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
Monday, Feb. 9, 2004 1:45 p.m. EST
Kerry Photo Shocker: Candidate Teamed Up With 'Hanoi' Jane Fonda
The picture was removed because some asshole shut my site down because of it.
The picture can be viewed at
A photo seemingly showing Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry protesting the Vietnam War with anti-American actress "Hanoi Jane" Fonda - the photo Dems fear most - exists, and has been obtained by NewsMax.com.
Janes Radio Transcript- Read On
According to Jug Burkett, whose landmark Vietnam war history "Stolen Valor" chronicles some of Kerry's anti-war misadventures, Fonda played a key role at the Detroit event.
"There's no doubt that Jane Fonda financed the Winter Soldier hearings," Burkett told NewsMax on Monday.
He said that several of the witnesses who testified at the protest's "hearings" later turned out to be complete impostors.
The event prompted "Hanoi Jane" to "adopt" Kerry's group "as her leading cause," writes Brinkley. It was at Kerry's Winter Soldier protest that the anti-American actress met her future husband, Students for a Democratic Society radical Tom Hayden.
The next year Fonda was off to Hanoi, where she mounted an anti-aircraft battery and pretended to shoot down American pilots.
Of Kerry, Burkett told NewsMax, "Any Vietnam veteran who knows what Kerry did after he came home from Vietnam is definitely not a fan of John Kerry."
From Doonsberry 1971
After 35 years..nothin's changed
Kerry no hero in eyes of Vietnam-era veteran
By CHRISTOPHER WARD
Growing up in the 1950s, I was frequently exposed to the late-night discussions of my father and his friends, all of whom had served in World War II.
One of these men, Ed Fitzpatrick, served in the U.S. Coast Guard and was a launch driver during D-Day, delivering squads of U.S. boys to the beaches in France.
Rob Helb served as an Army Air Corps gunner and lost an arm over the oil fields of Turkey. After crashing, he asked a crew member to retrieve his bloodied and severed arm so he could remove from its wrist the gold watch his father had given him.
My dad, at 17, joined the Navy and served in the Pacific. Enlisting in mid 1943, he arrived in the islands as the war was ending and served in the supply section for the duration, rather than as an aviation gunner's mate, for which he was trained.
I often sat at the bottom of the stairs to my attic room late at night, listening (which was against the rules) to their stories as they sat around the kitchen table, drank beer and laughed about a lot of things I was still too young to understand.
These men respected each other, and no matter the circumstances of their service, each was considered a brother veteran; each was a member of what is now sometimes called the "Greatest Generation."
In 1970, during the Vietnam War, I enlisted in the Navy to do my part, as I believed was my duty. I assumed I would someday sit late at night around a kitchen table, recalling my experiences with my veteran friends as had my father.
But Vietnam was not WWII, and the vets who served during the '60s and the '70s drew -- and still draw -- a distinction between those who saw combat in Vietnam and those who did service elsewhere. Ours was a band of brothers divided.
I spent four years in Europe as an enlisted man working in signals intelligence. Those who served with me, and thousands of others who never saw combat, almost always refer to themselves as "Vietnam-era veterans," rather than Vietnam vets.
We draw a distinction between those who actually saw combat and those who served in other roles, and unlike our fathers, who thought all vets equal, we believe the title "Vietnam veteran" belongs only to those who saw service in the war zone.
But all those who served during the Vietnam years hold clear that each of us did our job and had, for the most part, no control over what position we were given or where we were stationed. Each who did serve is special and a brother veteran.
For this reason I find it difficult to understand why Sen. John Kerry's campaign is attempting to belittle the service of President Bush during the Vietnam conflict.
We all know the differences. Bush was a pilot in the National Guard; Kerry was a combat veteran. The Boston Globe recently pointed out that Kerry, in less than two months of combat, received the Silver Star and three Purple Hearts, which made him a hero and allowed him to request early termination of his combat duty.
But what happened next bothers me. According to the Globe, Kerry became involved in the anti-war movement upon his return, and asked for and received an early discharge from the Navy so he could continue those efforts.
