considerable amount of bad blood between the two candidates, Dean said Wednesday that he'll be visiting Kerry in Boston next week to help map strategy for beating President Bush.

'His Word Is No Good'

Here's a sampling of what Dean had to say about Kerry in earlier days:

"President Kerry. Please, spare us."
"He's going to turn out to be just like George Bush."
"John Kerry is part of the corrupt political culture in Washington."
"It appears that his word is no good."
"I'm just incensed by his hypocrisy."
"This is not the person we need to head the Democratic Party. I think Senator Kerry is clearly not the person to carry the banner of the Democratic Party because he has acted so much like a Republican."
"Senator Kerry apparently supports the kind of corrupt fund raising, politically corrupt fund-raising mechanisms that George Bush has also employed."
"We are not going to beat George Bush by nominating someone who is the handmaiden of special interests."
"A special-interest clone."
"A candidate of no principle."
"Just another inside-the-Beltway guy who's played the game for 15 years."
Other Democrat also-rans now backing Kerry include Rep. Dick Gephardt and Sen. Joe Lieberman. That would be the same Gephardt whose mailings said Kerry is "no friend to family farmers" and the same Lieberman who called Kerry a "waffler."

'Cheap Sound Bites'

More comments from Gephardt:

"We can keep pursuing George Bush's tired, old, failed economic policies like Senator Kerry and other Democrats in this race have suggested. Or we can learn from the policies that worked for us."
"Kerry's explanation of how he'll pay for his [health] plan doesn't add up. He's trying to have it both ways."
"I don't think cheap sound bites hiding expensive plans are the answer." – on health-care proposals from Kerry and Dean.

Comments from Lieberman:

"This is about the votes [on Iraq] that he's cast that I believe are inconsistent."
"We also don't need a waffler in charge of our country's future."

"I do think that Senator Kerry was sounding an uncertain trumpet about that particular battle." – on the Iraq war resolution.

By historical standards, this year's Democrat primary was a relatively tame affair, absent some of the harsher rhetoric of campaigns past. And presidential historian Henry Graff said voters were so used to the ritual they would not take the negative words too seriously. In the words of Democrat consultant Paul Begala, "So what?"
Even so, the list of attack lines goes on and on. And you can bet the Republicans are keeping track. Political analysts caution there are risks to reviving such rhetoric in the fall campaign, particularly this year.

"The problem with the Republicans using it is that the Democrats agreed in every debate that anyone on the stage was better than George Bush," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson of Annenberg Public Policy Center. Any time the Democrats' critical words are revived, the author of the words can step forward to explain them away and speak in praise of Kerry.

Still, Rich Bond, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, said the Democrats "can't erase the record, and they said some awful things." For the Republicans, he said, "it is certainly worth reviewing and using their words against John Kerry against John Kerry."
© 2004 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 Who "Misled" Whom?

By Steven C. Baker | March 10, 2004

When listening to one of his filibusters, it’s hard to tell just what Senator John Kerry really thinks about many things, including Iraq. President Bush recently highlighted the inconsistencies that are inherent in Senator Kerry's legislative record and campaign rhetoric as they relate to Iraq. Summarizing precisely what will become clear to most Americans in November, he said about Senator Kerry that he is "in favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it."

The President's retort came after months of relentless assaults from the prospective Democratic presidential nominee. For example, Kerry rarely misses an opportunity to eschew personal responsibility for his October 2002 vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq; a vote that ultimately enabled President Bush to remove Saddam Hussein from power. The liberal Democrat from Massachusetts maintains that he voted in favor of "the process the president promised." According to the Senator, there was a "right way" to hold Saddam Hussein accountable and there was a "wrong way" to do it, and he charges President Bush chose to do it the wrong way.

But anyone with access to the internet can observe that the senator's 2002 vote authorized President Bush "to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to: (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." Contrary to the Kerry's accusations, Public Law 107-243 had nothing to do with a "process" but everything to do with granting the president the authority to execute foreign policy "as he determines."

Furthermore, Secretary of State Colin Powell clarified the Bush Administration's Iraq policy (i.e. "the process" the administration would pursue vis-à-vis the Iraq problem) before the United States Senate during a hearing on September 26, 2002, concerning "U.S. Policy Toward Iraq." In fact, Senator Kerry's exchange with Secretary Powell should dispel the notion that the Senator was "misled" – at any time – by President Bush, or that any so-called promises were broken.

For instance, Secretary Powell informed Senator Kerry: "It's certainly the case that I am making, and the president is making, to our colleagues in the Security Council: Don't go down this road unless you are prepared to take action if there is continued violation of the kind that we have seen in the past with respect to a new resolution." Secretary Powell even went so far as to warn Kerry, "if for one reason or another the United Nations does not wish to take that action... then the president reserves the right to take the action with like-minded nations, just as was done in Kosovo." The Kerry's response: "Fair enough."

Then, in an attempt to assuage the senator's continued concerns regarding the Bush Administration's rationale for seeking a congressional authorization to use force in Iraq, Secretary Powell reiterated that President Bush would use the authority granted to him by Congress "to act as part of a multilateral effort, but also, in the event that the president sees that the UN will not be able to act and decides that it is in our interest to act with like-minded nations. And we believe there would be like-nations at the time..." Kerry’s response: "I understand."

Senator Kerry also likes to claim that President Bush "misled" the American people about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Weapons of Mass Destruction. But again, Secretary Powell's testimony on September 26, 2002, reveals the duplicity of this accusation. Secretary Powell told Senator Kerry: "I think the president has made it clear in all his conversations with members of Congress, in his presentations to the American people and his presentation to the United Nations that Iraq has to be disarmed. That is the major problem." The senator's response: "I agree. I agree completely."

Senator Kerry added: "I don't want any misinterpretation about my position. I really want none whatsoever. The issue, to me, is not whether Saddam Hussein should be held accountable. Of course he should. The issue is not whether or not these weapons are a threat. Yes, they are. The issue is: how do we go about this?"
At the time of this debate, Senator Kerry acknowledged that Saddam Hussein's WMDs and were "real" threats in "the capacity of those weapons to slide off to a surrogate terrorist group." Yet he fumed that the authorization to use force in Iraq – in order to protect the American people from these threats – was an "extraordinary broad overreach" in terms of the mandate that it provided the Commander-in-Chief. This is the most significant difference between candidate Kerry and President Bush; a distinction that the President emphasized recently: "It's a choice between an America that leads the world with strength and confidence or an America that is uncertain in the face of danger...Our opponents say they approve of bold action in the world, but only if no other government disagrees." The bottom line is that Kerry is willing to endanger the United States in deference to the "authority" of the United Nations and its preferred statecraft. In contrast, President Bush is determined to do what is necessary to confront America's enemies, with or without the UN’s blessing.

In March 2003, President Bush commenced Operation Iraqi Freedom after years of Bill Clinton’s feckless diplomacy. When it became clear that the United Nations would not act to enforce its own resolutions, including Resolution 1441, which granted Saddam Hussein "a final opportunity to comply" with his disarmament obligations, the President acted "with like-minded nations." This is exactly what Secretary Powell had forewarned five months earlier. This eventuality should not have surprised Senator Kerry, and if it did, which is the only conclusion he wishes to promote when he says that he was "misled" by the President, then he is not only unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief, but he’s unfit to be a senator, as well.


Thank you, John Kerry, for helping make us Vietnam veterans war heroes now, but you also were the primary reason that the American public grabbed sturdy unbending brooms of judgment and swept us into the closet of silence and shame for so many years. Now, with your latest unreported insanity, you are getting ready for our society to grab those same stiff brooms and sweep our brave, noble young men and women fighting against the War on Terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, into that cold, dark cell of heartbreak and betrayal, like we Vietnam veterans had to endure in silent dignity. I cannot and will not watch this country go through that again.

The hardcore America-hating, Israel-hating, jihad-spouting Muslim clerics in the mideast are very excited and passing around a front page newspaper story from the very anti-American TEHRAN TIMES in Iran. In the country that is home of the world’s toughest theocratic dictatorship, an e-mail from Democratic Presidential nominee, you, John Forbes Kerry, sent to the paper by your campaign committee, although they deny sending it, was printed word-for-word on the front page of Iran’s main newspaper. Your message states emphatically that, if elected President, you, John Kerry plan to, within 100 days, not only end the War on Terror, but travel to the mideast and elsewhere and apologize for our actions and the actions of President Bush in the War on Terror. It says that you plan to apologize to friends and foes alike. That is right, folks. John Kerry will say he is sorry, and in his mind, all those jihad extremists, who have vowed to kill all Americans wherever we are, will simply forgive us, hold hands with Kerry, start singing “Kumbaya,” and all will be right in the world. This is insane!

Senior writer Kenneth R. Timmerman in the March 1st edition of INSIGHT, tells about the massive campaign contributions to the Kerry-for-President campaign by three Iranian businessmen living in the US, who are lobbying for the US lifting of sanctions on Iran and accepting the anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-American Tehran regime and the close ties of one to the chairman of Mobil Oil.

Pro-democracy dissidents in Iran are shocked and appalled at your remarks, and have reported that in Iran and other Mideastern countries, that all the extremists and anti-west mullahs who strongly supported the attacks on the World Trade Center, Pentagon, USS Cole, Marine Barracks, and anyplace Americans congregate, want you to become our President, but they are scared to death of George W. Bush. Just think, The Democratic candidate for President, you, John Forbes Kerry, is endorsed by the Al Q’Aida, Hezbollah, PLF, and Hamas.

But on February 27, 2004, in a speech at UCLA , you, while trying to talk tough, despite voting against all major weapons systems for the past 18 years, stated that you will continue the War on Terror, but would use our police forces, and especially those in foreign countries, and you would also put our troops back under the powder blue flag of the United Nations. You recently made comments about Bush making troops fight without Kevlar vests, but you, Senator Kerry, voted against buying them while you were in the Senate.

Like the Kama Sutra, Senator, you change positions constantly. You’re not going to end the War on Terror, but instead use police to handcuff terrorists and read them their rights; then a week later, you are going to end the War on Terrorism and apologize to everyone we have offended, such as Iran. What is it going be next week, Kerry? You flip-flop more than a beached tuna on steroids.

You convinced TV reporters Chris Wallace on Fox and NBC’s Tim Russert that a photograph circulating the web and news showing you a few rows away from Jane Fonda at a September, 1970 Anti-War Rally at Valley Forge, was simply a coincidence and that you and Hanoi Jane barely knew each other. But, in fact, Senator, there were only 8 speakers that day, including Fonda, Donald Southerland, and Bella Abzug, and Hanoi Jane funded that rally, and the keynote speaker was you, John Forbes Kerry, executive committee member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

We must be Americans first, and think about our political parties after that. Sometimes we lose sight of that. I have six grown children and two are democrats. I voted for Jimmy Carter. This is not about politics. It is about standing up to the ultimate playground bully, and not simply cowering and kissing his shoes.

I left it “all on the field” in the jungles back there when I was medevaced out of Vietnam in March of 1969 and sent back to hospitals in “The World.” Although You, Mr. Kerry, painted all of us Vietnam veterans with the yellow brush of My Lai and Tiger Force, most of us, draftees and lifers alike, actually poured our hearts out in the tropical rain forests and in the rice paddies, thoroughly gave it our all, and acted as warriors who had honor. I have a son earning his green beret at Fort Bragg right now and a daughter-in-law on orders for Iraq. I am not going to stand by and watch them go through the same treatment we did, because some of our well-meaning fellow Americans choose to wear blinders and believe things just because they heard it on the network news or simply not care enough to get involved.

I am not a “baby-killer, torturer, or murderer,” John Kerry. I am a Vietnam veteran and an American who will not soon forget, or ever want to see again, any more jets loaded with fuel and screaming, innocent Americans slamming into our buildings on our very own soil. I have shed enough tears for ten lifetimes. We all have. I will never again let my fellow countrymen get away with making American veterans feel like bastard step-children.

Santayana said, “Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

John Kerry, I now call on my “Band of Brothers,” those who have heard the sound of guns and cries of orphaned children, those who hate war more than anyone who has not been there, to join me in this difficult battle ahead. Republicans, democrats, independents, and the apolitical, I call on the 25,000,000 veterans of this country to help me confront this evil facing our great nation, not with guns and bombs, but with our voices, our votes, our computers, and with all our fighting spirit.

My fellow veterans, your families, survivors, and neighbors: God bless you and God bless America.

You want proof of all I have to say. Here are the references:
Want more proof? Read the very exposing February 27, 2004 article, on page 8, of the NY Sun by Thomas Lipscomb, founder of Time Books and publisher of Admiral Elmo Zumwalt’s best-selling book. “ON WATCH ”. Also read what the man who pinned the Silver Star on John Kerry had to say about him. The article is entitled “Setting Straight Kerry’s War Record “
Don Bendell is a former green beret captain, who served in Vietnam on an A-Team and in the Top Secret Phoenix program in 1968 and 1969, as well as in three other Special Forces Groups. He is a best-selling author of 21 books, with over 1,500,000 copies of his books in print worldwide, and a seventh degree black master in four martial arts, who was inducted into the International Karate Hall of Fame in 1995 and Martial Arts Museum of America in 1996. e-mail:
Don or Shirley Bendell
PO Box 276, Canon City, CO 81215-0276
(719) 269-3929
Please visit our website:, or visit
our other website at

Rogue Governments Support Kerry, Republican Leader Notes
By Susan Jones Morning Editor
March 09, 2004

( - Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) says foreign leaders support his campaign against President Bush, but that ought to concern American voters, a prominent Republican indicated.

Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), says Kerry is right -- rogue leaders, including North Korea's Kim Jong Il, do support Kerry -- because he's perceived as being less tough than President Bush has been on rogue regimes.

According to House Majority Leader DeLay, the Reuters News Service on Monday quoted Kerry as saying, "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy, they look at you and say, 'You've got to win this, you've got to beat this guy [Bush], we need a new policy,' things like that."

Last week, the Financial Times reported, "Rather than dealing with President George W. Bush and hawkish officials in his administration, Pyongyang seems to hope victory for the Democratic candidate on Nov. 2 would lead to a softening in US policy towards the country's nuclear weapons programme."

Said DeLay in a press release, "If Kerry locks up Paris next, he's going to be tough to beat."

 By J. Grant Swank, Jr.
Mar 10, 2004, 11:40 EST

Former Vice President Al Gore did it. He complained about the US  troops in New Iraq. Did he not recall that both he and his President Bill Clinton believed wholeheartedly that there were weapons of mass destruction  in Iraq? Did not they tell the United States that Hussein had a
build-up of those weapons, in other words, that the world was not  safe as long as Hussein the Horrible was in power?
Surely both Clinton and Gore sounded the blaring alarm. They minced no words. They went on the front page with their own executive
cautionary headlines. They, and other world leaders as well as the United Nations headship, claimed that Iraq was an awesome threat to
global safety.But now of course the Democrats are not running the administration; therefore, it’s posh to slam United States President George W. Bush. It’s "in" to do in his colleagues. It’s the "thing" to make Bush supporters out to be stoops in the ignoramus corner.
So it is that Senator John Kerry as President-wannabe comes forth with his echoes of Gore and Clinton. He raps the goings-on in New
Iraq, making them out to be the follow-through to liar Bush’s antics build-up.

The New Iraq does not receive one commendation from the Democrats let alone Kerry now that the interim constitution has been signed,
now that peasants enjoy, for their first year, new-found liberties and that their future might just be a fortune in disguise. Not on
 your life. After all, motive working here is political opportunism, not reality in focus in New Iraq.Therefore, US Secretary of State Colin Powell has every right today to point out to the thinking public the disservice Kerry is doing to our men and women in uniform in New Iraq. They are laboring faithfully daily on behalf of Iraqi Freedom Operation. They are giving their lives in support of a democracy-planting. They are
giving energy to assist US Administrator Paul Bremer, working at  wits’ end to make freedom work. Then all the while the rich and
wheel-dealing Kerry and Team slam the US-led Coalition at every turn.

Not fair. But political low-brow it is. Not reasonable. But politically advantageous, at least Kerry thinks so. Mr. Powell chastened Kerry and colleagues for being so underhanded to slice through the US troops in New Iraq. He said that they’re doing nothing but digging into troop morale. And that they are orchestrating — with shame. "Let’s not misuse an issue for the purpose of political advantage in a way that will undercut the efforts of our brave young men and women out there or affect their morale," Mr. Powell requested. Let’s see if it has any influence for good. I doubt it, considering the audience to whom it is directed.  email comments to

'Scary John Kerry' lying to Americans?

Posted: March 10, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004
On Monday, John Kerry shocked the reporters in attendance at a Florida fund-raiser when he declared to the audience that "I've met foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, 'You've got to win, you've got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,' things like that."

CNN did a search of the available records of Kerry meetings over the course of his candidacy and could not find any meeting with any foreign leader. The generous want to credit possible phone calls, but look at Kerry's phrasing – he says he met with foreign leaders, and the leaders "look at you and say" stuff like what a godsend you are, John Kerry.

It seems clear to me that John Kerry made this up – is lying, in short. An Al Gore-like move eight months out. Why would he do such a stupid thing? After all, it is easily checked, and reporters were in the room.

My guess is this: John Kerry knows two things: The election will turn on the war, and on the war, John Kerry is incredibly weak, having flip-flopped and back-flopped and never stopped talking about it from every direction. He is to defense and national security what metrosexuals are to gender – blurring the lines and all things to all people.

And that's not going to fly in the election. Any more than his opposition to the first Gulf War, to the B-1 and B-2, the Aegis cruiser, the M1-Abrahms tank, the Patriot missile or all land-based missile-defense systems. John Kerry would be a disaster for the defense of the United States, and his record of weakness on these issues is long and detailed. Just Monday, in fact, President Bush highlighted Kerry's strange legislative proposition of 1995 calling for a $1.5 billion dollar cut in the funding of the intelligence agencies --a bill that failed to attract the support of even one other senator. Not even Boxer would sign on to that crazy proposal.

So Kerry knows his own record and knows his vulnerability. His response is to create out of whole cloth mythical "foreign leaders" who support his election. Like Harvey the Rabbit, John Kerry has Harvey the "foreign leader" whispering encouragement to him.
That's troubling. Very troubling, and the press doesn't quite know what to do with this odd duck from Massachusetts, but are reluctant to see him implode the week after locking up the nomination. So they aren't pressing very hard.

Here's a suggestion: Just track the "foreign leaders" story with half the energy you tracked the "yellowcake" story. That'll do.
Scary John Kerry. Next thing you know he'll be making up defective voting processes in Florida and hiring lawyers to stake out the Sunshine State.

Who's Kerry?
Special to the Register

Knowing that I served in the U.S. Senate with John Kerry and that, like him, I am a veteran of the Vietnam War, many people have asked me what I think of him, particularly now that he's the ap parent presidential nominee of the Democratic Party.
When Kerry joined me in the Senate, I already knew about his record of defamatory remarks and behavior criticizing U.S. policy in Vietnam and the conduct of our military personnel there. I had learned in North Vietnamese prisons how much harm such statements caused.

To me, his remarks and behavior amounted to giving aid and comfort to our Vietnamese and Soviet enemies. So I was not surprised when his subsequent overall voting pattern in the Senate was consistently detrimental to our national security.

Considering his demonstrated popularity during the Democratic primaries, I earnestly hope the American people will soberly consider Kerry's qualifications for the pres idency in light of his position and record on both our cultural war at home and on national security issues.

To put it bluntly, John Kerry exemplifies the very reasons that I switched to the Repub lican Party. Like the majority in his political party, he has proven by his words and actions that his list of priorities -- his ideas on what most needs to be done to improve this country -- are almost opposite to my own.

Here are two issue areas that I consider top priorities: the war over the soul of America, and national security.

Top priority should be placed on an effort to recover our most fundamental founding belief that our national objectives, policies and laws should reflect obedience to the will of Almighty God. Our Declaration of Independence, our national Constitution and each of the states' constitutions stress that basic American national principle.

For about 200 years, the entire country, both parties and all branches of government understood that principle and tried to follow it, if imperfectly.

For some 50 years, our nation's opinion-makers, our courts and, gradually, our politicians have been abandoning our historical effort to be "one nation under God" in favor of becoming "one nation without God," with glaringly unfavorable results.

I believe our political leaders, educational system, parents and opinion-makers must all return to teaching the truth most emphasized by our Founding Fathers.
George Washington called religious belief indispensable to the prosperity of our democracy. William Penn said, "Men must choose to be governed by God or condemn themselves to be ruled by tyrants." And when asked what caused the Civil War, President Lincoln said, "We have forgotten God."

In these days we have not only forgotten God, we are by our new standards of government and culture rejecting him as the acknowledged creator and as the endower of our rights. As a result, we are suffering cultural decay and human unhappiness. The decline of the institution of the family is the most obvious result.

Perhaps the current movie, "The Passion of the Christ," will help many to come to realize the cost of the redemption of our sins, and the destructiveness of sin.
Let's remember that over 95 percent of Americans during our founding days were Christians, and though our Founding Fathers stipulated that no one was to be compelled to believe in any religion, and also stipulated that there would be no single Christian denomina tion installed as a national religion, there was no question that our laws were to be firmly based on the Judean Ten Commandments and on Christ's mandate to love your neighbor as you love yourself.

That setup brought us amazing success as a nation, lifting us from our humble beginnings, through crisis after crisis, to become the leading nation of the world.
Now, though, we are throwing away the very source of our strength and greatness. Yet I am not giving up on our country. I am encouraged at the stand and the attitude of our president, and inspired by his courage. There are many more of his stripe in Washington now.

Though Rome and other empires have decayed and fallen, the cultural war in the United States can and should be won by the majority of Americans -- a majority to whom
Kerry and the Democrats disdainfully refer to as the "far right." They are people who believe in God and in the original concept of "one nation under God."

