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
UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
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
100/$100
"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
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
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | 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
By JODI WILGOREN
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...
VIETNAM VETERANS FOR ACADEMIC REFORM -
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
MAGRUDER ON INTERNATIONAL RADIO PROPOSES INVASIONS, DESTRUCTION OF MECCA IF TERRORISTS STRIKE AGAIN
EXPOSES MEDIA COVER-UP OF VIETNAM VETERAN CAMPAIGN AGAINST KERRY. OUTLINES OVERWHELMING BUSH STRENGTH OVER KERRY ON NATIONAL SECURITY.
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 (v-v-a-r.org) has been receiving thousands of hits in recent days, and whose articles are being reproduced on sites such as NewsMax.com and WinterSoldier.com, 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. Wintersoldier.com 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.
Conclusion:
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 strikeunilateral actionthe 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.
Magruder44@aol.com 785-312-9303 v-v-a-r.org
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 Opensecrets.org, 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
LifeNews.com Editor
March 12, 2004
Tampa, FL (LifeNews.com) -- 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 LifeNews.com 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 LifeNews.com 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.
LifeNews.com 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 - http://www.operationoutcry.org
"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 kranish@globe.com.
Kerry Says Credibility Not Damaged By Former Comrade's Lie
By Melanie Hunter
CNSNews.com Deputy Managing Editor
March 11, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - 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 CNSNews.com'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 CNSNews.com 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
FrontPageMagazine.com | 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
NewsMax.com 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. 'Waffler'
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
FrontPageMagazine.com | 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.
FORMER GREEN BERET TACKLES KERRY AGAIN!
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.