How could Kerry so easily abandon his comrades in Vietnam, and then, 30 years on, call on those same men and women to back his presidential ambition?
Kerry now holds himself up as a war hero and asks for my vote. Yet, 30 years ago he stood with Jane Fonda and gave aid and comfort to an enemy still killing our brother veterans by the hundreds.
Bush's honorable service in the National Guard bothers me less than Kerry's abandonment of his brothers, his switching sides and his active contribution to an enemy's efforts to kill Americans.
Time often softens the dark edges of military service, leaving grown men the ability to sit around a kitchen table late at night to laugh about the exploits that left them less than whole. But the dramatic difference between Hero Kerry and Hanoi Kerry leave me to wonder who he might next abandon, and at what cost to America.
John (''Benedict'') Kerry
Posted by John Armor
Monday, February 09, 2004
We begin with what this column does not charge. I do not question John Kerry's patriotism. I do strongly question both his intelligence and his ethics. There are many aspects of John Kerry's career which should be reviewed during his campaign for President. I've previously covered my personal knowledge of him. Here, I’ll skip all other questions except his capacities as a military officer then, and his capacity to be the commander in chief today.
To understand the two sides of this modern citizen-soldier, it’s worthwhile to reexamine the two sides of the career of General Benedict Arnold.
The Battle of Saratoga was not a single battle at a single place, but a series of engagements at different places over several days. Major General Benedict Arnold played a critical role in two of those. In the first, he led 1,000 militia who stopped the advance of General Burgoyne's second column along the Mohawk River. He returned by October 7, 1777, to the Hudson River site of the main battle against General Burgoyne. Arnold led the assault against the redoubt held by German soldiers, broke the British lines, and was seriously wounded in the leg.
Burgoyne retreated. Days later, surrounded, outnumbered, and cut off from supplies or reinforcement, Burgoyne surrendered. This was a critical battle that saved the American Revolution. Had Burgoyne succeeded in driving south to New York City (held by the British), he would have split both the state and the nation, trapping the American armies in New England. As the website www.americanrevolution.com correctly says, ''Had he died there [of his wound], posterity would have known few names brighter than that of Benedict Arnold.''
At the Saratoga National Historic Park there’s a monument that displays only a boot. It is a memorial to the bravery and skill of Arnold in that battle, and of the injuries he suffered in his final, successful assault against the center of the British lines.
Two years later, General Arnold married a woman who was a British sympathizer, and he was placed in command of Philadelphia, where he came in contact with some wealthy families who favored the British. He'd had many quarrels with subordinates and superiors and he'd developed a taste for luxuries he could not afford. He was slated to take command of the garrison at West Point on the Hudson. He contacted the British about betraying that garrison in return for a substantial cash payment and rank and pay in the British military. His British contact was Major John Andre.
Andre went behind American lines in civilian clothes to complete the negotiations with Arnold. On his return toward British lines, Andre was captured by two American soldiers who questioned and searched him. They found documents outlining Arnold's planned treachery. Andre was tried by a military tribunal before General Washington. (This was the first American instance of such trials under the Law of War. Similar trials have been conducted in most American wars, and the latest of these are about to take place in Guantanamo, Cuba.) Andre was convicted, and sentenced to hang. Washington offered to free Andre in exchange for Arnold, who had fled to British lines. The British refused that offer. Andre was hanged. Benedict Arnold escaped to Britain, and his name entered the English language as a synonym for ''traitor.''
Had Arnold succeeded in betraying the garrison at West Point, the Hudson River would have been opened for a British attack from the south. That might have accomplished the same destruction of the American cause as Burgoyne's attack from the north had threatened two years before.
Although most Americans today know that Arnold was a traitor, his attempted betrayal took nothing away from his real achievements in the Battle of Saratoga, that saved the Revolution from defeat.
We turn now to the military changes of heart of Lt. John Kerry between his service in Vietnam and his later actions as a civilian. His later actions do not meet the constitutional definition of treason, and I make no suggestion to the contrary. They DO raise serious questions about his intelligence and integrity.