As a nation, we are now at the point of no return. The good guys are finally angry enough to join the fray, and I pray we are not too late. John Kerry is not among the good guys. The Democratic Party isn't, either.

Indeed, on the subject of national security, John Kerry epitomizes a fatal weakness in the Democratic Party. During the decisive days of the Cold War, after the Democratic Party changed during the mid-1960s, the party was on the wrong side of every strategic debate on policy regarding Vietnam and the USSR, and is now generally on the wrong side in the war on terrorism.

The truth is that the Cold War was barely won by a narrow margin -- a victory and a margin determined by the political choices made by our government regarding suitable steps to deter Soviet attack and finally win the Cold War.

If the U.S. had followed the Democratic Party line, the Cold War would have concluded with the U.S. having to surrender without a fight, or the U.S. would have been defeated in a nuclear war with acceptable losses to the USSR.

It was not Johnson and Carter and the Democrats; it was Nixon, Reagan, George Bush and the Republicans who led us to victory in the Cold War. And George W. Bush and the Republican majority -- not John Kerry and the Democrats -- can lead us to victory in the war on terrorism.

Jeremiah Denton is a retired Navy admiral who served in the U.S. Senate from 1981 to 1987. Readers can phone him at 473-1010, send e-mail to, or log on to his Web site at
No Recognition for Hanoi!
by John F. McManus
One of the more emotional U.S. foreign policy issues currently on the table involves diplomatic recognition of our former enemy, Vietnam. The Clinton Administration has been pushing to extend full diplomatic recognition to the Communist regime, but the many wounds still being felt by Americans who fought in Vietnam (or who lost their loved ones there) stand in the way. The fundamental reason for denying recognition -- which few want to discuss publicly -- is that Vietnam remains a repressive Communist dictatorship and deserves no recognition from a nation dedicated to liberty.

Proponents of recognition don't want to admit it but Mr. Clinton's disgraceful conduct during the Vietnam War (evading the draft, lying about it, journeying to Moscow to protest American policy) can't but enter into the equation. With a presidential re-election effort looming on the horizon, it would suit Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party just fine if others would carry this ball for them.

An Unlikely Duo

Stepping forward on behalf of recognition of the Hanoi government are Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and John Kerry (D-MA), both decorated veterans of the Vietnam War. As a U.S. Navy pilot, John McCain was shot down over Hanoi in 1967. He spent more than five years in a POW camp where he received brutal attention from his captors because his father, Admiral John McCain, was commander of all U.S. forces in the Pacific. The senator's willingness to forgive and forget all that he was subjected to at the hands of the North Vietnamese is an interesting story in itself. His current stance on the recognition issue makes him one of President Clinton's chief allies on this matter.

John Kerry earned three Purple Hearts, plus Silver Star and Bronze Star medals during the war. But after he came home from Vietnam, Kerry led numerous antiwar protests and earned high praise in front-page coverage in the Communist Party/USA newspaper Daily World. The December 12, 1971 Boston Herald-Traveler noted that the group Vietnam Veterans Against the War, with Kerry as its leader, participated in anti-war rallies actually organized by the Communists themselves. The newspaper noted Kerry's admission that he welcomed the Communists and expressed concern that any attempt to exclude them would result "in seriously dividing and weakening the movement." The article stated that the Kerry-led demonstrations were "characterized by an abundance of Vietcong flags, clenched fists raised in the air, and placards plainly bearing legends in support of China, Cuba, the USSR, North Korea and the Hanoi government."

Elected to the U.S. Senate in 1984, John Kerry is now a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. As in 1971, he is still promoting the cause of the Communists in Vietnam.

Vietnam Today

The 1973 Paris Peace Accords ended U.S. participation in the Vietnam War. Of the more than 2,500 U.S. POWs known to have been captured alive by the Vietcong, fewer than 600 were released and came home. The North Vietnamese have been anything but cooperative in providing an accounting of the remainder.

Once our nation's participation in the war ended, the Hanoi government turned its attention to brutalizing all of South Vietnam. Millions of South Vietnamese fled in rickety boats to escape privation and death. How many perished in the seas will never be known, but the number is surely huge. Over one million Vietnamese now live in the United States, having fled from the Communist campaign of terror. Many who didn't escape have languished for years in Vietnam's prisons.

U.S. State Department officials acknowledge that the Hanoi government continues to oppress religious leaders and political dissidents who peacefully express opposition to the government. But Nancy Ely-Raphael, a State Department expert on human rights abuses, maintains that human rights conditions in Vietnam "are going in the right direction." Looking at the situation from Vietnam's perspective, so is the policy of the Clinton Administration. In February 1994, the U.S. government lifted a 19-year economic embargo against Vietnam. Last January, diplomatic liaison offices were opened in each nation. San Francisco and Ho Chi Minh City (formerly Saigon) have just completed a friendship pact, the first between American and Vietnamese cities.

Different Treatment

Over the past 25 years, the U.S. government helped to bring down friendly anti-Communist governments in Rhodesia, Iran, and Nicaragua. Each was replaced by Communist and pro-Communist leaders whose horrific human rights records were well known. Recently, our leaders pressured South Africa to accept unrepentant Communist revolutionary Nelson Mandela as its new leader. The case of South Africa is especially revealing because the former government's alleged violations of human rights had never stemmed the tide of millions who fled into the country. In Vietnam, millions have fled out of the country and more still seek to leave. It is hardly excessive to state that our government's policy -- once again evidenced by actions being taken with regard to Communist Vietnam -- is pro-Communist and anti-freedom.

If U.S. leaders would cease meddling in the affairs of other nations the world would be a far better place. Instead, administration after administration helps Communists, harming those who wish to be friends, and pushing all nations into a new world order. That is what the current move to legitimize Vietnam's government is truly all about.
Reprinted with permission from The New American magazine, June 26, 1995

John Kerry and the Return of Intifada

By Jason Maoz | March 9, 2004
It was just a couple of months ago that John Kerry told the Council on Foreign Relations of his inclination, should he win the White House, to appoint Jimmy Carter, James Baker or Bill Clinton as a Middle East peace process envoy.

The backpedaling began soon thereafter in the face of criticism over the inclusion of Carter and Baker in Kerry's dream troika, and it intensified in the days leading up to this week's New York Democratic primary. The Kerry campaign put out the word that the problematic remark was purely a staff error, a theme elaborated on by New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Kerry supporter, in a conference call with reporters.

"I spoke to [Kerry] about that very issue, saying that was not something that was going to be very popular in the Jewish community," said Silver. "John Kerry assured me that neither Jimmy Carter nor Baker would be his choice. Kerry is saying, 'Look, this is a mistake.' "

According to a report in the Forward, Silver said Kerry told him that when he realized staffers had inserted the names of Carter and Baker into a draft of his speech, "he had requested they be removed, but was told that the draft remarks already had been distributed to reporters, so there was no way to deliver the speech minus the names without causing a stir."

Well, thanks to some dogged research by Rick Richman, who maintains the excellent blog Jewish Current Issues, Kerry's excuse has been stripped bare.
Richman compared the "as prepared for delivery" version of Kerry's speech on Kerry's website with what Kerry actually said, based on the transcript of the speech as it was actually delivered (posted on the Council on Foreign Relations website) and here's what he found:

Prepared remarks: "...I will appoint a Presidential Ambassador to the Peace Process who will report directly to me and the Secretary of State - and who will work day-to-day to move that process forward. There are a number of uniquely qualified Americans who I would consider appointing, including: President Carter, former Secretary of State James Baker, or, as I suggested almost two years ago, President Clinton."

Actual speech (note Kerry's added comments): "...I will appoint a presidential ambassador to the peace process who will report directly to me and the secretary of State, and who will work day to day to move that process forward. There are a number of uniquely qualified Americans among whom I would consider appointing, including President Carter, former Secretary of State James Baker or, as I suggested almost two years ago, President Clinton. And I might add, I have had conversations with both President Clinton and President Carter about their willingness to do this, and I think they would welcome it and embrace it as a means of moving forward."

Obviously Kerry was not simply reciting the words of a staffer. But there's more. In a question-and-answer session after the speech, Kerry again mentioned Carter and Baker: "I think Jim Baker made 14 trips there. I know he wasn't all that popular at the end of a number of them and there were some issues. But Larry Eagleburger, Brent Scowcroft. There's great talent out there with people who have been through this. And it's astonishing to me that we are not picking up somewhere near where we left off at Taba.... I was in the Middle East after September 11. I met at length with President Mubarak, with Crown Prince Abdullah, with King Abdullah, with Prime Minister Sharon, with Arafat in the West Bank. All of them. And every single leader, including our own ambassador, said to me, 'Senator, where is General Zinni? Why isn't there a special envoy here? This is a moment of opportunity.'... And I believe that a special envoy of the quality of President Clinton or of President Carter, or a combination of people, bipartisanly, would have the ability to be able to raise the day-to-day diplomacy to a level that helps to give strength to those who seek peace."

Richman sums it up perfectly: Kerry "met with Arafat. After September 11. After Bill Clinton blamed Arafat for the Oslo collapse. After George W. Bush refused to meet with Arafat. After Arafat had commenced a barbaric war against Israel. After that - and in the midst of that - he meets with Arafat. And he came away from that meeting thinking the answer is to appoint Jimmy Carter as presidential envoy and start the negotiations with Taba.
"It was not a staff mistake."

Tuesday, March 9, 2004
John Kerry a hawk on Haiti
So now -- based on what he said in criticizing President Bush -- we know that Sen. John Kerry would put the lives of U.S. troops at risk in a civil war to save a tyrannical, corrupt, incompetent regime in Haiti.

Where exactly is Kerry coming from? Is this the same presidential candidate who refused to vote for funds supporting the U.S. presence in Iraq and who to this day does not seem entirely clear on the importance of the war there to U.S. security? Is this the same man who made a virtual career in his younger days of denouncing U.S. intervention in Vietnam?

The claim, of course, is that the United States would have served the purposes of Latin American democracy if we had sent in our troops as part of an international force to keep Haitian President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in power. How so? Aristide was no friend of democracy. A sham election does not confer legitimacy on a regime, and the crushing of liberties should not be a cause for which Americans face rebel bullets.

Kerry should have figured out that it serves neither U.S. interests nor the interests of freedom to send the wrong signals to Latin American leaders. We should not let them think that the occasional pretense of democratic aspirations will necessarily secure U.S. support. They must also refrain from indulging in despotic acts. Pledge our unconditional support and we will have given the green light to despotism.

Considering his newfound enthusiasm for committing U.S. troops in foreign countries, maybe Kerry should reconsider his objections to U.S. actions in Iraq. We went into that fight with Britain and 29 other coalition partners -- the claim of "unilateralism" is a lie -- to oust a reckless genocidal maniac with ties to terrorists, a history of using weapons of mass destruction and vengeful hostility toward us. Just this week, a council of Iraqis signed a constitution that could very well lead to Iraq's becoming a democracy. Meanwhile, the United States has escaped terrorist attack since Sept. 11, 2001 -- evidence that White House policies have been an effective deterrent at least to date.

It's puzzling, isn't it, that Kerry -- a man of righteous rhetoric on the subject of the president's Iraq involvement -- should simultaneously want to put American lives on the line for a cause as questionable as saving Aristide's political hide?
Contact Jay Ambrose at Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service,

John Kerry claims foreign leader support
The World Today - Tuesday, 9 March , 2004 12:10:00
Reporter: John Shovelan
HAMISH ROBERTSON: If you believe the man who would be President, Democrat Senator John Kerry, some foreign leaders have lost confidence in President George W. Bush, and they want Senator Kerry to win the American presidential election on November 2.

But he didn't say which foreign leaders had given him such strong support, and they certainly don't include Australia's Prime Minister John Howard or Foreign Minister Alexander Downer, who we'll hear from in a minute.

Senator Kerry made the claim during a meeting with a group of Democrat donors, saying that foreign leaders he's met have told him that they prefer him to George W. Bush. The Kerry campaign, however, has been unable to provide the names of any foreign leaders he's met in the last twelve months.

John Shovelan now reports on the opening rounds of what will be a marathon Presidential election.

JOHN SHOVELAN: Senator John Kerry's remarks appeared to have played into the hands of the Bush/Cheney campaign, which immediately responded with a statement that read:

"Senator Kerry's foreign friends may prefer him as US president, but the election is in the hands of the American people."

The issue raised by Senator Kerry underlines a fundamental difference between President Bush and his Democrat rival, and one President Bush highlighted in his State of the Union address earlier this year.

GEORGE BUSH: America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country.

JOHN SHOVELAN: For Democrat voters, and Senator Kerry, that way of thinking has isolated the United States.

JOHN KERRY: The Bush Administration has run the most inept, reckless, arrogant and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of our country, and we will reverse that chorus.


JOHN SHOVELAN: But Republicans view the foreign dislike of President Bush as a positive. It, they contend, shows him standing up for what he believes, regardless of international pressure.

GEORGE BUSH: In America, we must never outsource America's national security decisions to the leaders of other governments.


JOHN SHOVELAN: And just like the issue of gay marriage, the expression of American power throughout the world polarises people within the United States. Senator Kerry, though, is unlikely to raise the issue very often because it's not one which will attract independent or swing voters.

For the Massachusetts senator, his honeymoon period is over. President Bush daily defines him as a Democrat unable to take a strong stand, as a flip flopper, and it's characterisation that's already taking hold in the media.

GEORGE BUSH: For tax cuts, and against them. For NAFTA and against NAFTA. For the Patriot Act, and against the Patriot Act. In favour of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts.


JOHN SHOVELAN: And while that's become part of the President's stump speech, the conservative group Citizens United is running the first of many attack ads, characterising Senator Kerry as just another rich liberal.

ADVERTISEMENT: Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. Hair styled by Kristov's, 75 dollars. Designer shirts, 250 dollars. 42 foot Luxury yacht, 1 million dollars. Four lavish mansions and beachfront estate, over 30 million dollars. Another rich liberal elitist from Massachusetts who claims he's a man of the people (laughs). Priceless.

JOHN SHOVELAN: But so far the early attacks haven't done much to dent Senator Kerry's support. He's at least level pegging in some and well in front in other polls.

John Shovelan, Washington.

Monday, March 8, 2004 12:42 p.m. EST
Kerry Voted Against Body Armor for U.S. Troops
Likely Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry slammed President Bush over the weekend for not supplying U.S. troops in Iraq with enough body armor to protect them from attacks.

But, it turns out, Sen. Kerry actually voted against supplying the troops with more body armor in 2002. Addressing a Texas audience on Saturday, the Massachusetts Democrat said it was "shocking" that "tens of thousands of other troops arrived in Iraq to find that – with danger around every corner – there wasn't enough body armor."

But Bush campaign press secretary Scott Stanzel told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg on Sunday that Kerry "voted against supplying body armor to our troops when it mattered most" – when President Bush included the request as part of the $87 billion appropriation for the Iraq war in 2002.

RNC Chairman Marc Racicot confirmed the Kerry vote against body armor, telling ABC's "This Week" that the funding bill "did everything from provide hazard pay for our troops in Iraq to body armor for our troops in Iraq."

"And yet he has the audacity yesterday to continue to complain about the fact that there was no body armor," Racicot complained. Asked about his vote not to protect the troops with new body armor, Sen. Kerry insisted he did no such thing.

"That $87 billion has nothing to do with the preparatory money" for protective gear, he told the Fox News Channel.

He then blamed President Bush for not supplying the body armor sooner, saying: "The president made the decision of when to go to war. If you make that decision, you have to make sure your troops are properly equipped."

Get Steve Malzberg's exclusive column e-mailed directly to you at

The 'Offended' 911 Group “Peaceful Tomorrows” is funded largely by Teresa Heinz
various sources, mostly Tom Randall of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review | 3/5/04
“Peaceful Tomorrows” is being portrayed as an independent group of relatives of victims of the 911 attacks. They are getting a lot of press claiming to be outraged over the new Bush ads.

Call me insensitive if you like, but I wonder if this outrage could possibly be a tad overblown, and more likely attributable to the millions and millions of dollars this group has received from endowments chaired by Teresa Heinz, wife of Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry.

According to their own contribution page, “Peaceful Tomorrows is a project of the Tides Center, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization.”
According to an article in the Pittsburgh Review, “Between 1995 and 2001, $4.3 million of that money came from the Howard Heinz Endowment. In 2002, it and the Vira Heinz Endowment blessed The Tides Center, a San Francisco spin-off of the Tides Foundation, with another $190,000 while the two endowments gave $1.6 million to the new Tides Center for Western Pennsylvania.” (The Heinz Endowments have teamed up with a secretive left-wing group)
The money that flows into The Tides also flows out. They have given grants totaling $489,000 to the Iraq Peace Fund, who used that money to fund the anti-war marches and media costs of 27 groups, including, whose purpose is to defeat George W. Bush.

Other Tides Center projects include The Youth Gender Project, which seeks to "empower and support transgender, gender-variant, intersexed and gender-questioning youth and young adults."

They also shoveled $200,000 towards The Ruckus Society - founded in 1995 to train activists in violent protest against biotechnology, globalization and the World Bank. It incited property destruction in the Seattle riots of 1999 and Washington, D.C., the following year.
Now, if you really want to get mad, you should also know that $8,000,000 in taxpayer money flowed into the Tides Center in the form of federal grants made by eight different agencies between 1997 and 2001.

By J. Grant Swank, Jr.
 Mar 9, 2004, 00:02 EST

            To vote for John Kerry in November is to vote for The Void. It is to move a nation — and much of the free world — into an awesome, scary vacuum.

            The reason is because no one, including John Kerry, knows truthfully who Kerry is. And the word "truthfully" is the key word. No one. Kerry is unknowable in that he has a base that shifts. He is  Political Opportunist to the maximum — one of the most dangerous to this new century.

            Kerry is now called The Waffler. He’s called that because he is. Who then in one’s right mind would vote in a waffler? Only the fools of the nation would cast a ballot for a person who is so unpredictable that not even John Kerry knows where he's going to land next week.

            His voting record in the Congress is right there before the eyes of the country. It’s public record. It’s unnerving to go over his voting history.

            Yet this is the Democrat choice for the United States President. And this in an exceptionally changing world — speedily changing. This is the Democrat candidate to take the helm when much of the planet’s  plates are moving daily.

            No wonder then that Iran votes for Kerry. No wonder then that North Korea votes for Kerry. They consider him unpredictable, which he is; therefore, they have the chance to govern his governorship. And they will surely do that if they can. Welcome killers international to America where the president knows not his right shoe from his left, who has no real foreign policy, and projects himself as The Void in which Iranian and North Korean killers can walk in to manage.

            All Americans should sit up straight on this one. This is not a minor item. This is major scary. Kerry is a vacuum because he’s never trained his morals to log in. He is a relativist. He is a moral opportunist. This is particularly evident in his being  Catholic in name only. Kerry doesn’t care about biblical data as revealed truth. Kerry doesn’t care about the Holy See’s doctrinal conclusions. Kerry doesn’t give a hang about his church’s social teachings regarding abortion and homosexuality.
            With a person like that to oversee the United States of America, we are in for a rocky ride. This man cannot see through the fog to take a chance at conviction. He lacks conviction except on one point: his  own opportunism. He holds to the conviction that he has the right to waffle and still be considered sophisticated for waffling. He has the conviction that he can swing from wrong to right and from right to wrong, defining his own ethical code apart from divine revelation. He is one of the most obvious self-appointed deity personalities afloat today. That is, he is his own god and politic is his bible.

            John Kerry has not set forth one substantive proposal regarding anything. Nothing. He knows how to criticize but not how to create. He knows how to pull apart but not how to build. He has not given to  the voting public one strong position regarding economy, national security, and foreign policy.

            So with that, Kerry rants and raves against Mr. Bush’s campaign ads, his wife, Heinz Kerry underwriting the Whiners National who call in to say they’re offended by Bush’s accent on 9 / 11. And so it goes when you think you’re running for president of the high school student council.
email comments to

Vets rally outside Kerry's city HQ
Staff Writer

February 28, 2004, 6:14 PM EST

With only three days to go before Tuesday's Democratic primary, Vietnam veterans rallied Saturday outside Sen. John Kerry's campaign headquarters in Manhattan — but a Band of Brothers they were not.

Side by side with a coalition of Vietnamese-Americans from across the country, members of the Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry chanted "Commander-in-Chief Kerry? No Way!" under banners and signs decrying the Democratic front-runner as a traitor.

"He betrayed us. He stabbed us in the back," Jerry Kiley, 57, co-founder of the ad hoc group, screamed to the crowd of about 400 people packed on Park Avenue South. "We will never allow him to be our commander-in-chief. Ever!"

Veteran after veteran passionately lambasted Kerry, a decorated veteran of the Vietnam war, for, among other things, his testimony to Congress in 1971 that detailed alleged atrocities committed by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. Kiley said his group, which was formed three weeks ago, plans to rally at the Democratic convention in Boston in July if Kerry wins the nomination.

Equally fervent in their disdain for Kerry were the Vietnamese-Americans, who hold the senator from Massachusetts responsible for thrice blocking a bill in 2001 and 2002 that would have tied U.S. aid to Vietnam to that country's human rights record.

"Sen. John Kerry has been working with the dictatorship in Vietnam," said Nam Pham, 48, a banker from Boston who is working with the Massachusetts Human Rights Commission for Vietnam. "He lost the moral authority to lead the free world."

Both groups said they considered themselves non-partisan, and said that they are not backing another candidate, only that they want to prevent Kerry from winning the White House.

Staff writer William Murphy contributed to this story.