On 23 April, 1971, John Kerry testified under oath before Congress that Americans in Vietnam 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, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.” Before his testimony was over, he said, ''We all did it.'' Read On
John Kerry's Resume for Commander and Chief and Defender of the Working Man: Protest with Jane Fonda, Accuse the American Military of War Crimes, and Marry Two Women with Inherited Fortunes? Bring it On!
By George F. Holland
Feb 8, 2004, 21:09
Every time the Democrats place all their intellectual resources behind a "winning" strategy they ultimately find themselves on ice so thin that the heat from a single candle can melt the ice beneath their feet. Today's democratic strategy is to base John F. Kerry's eventual candidacy on the strength of his war record and his defense of the working class. Howard Dean had not even finished the last note of his infamous screech before this strategy was embraced by almost every liberal constituency of the Democratic Party. These constituencies are now led by career operatives at the DNC, actors in Hollywood whose careers are on the decline, and a parade of failed Democratic candidates who now have time for party activities since they have nothing better to do. I think this strategy will ultimately fail since John Kerry's congressional record and life after Vietnam does not show he has the wisdom required to defend our country or any possible connection to the working man.
Claim Number One in the Kerry Campaign: John Kerry is eminently qualified to be Commander in Chief of our military and to lead the war against terrorism because of his service as a courageous young soldier in the 1960's. No one can dispute that John Kerry volunteered to go into military service and won several medals during his time in the Vietnam War. John Kerry's courage as a young man in the jungles of Vietnam will forever deserve the gratitude and admiration of our nation. However, courage as a young soldier does not automatically translate into wisdom as an older politician. Let us examine how John Kerry translated his youthful combat experience into further service to his country. Read On
Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Prisoners of War and Missing in Action
From:John F. McCreary
Subject:Legal Misconduct and Possible Malpractice in the Select Committee
1. As a member of the Virginia State Bar, I am obliged by Disciplinary Rule DR-1-103(a) to report knowledge of misconduct by an attorney "to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violations." Under Rule IV, Paragraph 13, of the Rules for the integration of the Virginia State Bar, this obligation follows me as a member of the Bar, regardless of the location of my employment, for as long as I remain a member of the Virginia State Bar. Therefore, I am obliged, as a matter of law and under pain of discipline by the Virginia State Bar, to report to you my knowledge of misconduct and possible prima facie malpractice by attorneys on the Select Committee in ordering the destruction of Staff documents containing Staff intelligence findings on 9 April 1992 and in statements in meetings on 15 and 16 April to justify the destruction.
2. The attached Memoranda For the Record, one by myself and another by Mr. Jon D. Holstine, describe the relevant facts, which I summarize herein:
a. On 9 April 1992, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts, in response to a protest by other members of the Select Committee, told the Select Committee members that "all copies" would be destroyed. This statement was made in the presence of the undersigned and of the Staff Chief Counsel who offered no protest.
b. Later on 9 April 1992, the Staff Director, Frances Zwenig, an attorney, repeated and insured the execution of Senator Kerry's order for the destruction of the Staff intelligence briefing text. I personally delivered to Mr. Barry Valentine, the Security Manager for SRB-78, the original printed version of the intelligence briefing text.
I also verified that the original was destroyed by shredding in the Office of Senate Security on 10 April 1992, along with 14 copies.
c. On 15 April 1992, the Staff Chief Counsel, J. William Codinha of Massachusetts, when advised by members if the Staff about their concerns over the possible criminal consequences of destroying documents, minimized the significance of the act of destruction; ridiculed the Staff members for expressing their concerns; and replied, in response to questions about the potential consequences, "Who's the injured party," and "How are they going to find out because its classified." Mr. Codinha repeatedly defended the destruction of the documents and gave no assurances or indications that any copies of the intelligence briefing text existed.
d. On 16 April, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, Senator John Kerry, stated that he gave the order to destroy "extraneous copies of the documents" and that no one objected. Moreover, he stated that the issue was "moot" because the original remained in the Office of Senate Security "all along."
e. I subsequently learned that the Staff Director had deposited a copy of the intelligence briefing text in the Office of Senate Security at 1307 on 16 April.
3. The foregoing facts establish potentially a prima facie violation of criminal law and a pattern of violations of legal ethics by attorneys in acts of commission and omission.
a. It is hornbook law that an attorney may not direct the commission of a crime. In this incident two attorneys, one by his own admission, ordered the destruction of documents, which could be violation of criminal law.
b. Neither the Staff Chief Counsel nor any member of the Select Committee made a protest or uttered words of caution against the destruction of documents, by admission of the Chairman, Senator Kerry. The Chief Counsel has an affirmative duty to advise the Staff about the legality of its actions, and, in fact, had earlier issued the general prohibition to the Staff against document destruction.
c. The Chief Counsel's statements during the 15 April meeting to discuss the document destruction showed no regard for the legality of the action and displayed to the Staff only a concern about getting caught. By his words and actions, he presented to the Staff investigators an interpretation of the confidentiality and security
rules that the rules of the Select Committee may be used to cover-up potentially unethical or illegal activity.
d. The Staff Director's action in placing an unaccounted for copy of the intelligence briefing text in the Office of Senate Security on 16 April constitutes an act to cover-up the destruction. Throughout the 16 April meeting, all three attorneys persisted in stating that the document had been on file since 9 April. This is simply not true.
4. I believe that the foregoing facts establish a pattern of grave legal misconduct - possibly including orders to commit a crime, followed by acts to justify and then to cover-up that crime. Even absent criminal liability, the behavioral pattern of the attorneys involved plays fast and loose with the Canons of Legal Ethics and
establishes that one or more of the attorneys on the Select Committee are unfit to practice law. I am obliged to recommend that this report be filed with the appropriate disciplinary authorities of the State Bars in which these attorneys are members.
John F. McCreary, Esquire
October 30, 1992
Memorandum for the Record
From: John F. McCreary
Subject: Obstruction of the Investigation
1. I am concerned that recent lines of investigation have been seriously compromised by leaks of sensitive information by the Committee Staff Director to the Department of Defense. Leaks to the Department of Defense or other agencies of the Executive Branch of my Memoranda for the Record are interfering with follow-up discussions with useful witnesses. Moreover, they are endangering the lives and livelihood of
Leak of Information on Jan Sejna
2. Irrespective of leaks outside the government, Bill LeGro, attended a meeting of the US-Russia Joint Commission group in Washington on 28 October 1992 at the Department of State. The discussion featured information provided by Sejna. LeGro stated that Ambassador Malcolm Toon called for his dismissal. DIA personnel defended Sejna as to his expertise on Central Europe, but not as to his information on other
areas, particularly POW related.
4. On 30 October 1992, I learned from Bill LeGro that he was directed to read a letter from the Central Intelligence Agency to the Select Committee that discredits Sejna's information. The letter reportedly indicates that Sejna's information has been checked and not been confirmed by his former government. At the time this letter was received, the Staff had decided to take Sejna's deposition but had not yet scheduled a deposition of Sejna. In addition, my MFR was written from memory, and did not do justice to all that Sejna stated, either in detail or in context. As of this writing, we do not know what Sejna knows or will say under oath, yet his testimony has already been written off. This anticipatory discrediting of a Select Committee potential witness is tantamount to tampering with the evidence.
Suspected Leak of Information on Le Quang Khai
5. The second issue of suspected misconduct concerns witness Le Quang Khai. Although Le made a public statement concerning POWs on 12 September 1992, no agency of the US government contacted him concerning his POW information. He told me on 26 October that some men who represented themselves as FBI agents contacted him to attempts to recruit him to return to Vietnam as a US intelligence agent for six months. After which his request for asylum would be favorably considered.
6. On 30 October, Mr. Robert Egan of Hackensack, New Jersey, who is a close friend of Mr. Le and the intermediary whereby the Committee Staff met Mr. Le, informed McCreary and LeGro that the FBI had again contacted Mr. Le. A person representing himself as an FBI person called on 30 October to set up a meeting with Le to discuss Le's working as an intelligence agent for the FBI's POW/MIA office.