CIA Knew Aristide Was Mad

Once again, the major media won't report on some recent history that sheds enormous light on the current situation with Haiti and the country's deposed president, Jean-Bertrand Aristide.

The blame for the Aristide mess is being placed at the doorstep of the Bush White House.

But the Haiti problem, like so many of George Bush's troubles, finds its origin in the previous administration.

When a senior CIA officer reported in 1993 that Aristide was mad, the White House asked CIA chief James Woolsey to fire the analyst who gave the briefing. Woolsey refused, but we hear that the CIA analyst was exiled to the CIA Center for the Study of Intelligence, where he remained until he retired a few years ago.

Inside sources say CIA officers stood by the agency's assessment of Aristide, but meanwhile the Clinton administration restored Aristide to power.

A report by the Center for Security Policy's Frank Gaffney noted during the Clinton years: "U.S. Intelligence believes Aristide to be a clinical psychotic, an individual who is sufficiently mentally unstable as to require medication and institutional treatment for depression and megalomania. The center has learned, moreover, that he is addicted to the drugs that stabilize his condition."

At the very least, Aristide's established record of anti-democratic behavior should have given the Clinton administration pause.
CBS news reported that during the brief period when Aristide was president of Haiti he encouraged the "necklacing" of his political opponents, the practice of lighting gasoline-laden tires placed around the victim's neck. Aristide said of necklacing: "What a beautiful tool, what a beautiful instrument, what a beautiful device, it's beautiful, yes, it's beautiful, it's cute, it's pretty, it has a good smell. Wherever you go you want to inhale it."

And the New York Times has ignored Wall Street Journal reports that Aristide's government has been heavily involved with drug traffickers.
Other evidence suggests that Aristide had bought off key Democratic Party operatives.

A Times report from 1995 states, "The agency [CIA] denies it had its own policy agenda at the time or that it was trying to subvert Administration policy. But the whole episode should lead to some searching questions as the CIA struggles to refashion itself. The CIA has no obligation to produce intelligence reports that hew to Administration views, but is obliged not to obstruct the execution of American foreign policy."

Wouldn't it be nice if such an editorial appeared in the Times today?

Here's a bombshell story you haven't seen in the national media.
AIM Report
Reed Irvine, Editor
Joseph C. Goulden, Associate editor

A highly-decorated Army Special Forces officer, now retired and running a POW search network from Bangkok, tells us that the Vietnamese army is
itching to release 572 Americans, now being held in Laos camps.

The Vietnamese military, according to Major Mark W. Smith, fears being held responsible for war crimes should it kill the men, as the Hanoi politburo is urging.

Vietnam knows the Clinton Administration is on the brink of restoring full trade and diplomatic relations.

The POWs, held for two decades as "bargaining chips" and "trophies of war", are now being dumped into Laos, under the care of three Vietnamese
divisions, which prop up the puppet government there. Read ON

A Vote For Kerry is a vote for Osama bin Laden or Kim Jung II

News Flash!! Just In North Korea Endorces Kerry!!

                  By J. Grant Swank, Jr.
                  Mar 6, 2004, 15:02 EST

            Iranian leaders like Senator John Kerry. Does that say something?

            North Korea likes Senator John Kerry. Does that say something?

            According to Financial Times’ Andrew Ward in Seoul and James Harding   in Washington, North Korean media is taking quite ambitiously and  kindly to Kerry for United States President. How very interesting   for those of us who champion George W. Bush for US President.

            "North Korea Warms to Kerry Presidency Bid" headlines the Financial  Times piece.  North Korea smilingly regards Kerry as soft on global terrorism.  He’s an easy catch when it comes to living with those doing nuclear build-ups. He’s not going to be aggressive like GWB when it comes to  protecting the planet from killers international.
            North Korea sees Kerry as an idealist who is more pliable for  playing with. He’s more gullible, in other words.

            Therefore, it’s with "reverential reporting" that North Korea’s  media gives center stage coverage to Kerry. He’s become a favorite for headlines, even to the extent of his speeches being plastered   throughout. His oratory has made it big time on Radio Pyongyang. His rhetoric has come into its own through the Korea Central News             Agency, "the official mouthpiece of Mr. Kim’s communist regime."

            Does that say something? Read On

Have You Forgotten The Kerry Committee?
March 3, 2004
by Humberto Fontova

Say what you want about Senator John Kerry, nobody ever called him lazy. He landed in Congress and immedeatly rolled up his sleeves and spat on his hands. The Nicaraguan people MUST end up like the Cuban and Vietnamese! Toward this end the man was tireless. The vision inspired him to such a staggering work load, energized him to such a frantic pace, propelled him to such legislative feats, that his colleagues--even the pinkest-- gaped in envy and awe.

Back then Nicaragua was the pinks' latest City On a Hill, Daniel Ortega their latest Gallahad. Scores of Kerry's colleagues were content to flutter their eyelashes at the Communist cutthroat from afar. Others courted him with a perfumed love letter. "Dear Comandante," it started.

But freshman senator John Kerry insisted on a more intimate approach. So mere weeks after entering office in 1985 he set off for Managua with fellow freshman Tom Harkin of Iowa for a chummy face to face session with the Communist pedophile.

They returned rapt. Cuban and Soviet ties with the Sandinistas? Baseless rumors, Kerry insisted. Kerry stood before Congress and waved a list of heart-warming liberal reforms that Ortega promised him were imminent. ("I hold here in my hands!") Actually he called it, "a wonderful new opening!" The Massachusetts senator insisted that Nicaragua would soon blossom into tropical Sweden.

Congress swallowed this bilge in one mighty gulp and killed the Contra aid bill (Kerry's goal all along.) It took a whole week after the Congressional vote for Ortega to fly to Moscow, flout his Soviet ties for all the world to see, and return with a $200 million Communist aid package. Congress, rotten egg dripping slowly off their face, reversed itself and approved Reagan's Contra aid.

But Kerry was undaunted. Soon he was chairing "The Senate Subcommittee on Narcotics, Terrorism and International Operations" quickly dubbed "The Kerry Committee" by his media cronies and soulmates. Soon it was boasting, "77 instances where the Reagan Administration misled Congress about its policies in Central America!"( I hold here in my hands!)

Lest we forget, it was here that the famous "Iran-Contra investigation" actually started. Soon the lurid accusations spawned an "Iran-Contra Committee "of it's own and Kerry pressed ahead with his.

The Democratic crusade to throttle the Nicaraguan freedom-fight was now under full steam. One Cuba wasn't enough for these people. They were The Best and Brightest of a new generation. They'd picked up the torch from Camelot. The honor demanded that they pledge themselves to creating another tropical Gulag and slaughterhouse on our doorstep. If Latin freedom fighters battled desperately in the field against a Soviet-supplied enemy-- if these freedom-fighters had their backs against the wall-- if any looked northward through sweat-stung eyes and blood-drenched bandages for an ally--if hundreds were dying in freedom' cause with gritted teeth in a desperate and uneven struggle against a common enemy--then these freedom-fighters MUST be stabbed in back. The legacy of Camelot DEMANDED it.

Towards that noble goal John Kerry committed himself body and soul. Soon his Committee was leaking lurid details of a nefarious CIA/Contra drug smuggling plot with a Cuban-American named Felix Rodriguez as the bagman and Vice President George Bush as a silent partner. The commie-crackpot Christic Institute and Institue For Policy Studies served as the Kerry Committee's advisors. The latter had arranged his Nicaragua trip.

The freshman senator from Massachusetts was on a serious roll that summer of 1987. His very own Congressional Committee subpoenaing, questioning, holding open sessions, closed sessions--and most importantly, leaking salacious tid-bits of their proceedings to their cronies and soulmates in the pink media.
As a (sympathetic) Boston Globe article on John Kerry says about his famous Subcommittee: "Several committee members were wary of Kerry's reputation for self-promotion; one griped aloud that the senator's staff was always leaking to the press."

The Kerry Committee finally subpoenaed Felix Rodriguez himself. And here, my friends, John Kerry finally stepped in it. He started messing with the WRONG dude.
A little background: As a 19 year-old member of Brigada 2506, Felix infiltrated Communist Cuba weeks before the Bay of Pigs invasion, organizing underground freedom-fighters, planning for the sabotage of key roads and bridges, staying a step ahead of the Castro's secret police and their KGB handlers and coaches. Almost 70 per cent of his comrades in the infiltration teams died in front of firing squads, after torture. Felix knew the odds. He volunteered anyway.

After the Best and Brightest stabbed the Bay of Pigs freedom-fighters in the back, Rodriguez again foiled the Communist dragnet by slipping into the Venezuelan embassy and escaping a year later to Florida. After the Best and Brightest stabbed them again and twisted the blade with the Kennedy- Kruschev swindle, Rodriguez, along with hundreds of his Brigada Band Of Brothers enlisted in the U.S. Army.

Later, as a CIA operative, Rodriguez played the key role in tracking down and capturing Che Guevara in Bolivia and was the last to question him. "Finally I was face to face with the assassin of thousands of my countrymen, of hundreds of my patriot friends."

On the day he gained his U.S. citizenship in 1969 Rodriguez celebrated the honor by volunteering for armed action in Viet-Nam. "I lost the country of my birth to Communism," he writes in his book, Shadow Warrior. "I know freedom must be protected. And I feel I owe it to my adopted country."

Felix flew over 300 helicopter combat missions in Viet-Nam, and was shot down five times. He won the coveted Intelligence Star for Valor from the CIA and nine Crosses for Gallantry from the Republic of South Vietnam. Later he battled Communists in El Salvador using a helicopter "mobile strike unit" scheme he developed in Viet-Nam. He flew over 100 combat missions in Central America, captured the FMLF's top commander and helped crush those Communist- terrorists decisively. All this was volunteer work.
Castro put a price on Rodriguez' head over three decades ago, and sent hit-team, after hit-team, after hit-team (including one lent to him by his chum Yassir Arafat) to murder Felix and his family in Florida. All were foiled. (Wonder if Robert Redford discussed Death Squads with his recent host?)

Now a gaggle of grandstanding Congressional paper-pushers presumed to browbeat and cow this man. I'll quote the heavy metal rockers Judas Priest here. "They had another THING coming!"

Rodriguez was flying combat missions in El Salvador the summer of 1987 when his wife called to say his name was splashed all over the Miami Herald as a cocaine smuggler for the Nicaraguan Contras-- and one who reports to Vice President Bush!

"Forget it," he laughed. "Who's gonna believe such garbage?" But as always with Liberal slanders, they have a life of their own. The smear spread through the Beltway media like wildfire. "Our friends are wondering, Felix," said his worried wife a few days later. "The stories keep appearing. Our children...our families' reputation is at stake here. I'm concerned...."

The subpoena from the Kerry Committee finally hit their Miami doorstep. "Great!" whooped Felix while flying back from the Central American war. "I'll be happy to tell a Congressional Committee EVERYTHING--but I insist on OPEN hearings. None of these "closed" hearings.

You see, the very slanders then taking Felix away from the field against Communists to attempt to clear his name and honor originated at the Kerry Committee's last "closed" hearing. Here a convicted drug smuggler sentenced to 46 years in Federal prison (and who later flunked several polygraph tests) made the outrageous charges against Rodriguez and Vice President Bush. Next day they were all over the Beltway media.

For The Kerry Committee "closed" meant closed to the press for any testimony that contradicted the crackpot accusations of Committee's Christic Institue mentors and it's felon witnessers--but wide open for any testimony that backed the smear about Vice President Bush as a Cocaine smuggler for the Contras with Felix as his troubleshooter. Rodriguez noticed that the Miami Herald mentioned, "unnamed congressional sources," for it's slanders. Leaks anyone?

And let's not forget the date, summer of 1987. Shortly George Bush would wage an electoral campaign against Kerry's friend and political ally, Michael Dukakis( recall that Kerry served as Lieutenant Governor for this famous tank commander.)

Miami area lawyers, knowing Rodriguez' honorable reputation, tripped over themselves clamoring to represent him pro-bono during the Kerry Committee hearings. "I don't want any lawyers!" Felix responded. "If I need a lawyer to help me explain why I've been defending this country for the past 27 years--then I'm in the wrong country! I want my testimony in front of the American people!"

More alarmingly (to Democrats) Rodriguez refused what weasel types call "immunity."

You can imagine Kerry's forehead furrowing and a few nervous coughs behind the hand at the news. Nothing so flabbergasts and unnerves a big-haired, blow-dried Congressional Committee like spunk, courage, honesty, straight talk. He must have been aghast.

So of course Kerry denied Rodriguez' request for an open hearing. If Rodriguez cleared his name, if he shot down his Committee's cockamamie accusations--by God, Kerry certainly didn't want it getting any circulation! The Kerry Committee--and The Kerry Committee alone-- using leaks to their pinko press cronies and soulmates, would decide exactly what got in the newspapers and evening news.

"Senator, my name was leaked BY YOUR Committee as being involved with drug smuggling," Rodriguez started his testimony. "I take that seriously. It affects my family, my reputation and my friends."

Kerry furrowed his (now) famous forehead and affected a stern look "You're making serious accusations here...."

"SENATOR! This slander was in every G*DDAMMED newspaper after your committee's last CLOSED hearing!" Rodriguez shot back, "saying I solicited drug money for the Contras. THAT, senator Kerry , is a D*MNED LIE!!"

Kerry's forehead furrowed further. He stuttered. He started loosing it himself, rambling well off the subject, asking Rodriguez about Che and why he hadn't fought harder to save his life, etc.

"SENATOR!" an exasperated Rodriguez finally shot back. "It's difficult for me to answer questions from a man I DO NOT RESPECT!"
Kerry gaped. A northeastern liberal Democrat he'd always been a media darling, soft-soaped and soft- balled by that feisty "adversarial" press. Now this Rodriguez guy's tone had him seriously rattled. But Felix didn't miss a beat --naming dates and witnesses, citing documents--this upright and gallant man proceeded to demolish every accusation against him.

"I have nothing to hide," Rodriguez said repeatedly. "I'm not ashamed of anything I've done. I've battled communism since I was 17. I help the Contras, I help the Salvadoran government. I do so as a volunteer, legally and openly. And if you're sincere, senator," he finished up. "You'll put out a statement to the press about what I said here today. I INSIST that the American people know about my testimony!"

No such statement ever issued from Kerry's Committee. So two months later Rodriguez called a press conference in Miami to tell his side.
A full year after leaking the slanders against Rodriguez and after the treacherous, lying swine who made them failed three polygraph tests, The Kerry Committee found itself wiping it's brow and coughing nervously behind their hand again. Now they had no choice. Finally they saw fit to allow Rodriguez' year-long request for an open hearing. They scheduled him as the fifth witness at 5 in the afternoon when the Senate chamber was devoid of reporters and TV cameras. In the near-empty room, Kerry finally mumbled a half-hearted apology.

But as Rodriguez writes "whether by design or coincidence, allegations about me and drug smuggling and Vice president Bush kept popping up in the press right up until election day 1988." And the Miami Herald kept mentioning those "unnamed Congressional sources." The mainstream media still calls the McCarthy Hearings a "Witch Hunt," They call Richard Nixon a "red- baiter" and " political opportunist" for going after Alger Hiss. Yet declassified Soviet documents vindicated both Republicans.

John Kerry's "Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations," was run "like a division of the Dukakis campaign," said Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who served as ranking Republican on the subcommittee. Worse, it genuinely smeared innocent and honorable men, using the commie-crackpot Christic Institue, and convicted felons for evidence, and in the end--after millions of dollars--turned up nothing Yet I defy you to Google "Kerry Committee" alongside "Witch Hunt" and come up with anything. Instead you'll find that the Kerry Committee's slanders against an honorable man who earned the title of patriot a thousand times over linger throughout the pink media This is sickening.

To clear his name, Felix Rodriguez was forced to write his own book, Shadow Warrior. The truth is all there, to the lasting shame of John Kerry. If you're even thinking of voting for this man, please read it. If not, still read it. You'll cheer out loud one minute, your throat will lump the next--then your blood will boil.

Richard Worthington Where Are You?
Ron Leonard
4 March 04
You wonder why I am Pissed?

     Usually I take an A Political stance on the web page to not alienate a bunch of people, so I have learned to just bite my tongue instead of speaking my mind. This time I feel I have a say coming.
     It will not be political in the context of being political, or democratic, or republican, or libertarian. It will be about common decency, about doing the right thing. It will be about the right to obtain information, and relate to you my findings after three years of research, pain and grief on one of our missing brothers, CW2 Richard Worthington.
     First you need a little background on the circumstances of Richard Worthington's disappearance.
     In March of 1969, I had Deros'd and went home, and 085 was my ship. When I left it was still in maintenance being repaired from being all shot up earlier. That ship was always my baby, so I kept track of her like any father would a child.
     On 19 April 69, it was a smoldering crater in the ground. Killed in that mishap was Aircraft Commander Roy Thomas, Co-Pilot Alan Stahlstrom, Gunner Marcus Byous , and Paul  Kupchinskas the Crewchief. After the investigation, all were listed KIA/Body not recovered.
     Leading up to that mission, it was Richard Worthington's birthday, and Roy Thomas was off and since the mission was a simple sniffer mission with a lone A Company sniffer ship, it would most likely prove uneventful, so Roy told Richard to take your birthday off, I'll fly the mission for you.
     Richard took the death of Roy Thomas extremely hard. I have been told he blamed himself for it and it was consuming him. He extended for six months, returned to the states and demanded to return to Vietnam where he was assigned to the B/158th Lancers for another tour. .This is a Hero.
     On 6 July 70 Richard was flying a smoke ship for the Lancers, and it collided with another smoke ship at 60 feet, it went into the trees and crashed. Four people died in that crash, one, the gunner of Richards aircraft fell out on impact with the other aircraft, and survived the fall. The Peter Pilot was killed, but the Crewchief and Richard came up missing. After an investigation they to were listed as KIA/Body not recovered. I thought this strange, no fire, no bodies, (the pilot is strapped in) and everyone knows when smoke is dispensed it is in very close proximity to friendly troops.
So here's where the adventure begins. It is quite obvious he survived the crash, or he would have been still strapped in his seat.

So where is Richard Worthington?
     My research started with B/158th Lancers, it seemed logical, since he was in that unit. I put out a feeler for information through them and got several replies, all which answered nothing as to Richards whereabouts, but it raised more questions. They to were baffled that his KIA/BNR status was in effect, since there was no proof he was dead.
      This prompted a trip to the Archives in College Park Maryland to see if I could dig further, there I found some declassified reports that put his Crewchief in Laos? Laos you say? OK if the Crewchief is in Laos, at grid coordinate, XXX-XXX you would think the possibility arises so should Richard be.
      I posed these questions to Howard Lusk, he is one of our pilots and works for the forensics team for KIA/POW remains. He is quite familiar with the area, as he has been there. The terrain is not conducive to just disappearing , as it is not dense triple canopy  jungle and some body just get lost.
     Howard began his search from information the normal population is not privy to, and he had an interest since Richard was one of us. After making some headway, he was issued a cease and desist order by his superiors. You might ask? Why, am I getting into an uncomfortable area for the government? Is something being hidden?
     Howard told me I needed to take the information I had, and go to my congressman with it, because he was forbidden from going farther. I did, and my congress woman Barbara McClusky on my request wrote a letter for me to PNOK, the Department of Defense, and the CIA requesting all information be released to me.
     PNOK countered with they have it, but can't give it to me for privacy concerns. Why? It is supposed to be declassified material?
 I was tasked to find his family to get written permission from his family for release of the information. After many months and numerous phone calls and news paper adds I found his sister in Bothell Washington.  With the help of a police officer, a note was handed to his sister to contact me. She emailed me, and was all for giving me the needed signatures, but had to bounce it off her mother who was 85 and in a nursing home. His mother refused, and just wanted Richard to stay dead, as they had become comfortable with his being dead, and not to rock the boat at this time.
His sister stated that when his mother passes away I will get the signatures to get the records. But, why do I need signatures, these are declassified documents?
Once again through the Freedom Of Information Act and Roger Hall, I tried again, and was told it would cost like 10,000 dollars to do the research to find what I needed and make the copies, and they would not budge on the charges. Well, that threw up another road block, I didn't have the money to pursue it further, nor did Roger.
Enter 2004. Lets research this a bit different, lets start with the commission on the POW/MIA issues and see what kind of road blocks they threw up, since John Kerry was the chairman of that committee, the committees actions could be traced.
The result of that research was a revelation on the kind of man John Kerry really is.
Early In my research project I had collaborated with Roger Hall, he is without a doubt the most tenacious bulldog on this issue on the face of the planet. His research below parallels my own, and is listed below as it is a bit more detailed.
Kerry's Deceit
       Senator Kerry has recently claimed he had all POW/MIA documentation found by the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs (1993) declassified. That is not true. He had it all sent to the National Archives where the National Archives refused to have the documentation declassified. As a representative of the National Alliance of POW/MIA Families, I had all the Department of Defense (DOD) and State Department documents declassified after a five (5) years of delays and the refusal of help from Senator Kerry's office. I had repeatedly been turned away by Senator Kerry Staff and told the records were no longer of concern to Senator Kerry. I was told the committee had ended and I should contact the Department of Defense where I was stalled by their classification office.
       In May 1998 I filed a Freedom of Information act law suit that resulted in: 1) The National Archives put over 30 people on the declassification of the above mentioned DOD and State Department documents, and 2) that 40,000 pages CIA documents never declassified -- were declassified.
Kerry's Conflict of Interest
      Senator John Kerry has stated that Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs found that there were no live POW/MIAs left from the Vietnam War. He ignored some and hid other evidence. There are approximately 85 American POWs, known captured by the North Vietnamese, that they still fail to report on. Senator Kerry ignores such facts to prove none are alive. The were 60 POWs held by the communists in Laos in 1973. Henry Kissinger never negotiated for them in 1973, Senator Kerry refused to seek out their fate and present status so he could maintain his position that none survive today.  He failed to check very far on Korea, reports on live POW/MIAs are being withheld to this date.
       The information on the survival of Navy "Gulf War" pilot Capt. Michael Speicher, after he was shot down the first day of the war, was suppressed until the public forced out the truth. In 2003 the Navy changed Capt. Speicher's status to Captured after being listed as Killed in Action for 10 years. The 1993 POW/MIA Committee was charged with finding the truth on the fate of POW/MIAs -- under Senator Kerry's command and pressure the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIAs fell short. The truth on Capt. Speicher was kept hidden undermining the integrity of the senate investigative responsibilities, and the hope of a nation placed in the congress.
      Below are quotes from the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIAs "Report" showing how he reached such a conclusion -- by ignoring the evidence and not negotiating for survivors?   There have been numerous live sighting reports that were ignored so John Kerry could make an unsubstantiated statement. His quick fix the committee closed down the live POW/MIA issue so that he could have his investments in Vietnam prosper.   The Collier Corporation is an international Real Estate leasing organization, the largest of its kind in the world. The Collier Corporation had business leases in Vietnam before the Committee ended, even before we normalized with Vietnam. Kerry's supposedly "blind" trust fund was heavily devoted to building a new $905 million dollar sea port in at Vung Tau, Vietnam while he was quickly ending the POW/MIA Select Committee. The Committee ended a year short of its potential life authorized by the Senate when it was formed under Senator Kerry's pressure. Who ran his trust? His cousin, Forbes. Who ran the Collier Corporation? His cousin Collier did. The Kerry Committee opened the way for normalization with Vietnam and Huge profits for his trust fund and the investments of his relatives.
      Kerry, and the Committee he led, brushed over the lives and captivity of POW/MIAs in a rush to close the books. His henchmen and relatives were reaping lucrative profits before we ever normalized relations with Vietnam. His duplicity has been a conflict of interest when it comes to national priorities over personnel profits.
Statement of Senators from the
Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs "1993 REPORT"
P. 9 While the Committee has some evidence suggesting the possibility a POW may have survived to the present . . . there is, at this time, no compelling evidence that proves that any American remains alive in captivity in Southeast Asia.
P. 124 There is evidence that a small number of specific individuals did survive their incidents, and that some number of other individuals, not clearly identified, also survived.
P. 451 Stmt of John Kerry: Although the Committee, unlike previous investigations, uncovered evidence that a small number of American's may have survived in captivity after Operation Homecoming, there is, in my view, no reason to believe that any American's remain alive today.   Yes, the possibility exists that a prisoner or prisoners could be held deep within a jungle or behind a locked door under conditions of greatest security.  But there is no evidence of that, and it is hard to conceive of a reason for it.   (Collier/Forbes.)
P. 456 Statement of Sen. Bob Smith: Based on our review of all available intelligence information, the Committee unanimously agreed that there is evidence that indicates the possibility of survival (of American POWs) after Operation Homecoming.   As of today, we also agree that there is evidence that some POWs may have survived to the present . . . and some information still remains to be investigated.   However, at this time, there is no compelling evidence that proves American's are still alive.
P. 468 Statement of Sen. John McCain: There is some -evidence though no proof to suggest only the possibility that a few Americans may have been kept behind after the end of America's military involvement in Vietnam ... there are some remaining differences over the  quality of evidence that supports the possibility of survival.