7. So far informal checks indicate there is no such office. Secondly, this contact occurred three days after my return from taking Le's deposition in Hackensack on 26 October. I observed a copy of the MFR with apparent routing designators written in the top margin on the desk of Frances Zwenig on 28 October.
8. The contact with Le two days after preparation of my MFR, despite the passage of a month since his public declarations, is highly suspicious and more than coincidental. The circumstances of both contacts in which persons identifying themselves as FBI without showing credentials or other evidence of authenticity or authority and also making a pitch to recruit Le are also highly suspicious.
9. An internal Department of Defense Memorandum identifies Frances Zwenig as the conduit to the Department of Defense for the acquisition of sensitive and restricted information from this Committee. Based on the above sequences of events, I must conclude that Frances Zwenig continues to leak all of my papers to the Defense Department. Her flagrant disregard of the rules of the Senate and her oath of office are now
jeopardizing the livelihood, if not the safety, of Senate witnesses. In addition, the Department of Defense's continuing access to sensitive Committee Staff papers is resulting in obstruction of the investigations by the Senate Select Committee by various agencies of the Executive Branch.
John F. McCreary
May 3, 1992
Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Prisoners of War and Missing in Action
From:John F. McCreary
Possible Violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, by the Select Committee and Possible Ethical Misconduct by Staff Attorneys.
1. Continuing analysis of relevant laws and further review of the events between 8 April and 16 April 1992 connected with the destruction of the Investigators' Intelligence Briefing Text strongly indicate that the order to destroy all copies of that briefing text on 9 April and the actual destruction of copies of the briefing texts plus
the purging of computer files might constitute violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, which imposes criminal penalties for unlawful document destruction. Even absent a finding of criminal misconduct, statements, actions, and failures to act by the senior Staff attorneys following the 9 April briefing might constitute serious breaches of ethical standards of conduct for attorneys, in addition to violations of Senate and Select Committee rules. The potential consequences of these possible misdeeds are such that they should be brought to the attention of all members of the Select Committee, plus all Designees and Staff members who were present at the 9 April briefing.
2. The relevant section of Title 18, U.S.C., states in pertinent part: Section 2071. Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally (a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than three years, or both. (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 795)
3. The facts as the undersigned and others present at the briefing recall them are presented in the attached Memorandum for the Record. A summary of those facts - and others that have been established since that Memorandum was written - follows.
a. On 8 April 1992, the Investigators' Intelligence Briefing Text was presented to Senior Staff members and Designees for whom copies were available prior to beginning the briefing. Objections to the text by the Designees prompted the Staff Director to order all persons present to leave their copies of the briefing text in Room SRB078. Subsequent events indicated that two copies had been removed without authorization.
b. On 9 April 1992, at the beginning of the meeting of the Select Committee and prior to the scheduled investigators' briefing, Senator McCain produced a copy of the intelligence briefing text, with whose contents he strongly disagreed. He charged that the briefing text had already been leaked to a POW/MIA activist, but was reassured by the Chairman that such was not the case. He replied that he was certain it would be leaked. Whereupon, the Chairman assured Senator McCain that there would be no leaks because all copies would be gathered and destroyed, and he gave orders to that effect. No senior staff member or attorney present cautioned against a possible violation of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, or of Senate or Select Committee Rules.
c. Following the briefing on 9 April, the Staff Director, Ms. Frances Zwenig, restated to the intelligence investigators the order to destroy the intelligence briefing text and took measures to ensure execution of the destruction order. (See paragraph 3 of the attachment.) During one telephone conversation with the undersigned, she stated that she was "acting under orders."
d. The undersigned also was instructed to delete all computer files, which Mr. Barry Valentine witnessed on 9 April.
e. In a meeting on 15 April 1992, the Staff's Chief Counsel, J. William Codinha, was advised by intelligence investigators of their concerns about the possibility that they had committed a crime by participating in the destruction of the briefing text. Mr. Codinha minimized the significance of the documents and of their destruction. He admonished the investigators for "making a mountain out of a molehill."
f. When investigators repeated their concern that the order to destroy the documents might lead to criminal charges, Mr. Codinha replied "Who's the injured party." He was told, "The 2,494 families of the unaccounted for US Servicemen, among others." Mr. Codinha then said, "Who's gonna tell them. It's classified." At that point the meeting erupted. The undersigned stated that the measure of merit was the law and what's right, not avoidance of getting caught. To which Mr. Codinha made no reply. At no time during the meeting did Mr. Codinha give any indication that any copies of the intelligence briefing text existed.
g. Investigators, thereupon, repeatedly requested actions by the Committee to clear them of any wrongdoing, such as provision of legal counsel. Mr. codinha admitted that he was not familiar with the law and promised to look into it. He invited a memorandum from the investigators stating what they wanted. Given Mr. Codinha's
statements and reactions to the possibility of criminal liability, the investigators concluded they must request appointment of an independent counsel. A memorandum making such a request and signed by all six intelligence investigators was delivered to Mr. Codinha on 16 April.
h. At 2130 on 16 April, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee, convened a meeting with the intelligence investigators, who told him personally of their concern that they might have committed a crime by participating in the destruction of the briefing texts at the order of the Staff Director. Senator Kerry stated that he gave the order to destroy the documents, not the Staff Director, and that none of the Senators present at the meeting had objected. He also stated that the issue of document destruction was "moot" because the original briefing text had been deposited with the Office of Senate Security "all along." Both the Staff Director and the Chief Counsel supported this assertion by the Chairman.
i. Senator Kerry's remarks prompted follow-up investigations (See paragraphs 4 through 9 of the attachment) and inquiries that established that a copy of the text was not deposited in the Office of Senate Security until the afternoon of 16 April. The Staff Director has admitted that on the afternoon of 16 April, after receiving a copy of a memorandum from Senator Bob Smith to Senator Kerry in which Senator Smith outlined his concerns about the destruction of documents, she obtained a copy of the intelligence briefing text from the office of Senator McCain and took it to the Office of Senate Security. Office of Senate Security personnel confirmed that the Staff Director gave them an envelope, marked "Eyes Only," to be placed in her personal file. The Staff Director has admitted that the envelope contained the copy of the intelligence briefing text that she obtained from the
office of Senator McCain.
3. The facts of the destruction of the intelligence briefing text would seem to fall inside the prescriptions of the Statute, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 2071, so as to justify their referral for investigation to a competent law enforcement authority. The applicability of that Statute was debated in United States v. Poindexter, D.D.C.
1989, 725 F. Supp. 13, in connection with the Iran Contra investigation. The District Court ruled, inter alia, that the National Security Council is a public office within the meaning of the Statute and, thus, that its records and documents fell within the protection of the Statute. In light of that ruling, the Statute would seem to apply to this Senate Select Committee and its Staff. The continued existence of a "bootleg" copy of the intelligence briefing text - i.e., a copy that is not one of those made by the investigators for the purpose of briefing the Select
Committee - would seem to be irrelevant to the issues of intent to destroy and willfulness; as well as to the issue of responsibility for the order to destroy all copies of the briefing text, for the attempt to carry out that order, and for the destruction that actually was accomplished in execution of that order.
4. As for the issue of misconduct by Staff attorneys, all member of the Bar swear to uphold the law. That oath may be violated by acts of omission and commission. Even without a violation of the Federal criminal statute, the actions and failures to act by senior Staff attorneys in the sequence of events connected with the destruction of the briefing text might constitute violations of ethical standards for members of the Bar and of both Senate and Select Committee rules. The statements, actions and failures to act during and after the meeting on 15 April, when the investigators gave notice of their concern about possible criminal liability for document destruction, would seem to reflect disregard for the law and for the rules of the United States
John F. McCreary
Kerry's Special Friends
New York Times
By DAVID BROOKS
Published: February 7, 2004
John Kerry has been railing against the special interests, and I don't think that's very nice because it implies that some people's interests are not so special. I like to think that everybody's interests are special in their own way.
What's more, I think Kerry knows this, because if you look over his long career, you see that he loves all our interests, big and small, near or far. For example, a Chinese businesswoman named Liu Chaoying dreamed of having her company listed on a U.S. stock exchange. That's certainly a special dream.