So Where is Richard Worthington?
Country: South Vietnam, pre-1975; Laos
Subjects: Aircraft downed; Crash site; QUANG TRI PROVINCE; Killed; SAVANNAKHET PROVINCE; PW Camp;
 Died captive,...This was  Richards Crew Chief.

Kerry Pushes to Provide Full Benefits to Vets Exposed to Agent Orange, Gulf War Syndrome, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

Friday, April 18, 2003
WASHINGTON, DC – In an effort to ensure that military retirees with disabilities associated with exposure to Agent Orange, Gulf War Syndrome, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder do not have to give up portions of their retirement pay, Senator John Kerry today called on Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to “honor their sacrifice” by including these illnesses among those that will allow retirees to receive their retirement and disability benefits.

                  By J. Grant Swank, Jr.
                  Mar 5, 2004, 00:02 EST

            To receive the Blessed Sacrament, one confesses to heaven and earth  one’s humility in partaking of the holy of holies. The Catholic   communion teaches that the Eucharist is the blood and body of Jesus  Christ. It is to put into one’s own body the sacrificial body upon  Calvary’s cross. It is to bow before the throne of the eternities, contrite in soul, broken in spirit, taking into one’s self the Saving Self.
            Jesus said that we are to eat his body and drink his blood, thus becoming one with him. Jesus offered himself — such love that one lays down his life for another. But all the more love — everlasting compassion upon the sinful soul — for the holy One to present  himself in our place.
            Therefore, to enter the sanctuary of prayer is one thing. To then bow one’s life in prayer before the holy altar is another. But to take the body and blood of Christ to one’s own life, one’s own person, is the height of worship. For the devout, it is the most meaningful moment.
            Therefore, the New Testament letter of Saint Paul warns that to partake unworthily is to pray for damnation upon one’s soul. That is severe language. Yet the believer understands this caution from the apostle to be overlaid with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it is not merely a man of the Mediterranean writing to
            fellow Christians. It is the Eternal God speaking through His  revealed Word.
            To partake of the Eucharist while purposefully being disengaged from God is to pray for the reverse of salvation. It is knowingly to beseech the power of life and death to consign one’s eternal destiny to hell. That is how seriously God took the offering of His Son upon the cross in our stead. Likewise, that is how seriously God takes
            the observance of His sinless sacrifice upon the bloody tree.
            Then if a mortal, understanding that, having been catechized in that, taught religiously about that, willingly desecrates that is to ask for divine judgment upon the soul. It is to forthrightly request God’s wrath upon the person who so blasphemes the sacrament.
            All of this is basic, elementary teaching in the church. It is there. It is not a well-I’m-not-quite-sure-about-that. It’s a given.
            It’s fundamental dogma recognized for centuries by the Holy See. Therefore, Senator John Kerry knows what he’s doing when entering  his church to receive the Eucharist. He knows full well what that worship is laden with. He’s been in the church for years, been taught its rubrics, agreed to its doctrine a long, long time ago.
            Yet he persists in warring against the Eucharist. In that he wars  not only against the Catholic Church, the doctrines, the ministry. He wars against the sacrifice — Jesus Christ — himself. This is an awesome and frightening stroke of hubris. John Kerry champions, without flinching, the killing of babies in wombs. He has done this for decades. He votes for every congressional attempt to slaughter the unborn. He is for murdering  little ones in their mother’s bodies. There is no delicate way to put this. Murder is awful. Killing is bloody. And Kerry is for it — time and time again.Read ON
Being Different Isn't Enough
With his big primary vies, John Kerry has finally - after tottering over a chasm of defeat early on - become Lord of the Democratic Ring.
Over a few months, this once little-known senator has masterfully persuaded his party that he's the best candidate to beat George Bush. Now, in the next eight months, he must convince a large portion of the rest of the country that he can be the best US president.

The primaries and the presidential race serve different purposes. The first helps the party choose positions by eliminating candidates who emphasize particular issues. So the primaries have taught Kerry to be wary of strictly following Richard Gephardt's trade protectionism, Howard Dean's stance against the Iraq war, and John Edwards's war on the wealth gap.

A presidential race, in contrast, requires a candidate to emphasize more what he is for and less what he's against. Although every candidate deserves to have his record scrutinized, Kerry would serve voters better by not turning the vote into a referendum on Mr. Bush's record, especially since his own record of new initiatives in the Senate is skimpy, his flip-flops well-known, and his policy documents often vague. And he should go beyond just canned quips about how he would act differently on current issues facing the Bush White House.

Rather, the country must know where Kerry would take it over the next four (or eight) years, if he wins.

Only last week did he give a policy speech on national security, but most of that was criticism rather than proscription. Other than the character-defining record of his heroism in Vietnam, later anti-war activism, and senatorial experience, Kerry comes out of the primaries with no particular issue to clearly identify him.
Perhaps that was a safe choice in the softball primaries but now there's a hardball necessity for vision beyond a few lines on the stump, in debates, or through 30-second ads.

To take a cue from JFK, ask not what the country will do for John Kerry but what John Kerry can do for the country.

This isn't a horse race. The vote in November is a choice between two wagon trains heading toward different horizons. Both candidates need to point out their directions more than point at each other.

Kerry did not run well with those independents who could vote in the March 2 primaries. While he won over most Democrats in the end (largely on the image of "electability"), it's the rising mass of independents who await his vision thing. ctori
Being different isn't enough. With the race really starting this week, Kerry can more clearly spell out how he would also make a difference.

Kerry's Past Is Disturbing On Many Levels
Exclusive commentary by Frank Salvato
Mar 4, 2004

Vietnam Veterans are not â?oflockingâ?ť to John Kerryâ?Ts campaign, as his camp would all have us believe. In the South Carolina primary Kerryâ?Ts campaign made a big deal out of the monumental support they received from Vietnam Veterans. But when all was said and done, the Kerry campaign received only 33% of the veteran vote. In other words, the veterans of South Carolina didn't vote for him by a ratio of 2:1. That's a far cry from monumental support.

Kerry has been doing quite a bit of walking on both sides of the fence when it comes to his military career and his anti-war activities. While he should be appreciated for his service to our country, service that many others gave their lives performing, his anti-war activities after his service are what many are finding quite disturbing.

In testimony before Congress Kerry alleged of atrocities being committed by American troops in the Southeast Asian country. He told of rapes and mutilations, torture and murder. He spoke of these allegations, most of which were never proven but for the massacre at My Lai and isolated instances, as US service men and women were still fighting and dying in the Vietnam rice fields, cities and jungles. While he was attending and speaking at rallies here in the United States with the likes of Jane Fonda and Donald Sutherland, people like Oliver North and Senator John McCain were risking their lives in a military action born of the Cold War, designed and implemented by Lyndon Johnson and Robert McNamara. While he spotlights the deeds that garnered him a chest full of medals, he broke the code of leaving no one behind when he turned his back on those who were still fighting in Vietnam after his return.

Oliver North, the recipient of two Purple Hearts courtesy of his service in Vietnam, told radio show host and co-host of FOX News Hannity & Colmes, Sean Hannity, "The Vietnam Veterans Against the War encouraged people to desert, encouraged people to mutiny - some used what they wrote to justify fragging officers," and that "John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands." While some would disagree with this viewpoint still others, many in number, would contend that this is the way they view Kerry's actions.

Still others believe that John Forbes Kerry was in it from the very beginning to establish and further his political career. Back in his war activist days Kerryâ?Ts anti-American stance didnâ?Tt sit well with voters from his home state. He had outraged the families of POWâ?Ts being held in North Vietnamese prisons with his military hate-speeches and sympathetic tone toward the North Vietnamese government and he had drawn the ire of many of his former Navy buddies. His allegations to Congress infuriated the patriotic among his constituents and they sent him home defeated in his first bid for a congressional seat.

In 1978 he would be quoted by a reporter from the Boston Herald American who was goading him about which political office he would aspire to next as saying, â?oIf I had been calculating, I would have kept my mouth shut when I got out of the service and run for office on my record. Kerry was an assistant district attorney in Massachusetts at the time. He continued, There I was, a decorated veteran, a Yale graduate"I could have gone the traditional road and probably been in Washington now.â?ť Hardly the genuinely concerned image Kerry would like to have us remember now that he is on the national scene 26 years later.

To their credit, some of his VVAW comrades knew it even then. In reviewing Douglas Brinkleyâ?Ts book Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War, Jan Barry, a source for Brinkleys book and an VVAW organizer who worked with Kerry on the 1971 veterans march on Washington, is quoted as saying, â?oKerryâ?Ts Ivy League background and the media spotlight he attracted irked many of his VVAW comrades, who resented what they felt was a crass maneuver to launch a political campaign from the righteous platform of their protest.â?ť While Barry goes on to extol Kerryâ?Ts virtues he overwhelmingly validates the contention that many saw through the political maneuverings of John Forbes Kerry.

Couple all of this with a few little known facts and we can begin to see how Kerry has manipulated the actualities of his past in order to tailor them for his future.
Kerry's tenure on his first swift boat, No. 44, left him with no honors but rather some skeletons. While in command of Swift Boat No. 44, Kerry and crew functioned without forethought in a Free Fire Zone injudiciously firing at targets of opportunity achieving a number of enemy kills along with some civilian deaths as well. His crew's body count included-- a woman, her baby, a 12 year-old boy, an elderly man and several South Vietnamese soldiers. He freely admits enjoining in this type of activity and the casualties they caused " even the civilian casualties.

Between December of 1968 and February of 1969 Kerry received two of his three purple hearts, one for a minor injury to his arm and another for a minor injury to his thigh.
He then took command of a second swift boat, No. 94, which operated in the Mekong Delta. Under his command they totaled 18 missions over a period of 48 days, a far cry from the many who completed full tours of duty there, Oliver North and Sen. John McCain among this group. It was with this assignment that he was awarded his Silver Star for killing a Viet Cong soldier who was already pinned down and wounded in a Hooch courtesy of Kerrys .50 caliber gunner. It was also on swift boat No. 94 where he received his third Purple Heart for once again receiving a minor wound from a mine that went off adjacent to his swift boat. Later, when asked about the severity of the combat injuries Kerry himself said that one of them cost him about two days of service, and that the other two did not interrupt his duty. He classified himself as walking wounded.
Keep in mind that John Forbes Kerry was the commander of his swift boats and that as commander he was the one charged with citing people in his command for commendations, an interesting fact to say the least.

In April 1969, having opted for early transfer out of the war zone courtesy of his three minor wounds, Kerry returned state-side to a preferred assignment as an aide to Rear Admiral Walter F. Schlech, Jr. Later that year, in October, while he was still on active duty and still assigned to Admiral Schlech, Kerry was transporting Adam Walinsky (Robert Kennedy's former speech writer), around New York State to deliver anti-war speeches. By January of 1970, Kerry had become transformed by Walinsky's anti-war sentiment and petitioned Admiral Schlech, "to tell his boss that his conscience dictated that he protest the war, that he wanted out of the Navy immediately so that he could run for congress." Admiral Schlech consented and Kerry received an honorable discharge from the Navy six months early.

While Kerry is quick to point out his chest full of medals from Vietnam, he is not as quick to release his medical records from that same period, records that would verify that his injuries were superficial at best. And as Kerry pontificates on his war record while on the campaign trail, the vast majority of those in the know have either refused to come forward with the actualities of how he received his silver star, have recanted the stories that have Kerry acting ineffectively and dangerously as a leader during his command of swift boats 44 and 94 or when questioned on the matter spin their way out of the question by referring to any and all who question Kerrys performance in Vietnam as unpatriotic and anti-veteran. It would behoove Kerry to do the same thing that his surrogates pressed President Bush to do " release all his records, both military and medical, so the American people can be the judge of just how much of a hero he really is.

Like so many before us we too should be able to see the truth about the omeritorious service John Forbes Kerry performed in the name of his country. One thing is for certain; John Forbes Kerry has no room to say that President George W. Bush deceived anyone. His "War Hero" status is hanging by one of the threads his medals are hanging from.

John Kerry is strong on defense
He voted to kill the Bradley Fighting Vehicle
He voted to kill the M-1 Abrams Tank
He voted to kill every Aircraft carrier laid down from 1988
He voted to kill the Ages anti aircraft system
He voted to Kill the F-15 strike eagle
He voted to Kill the Block 60 F-16
He voted to Kill the P-3 Orion upgrade
He voted to Kill the B-1
He voted to Kill the B-2
He voted to Kill the Patriot anti Missile system
He voted to Kill the FA-18
He voted to Kill the F117
In short, he voted to kill every military appropriation for the development and deployment of every weapons systems since 1988 to include the Battle armor for our troops.
He also voted to kill all anti terrorism activities of every agency of the U.S. Government and to cut the funding of the FBI by 60%, to cut the funding for the CIA by 80%, and cut the funding for the NSA by 80%.
But then he voted to increase OUR funding for U.N operations by 800%!
Consider the following hypothetical situation. In September 2005, the president is informed by his CIA director that they have concluded there is a one in two chance that North Korea will transfer five nuclear bombs to bin Laden within the next month, and that after the transfer, despite our best efforts, the CIA judges that it is more likely than not bin Laden will succeed in detonating at least one of them in a major American city, resulting in one to three million deaths. Should the president consider taking pre-emptive military action? And let's assume that the president is named John Kerry.
Your Vote!!!

About John Kerry's FBI Files and Service Records

Posted by Carlos Lopez
Friday, February 27, 2004

Democrats have invented and perfected the politics of personal destruction, and caused President Bush to have to release a mammoth supply of files on his National Guard service--and even his dental records. Gary Aldrich, in his latest column, tells John Kerry how to obtain his FBI and service record to release to the public. The column is reprinted by permission.

I experienced something akin to humiliation when the President of the United States ordered subordinates to release his dental records to the public. President Bush acted in hopes of ending the ridiculous argument surrounding his National Guard service.

Nothing is sacred in today’s politics of personal destruction – invented and perfected by the Democrats. Not even the number of fillings in George Bush’s teeth.
Thus, Senator John Kerry and his followers ''opened the door.'' It’s only fair that many will now choose to walk through that door. No competent attorney would ever open a line of inquiry in the courtroom unless he knew how the same issue would impact his own client.

Democrats should not complain now if certain similar questions are asked of the good Senator.

In the debate about which man has given more to his country, no evidence has been more emotionally persuasive than Senator Kerry’s own claims of war heroism. One basis for this assertion is that while serving in Vietnam, Kerry showed great courage in leaping off his boat to attack and kill a wounded North Vietnamese soldier.
Evidence suggests the Vietnamese soldier had previously been wounded by a 50-caliber round. Veteran friends of mine tell me if a person is hit by a 50-caliber round, it is highly unlikely they could continue to be a threat, because of the hydro-shock associated with the impact of the round. I am assured this is true regardless of where the enemy was hit.

I know from my own FBI training that certain high-powered rounds can destroy vital organs and blow away entire limbs--due to this same hydro-shock factor. Kerry’s claims that he saved his fellow soldier’s lives by taking the life of the wounded Vietnamese fighter now lie in reasonable doubt. Read On

The Second Ammendment
This is how the Second Amendment actually reads:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This is how John Kerry (and most Democrats) think it reads:

"A well fed citizenry, being necessary to the complacency and passivity of the American populace, the right of the people to hunt with a shotgun shall not be infringed."

Vietnam Veterans Denounce 'Hanoi John'

Hundreds of U.S. Army veterans and Vietnamese escapees demonstrated Saturday outside John Kerry's campaign headquarters in Manhattan to protest his betrayal of them.

"Waving American and South Vietnamese flags and singing the U.S. national anthem, they held up signs saying 'Hanoi John,' and 'Kerry Betrayed Vietnam Vets'," Reuters reported.

It claimed there were only 200 protesters, but New York Newsday reported twice that number. "We won't sit by and let the American people think that we are going to stand by somebody who stabbed us in the back," said Jerry Kiley, a veteran and one of the protest's organizers.

"He betrayed us. He stabbed us in the back. We will never allow him to be our commander-in-chief. Ever!" Kiley exclaimed to the crowd on Park Avenue.
"Veteran after veteran passionately lambasted Kerry," Newsday reported.

"Equally fervent in their disdain for Kerry were the Vietnamese-Americans, who hold the senator from Massachusetts responsible for thrice blocking a bill in 2001 and 2002 that would have tied U.S. aid to Vietnam to that country's human rights record."

Nam Pham, 48, a banker from Boston who is working with the Massachusetts Human Rights Commission for Vietnam, observed: "Sen. John Kerry has been working with the dictatorship in Vietnam. He lost the moral authority to lead the free world."

Phoenix Program Vietnam Vet Urges Kerry To Come Clean
Vietnam veteran Larry J. O’Daniel has today challenged former fellow officer and veteran, John Forbes Kerry to come clean with charges Kerry has made in the past. O’Daniel, a decorated combat veteran and present Director of the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition, served in the legendary Phoenix Program and says that the issue is one that the Senator himself has brought on.

“His attempt to denigrate the service of our incumbent President while this legacy of his hangs on says much about the real issue of this election - Leadership and Character. The Senator from Massachusetts lacks both.”

“Senator John Forbes Kerry is attempting to be our generation’s Vietnam War hero, much the same way his avowed idol, John F. Kennedy was of that generation. Kerry falls short in many ways. His attempt to ride into the White House on the strength of medals for bravery is not enough. As a former officer who served as a combat advisor and participant in a Special Operations program, I know a little bit about integrity, courage, and character. Kerry lacks what it takes to be Commander in Chief.”

“If nominated, Kerry would be an extreme embarrassment to his party. On the surface, he seems to be the exact type of rival needed to run against a popular President with a military background, albeit not in combat. A popular President who proved his courage jockeying supersonic aircraft. On the surface, Kerry would seem to be able to cut into the military vote that has become increasingly one party over the past 30 years.”

“This senator, a JFK from Massachusetts, like the first JFK, is a Naval Officer. However, he has a record which speaks volumes about his current abilities and views. Kerry will both exploit his war record and run from it. His checkerboard past explains his actions today. He has been critical of the way the current war on terrorism has been waged. Inevitably, his criticism is always preceded by media notices of Kerry, decorated Vietnam war veteran. However, thirty three years ago, Kerry charged decorated war veterans with unspeakable crimes. Those charges were false and the Senator knew them to be false.”

Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971, Kerry asserted he represented veterans, honorably discharged and very highly decorated, who participated in war crimes. These crimes were not isolated incidents, he charged, but crimes committed on a day - to - day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. Crimes that this country made them do. I remind the Senator that former GRU Colonel Stanislav Lunev said, the GRU funded every major anti-Vietnam organization. The Soviet Union spent twice as much money on this effort than they did in supplying weapons to Vietnam. Kerry helped the GRU with their efforts. Their goal was to make the military service in Vietnam a mark of shame. With his help, they succeeded. Read ON

John Kerry is all tied up in nuances
By Mark Steyn

The news that Boris Johnson and half his Tory colleagues have been flirting with John Kerry like a Congressional overseas exchange intern programme came as no surprise to me. Though the Senator likes to think of himself as exuding Kennedy-esque glamour, to Conservatives he has the reassuring mien of an unexciting Cabinet heavyweight back when the party still had heavyweights and a Cabinet to put them in.

You can see why the Tory benches have been mesmerised by the immobile features of the Botoxicated Brahmin: superficially, he has the air of a cadaverous Douglas Hurd. As the Tories used to say in the old days, he has bottom - though, in the current climate, Senator Kerry would perhaps be ill-advised to adopt it as a campaign slogan.

One appreciates that Dubya and his Texan tics are not to everyone's taste, especially overseas. That said, one reason why America is one of the few places on the planet where conservatism remains a going concern is because it's a vernacular conservatism, not the patrician kind.

Conversely, it's easy to mistake boringness for seriousness, as Dustin Hoffman and Barbra Streisand did in last year's ratings-bust Oscar show. So I defy any Tory MP to spend as much time with Kerry as I have this past year and still say they want him on the BBC News every night for the next eight years.

In Ohio the other day, he was trying to attack Bush's economic policy for the benefit of the television crews and staggered through three minutes of puffy incoherence. At the end, the CBS guy said none of what he'd droned was usable and would he mind trying again. Eventually, they coached the Senator into a soundbite: "It's the biggest say-one-thing-do-another administration in the history of the country." He likes this so much he now uses it all the time.

I recognised the CBS problem. Last spring and summer, I went to three Kerry campaign events in New Hampshire, intending to write about them for the Telegraph. Each time, I staggered groggily out of the diner or American Legion hall and, after checking my pulse and administering self-resuscitation, I figured that everything he said was so rambling and platitudinous that to inflict it on readers would be unfair, if not actually career-jeopardising. Read ON

A Shameful Past
Don't play the Vietnam card with me, John Kerry.

Monday, March 1, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST

The Vietnamization of the 2004 presidential campaign has unfortunatelybegun, thanks to the likely Democratic nominee. But John Kerry's service--Vietnam, in case you haven't heard--doesn't exist in a vacuum. His19-year Senate record is at long odds with that short naval career, just ashis vote to send troops to liberate Iraq is at odds with his later vote notto fund the mission. His supporters ask us to note his heroism in combat. Wehave, ad nauseam. But more important, and the thing he doesn't wantdiscussed, is the well-documented though less well-known hypocrisy of those who use his service to further their antimilitary agenda.

I'm the daughter of Lt. Col. Roger J. "Black Bart" Bartholomew, a First AirCavalry rocket artillery helicopter pilot who was killed in Vietnam on
Thanksgiving Day 1968, when I was eight years old. I'm a former journalist with a military newspaper, a U.S. Marine widow, and I am appalled at Mr. Kerry's latest assertions that our president "has reopened the wounds of Vietnam." For months, I've heard President Bush talking about the present, while Mr. Kerry and the media want to focus on the past. I think we need to see the whole picture.

The many faces of John Kerry
Posted by Jack Salley on Monday March 1, 2004 at 11:01 am MST

It's hardly news that politicians tell people what they want to hear. But John Kerry has taken this art form to new levels of outrageousness. Kerry is a walking political time bomb for America. Facing a weak incumbent president, he could very well be elected the next occupant of the White House. It's a scary thought. The man is dangerous. He's unscrupulous. He's an ambitious political whore who would do whatever it takes to be elected. He's a hypocrite beyond description. He's a privileged rich boy who wants the ultimate toy to play with – the U.S. government's executive branch.“Click on the link to read the rest.”
© 2004 Read On

Kerry's lack of political courage
By Jeff Jacoby, 2/29/2004
Boston Globe

So far in this campaign Mr. Kerry has shown little interest in being daring, expressing a thought that is unexpected or quirky on even minor issues. We wish we could see a little of the political courage of the Vietnam hero who came back to lead the fight against the war.-- The New York Times

AND THAT, believe it or not, is from the Times's endorsement of John Kerry in Tuesday's presidential primary. The editorial's wistful words get to the heart of the character issue that troubles so many of those who have looked closely at Kerry's career in public life. The Democratic front-runner is increasingly being described as a "flip-flopper" or a "waffler" or "two-faced." But the real problem with Kerry is something more fundamental. As the Times rightly notes, he lacks political courage. Perhaps that is why he and his campaign talk about it so much.

The search engine on Kerry's campaign website lists 167 pages on which "courage" appears. When he formally announced his candidacy at Faneuil Hall last September, he uttered the words "courage" or "courageous" 19 times ("courageous Americans always rise to the occasion . . . the courage of our people to change what is wrong . . . we must have the courage to stand up . . . the courage of Americans can change this country"). The sign behind him read: "The courage to do what's right for America." When he took his announcement speech on the road, the trip was billed as the "American Courage Tour."

No one doubts Kerry's physical courage. He is a Vietnam veteran, with a Silver Star and three Purple Hearts that attest to his battlefield bravery. But courage in combat doesn't necessarily translate into courage on the Senate floor or the campaign trail. That kind of courage -- the courage of a leader who knows his own mind and speaks it fearlessly, who doesn't trim with every shifting breeze, who doesn't court unpopularity but isn't afraid of it, either -- has never been a hallmark of Kerry's career.

Every few days, we seem to get a fresh example (or a resurrected old one) of Kerry brazenly revising his history, or declaring "flip" from one side of his mouth while asserting "flop" out of the other.Read ON

The Kerry Equal Rights Ammendment
By George Neumayr
Published 2/26/2004 12:09:02 AM

John Kerry is lecturing President Bush on the dangers of amending the U.S. Constitution. Has Kerry forgotten his own constitutional meddling as a proponent of the Equal Rights Amendment?

In the 1970s, Kerry marched with radical feminists in New York to promote ERA, according to an article on his campaign website. Appealing to feminists during one of his Senate runs, Kerry said: "The Equal Rights Amendment is the only systematic way to achieve full equality for women under law, including equal opportunity in employment, equal pay for comparable effort, and an end to sex discrimination in insurance, pensions, and annuities. I will work closely with Senator Packwood and the principal Senate co-sponsors of the ERA to enact this constitutional amendment into law at the earliest possible date."

Wasn't ERA a wedge issue, a "divisive and controversial Constitutional Amendment," to borrow the Democratic National Committee's description of the Federal Marriage Amendment? Kerry's talk about wedge issues can only derive from his own history with them.

As an advocate for ERA, Kerry must have known that his cohorts were using it to advance, among other things, the cause of same-sex marriage. The ERA proposed: "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." Opponents of ERA noted that this proposition would establish a justification for same-sex marriage. Harvard Law Professor Paul A. Freund testified to a Senate subcommittee during ERA hearings that homosexual marriage would logically result from ERA: "Indeed, if the law must be as undiscriminating concerning sex as it is toward race, it would follow that laws outlawing wedlock between members of the same sex would be as invalid as laws forbidding miscegenation." Read ON

Exclusive to HUMAN EVENTS
John Kerry's Bright Shining Lie
by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted Feb 27, 2004

"I fought against Richard Nixon's war," John Kerry roared the night of his breakthrough in the Iowa caucuses.

"Nixon's War" has become a signature slur of Kerry's campaign to win the office Nixon held when Kerry was rubbishing Vietnam and the behavior in battle of the American soldiers who fought there.

In April of 1971, I was in the White House when Vietnam Veterans Against the War camped out on the mall, cursed the Nixon Administration, and threw their medals over the fence. John Kerry spent that week with friends in Georgetown and testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

What he told Sen. William Fulbright's (D.-Ark.) committee and NBC's "Meet the Press" was that America was engaged in genocide, that he and his warrior comrades had perpetrated atrocities, that their officers knew and approved of it, that our leaders were "war criminals."

Liberalism's War

Kerry told the Senate that 150 honorably discharged veterans, many of them highly decorated, had "testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia . . . on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." As Kerry"s lurid depiction ran:

"[T]hey had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wire from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam. . . ."

Kerry has lately backed away from the more sensational of these charges. Yet still he calls it "Nixon's War."

This is slander. This is scape-goating. This is a bright shining lie by a man who showed bravery in battle but lacks the moral courage to tell the truth. This was not Nixon's War. It was Liberalism's War, the war into which The Best and Brightest of the New Frontier plunged this country. It was the war the liberals began, but could not win. Ousted from power, they turned in rage and resentment against Nixon when it appeared in 1973 he had ended the war in success and brought our troops and POWs home in honor.

That is why the Left had to bring him down. They could not abide the notion that Nixon succeeded in a war they had declared that America should never have fought and could not win.

What is the true history of that war?

When Nixon left the vice presidency on Jan. 20, 1961, there were 600 U.S. advisers in Vietnam and no U.S. war.

On Nov. 22, 1963, the day Kennedy died, there were 16,000 U.S. advisers in Vietnam, 25 times as many as were there when Ike and Nixon had left.

Only weeks earlier, Kennedy had approved of the coup that had led to the murder of President Diem, and massive U.S. involvement.

In 1964 Barry Goldwater demanded, "Why Not Victory?" To which LBJ replied, "Americans boys ought not to be doing the fighting that Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."

But LBJ had already planned an escalation. In August of 1964 came the Tonkin Gulf incident between U.S. destroyers and North Vietnamese gunboats. A Democratic House voted 416 to 0 and a Democratic Senate 88 to 2 to authorize LBJ to take us into war.

That November, Johnson carried 61% of the vote. Democrats added to their strength in both houses of Congress. Liberals dominated this capital, its media, its culture, as they had not since FDR.

For all eight years of the Kennedy-Johnson tenure, more and more U.S. troops poured into Vietnam. When Nixon took office in 1969, some 525,000 U.S. troops were in Vietnam or on the way, and 35,000 had died. Kerry was first wounded in the Mekong while LBJ was still President.

How, then, can Kerry call it "Nixon's War"?

By the end of his first year, Nixon had reduced U.S. forces in Vietnam by scores of thousands. Yet as he was bringing the men and boys home and trying to save South Vietnam from a bloodbath, the liberal establishment that had marched us into Vietnam began to blame Nixon for Vietnam.

In October and November of 1969, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators surrounded the White House. Airborne troops were in the basement of the EOB.

Wrote the Washington Post's David Broder: "The men and the movement that broke Lyndon Johnson's authority in 1968 are out to break Richard M. Nixon in 1969. The likelihood is great that they will succeed again."

But Nixon did not break. He called on the Great Silent Majority to stand with him for "peace with honor." And the people did stand by him.

In April 1970 Nixon ordered the enemy sanctuaries in Cambodia, from which U.S. troops were being attacked, cleaned out. Two months after the incursion, U.S. casualties fell by 50%. In the spring of 1972, when Hanoi refused to negotiate in good faith, Nixon mined Haiphong and bombed Hanoi. When Hanoi began to renege on its commitments made in Paris, Nixon ordered the Christmas bombing.

From his first day in office, Nixon was determined to end the division of his country and bring the troops home, but not in defeat or disgrace. He put his presidency on the line to give South Vietnam a fighting chance for freedom from the evil regime Ho Chi Minh had created in the North. If Kerry thinks what Nixon did was a war crime, let him ask John McCain what he felt when he heard the bombs falling on the Hanoi rail yards.

In his testimony to the Fulbright Committee, Kerry declared that, "to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom . . . is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy."

Tell that to the families of the South Vietnamese executed in the thousands and sent in the tens of thousands to the "reeducation camps" when Saigon fell. Tell that to the families of the million Cambodians who perished in the Killing Fields.

Why has Kerry never acknowledged he was wrong? Why has he never apologized for having been a fool and for having slandered the memory of the 58,000 Americans who died to prevent these horrors?

Vietnam was not only the "noble cause" Ronald Reagan declared it to be. It was a winnable war. And Richard Nixon did not lose it. He sacrificed his presidency to end it with honor for the Americans who had fought and with freedom for the South Vietnamese for whom they had fought. Nixon tried, and, yes, he failed.

But it was the American Left and the movement an ambitious John Kerry joined, after he came home, that poured down a sewer everything for which 58,000 Americans gave their lives.

For the truth about Vietnam is this. That war was not lost in Asia. U.S. soldiers did not lose a single battle. That war was lost in the United States. Who lost Vietnam? That question still sticks in the craw of this country and it shall until this generation passes away.

In their hearts the American people know the answer. This war was lost by a national establishment that plunged us into it, could not win or end it, broke and ran, and sabotaged Nixon's effort to end it with honor. These were the guilty men.

The greatest of the war crimes was not committed in Vietnam. It was committed here, in this city, when Congress, prodded and pushed by Nixon-haters, tied his hands, restricted U.S. bombing, slashed military aid to the South, leaving our ally at the mercy of invading armies from the North supplied by Moscow and Beijing. These are the people who bear moral responsibility for the loss of Vietnam, the horrors that followed, and the holocaust in Cambodia.

What John Kerry did in Vietnam was honorable. What he did after that war--sliming the troops as mad dogs and war criminals--was disgraceful and dishonorable, and contributed to the loss of Vietnam and the humiliation of our country.

Truth be told, many leftists welcomed America's defeat. Some ran to New York to welcome the Hanoi delegation to the UN. Others marched under Viet Cong flags in demonstrations and were welcomed as they chanted their mocking slogan, "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is going to win!" It was not only Jane Fonda who was guilty of treason in that time.

As for Richard Nixon, whatever his sins, he was a patriot who loved his country and her soldiers, and did his damnedest to bring her fighting men home with the honor they deserved. Ask the POWs.
Mr. Buchanan is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of The Death of the West, The Great Betrayal, and A Republic, Not an Empire.

"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 [the USA], 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

"[W]e 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, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others ! Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development 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 begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated 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
&nbs! p; 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. &! nbsp;Intelligence
reports indicate that he is se eking 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 will 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 weap ons
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


Boy! Talk about two tongued philosophy!!
Boy! Talk about two tongued philosophy!!

Published Wednesday, February 25, 2004
Kerry's leadership in YPU was lackluster performance
If you ever wander around campus on Tuesday or Wednesday nights, you may run into a curious spectacle. You are likely to see a bunch of people with seemingly nothing better to do than sit around college common rooms drinking, banging gavels, and discussing some terribly obscure or dreadfully obvious "resolutions." Sadly, I am usually one of those people, and you probably ran into a meeting of one of the parties of the Yale Political Union (YPU). The political union is by no means a "cool" organization. If you ever come to its events you will find that the proportion of people with a fixation with becoming president and those who like to drink on weekdays is abnormally high, even for Yale. Surprisingly, some of the political union people do make it big. The most famous example right now is John Kerry.
If I had to paint a portrait of a typical YPU guy, I would simply take a picture of John Kerry to save time -- not today's Senator Kerry, but a young John Kerry when he was still a student at Yale College. Kerry was the quintessential, stereotypical "YPU man." The News' article about Kerry's life at Yale, published on Feb. 14, 2003, provides a lot of insight into his early personality ("Kerry '66: 'He was going to be president'"). Apparently, one of the first things he told his freshman year roommates was that he was going to be president one day. He clearly had nothing better to think about, such as de-bunking his bed or freshman English. Okay, fine, we all did some pretty silly stuff when we arrived at Yale. Kerry's problem was that he apparently never got better during his years at Yale.
Just like many members of the YPU, Kerry was an amazing speaker. In fact he was probably the best. And it seems that at Yale, he was generally disliked.
The Yale Liberal Party, of which I am a member and John Kerry used to be chairman, passes on many unpleasant stories about him. According to Liberal Party lore, Kerry was among the worst chairs in its history. Jorge Dominguez, currently a professor at Harvard and a member of Kerry's Liberal Party Executive Board, reports that under Kerry's leadership the party went on YPU probation. Probation means that the party's leader could not get enough of the party's members to sign a YPU attendance roster. Although getting people to sign in turns out to be a surprisingly arduous job, very few chairmen fail to do it in the end. Not getting enough signatures suggest one of two things: either the chairman faced some unfortunate circumstances or he has some personality problems. According to Dominguez, Kerry's leadership caused his probation.
In order to get back at Kerry, members of the Liberal Party formed the Dixwell Society. By now, the group is largely defunct, although it still officially meets during Liberal Party reunions and its story gets retold for everyone wishing to hear. The society's major point was to include every former chairmen except one who most people disliked. You can guess who. In addition, the News' article reports that due to its conflict with Kerry part of the Liberal Party split off to form the Party of the Left.
But wasn't Kerry later elected YPU president? It is true that he got elected. It proves much less then you think, however. First of all, the YPU presidency is a hard and often thankless job that very few people actually want. A person usually becomes political union president through some mixture of personal desire and Tammany Hall-like backroom deals. In my experience, very few political union officers get elected because they are liked or respected.
Personally, I would not let Kerry circa 1966 run a public toilet, let alone a country. Hopefully, today's Kerry is a different man. Perhaps his service in Vietnam changed him for the better. Perhaps time has changed him. But maybe he has not changed. Recently Kerry mentioned that George Bush remains the same guy he was in college. If Bush didn't change, why would Kerry?
Every time I go to a political union debate, I shudder to think one of those YPU people I see in front of me may one day run the country. It may happen sooner than I expect. Although I certainly do not think a hard-drinking frat boy of the George Bush kind is any better prepared for the presidency. Still, Democrats ought to consider other options. Edwards anyone?

February 26, 2004, 8:28 a.m.
Kerry’s Soviet Rhetoric
The Vietnam-era antiwar movement got its spin from the Kremlin.

By Ion Mihai Pacepa
Part of Senator John Kerry's appeal to a certain segment of Americans is his Vietnam-veteran status coupled with his antiwar activism during that period. On April 12, 1971, Kerry told the U.S. Congress that American soldiers claimed to him that they had, "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned on the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."
The exact sources of that assertion should be tracked down. Kerry also ought to be asked who, exactly, told him any such thing, and what it was, exactly, that they said they did in Vietnam. Statutes of limitation now protect these individuals from prosecution for any such admissions. Or did Senator Kerry merely hear allegations of that sort as hearsay bandied about by members of antiwar groups (much of which has since been discredited)? To me, this assertion sounds exactly like the disinformation line that the Soviets were sowing worldwide throughout the Vietnam era. KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility. One of its favorite tools was the fabrication of such evidence as photographs and "news reports" about invented American war atrocities. These tales were purveyed in KGB-operated magazines that would then flack them to reputable news organizations. Often enough, they would be picked up. News organizations are notoriously sloppy about verifying their sources. All in all, it was amazingly easy for Soviet-bloc spy organizations to fake many such reports and spread them around the free world.
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 throughout Europe. KGB chairman Yuri Andropov managed our anti-Vietnam War operation. He often bragged about having damaged the U.S. foreign-policy consensus, poisoned domestic debate in the U.S., and built a credibility gap between America and European public opinion through our disinformation operations. Vietnam was, he once told me, "our most significant success."
The KGB organized a vitriolic conference in Stockholm to condemn America's aggression, on March 8, 1965, as the first American troops arrived in south Vietnam. On Andropov's orders, one of the KGB's paid agents, Romesh Chandra, the chairman of the KGB-financed World Peace Council, created the Stockholm Conference on Vietnam as a permanent international organization to aid or to conduct operations to help Americans dodge the draft or defect, to demoralize its army with anti-American propaganda, to conduct protests, demonstrations, and boycotts, and to sanction anyone connected with the war. It was staffed by Soviet-bloc undercover intelligence officers and received about $15 million annually from the Communist Party's international department — on top of the WPC's $50 million a year, all delivered in laundered cash dollars. Both groups had Soviet-style secretariats to manage their general activities, Soviet-style working committees to conduct their day-to-day operations, and Soviet-style bureaucratic paperwork. The quote from Senator Kerry is unmistakable Soviet-style sloganeering from this period. I believe it is very like a direct quote from one of these organizations' propaganda sheets.
The KGB campaign to assault the U.S. and Europe by means of disinformation was more than just a few Cold War dirty tricks. The whole foreign policy of the Soviet-bloc states, indeed its whole economic and military might, revolved around the larger Soviet objective of destroying America from within through the use of lies. The Soviets saw disinformation as a vital tool in the dialectical advance of world Communism.
The Stockholm conference held annual international meetings up to 1972. In its five years of existence it created thousands of "documentary" materials printed in all the major Western languages describing the "abominable crimes" committed by American soldiers against civilians in Vietnam, along with counterfeited pictures. All these materials were manufactured by the KGB's disinformation department. I would print up these materials in hundreds of thousands of copies each.
The Romanian DIE (Ceausescu's secret police) was tasked to distribute these KGB-concocted "incriminating documents" all over Western Europe. And ordinary people often bought it hook, line, and sinker. "Even Attila the Hun looks like an angel when compared to these Americans," a West German businessman reprovingly told me after reading one such report.
The Italian, Greek, and Spanish Communist parties serviced by Bucharest were much affected by this material and their activists regularly distributed translations. They also handed them out to the participants at anti-American demonstrations around the world.
Many "Ban-the-Bomb" and anti-nuclear movements were KGB-funded operations, too. I can no longer look at a petition for world peace or other supposedly noble cause, particularly of the anti-American variety, without thinking to myself, "KGB."
In 1978, when I broke with Communism, my DIE was propagating the line that Washington's adventure in Vietnam had wasted over $200 trillion. This waste, we warned darkly, would soon generate European inflation, recession, and unemployment.
As far as I'm concerned, the KGB gave birth to the antiwar movement in America. In 1976, Andropov gave my own Romanian DIE credit for helping his KGB do so.
Leftist intellectuals in America now look to Europe — steeped for years in anti-American propaganda from the Soviet Union — for "a sane and frank European criticism of the Bush administration's war policy." Indeed, anti-Americanism in Europe today is almost as ferocious as it was during Vietnam. France and Germany insist we are torturing the al Qaeda prisoners held at Guantanamo Base. The Mirror, a British newspaper, is confident that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair were "killing innocents in Afghanistan." The Paris daily Le Monde put Jean Baudrillard on its front page asserting that "the Judeo-Christian West, led by America, not only provoked the [September 11] terrorist attacks, it actually desired them."
In June 2002, a documentary film on "U.S. war crimes" in Afghanistan was shown in the German Bundestag by the crypto-Communist Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS). The film faithfully reincarnated the style of old Soviet-bloc "documentaries" demonizing the U.S. war in Vietnam. According to this 20-minute movie, American soldiers were involved in the torture and murder of some 3,000 Taliban prisoners in the region of Mazar-e-Sharif. One witness in the film even claimed he had seen an American soldier break the neck of one Afghan prisoner and pour acid on others.
During my last meeting with Andropov, he said, wisely, "now all we have to do is to keep the Vietnam-era anti-Americanism alive." Andropov was a shrewd judge of human nature. He understood that in the end our original involvement would be forgotten, and our insinuations would take on a life of their own. He knew well that it was just the way human nature worked.
Ion Mihai Pacepa was acting chief of Romania's espionage service and national-security adviser to the country's president. He is the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc.

When John Kerry Slandered Me By Ken Sherman | February 26, 2004
Not too long ago, Senator John Kerry made a remarkable demand in an early political season for remarkable statements: Senator Kerry Challenges President Bush to Debate on Vietnam Service.
Flashback: Thirty-three years ago, in April, 1971, John Kerry and I had important months. In April, 1971, I was in the first month of my second deployment to Vietnam with the US Navy. That month my logbook shows 69.7 flight hours. That month my crew and I flew ten missions in support of Operation Market Time. On these flights we flew our unarmed P-3B airplane on "tracks" - flight paths during which we descended to within 200 feet of the water and, after fixing the contact's position, speed, and course, took multiple photo runs to record a ship's on-deck cargo, electronics, and weaponry. Sometimes the contacts turned out to be neutral freighters or US warships. Sometimes they turned out to be Soviet bloc ships or our primary targets, Chinese or North Vietnamese ships trying to sneak weapons into South Vietnam with which to arm the enemy. When we came across such a ship, sometimes they tried to shoot us down. We had nothing with which to shoot back since Secretary of Defense McNamara had prohibited us from carrying any weapons of self-defense (even pistols for our survival vests) in an attempt to appease the enemy and "facilitate the peace talks."
April, 1971, was also a big month for Former-Lieutenant John Kerry, who had recently resigned his commission so as to be able to brand my shipmates and me monsters. During the so-called "Winter Soldier Investigation" hearings before Congress, Kerry said:
"I would like to talk, representing all those veterans, and say that several months ago in Detroit, we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command....
"They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.
"We call this investigation the "Winter Soldier Investigation." The term "Winter Soldier" is a play on words of Thomas Paine in 1776 when he spoke of the Sunshine Patriot and summertime soldiers who deserted at Valley Forge because the going was rough.
"We who have come here to Washington have come here because we f eel we have to be winter soldiers now. We could come back to this country; we could be quiet; we could hold our silence; we could not tell what went on in Vietnam, but we feel because of what threatens this country, the fact that the crimes threaten it, not reds, and not redcoats but the crimes which we are committing that threaten it, that we have to speak out?"
Congress, to its everlasting shame, demanded no proof of these allegations, but let them fester in the then-political atmosphere of running as fast as we could to abandon our allies in Vietnam and the rest of Southeast Asia. Subsequent writings, by high-ranking communist officials and generals, forthrightly thank Mr. Kerry for helping them achieve their subsequent military victory in Vietnam and realize the deaths of at least two-and-a-half million of their own people who were deemed "unnecessary" for the future (not to mention the later repudiation of these allegations by many respected historical researchers).
Fast Forward to the Present: Today, to add further insult to injury, Sen. Kerry harps upon his curiously brief service in Vietnam while assiduously censoring any mention of his activities afterwards in which he blood-libeled my shipmates.
Further, every day, Michael Moore and Kerry's other surrogates screech that President Bush "dodged the draft" by joining the National Guard and that he "deserted" from the Guard because 30+-year-old Guard records are incomplete (thereby demonstrating their ongoing total ignorance of the military and the vicissitudes of military paperwork).
Sen. Kerry has also demonstrated an utter lack of shame in scolding George W. Bush for bring up the subject of Viet Nam, when the President was questioned by reporters about his military service. Mr. Kerry dragged Vietnam into this campaign and now whines that somehow George W. Bush is at fault for bringing up the subject and trying to defend himself.
My shipmates and I served honorably in Vietnam and returned home, almost to a man, to resume normal lives, start families and businesses, get civilian jobs, pursue further education...all the normal stuff that veterans have been doing since after the Revolutionary War. That Mr. Kerry, a former naval officer and fellow Vietnam veteran, would say such things about us remains an indelible stain upon his name and honor.
Mr. Kerry has disgraced himself, by action and word, showing the whole world that he is foremost a career minded, self-centered opportunist, abetted by situational morality and driven by a lust for personal fortune at any cost. If he had any sense of honor, he would not attack President. Bush, but instead apologize to my shipmates, the rest of the US armed forces, and then to the American public, for they deserve far better than anything this stained, pitiful man has to offer.

Kerry loan twice as nice
By Ellen J. Silberman and Jack Meyers
Wednesday, February 25, 2004
U.S. Sen. John F. Kerry [related, bio] used an appraisal pegging the value of his Beacon Hill townhouse at twice the amount listed on City Hall records in order to get the $6.4 million loan he needed to resuscitate his presidential bid.

The Kerry campaign says the elegant Louisburg Square townhouse that Kerry shares with is millionaire wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry is worth $12.8 million - exactly double the Christmas Eve mortgage the senator got from Mellon Bank.

But Boston's Assessing Department puts the value of the swank, five-story mansion - with six fireplaces, five bedrooms, a private elevator and roofdeck - at $6.6 million as of Jan. 1, 2003. The assessed value actually dropped from 2002's figure of $6.95 million.

The home's true value is significant since federal election laws allow Kerry to finance his presidential bid by borrowing only against his own assets - prohibiting him from tapping into his wife's millions. Read On

The Kerry Files, Volume II
John Kerry believes his service in Vietnam inoculates him from Republican attacks on national security issues. But what about Kerry's activities after he came back from Vietnam?
by Hugh Hewitt
IT TOOK A LOT OF DIGGING, but my producer Duane was able to find the audio from John Kerry's 1971 appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I played the entire 19 minutes for my radio audience on February 17, and the reaction via the phones and email was uniform: Disliking John Kerry for his actions and words of 33 years ago is not a rare thing, especially among Vietnam veterans and active duty military.
Does this reaction matter? In the California primary it might. According to the 2000 Census, there are 1,122,528 Vietnamese Americans, 447,032 of whom live in California. (Texas is home to 12 percent of Vietnamese Americans--134,961, to be exact.) This subgroup of the California electorate might find very interesting John Kerry's answer to a 1971 question from Senator George Aiken on the effects of an immediate U.S. withdrawal from South Vietnam. Here's Kerry:
"But I think, having done what we have done to that country, we have an obligation to offer sanctuary to the perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might face, and obviously they would, we understand that, might face political assasination or something else."
John Kerry obviously did not understand the plans of the Communists, as the numbers of the North's victims ranged far above his estimate of "perhaps 2,000, 3000." In fact, more than 130,000 took to the boats, a million more fled overland, and more than 750,000 were forced into "re-education camps." Next door in Cambodia, the Khmer Rouge's reign of terror claimed 2,000,000 lives.
I wonder how John Kerry's antiwar record will play in Orange County, California's Little Saigon? Or to the state's approximately 70,000 Cambodian Americans? Kerry backers point to his youth when he made his statement to the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee. But the massacre at Hue, when the communists executed thousands as they lost control of the city they had initially overrun in the Tet offensive, was well known and ought to have been understood by Kerry when he tossed off his estimate of likely victims of political terror if the United States cut and ran.
Among veterans and active duty military, the picture is more difficult to read, though Kerry's strength in this quarter has been overstated by a media all too ready to buy the "band of brothers" theatrics that Kerry has been staging at each campaign stop. Every time Kerry invokes his real heroism in Vietnam, a network announcer should intone the opinions of Paul Galanti, quoted in the February 17, 2004, Los Angeles Times:
"Paul Galanti learned of Kerry's [1971] speech while held captive inside North Vietnam's infamous 'Hanoi Hilton' prison. The Navy pilot had been shot down in 1966 and spent nearly seven years as a prisoner of war."
"During torture sessions, he said, his captors cited the antiwar speeches as 'an example of why we should cross over to [their] side.'"
"'The Viet Cong didn't think they had to win the war on the battlefield,' Galanti said, 'because thanks to these protestors they were going to win it on the streets of San Francisco and Washington.'"
"He says Kerry broke a covenant among servicemen never to make public criticisms that might jeopardize those still in battle or in the hands of the enemy."
"Because he did, Galanti said, 'John Kerry was a traitor to the men he served with.'"
"Now retired and living in Richmond, Virgian, Galanti, 64, refuses to cool his ire toward Kerry."
"'I don't plan to set it aside. I don't know anyone who does,' he said. 'The Vietnam memorial has thousands of additional names due to John Kerry and others like him.'"
YES, GALANTI IS A REPUBLICAN (he chaired John McCain's campaign in Virginia in 2000). But he speaks for many veterans. Unfortunately, though, tough charges like Galanti's are not likely to get much attention from an elite media more comfortable with the substance of Kerry's 1971 testimony--which is received wisdom on the left-- than with the recriminations that flow from Kerry's antiwar activities. It is obvious that the media, for all their digging into President Bush's air national guard service, are not as interested in Kerry's activities from the same period. To my knowledge, for example, mine is the only show to have played the audio from the 1971 hearing.
Because today's editors and producers don't much care about Kerry's actions in 1971, they can't imagine there are people who do care--much less report on them. Having labeled Kerry's antiwar radicalism as irrelevant, media elites ignore the opinions of a large and passionate segment of the population for whom Kerry's past matters a great deal.
Is this fair to Paul Galanti and his fellow Vietnam veterans who disagree with Kerry's actions when he returned from Vietnam? No, it isn't. But, then again, why should the media embrace fairness to them now, after three decades of distortion?

What some won't tell you about John Kerry |
After the media tore into President Bush's 30-year-old National Guard record like a voracious pit bull into a bacon-scented postman, Democrats have been licking their chops in anticipation of highlighting John Kerry's decorated service during the same time period.
A new web site launching this week, however, should give Democrats more than a moment's pause — and it's likely just the opening salvo in exposing the truth about the outlandish actions of Kerry and his comrades as part of an anti-war group known as Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW).
The new site,, is named after the event that helped raise Kerry to prominence in 1971. The Winter Soldier Investigation, as it was called, was held in Detroit from January 31 to February 2 — with financial backing from Jane Fonda, according to an historian cited on the web site — where over 100 veterans testified about the most horrendous war crimes imaginable happening every day.
John Kerry was an instant celebrity, and the group behind the three-day conference, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), certainly served his political ambitions well. But if the wealth of information found at gains any traction, Kerry's past could come back to haunt him.
VVAW was a media favorite: war veterans who were anti-war. Quite a sales pitch. But the more realistic characterization would have been Americans who were anti-American. (Literally, too: One of the documents at is the minutes of a VVAW executive meeting where members decided to take down American flags from all VVAW offices.)
Their goal was not just to sour Americans on the Vietnam war, but to make them hate America and American soldiers.
Hence the Winter Soldier Investigation.
The three-day circus featured tales of the most sadistic forms of torture, including genital mutilation and gang rape, and wanton mass murder of innocent civilians. Kerry and the others claimed that almost unprecedented war crimes were not simply rampant, but committed as a matter of U.S. policy.
One of the most shocking quotes comes from Kerry himself, claiming that he had committed war crimes in Vietnam, then suggested he was merely following orders. Following orders, however, does not absolve someone of guilt for committing war crimes. Which begs the question: will Kerry be willing to discuss the details of the war crimes he claims to have committed? Read On

John Kerry's Words have inflamed the Arab Community throughout the World
By Genevieve Cora Fraser
Al-Jazeerah, Feb 23, 2004
Just when I thought John Kerry would be fair to both sides... this article appears..."The Cause of Israel is the Cause of America," by Senator John F. Kerry. He has lost his credibility as an honest broker! This statement flies in the face of his balancing the concerns of both Israel and the Arab world. John Kerry's words have inflamed Arabs thoughout the world... and in America. It is everywhere, in emails and publications throughout Europe, the UK, America and the Middle East .
I still support Kerry as President for his stance on the economy, jobs, health care and the environment but challenge him to clarify his position and acknowledge the wrongs that have been inflicted by the Israeli Zionists on the Palestinian people, many of whom are direct descendants of the ancient people of the Holy Land.
Kerry's other challenger Ralph Nader is an Arab, a Semite. Much of the leadership in Israel is composed of members of the Jewish religion who are predominantly descendants of white Europeans, not Semites. Their racist politics and policies in Palestine and Israel and in refugee camps throughout the Middle East have impoverished, denigrated, and in hundreds of thousand of incidents have brutalized and massacred the Semites among them, relegating them to the lowest escheleons of society.
Today with the Apartheid Wall, razor-wire electrified fence, Israeli only roads, checkpoints and roadblocks and a host of other methods, Israel has sentenced every man, woman and child in the occupied territories to a life in prison minus the amenities you would find in the civilized world. It is time the Senator educated himself to the "facts on the ground."

Kerry's Outlandish Claims Demand a Response by Oliver North
Posted Feb 24, 2004
Even though I'm one of the few Americans, besides President George W. Bush, to be personally attacked by Sen. John Kerry on a regular basis, it just hasn't seemed right to respond. After all, President Bush has been virtually silent as Kerry used four letter expletives to describe his policies.
The commander in chief turned the other cheek when Democrats said he was "AWOL" and a "deserter." The president was too polite to return fire when Kerry denigrated National Guard service by equating it with draft dodgers who "went to Canada." Given this model of even-tempered presidential propriety, who am I to stoop to throwing mud back at Kerry just because he has slung it at me?
I have been holding steadfastly to this noble position for several months -- through interminable debates and trumped up reporting from hyperventilated reporters. But this week, one of the young computer wizards who works down the hall informed me, "You're all over the Kerry campaign website!"
"So?" I replied, somewhat irritated at the intrusion. I make it a practice not to read the reviews of my television show or books, and wasn't prepared to make an exception for some political website.
My young informant said, "He says he 'exposed you!'" Given the alleged activities of certain athletes and entertainers, the word "exposed" caught my attention, so I investigated.
On Kerry's campaign website, the Bay State's junior senator claims he deserves credit for "holding Oliver North accountable and exposing the fraud and abuse at the heart of the BCCI scandal." In speeches and interviews, he goes even further -- alleging that he "blew the whistle" on my "illegal activities" in support of the Nicaraguan Contras. It's great fodder for the political left and hard-core radicals. It might even leave Ivy League professors panting. There is only one problem: It's not true.
John Kerry wasn't even on the so-called bipartisan congressional committee that spent months investigating the so-called Iran-Contra affair. He never asked me, or any of us involved in supporting the Nicaraguan democratic resistance, a single question. At no time did he question me or anyone else I worked with about our efforts to rescue Americans from dungeons in Beirut. He says he held me accountable? How? When? Where?
Perhaps one of the eager newshounds panting after Kerry will ask him. And maybe Kerry -- or more likely someone on his extensive campaign staff -- will produce some convoluted answers. They may even cite some subcommittee hearings that Kerry held months after the close of the official investigation. His little witch hunt eventually did publish a report that was so incredibly biased as to give the word "slander" an inadequate definition.
More likely, the masters of the mainstream media salivating over Kerry will give him yet another free pass on these questions -- like so many others. Unlike President Bush, who has now laid bare his entire record of military service, Kerry has apparently never had to do so. This leads inevitably to the kind of confused hyperbole in the articles attached to the Kerry campaign website.
Some reporters, undoubtedly too young to even remember that this is the 36th anniversary of the "Tet Offensive," describe Kerry as having served two tours in Vietnam. Others report that he served four months on patrol boats in the Mekong Delta. That would be two months less than Al Gore -- and nine months less than most of us "Viet Nam Vets."
Kerry says, "I know something about carriers," alluding to his service in Vietnam. Since I don't know of any aircraft carriers that were deployed to the Mekong Delta, which one was he aboard? How many months did he serve in Vietnam? Where? What carrier? Did he come home early? Was it because of the severity of his wounds or something else? What does the military record say?
Kerry has the same problem with his post-Vietnam, anti-government activities. He says that photos of him with Jane Fonda are fakes. Did he ever appear with Jane Fonda? Fonda eventually apologized to America's Vietnam veterans for actions that Gen. Giap and other Vietnamese leaders said prolonged the war and encouraged the NVA to keep on fighting -- and killing Americans. Did Kerry ever apologize? Where? When?
Kerry testified under oath before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971 that Americans in Vietnam had "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war."
Set aside the horrific and defamatory nature of these accusations and ask this: Did he witness these atrocities? Did he try to stop them? If not, was he held accountable for dereliction of duty? If he knows the perpetrators, did he ever see that they were brought to justice? If not, why?
Kerry and his cronies in the Democratic Party have made Vietnam an issue in this campaign. They have slandered Bush for his service during the war. Until Kerry truthfully answers the questions above -- and a whole lot more about his actions during the war -- many of us are going to wonder what the middle initial "F" in John F. Kerry stands for. Is it "Fiction"? Or is it simply "False"?
Senator Covered Up Evidence of P.O.W.'s Left Behind
When John Kerry's Courage Went M.I.A.
by Sydney H. Schanberg
February 24th, 2004 1:00 PM

Senator John Kerry, a decorated battle veteran, was courageous as a navy lieutenant in the Vietnam War. But he was not so courageous more than two decades later, when he covered up voluminous evidence that a significant number of live American prisoners—perhaps hundreds—were never acknowledged or returned after the war-ending treaty was signed in January 1973.
The Massachusetts senator, now seeking the presidency, carried out this subterfuge a little over a decade ago— shredding documents, suppressing testimony, and sanitizing the committee's final report—when he was chairman of the Senate Select Committee on P.O.W./ M.I.A. Affairs.
Over the years, an abundance of evidence had come to light that the North Vietnamese, while returning 591 U.S. prisoners of war after the treaty signing, had held back many others as future bargaining chips for the $4 billion or more in war reparations that the Nixon administration had pledged. Hanoi didn't trust Washington to fulfill its pro-mise without pressure
Similarly, Washington didn't trust Hanoi to return all the prisoners and carry out all the treaty provisions. The mistrust on both sides was merited. Hanoi held back prisoners and the U.S.

provided no reconstruction funds.
The stated purpose of the special Senate committee—which convened in mid 1991 and concluded in January 1993—was to investigate the evidence about prisoners who were never returned and find out what happened to the missing men. Committee chair Kerry's larger and different goal, though never stated publicly, emerged over time: He wanted to clear a path to normalization of relations with Hanoi. In any other context, that would have been an honorable goal. But getting at the truth of the unaccounted for P.O.W.'s and M.I.A.'s (Missing In Action) was the main obstacle to normalization—and therefore in conflict with his real intent and plan of action. Read ON (This is a must)

Why POW's Dislike Kerry
 The MIA Cover Up - John Corry - February 1994

John Kerry, the Sunshine Soldier
 By Joel Mowbray | February 24, 2004

After the media tore into President Bush’s 30-year-old National Guard record like a rabid pit bull into a bacon-scented postman, Democrats have been licking their chops in anticipation of highlighting John Kerry’s decorated service during the same time period.
A new web site that launched yesterday (Monday, January 23), however, should give Democrats more than a moment’s pause—and is likely just the opening salvo in exposing the truth about the outlandish actions of Kerry and his comrades as part of an anti-war group known as Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
Created by the conservative Free Republic Network, seems to contain the most comprehensive compilation of Kerry’s words and deeds shortly after returning to America more than three decades ago. (It can also be found at
The new site is named after the event that helped raise Kerry to prominence in 1971. The Winter Soldier Investigation, as it was called, was held in Detroit from January 31 to February 2—with financial backing from Hanoi Hannah herself, Jane Fonda, according to an historian cited on the web site—where over 100 veterans testified about the most horrendous war crimes imaginable happening every day. Read On