Maybe as a little girl she would come home from school, gather up her little dollies and tell them about her dream of ringing the bell to start the trading day, or of having little Lucite tombstones on her desk to mark her mergers and acquisitions. Maybe some of the other little girls in school told her she'd never have a company on a U.S. exchange, because you know how cruel little kids can be.
But she had an interest, and to her it was the most specialest interest in the world. And she kept at it. And that cute little girl grew up to become a lieutenant colonel in China's People's Liberation Army, which is a very special army, even measured against the armies of other human rights-violating dictatorships. And what's more, she had a $300,000 bank account with funds supplied by the head of Chinese intelligence, which is certainly quite special indeed.
And Liu came to America in search of her dream, for this is the nation of dreams. And she went to see a most special man named Johnny Chung. And in July 1996, according to Newsweek, Chung took Liu to see his special friend John Kerry about her dream, and Kerry recognized its specialness. So his aides faxed over a letter to the S.E.C. about the dream, and the very next day Liu and Chung had a private briefing with a senior S.E.C. official about making her special dream come true.
And then a few weeks after that, Johnny Chung threw a fund-raiser for John Kerry in Beverly Hills. And John Kerry came away with $10,000 in contributions, and I like to think they were very special contributions. I like to think they were written on special designer checks, maybe with rainbows or kittens or Chinese long-range missile designs shaded on the back, because special dreams deserve special checks, and when a man as special as John Kerry takes up an interest, I think that makes it a special interest all by itself.
Liu Chaoying's interest was not the only interest John Kerry took a special interest in. According to The Associated Press, Kerry took a special interest in the insurance giant American International Group. When Senator John McCain proposed legislation that would have ended a federal contracting loophole benefiting A.I.G., Kerry did not look away, as others might have done. A loophole may not seem like much to you and me, but to A.I.G. it was a very special loophole the cuddly kind of loophole you can hold under the blankets and tell your secrets to late at night. And according to The A.P., John Kerry preserved the little loophole. And by
sheer coincidence, A.I.G. donated $30,000 to help start Kerry's presidential campaign.
While sitting on the commerce and finance committees, John Kerry has seen many interests, and you could forgive him if he didn't think they were all special. But Kerry has raised more money from Washington lobbyists than any other senator. He's raised over $30 million over the past nine years, and you just ask the folks in the telecom industry if he doesn't make them feel special.
You just ask David Paul, one of the big figures in the savings and loan scandal, if Kerry didn't make him feel special. You just ask the high-tech executive Bob Majumder how special Kerry made him feel, at least until Majumder was charged with 40 counts of conspiracy, witness tampering, fraud, tax evasion and illegal campaign contributions. You just ask the law firms, the brokerage houses, the oil companies, the H.M.O.'s and the drug companies, which have donated tens of thousands of dollars to Kerry.
Oh, he sometimes pretends that he doesn't care about our special interests. He puts on that callous populist facade. But deep down he cares. Maybe he cares too much. When he's out on the stump saying otherwise, he's just being a big old phony.
Boston Globe Kerry Article -February 02, 2004, Gives insight into Kerry campaign tactics:
AS CAMPAIGN HEATS UP, VETERANS TAKING SIDES
February 04, 2004, 8:37 a.m.
John Kerry’s America,What he said about us.
By William F. Buckley Jr.
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the text of William F. Buckley Jr.'s June 8, 1971, commencement address to the United States Military Academy at West Point. The speech appears here as it is in Let Us Talk of Many Things : The Collected Speeches.
The morale in the armed services was low, reflecting the impasse and progressive demoralization in Vietnam, and especially the trial of Lieutenant William Calley for the massacre at Mylai. A drastic charge, flamboyantly made by decorated veteran John Kerry (now a United States senator from Massachusetts), had been rapturously received. Kerry ascribed to our soldiers in Vietnam uncivilized, barbarous practices. I devoted my talk to asking about Mr. Kerry's charges and reflecting on their implications.