John Kerry - Hero or Zero? JB Williams, 02/23/04
To hear John Kerry tell it, it sounds like Mr. Kerry was the only hero in Vietnam; all others were low down scoundrels, “war criminals” to use his words. He was a double hero, both decorated soldier and leader of the anti-war movement stateside after his return, rubbing elbows with Hanoi Jane and the Hollywood elite. Is it any wonder he later became a career politician? He’s done such a great job of sounding all Presidential that even Gen. Wes Clark is now dry humping his leg like a dog in heat, hoping to stay in the running for VP.
As a three time recipient of the Purple Heart, he never missed a day of duty. What ever his injuries were, they didn’t require any extensive medical attention or lengthy hospital stays. Not to take anything away from anyone who serves our country bravely, and not to wish serious harm on anyone in uniform, but we must have been handing out Purple Hearts like candy back then. What did he have, a bad hangnail?
Prior to Kerry’s pot shots at our National Guardsmen, and George W. Bush’s service to his country, I would have considered this issue off limits. However, since Kerry took the gloves off first, and GWB has too much class to fire back, it’s a perfectly reasonable question for me to ask. How did Kerry get not one, but three Purple Hearts and never spend a single night in the hospital? Read On
In 1992, Kerry voted again to cut defense spending, this time by $6 billion, and even other Democrats came out of the woodwork to stop the measure. In 1993, he voted against a pay raise for men and women in uniform. Then in 1993, he sponsored a plan to reduce the number of Navy submarines and crews, reduce tactical fighter wings of the Air Force, terminate the Navy’s coast mine-sweeping ship program, force the retirement of 60,000 soldiers in one year, and cut the number of light infantry units in the Army to just one. Read On

PROTESTING AMERICA John Podhoretz 23 Feb 2004
JOHN Kerry arrives in New York today. Our city is an old stomping ground of his, of course. He used to hang out at 156 Fifth Avenue - the headquarters of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
Kerry was present at those offices in September 1970, when the group decided to write then-Mayor John V. Lindsay and demand that the city refuse to welcome another organization, one dedicated to representing other American servicemen.
The group John Kerry and his associates were protesting was The National Guard Association, which had its 1970 convention in New York at the Americana Hotel (now the New York Sheraton) from Sept. 13 to Sept. 17. Kerry's group set up a picket line in front of the Americana, and staged a protest rally against the Guard on Sept. 17, 1970 at 5:30 pm.
Why would they do such a thing? Here's the sort of rhetoric Kerry and Co. used to gather anti-war forces in a mimeographed flyer:
"The National Guard Uses Your Tax Dollar: "To support the military-industrial complex "To honor war criminals - Westmoreland, Laird, Nixon, etc.
"To applaud campus murders by National Guard units "To encourage armed attacks on minority communities"
The decision to stage this defamatory protest against the National Guard - which then comprised 409,412 Army Guard and 89,847 Air Guard personnel - was made in John Kerry's presence and with his full knowledge. Executive-committee minutes for Vietnam Veterans Against the War note that among the six "members attending" a meeting to plan the protest was "John Kerry-NE Rep." Read On

Unmasking John Kerry Andy Obermann, 02/23/04
Several days ago, a story broke that I thought would lead to the demise of John Kerry, and I’m not talking about his alleged Clintonian affair with a woman half his age. No, I’m talking about an old interview the Senator gave in 1970.
In this interview, which appeared in the “Harvard Crimson,” Kerry makes some serious statements in regard to our intelligence gathering apparatus and our military—our National Defense mechanism. According to the interview, Kerry hoped “to almost eliminate CIA activity,” and claimed that he was an, “Internationalist, [who] would like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

Kerry’s CIA statement is perhaps the most haunting in our post 9/11 world. His actions as a Senator seem to demonstrate that his position on the issue hasn’t changed much either.
For example, in 1994, Kerry proposed a bill to slash the budget of our intelligence agencies by more than $1 billion—and freeze spending at that level for the next several years. Luckily, some of Kerry’s comrades in the Senate thought otherwise. The bill failed by a 3 to 1 margin. A year later, Kerry proposed a similar bill set to cut $1.5 billion from the intelligence budget. Kerry stated that, “[the bill] will reduce the Intelligence budget by $300 million in each of the fiscal years 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, and 2000.” Kerry was the only Senator to sponsor the bill, which never made it to the floor.
Want more proof? Ok, in 1997, Kerry was still rattling for reduced intelligence budgets. When addressing the Senate, he questioned the wisdom of our then-current intelligence apparatus after the Cold War. “Now that that struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow…?” This is the same John Kerry that questioned the quality, effectiveness, and scope of our intelligence agencies after September 11. Hypocritical to say the least.
Of course, his campaign has explanations for all of this, but actions speak louder than words. Kerry’s actions are making my ears bleed. More recent events, however, ring with even more volume.
A seemingly overlooked aspect of a Kerry White House would be his position in regards to our chief enemy throughout the world—terrorists. You see President Kerry would not go to war with terrorists. In fact, to President Kerry, this isn’t even a war. It is a law enforcement issue, a policing problem. To him, we don’t need to use the military to annihilate terrorists and those who support them; we need only to arrest terrorists, put them on trial, and hope for the best. Kerry stated, “[The War on Terror] will involve the military now and then, but will primarily be an intelligence gathering, law enforcement operation.”

Is this man actually so naive? I remember trying this for eight years, under Bill Clinton, and what did it get us? Three thousand dead Americans, that’s what it got us. We failed to respond to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, where thousands were injured. We failed to respond to the Khobar Towers attack in 1996. The 1998 Embassy attacks in Nairobi, Kenya, and Tanzania, and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole also went without a major military response as well. All of these attacks were credited to al Qaeda, and they were all treated as a policing problem—and it did nothing more than embolden Osama bin Laden to reach for the stars, and succeed on 9/11.
Kerry claimed that the War on Terror should be “a great big manhunt,” like we’re playing cops and robbers here or something. Wake up! These people want to kill us. They will stop only when America is in shambles and we the people are six feet under. The only effective way to defeat terrorists is to put them on the defensive. We have to take the fight to them! Why do you think we haven’t been attacked again since 9/11? It’s not because they don’t want to and it’s definitely not because they’re afraid of being arrested. It’s because we have brought the war to them—and have, in large part, been successful in dismantling their organizations and facilitating their extinction.
Barry Goldwater once stated, “If an enemy power is bent on conquering you, and proposed to turn all of his resources to that end, he is at war with you; and you—unless you contemplate surrender—are at war with him.” I’m damn sure not surrendering and I’m grateful that we have a President that isn’t either. I’m not so sure about John Kerry, though.

Marcus Gee
From Friday's Globe and Mail
This news just in: John Kerry is a war hero.
As his campaign never ceases reminding the American people, he was the commander of a patrol boat in Vietnam, where he was wounded three times and won a chest full of medals. Does that make him a superior candidate for president of the United States?
He certainly seems to think so. The Massachusetts senator has made his war record a centrepiece of his triumphal march to the Democratic nomination. Everywhere he goes, he surrounds himself with war buddies and other veterans, whom he invariably salutes from the podium. "We're a little older and a little greyer," he will say, "but we still know how to fight for our country." The crowd goes wild. The message to voters is clear: I may be a liberal from Massachusetts, home of Ted Kennedy and (soon) of gay marriage, but I have the chops to defend the country from its enemies.
A distinguished war record is no guarantee of success in presidential politics. Republican Bob Dole, who was severely wounded in the Second World War, was whipped by the draft-evading Democrat Bill Clinton in 1996. John McCain, who survived torture and prison in North Vietnam, lost the Republican nomination in 2000 to Mr. Bush, who spent the war at home in the Texas Air National Guard.
Stars and scars don't make a president. What counts is the strength and the sense to handle the security issues of the moment. On the big security issue of this moment — Iraq — our hero Mr. Kerry is all over the map.
In 1991, he opposed the resolution authorizing Mr. Bush's father to go to war to expel Saddam Hussein's invading army from Kuwait. "Is the liberation of Kuwait so imperative," he asked, that the United States could risk creating "another generation of amputees, paraplegics, burn victims?" Dismissing the senior Mr. Bush's impressive drive to build an international coalition against Iraq, he said the president was leading a unilateral "rush to war," a phrase he was to later throw at Bush junior.
In 1998, Mr. Kerry supported President Clinton when he ordered air strikes against Iraq to punish Saddam Hussein for evading United Nations weapons inspections. In 2002, he voted in favour of the resolution authorizing Mr. Bush to invade Iraq, but after the war he voted against Mr. Bush's request for $87-billion (U.S.) to rebuild the country.
Confused? Don't worry. Mr. Kerry is too. Asked about his opposition to the 1991 war resolution, he now says he didn't really oppose the war. He just wanted to give diplomacy and coalition-building more time. "I believed we should kick Saddam out of Kuwait," he told an interviewer last month.
Asked why he voted in 2002 for a war that he now opposes, he says that "the vote I cast was not a vote for war." Though the resolution was titled "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq," and gave Mr. Bush the power to invade whenever he determined it "necessary and appropriate," Mr. Kerry says he supported it only to put pressure on Iraq to allow weapons inspectors back into the country. So, in other words, in 1991 Mr. Kerry voted against a war that he actually supported, and in 2002 voted for a war he actually opposed. His supporters call his views "nuanced." Others might call it waffling.
All this is history. The real question facing any would-be president in this campaign is, what would you do about Iraq now?
Again, Mr. Kerry is all over. He says he supports the U.S. effort to bring democracy to Iraq, and warns that the Bush administration must not "cut and run" from its post-war responsibilities. "Winning the peace in Iraq is critical to us because it's going to have a profound impact on the war on terrorism," he said last year. Quite so. Then why vote against spending the money to do the job?
He says he wants to end the U.S. occupation. So does the Bush administration. It hopes to hand authority to Iraqis in July. He says he wants the UN to take control in place of the United States. The UN is neither willing nor able to take over, as Mr. Kerry surely knows. He says he wants more troops in Iraq from NATO and other countries "so that we get the targets off the back of our soldiers." Washington has been recruiting allies as hard as it can, bringing in soldiers and police from Italy, Japan, Poland and other countries. NATO has so far resisted all pleas to take part, arguing that it is tied up in Afghanistan.
Mr. Kerry's position on postwar Iraq is as contradictory as it was before the invasion. He wants to be just anti-war enough to appeal to anti-war Democrats but just pro-war enough that he doesn't come across as weak-kneed. War hero or not, he can't have it both ways.

There are a great number of organizations that represent Vietnam veterans. To our knowledge, ours is the only organization that still represents those who fought the 'war on the homefront' supporting both the soldiers and the cause in Vietnam, going back thirty- five years to Mr. Magruder's first one-man protests on campuses against the war protestors. We have a hugh archive on the activities of the Left, which engineered these protests, up to today when its totalitarian views on reality totally dominate the American campus.To expose the lies of the Movement would end that tyranny. The hugh waves of anti-Semitism and the sugary nonsense about Islam on campus are only the latest atrocities of the Left. Now that the Kerry campaign has raised the issue, we call for a national effort to end the lies the Left told about the Vietnam War once and for all.
We honor Kerry for his courage and service in Vietnam. But there are problems with what he did when he returned. When everyone was searching for Kerry's 1971 testimony to Congress, we had it, in our archives. We sent it to Northwest Veterans Newsletter which posted it for all to see. In it Kerry said the war protestors were standing up for the Vietnam vet. That could only happen if one sold out to them. Then we sent out an article showing that many of Kerry's arguments were identical to those of the campus war protestors -"Students Call on Kerry to Disavow 70's Anti-war Statement or Drop Out." Today we will show you why he must do that. That was not an honest movement. It was all too often nothing but Leftist propaganda for Hanoi.
We have in our archives a very rare book, containing 118 of the most important pieces of literature handed out by the antiwar movement between the years 1964 and 1974 - "Mutiny Does Not Happen Lightly : the Literature of the American Resistance to the Vietnam War." Edited by G. Louis Heath, a professor of sociology at Illinois State University, it was published in 1976 in a very limited edition. In his Introduction he writes that the book "consists of flyers, leaflets, letters, reports, manuals, and documents produced by or relating to the antiwar movement in the United States collected from over one hundred groups, many of them organized on university campuses... selected so as to present an accurate cross-section of the American resistance to the Vietnam War during 1964-1974." Containing mostly information on Who, What ,Where of the various demonstrations and marches, and a lot of antiwar rhetoric that doesn't explain anything, we are interested in the Why. We carefully went through all 597 pages of this
book for all material that focused on the reasons for the protests. Here, greatly reduced to their essence to fit on these 5 pages, are the ONLY such statements we found. And although all of these themes are found at greater lengths in other forms, the essence of what the anti-war movement told others as to what the war was all about, is found here. We will send this book overnight to any Vietnam veteran leader acceptable to both sides of the Kerry issue, because this apparently is what he and Vietnam Veterans Against the War endorsed, to check our work to assure you that all this is true, that we have not let our own biases on this issue distort this study in any way.
And once again, as we did in our recent article,"Students Appeal to World Media as American Media Engages in Cover-Up of Kerry's Weakness on National
Security,"we call on the national media, especially TV news, to stop campaigning for Kerry and start asking him the right questions.
From "Mutiny Does Not Happen Lightly: The Literature of the American Resistance to the Vietnam War"
The May 2nd movement is launching an anti-induction campaign on the campuses. ...based on the refusal to fight against the people of Vietnam. Some chapters of May 2 plan to campaign to donate blood and other medical aid to the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam (Viet Cong) to concretely show our support for national liberation struggles. Receiving blood from U.S. college students will be a terrific morale booster for the Vietnamese people. May 2nd Movement- Sept. 8, 1965
The game of the rich has caught up to Pig America. The Vietnamese have kicked ass out of U.S. occupational troops. More and more G.I.'s will no longer listen to Pig Nixon's orders and are turning their guns around on the real enemy. The Provisional Revolutionary Government in Vietnam (Viet Cong) has led the Vietnamese people to complete victory.Roxboro School SDS- Cleveland Heights - June 4, 1972
The Provisional Revolutionary Government becomes the political head of the "broad social strata" in South Vietnam which is determined to settle for nothing short of complete independence. The National Liberation Front (Viet Cong) becomes simply the military arm of that government. We support the Provisional Revolutionary Government.Distributed to delegates to the National Anti-War Conference, by the San Francisco Chapter of the New Mobilization Committee to End the War in Vietnam
-July 4-5, 1969
Recently many articles have appeared in the movement press expounding the virtues of deserting and going AWOL. "Come to Canada and be a man." "Soldiers are
pigs," "To remain in the imperialist U.S. Army rather than leaving is comparable to being a Nazi." Last year there were, by Pentagon counts,, 250,000 AWOL's and over 53,000 deserters. This has not made much of a dent in the fighting strength of the U.S.Army. That dent has clearly come from the heroic struggle of the Vietnamese people under the leadership of the NLF and the Provisional Revolutionary Government.
New York Regional SDS distributed at Boston University - Feb. 22, 1969
Letter from Ho Chi Minh to a radical activist in Youth Against War and Fascism, Free University of New York.
My Dear -------
I have received your letter. You and the progressive American people, especially the youth, feel indignant at the barbarous crimes perpetrated in Vietnam by the U.S.. imperialists who have thus besmeared the honor of the American people and the noble traditions of the United States. I am glad to learn that you and many other young Americans are actively endeavoring under varied forms to help push forward the movement against the war of aggression in Vietnam and in support of the Vietnamese people. With affectionate greetings, Signed,
Uncle Ho
June 18, Nov. 25, 1965
On Februrary 7, 1965, the U.S. began its systematic air massacre of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam). The U.S. also plans to bomb the system of dikes in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam which helps the North Vietnamese from drowning and starving.
Just as the U.S. is attempting to drown in blood the liberation struggle of the South Vietnamese people because it is the model for liberation struggles everywhere, so North Vietnam is being bombed to bits because it shows all colonial and former colonial countries, by living example, that Socialism can solve their problems.
Youth Against War and Fascism, Free University of New York - Aug. 27, 1966
As far as the Vietnamese are concerned , we are fighting on the side of Hitlerism, and they hope we lose. You are supposed to be fighting to "save the Vietnamese people from Communism." Certainly Communist influence is very strong in the National Liberation Front, the rebel government. Yet most of the people support the NLF. Why ? The war in Vietnam is not being fought according to the rules. Prisoners are tortured. Our planes drop incendiaary bombs on civilian villages. Our soldiers shoot at women and children. Your officers will tell you that it is all necessary, that we couldn't win the war any other way. We believe that the atrocities which are necessary to win this war against the people of Vietnam are inexcusable.
Vietnam Day Committee, San Franscisco - Aug. 2, 1966.
(This is the only mention of Communism in this entire literature. Page 138)
Among those who signed the various documents represented here, basically the major leaders of the anti-war movement, we list the following:
Al Hubbard - Vietnam Veterans Against the War
Jane Fonda - actress
(both signed the People's Peace Treaty of 1971)
Noam Chomsky,MIT
Rev. William Sloan Coffin, Jr. Yale
Rennie Davis, May Day Collective
Rev. Daniel Berrigan,S.J.
Dave Dellinger, People's Coalition for Peace and Justice
Daniel Ellsberg - MIT
Richard Falk - Princeton
Tom Hayden - Berkeley
Abbie Hoffman - WPAX, NewYork
Sidney Peck - People's Coalition for Peace and justice
Bobby Seale- Black Panther Party
Benjamin Spock, doctor
Gloria Steinem - author
George Wald, biologist, Havard
Cora Weiss - Women Strike for Peace
(Many of the people who signed the various documents in this book appeared again as signers of the recent "Not In Our Name" ad that appeared in papers all over the country, denouncing Bush and the wars on terrorism and Iraq.)
The New Mobilization Committee was formed in July, 1969 , and organized the November 15 March on Washington. Neither of these coalitions was a stable, long-term formation because of the centrifugal political forces which operated on the constitutent elements. While the New Mobe contained forces which were not in the National Mobe, both of these coalitions rested in large part on three main elements, the Trotskyists, the Communist Party, and the radical pacifists.
Antioch College -Nov. 30, 1970
The latest escalations result from the complete failure of Nixon's "Vietnamization" program. His attempt to conceal his violation of the Cooper-Church Amendment by sending U.S. troops into Cambodia dressed in civilian clothes is especially pernicious. Richard Nixon exhibits an absolute contempt for the American people's desire for peace. The GI's in Vietnam are refusing to fight in the dirty war any longer.
National Peace Action Coalition, Univ. of California, Berkeley-Feb. 3., 1971
(Signed by eight organizations, including Vietnam Veterans Against the War)
Mr. President: What will you do then , if the North Vietnamese launch a major offensive next summer, after you have reduced American forces to the promised level of 250,000 troops? Will you then feel you have the right to, and responsibility to, send in more American troops to protect the troops still there.?
Fellowship of Reconciliation -Oct. 27, 1970
(This phamplet is the only one out of 118 pieces of literature, from 1964 through 1974, to suggest that South Vietnam was being aggressed against by North Vietnam. Signed by 6 organizations, including Al Hubbard, National Executive Secretary for Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Although Kerry said it was not the "Reds" who threatened the U.S., but the crimes the soldiers were committing. He made reference to "the mystical war against Communism", and refered to it as a "civil war.")
It is important for us to tell people why the demands of the NFL and the PRG represent the only hope for peace, independence and unity in Vietnam. To anyone who knows the political-military situation in Vietnam, to declare for immediate withdrawal is to support the NLF without saying it. What is important... is to show that Vietnam is only a place where U.S. policies of neocolonialism have met with active resistance.
Stanford University - November 15, 1969
Just when Westmoreland was boasting that there were only small guerrilla groups left, he was hit in October 1967 with a division-sized unit. While he was explaining that this was a desperate last fling, he was hit by another division- sized unit. The U.S. forces never recovered from this. Wetstmoreland started panic measures. Forced to disperse, he opened the way for the NLF's mighty Tet offensive in late January that sealed the fate of the "limited war" because from then on Westmoreland, and General Abrams after him were forced onto the strategic and tactical defensive.
Radical Student Union - Univ. of California- Berkeley- Dec. 11, 1969
I want Spiro Agnew to know that I bring this assembly a message of greetings and solidarity with the American people from the Viet Cong. I want Agnew to know that this generation is establishing its own diplomatic relations, because we are not at war with the people of Vietnam. Our war is with the Pentagon, Wall Street, and Spiro T. Agnew. Nixon plans to win. withdrawing enough troops to deflate antiwar sentiments at home , while fortifying major cities like Hue and Saigon and from this position of fortification carry out the raging air war against the countryside that most students of Vietnam now understand is controlled some 80% by the National Liberation Front.
Speech by Rennie Davis, San Francisco Peace Rally - Nov. 15, 1969
The resistance of the people of South Vietnam is an indigenous movement of politically and religiously diverse groups and individuals which was organized in response to years of oppression and illegal action by the U.S. government and its various "puppet" regimes in Saigon. In order to counter the U.S. government's propaganda --which falsely teaches the public that the "enemy" is an outside, "communist" aggressor - we will continue to make use of various educational means. The U.S. government is trying to stifle, at tremendous cost and risk, a liberation struggle which is setting the example for all oppressed peoples.
The U.S. Committee to aid the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam
(Viet Cong) New York City,- May 10, 1966
(Here it is - the heart of the matter - the Big Lie that runs throughout all this literature. We were fighting, not Communist oppression, but indigenous peasants yearning for liberation from Saigon. We will take a closer look at this in Part 2) 785-312-9303

John Kerry Got Funds From India-Born, Says Report
Posted on Sunday 22 February @ 06:15:40
Democratic front-runner Senator John Kerry sent 28 letters on behalf of an India-born defence contractor who pleaded guilty last week to illegally funnelling campaign contributions to him, the Los Angeles Times has reported.
The development is seen as a blow to Sen. Kerry who has promoted himself as a candidate who has never been beholden to campaign contributors and special interests. During his current campaign speeches and media interviews, Kerry has consistently been critical of Pakistan while leaning toward India.
The LA Times report said between 1996 and 1999, Kerry participated in a letter-writing campaign to free up federal funds for a guided missile system that San Diego defence contractor Parthasarathi “Bob” Majumder was trying to build for US warplanes.
Majumder’s firm, Science and Applied Technology Inc, was paid more than $150 million to design and develop the programme in the 1990s. But the programme ran into some stumbling blocks at the Pentagon, the report said.
Kerry’s letters were sent to fellow members of Congress-and to the Pentagon-while Majumder and his employees were donating money to the senator, court records show. During the three-year period, Kerry received about $25,000 from Majumder and his employees, according to Dwight L. Morris & Associates, which tracks campaign donations, it went on to say.
Quoting court documents, the report said the contractor told his employees they needed to make political contributions in order for him to gain influence with members of Congress. He then reimbursed them with proceeds from govt contracts.
Federal prosecutors initially determined that $13,000 of the donations were illegally reimbursed, but they now say that nearly all of the money was tainted, according to the report. They said there was no evidence Kerry or other members of Congress would have known that.
Last week, Majumder, 52, pleaded guilty to two counts of illegal campaign contributions. He admitted giving more than USD 95,000 in illegal donations to Kerry, Republican representatives Duncan Hunter, Randall Cunningham, John Murtha and Joe Scarborough, who is now retired.

Kerry on the Record: Ties With Vietnam
Wes Vernon,
Wednesday, Feb. 18, 2004
See part one of series, POWs and MIAs, and part two, Defense.
WASHINGTON – One of the issues sure to be dogging Democrat presidential front-runner John Kerry will be whether a member of his family improperly benefited from the senator’s leading role in “normalizing” relations between the U.S. and Vietnam.
Massachusetts' junior U.S. senator was rather summarily cleared of wrongdoing by the staff of the Senate Ethics Committee. But questions persist.
In the early 1990s, Kerry headed a Senate committee that was supposed to determine whatever became of American troops in the Vietnam War whose whereabouts were not recorded.
Under his leadership, the panel concluded there was “no evidence” that any Americans left behind in Vietnam were still alive. Some veterans groups and the vice chairman of Kerry’s committee dispute that claim.
A few weeks after the Senate panel’s hearings had concluded, according to Center for Public Integrity, Kerry’s participation in the committee became “controversial” when Hanoi announced that it had awarded a fat contract to Boston real estate firm Colliers International, then headed by the senator’s cousin Stuart Forbes.
Coincidence? And was there really “no evidence” that American fighting men left behind in Vietnam were alive? Experts who have examined the issue ridicule the former or vehemently reject the latter.
Taking the question of “no evidence” first:
'Plenty of Evidence'
“There was plenty of evidence,” said the vice chairman of the Kerry committee, Robert Smith, then a Republican U.S. senator from New Hampshire.
Smith, now seeking a U.S. Senate seat from Florida, declined to criticize Kerry directly, but agreed to be interviewed by on “anything but presidential politics.”

He cited testimony by former Defense Secretaries Melvin Laird and James Schlessinger, as well as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Based on intelligence information and reliable eyewitness accounts, all believed that men were left behind and unaccounted for who might very well be alive.
“They [the North Vietnamese] captured them. They must have known what happened to them. If [the American prisoners] died, they [North Vietnamese] should have told us,” he said.
As for Hanoi’s awarding a contract to a firm headed by a Kerry relative, Senate Ethics Committee staff director and chief counsel Victor M. Baird acknowledged the Senate rules stipulated no senator shall aid in passing legislation whose “principal purpose” is to benefit “only” himself or a member of his family.
Nothing in the publicity on the contract “suggests that Senator Kerry had anything to do with the decision of the Vietnamese government to trade with Colliers International,” Baird stated in a letter to Ted Sampley, who now heads a group called Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry.
“When was the last time the Senate Ethics Committee did anything to their members?” scoffed John LeBoutillier, a former congressman who is a columnist for
“It’s a small world, isn’t it, when the cousin of the key senator who cleans up this [MIA] issue suddenly gets the contract? Now, what are the odds of that?” he asked.
LeBoutillier heads Skyhook 2 Project, dedicated to recovering living American POWs in Southeast Asia. During his congressional days, the Long Island, N.Y., Republican was a member of a Special House POW/MIA Task Force.
'Kerry Trashed the Evidence'
In an interview with NewsMax, he expressed disgust that Kerry and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., both Vietnam veterans, had “ignored the evidence” and made a bipartisan pitch to “normalize” relations with Hanoi.
“Kerry trashed the evidence. He wouldn’t hear of it,” added LeBoutillier.
Smith puts it this way: “We know they [North Vietnam] have answers, and I get sick and tired of these people saying we’ve gotten the fullest possible accounting. That’s just total garbage. We have not. Dead or alive, they still have information.”

In the letter washing his hands of the whole question of Kerry’s cousin benefiting from “normalization” with Hanoi, the Senate Ethics staff director wrote, “Absent some evidence of improper conduct or a violation of a rule or law,” the committee would not review the matter because “the final decision on a Senator’s public decisions is generally reserved for the voters.”

Interested parties interpret that as a way of saying the Ethics Committee’s level of curiosity will not lead to an investigation to determine if there has been “improper conduct or a violation of a rule of law.”

Thus, although we might never know, the senator’s quest for the White House will introduce the issue to a wider group of voters than those within the confines of Massachusetts.
Sean Hannity Book: Kerry Objected to Reagan's Bombing of Terrorist Gadhafi
Special from
By Carl Limbacher
Sean Hannity's book "Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism" has just been released this week, and it offers explosive revelations about Sen. John Kerry.
The Fox News Channel star and nationally syndicated radio host has unearthed a letter Kerry wrote harshly criticizing President Reagan for his retaliation against terrorist leader Moammar Gadhafi.
Specifically, the Massachusetts Democrat objected to a retaliatory strike by President Ronald Reagan against the Libyan dictator in 1986. In a never-before-published letter written shortly after Reagan ordered the strikes, Kerry complained that Reagan had overreacted to the bombing by Libyan terrorists of a Berlin disco frequented by American troops.
The Libyan-sponsored bombings killed one U.S. soldier and wounded 51. Kerry claimed that the April 1986 U.S. air strike that nearly killed Gadhafi was not "proportional."
"While I stated that my initial inclination was to support the President," Kerry wrote, "I pointed out that two essential tests had to be met in determining whether or not the U.S. action was appropriate. First, the United States had to have irrefutable evidence directly linking the Qadaffi [Gadhafi] regime to a terrorist act and, second, our response should be proportional to that act."
Though Kerry admitted that the evidence tying Tripoli to the disco bombing was "irrefutable," the U.S. had failed the proportionality test, he insisted.
"It is obvious that our response was not proportional to the disco bombing and even violated the Administration's own guidelines to hit clearly defined terrorist targets, thereby minimizing the risk to innocent civilians," he complained.
Kerry said it was a "mistake" for Reagan to have targeted the "head of state of another country - no matter how repugnant we find the leader." "We are not going to solve the problem of terrorism with this kind of retaliation," he warned. "There are numerous other actions we can take, in concert with our allies, to bring significant pressure to bear on countries supporting or harboring terrorists."
The senator's comments seem even more dangerously flawed considering the outcome of Reagan's actions. After the bombings, Gadhafi hemmed in his terrorism. In the 1990s, as NewsMax reported, he opened secret ties with the CIA to cooperate with the U.S. in counterterrorism. And just this past year, terrified of being toppled like Saddam Hussein was, Gadhafi, in a stunning move after U.S. and British negotiators applied pressure, opened his nation's nuclear and weapons programs to international inspectors.
Trapped by His Own Words
Hannity's book "Deliver Us From Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism" went on sale across America this week. The text of Kerry's letter, reprinted in the book, follows:
"While I stated that my initial inclination was to support the President, I pointed out that two essential tests had to be met in determining whether or not the U.S. action was appropriate. First, the United States had to have irrefutable evidence directly linking the Qaddafi regime to a terrorist act and, second, our response should be proportional to that act. The evidence was irrefutable that the Qaddafi regime was behind the Berlin disco bombing which claimed the lives of two innocent victims and injured 200 others.
"However, as to the second test, it is obvious that our response was not proportional to the disco bombing and even violated the Administration's own guidelines to hit clearly defined terrorist targets, thereby minimizing the risk to innocent civilians. I believe it was a mistake for us to select as targets areas of heavy civilian concentration, as well as to include the family and home of the head of state of another country - no matter how repugnant we find the leader.
"The fact that the bombing resulted in the deaths of at least 17 civilians certainly undermined the Administration's own justification for the raid. Beyond this point, however, is the fact that we are not going to solve the problem of terrorism with this kind of retaliation. There are numerous other actions we can take, in concert with our allies, to bring significant pressure to bear on countries supporting or harboring terrorists."

With Carl Limbacher and Staff
For the story behind the story...
Tuesday, Feb. 17, 2004
McCain: Hanoi Hilton Guards Taunted POWs With Kerry's Testimony
These days, former Vietnam War POW Sen. John McCain has nothing but praise for his fellow Vietnam veteran Sen. John Kerry, the Democrats' current presidential front-runner.
But after he was released from the Hanoi Hilton in 1973, McCain publicly complained that testimony by Kerry and others before J. William Fulbright's Senate Foreign Relations Committee was "the most effective propaganda [my North Vietnamese captors] had to use against us."
"They used Senator Fulbright a great deal," McCain wrote in the May 14, 1973, issue of U.S. News & World Report. While he was languishing in a North Vietnamese prison cell, Kerry was telling the Fulbright committee that U.S. soldiers were committing war crimes in Vietnam as a matter of course.
Sen. Ted Kennedy, a key Kerry presidential backer, was "quoted again and again" by jailers at the Hanoi Hilton, McCain said.
"Clark Clifford was another [North Vietnamese] favorite," the ex-POW told U.S. News, "right after he had been Secretary of Defense under President Johnson."
"When Ramsey Clark came over [my jailers] thought that was a great coup for their cause," McCain recalled. Months earlier, Sen. Kerry had appeared with Clark at the April 1971 Washington, D.C., anti-war protest that showcased his testimony before the Fulbright Committee.
"All through this period," wrote McCain, his captors were "bombarding us with anti-war quotes from people in high places back in Washington. This was the most effective propaganda they had to use against us."
McCain biographer Paul Alexander chronicled the Arizona Republican's anger toward Kerry during their early careers in the Senate together.
"For many years McCain held Kerry's actions against him because, while McCain was a POW in the Hanoi Hilton, Kerry was organizing veterans back home in the U.S. to protest the war."
In his 2002 book, "Man of the People: The Life of John McCain," Alexander says that the two Vietnam vets finally reconciled in the early 1990s after having "a long - and at times emotional - conversation about Vietnam" during a mutual trip to Kuwait.
Later, Kerry sought to minimize the rift, telling Alexander: "Our differences occurred when we were kids, or at least close to being kids. It was a long time ago, and we both came back and realized that there were a lot of difficulties in the prosecution of that war."
NewsMax gratefully acknowledges the help of U.S. Veteran Dispatch editor Ted Sampley for supplying McCain's revealing 1973 account in U.S. News.

Bad News for Kerry: Moderates Prefer Edwards
Although John Kerry narrowly won Wisconsin's primary last night, the big story is his poor showing among mainstream voters, a disastrous trend for him in the general election in November.
The talking heads were abuzz about this on the cable news shows last night, and the Associated Press noted today: "Edwards finished far better than pre-primary polls suggested he would, his surge fueled by the highest Republican turnout of the primary season and voters who made up their minds in the last week. His deepest support was in the GOP suburbs of Milwaukee."
The talking heads were abuzz about this on the cable news shows last night, and the Associated Press noted today: "Edwards finished far better than pre-primary polls suggested he would, his surge fueled by the highest Republican turnout of the primary season and voters who made up their minds in the last week. His deepest support was in the GOP suburbs of Milwaukee."
Edwards won pluralities of independents and Republicans.
An exit poll conducted by Fox News Channel showed that a 58 percent majority of Wisconsin’s voters said they decided their vote within the last week, and Edwards won 45 percent of these "late deciders," compared to 30 percent for Kerry.
Edwards has strength among voters concerned about American jobs killed by Bill Clinton's controversial North American Free Trade Agreement, which Kerry voted for but is now flip-flopping on.
Edwards said: "That's been happening in other primaries too. Republicans who would consider voting Democratic and independents are the people we have to win over to win the general election. That's why I'm the best candidate to take on George Bush."

While photo of candidate wGen. Giap: Kerry's Group Helped Hanoi Defeat U.S.
th Jane Fonda circulates on Internet
The North Vietnamese general in charge of the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam in 1975 credited a group led by Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry with helping him achieve victory.
In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. - according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North.
That's why, he predicted on Tuesday, the Vietnam War issue "is going to blow up in Kerry's face."
"People are going to remember Gen. Giap saying if it weren't for these guys [Kerry's group], we would have lost," North told radio host Sean Hannity.
"The Vietnam Veterans Against the War encouraged people to desert, encouraged people to mutiny - some used what they wrote to justify fragging officers," noted the former Marine lieutenant colonel, who earned two purple hearts in Vietnam.
"John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands," North said.

Kerry Denounced U.S. as 'The Real Criminal' in Vietnam
During his war protest days in the early 1970s, Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry once denounced the United States of America as "the real criminal" in the Vietnam War.
In comments first reported by the New York Times 33 years ago, Kerry condemned the entire country as "criminal" during a 1971 demonstration on Wall Street, a few weeks after the trial of Lt. William Calley.
"Guilty as Lieutenant Calley may have been of the actual act of murder, the verdict does not single out the real criminal ... the United States of America," railed the future Democratic presidential hopeful.
The damning comment was unearthed by the Baltimore Sun, which reprinted Kerry's outburst in its Saturday edition exactly as quoted above.
The Sun also revisited other anti-war comments by Kerry that have yet to receive significant exposure, including remarks Kerry uttered on NBC's "Meet the Press" a few weeks after the Wall Street protest.
"I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others," he told the network, "in that I shot in free-fire zones, fired .50-caliber machine bullets, used harass-and-interdiction fire, joined in search-and-destroy missions and burned villages."
Though NBC has the Kerry interview on tape, it has so far declined to broadcast his revealing comments.
The Sun also obtained reactions from two of Kerry's Swift Boat mates in Vietnam, who told the paper they were deeply disturbed by his anti-war activities.
Kerry crewman James Wasser said he was "absolutely upset" over his former commanding officer's claims that the U.S. committed wartime atrocities as a matter of course.
Saying he recalled no such war crimes, Wasser said of Kerry, "I felt betrayed."
Shipmate Bill Zaladonis was also offended by Kerry's claims. "I didn't like the idea [of Kerry condemning his fellow servicemen]," he told the Sun.
"I certainly didn't believe that all Vietnam veterans were baby-killing women rapers. Most people I know agree with me - they didn't see it."
While Wasser and Zaladonis remain troubled by Kerry's anti-war past, they're split over whether they intend to support him for president.
"I'm still studying it," Zaldonis told the Sun, while Wasser occasionally campaigns for the Massachusetts Democrat.

John Kerry: Further Left Than He Lets On By John Perazzo | February 17, 2004
When analysts look back on the moments that catapulted Sen. John Kerry to frontrunner status in his quest for the Democratic presidential nomination, they will acknowledge that one of the biggest turns of the campaign occurred on January 25. On that day, Kerry campaign strategists whisked Jim Rassmann from Florence, Oregon, straight to Iowa for an emotional, “surprise” public reunion with Kerry. As Rassmann’s fellow soldier in the Vietnam War, Kerry saved Rassmann’s life by dodging a hail of enemy gunfire to drag him out of a river and carry him to safety. As John Hurley, director of the Veterans for Kerry campaign, acknowledges, Rassmann’s appearance with Kerry gave the senator an enormous boost. “It was just thrilling to get [Rassmann’s] phone call out of the blue,” Hurley said. “Normally I’m a calm guy, but I was dancing and shrieking.”

Kerry has made frequent references to his military background, depicting himself as a proud American who served his nation honorably during the Vietnam War. However, what most people do not realize is when Kerry returned from combat, he became a key figure in the early-1970s, anti-American and pro-Hanoi movement personified by Jane Fonda. Like so many of those protesters, Kerry publicly maligned American soldiers, and went on to become a prominent organizer for one of America’s most radical appeasement groups, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). He developed close ties with celebrated activists like Fonda and Ramsey Clark, the radical Attorney General who served under President Lyndon Johnson. (Clark went on to head the pro-North Korean International Action Center.) Kerry also supported a document known as the “People’s Peace Treaty,” which was reportedly composed in Communist East Germany and contained nine points – all of them extracted from a list of Viet Cong conditions for ending the war. Read On

Old Crimson Interview Reveals A More Radical John Kerry The Crimson reported Kerry called for U.N. control of troops in 1970
Crimson Staff Writer
Ten months after returning home from Vietnam, a young John Kerry strolled into the offices of The Harvard Crimson on Feb. 13, 1970 as an obscure underdog in the Democratic Congressional primary.
The decorated veteran, honorably discharged after a tour of duty in the Mekong Delta, spoke in fierce terms during his daylong interview with The Crimson’s Samuel Z. Goldhaber ’72.
But almost 34 years later, Kerry’s remarks on American military and intelligence operations vastly diverge from opinions expressed by the present-day Sen. John F. Kerry, D.-Mass., the leading candidate in the Democratic primary for president.
“I’m an internationalist,” Kerry told The Crimson in 1970. “I’d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.”

Kerry said he wanted “to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care.”

The Kerry campaign, celebrating primary victories in Virginia and Tennessee last night, declined to comment on the senator’s remarks.
As a candidate for president, Kerry has said he supports the autonomy of the U.S. military and has never called for a scale-back of CIA operations.
Former Secretary of Labor Robert B. Reich defended Kerry’s 1970 statements as appropriate for their time.
“In the context of the Vietnam War, those comments are completely understandable,” said Reich, who has endorsed Kerry.
But a spokesperson for President Bush’s reelection campaign said Kerry’s 1970 remarks signaled the senator’s weakness on defense.
“President Bush will never cede the best interests of the national security of the American people to anybody but the president of the United States, along with the Congress,” said the spokesperson, Kevin A. Madden.
The increasingly likely matchup between Kerry and Bush has already prompted comparisons of the senator’s record in Vietnam and the president’s domestic service in the National Guard. And the two Yale graduates, both members of the secret society Skull and Bones, appeared set to square off in future months under the specter of the ongoing war in Iraq.
Goldhaber, whose first-person profile of Kerry ran in The Crimson Feb. 18, 1970, said yesterday he recalled the candidate as an emerging outsider whose campaign focused squarely on his opposition to the Vietnam War.
“We lived, dreamed and breathed Vietnam,” Goldhaber said.
Still, Adam Clymer ’58, political director of the National Annenberg Election Survey at the University of Pennsylvania, said Kerry’s comments would likely find their way into Bush campaign materials.
“If I were them, I’d use this,” said Clymer, a former Crimson president. “I’d use it in direct mail.”
Kerry’s conservative opponents have already begun painting the Massachusetts senator and former deputy governor as an elite, New England liberal, and his 21-year voting record in the Senate may provide considerable ammunition.
Madden said the Bush campaign would highlight Kerry’s Senate votes should he win the Democratic nomination.
And Reich forecasted G.O.P. research would extend far beyond Capitol Hill.
“If Kerry is the nominee, Republicans will try and search back into everything he ever said on every issue,” Reich predicted.
Kerry’s 1970 remarks to Goldhaber portray a fiery, novice politician inspired by his opposition to the Vietnam War.
“He struck me as very ambitious,” Goldhaber said yesterday. “He struck me as the sort of person—even back then, newly returned from Vietnam—who was thinking about running for president.”
—Staff writer Zachary M. Seward can be reached at

Posted: February 10, 2004
2:00 p.m. Eastern
Veterans, Vietnamese to oppose Kerry
© 2004
A Vietnam veterans organization and a Vietnamese-American group have united in opposition to Democratic presidential front-runner Sen. John Kerry.
"We represent hundreds of thousands of American veterans who do not want to see John Kerry anywhere near the Oval Office," said Ted Sampley, founder of Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry. Sampley is a U.S. Army Green Beret and veteran of two combat tours in Vietnam.
Said Sampley: "I have personally dealt with John Kerry on the issue of U.S. POWs left behind in Vietnam. Kerry is not truthful and is not worthy of the support of U.S. veterans. Many Vietnam vets have been duped into thinking Kerry is their friend. He is not. To us, he is 'Hanoi John.'"
Dan Tran is president of the Vietnam Human Rights Project and a member of Vietnamese Americans Against John Kerry.
"John Kerry aided and abetted the communist government in Hanoi and has hindered any human rights progress in Vietnam," Tran said.
Said the new coalition in a statement: "In the Senate, Kerry blocked the Vietnam human rights (and religious freedom) bill on behalf of Hanoi, while the Vietnamese Communists continue to wage a war of repression against the non-Communist Vietnamese and a war of genocide against our former allies the Montagnard ethnic minorities in the Central Highlands of Vietnam."
The coalition plans nationwide demonstrations against Kerry beginning with the New York and Massachusetts primaries.
Sampley's reference to Kerry as "Hanoi John" represents a campaign issue that could become a big problem for the Democrat. A photo on the Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry website shows anti-war activist Jane Fonda at a Valley Forge rally sitting a few feet ahead of Kerry.
Radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh features the photo on his website with the caption: "The picture Democrats have been hoping nobody had: John Kerry sitting behind Jane Fonda during an anti-war rally at Valley Forge, PA in September 1970."
Kerry has been roundly criticized for anti-war activities he participated in following his military service in Vietnam.
A proposed bumper sticker image that encapsulates the issue is making its away around the Internet. The sticker says, "Kerry-Fonda 2004" and includes the image of a Viet Cong flag.

Next Page

Readers Comments - click the link to view

To Leave Comments click here-Leave a Comment

The information on this page is of public record and not meant to infuriate but to inform, I take no side one way or the other just nothing but the facts jack-Ron Leonard

This page is growing so check back as I get the other details, they will be posted