A great deal has been written lately on the spirit of progressivism at West Point. I note that a generation ago, cadets were not permitted to read a newspaper, whereas today, each cadet room receives a daily copy of the New York Times. I know now what it means to be nostalgic for the good old days.
I read ten days ago the full text of the quite remarkable address delivered by John Kerry before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. It was an address, I am told, that paralyzed the committee by its eloquence and made Mr. Kerry — a veteran of the war in Vietnam, a pedigreed Bostonian, a graduate of Yale University — an instant hero.
After reading it I put it aside, deeply troubled as I was by the haunting resonance of its peroration, which so moved the audience. The words he spoke were these:
"[We are determined] to undertake one last mission, to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more, so that when, thirty years from now, our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say 'Vietnam!' and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but the place where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning."
"Where America finally turned." We need to wonder: where America finally turned from what?
Mr. Kerry, in introducing himself to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, made it plain that he was there to speak not only for himself, but for what he called "a very much larger group of veterans in this country." He then proceeded to describe the America he knows, the America from which he enjoined us all to turn.
In Southeast Asia, he said, he saw "not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
A grave charge, but the sensitive listener will instantly assume that Mr. Kerry is using the word "crime" loosely, as in, "He was criminally thoughtless in not writing home more often to his mother." But Mr. Kerry quickly interdicted that line of retreat. He went on to enumerate precisely such crimes as are being committed "on a day-to-day basis, with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." He gave tales of torture, of rape, of Americans who "randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a 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 ravages of war."
Mr. Kerry informed Congress that what threatens the United States is "not Reds, and not redcoats," but "the crimes" we are committing. He tells us that we have "created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who have returned with a sense of anger."
Most specifically he singled out for criticism a sentence uttered by Mr. Agnew here at West Point a year ago: "Some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse." Mr. Kerry insists that the so-called misfits are the true heroes, inasmuch as it was they who "were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dared to." As for the men in Vietnam, he added, "we cannot consider ourselves America's 'best men' when we are ashamed of and hated for what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia."
And indeed, if American soldiers have been called upon to rape and to torture and to exterminate non-combatants, it is obvious that they should be ashamed, less obvious why they have not expressed that shame more widely on returning to the United States, particularly inasmuch as we have been assured by Mr. Kerry that they have been taught to deal and to trade in violence.
Are there extenuating circumstances? Is there a reason for our being in Vietnam?
"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 . . . the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart." It is then, we reason retrospectively, not alone an act of hypocrisy that caused the joint chiefs of staff and the heads of the civilian departments engaged in strategic calculations to make the recommendations they made over the past ten years, to three Presidents of the United States: it was not merely hypocrisy, but criminal hypocrisy. The nature of that hypocrisy? "All," Mr. Kerry sums up, "that we were told about the mystical war against Communism."
The indictment is complete.
It is the indictment of an ignorant young man who is willing to condemn in words that would have been appropriately used in Nuremberg the governing class of America: the legislators, the generals, the statesmen. And, reaching beyond them, the people, who named the governors to their positions of responsibility and ratified their decisions in several elections.
The point I want to raise is this: If America is everything that John Kerry says it is, what is it appropriate for us to do? The wells of regeneration are infinitely deep, but the stain described by John Kerry goes too deep to be bleached out by conventional remorse or resolution: better the destruction of America, if, to see ourselves truly, we need to look into the mirror John Kerry holds up for us. If we are a nation of sadists, of kid-killers and torturers, of hypocrites and criminals, let us be done with it, and pray that a great flood or fire will destroy us, leaving John Kerry and maybe Mrs. Benjamin Spock to take the place of Lot, in reseeding a new order.
Gentleman, how many times, in the days ahead, you will need to ask yourselves the most searching question of all, the counterpart of the priest's most agonizing doubt: Is there a God? Yours will be: Is America worth it?
John Kerry's assault on this country did not rise fullblown in his mind, like Venus from the Cypriot Sea. It is the crystallization of an assault upon America which has been fostered over the years by an intellectual class given over to self-doubt and self-hatred, driven by a cultural disgust with the uses to which so many people put their freedom. The assault on the military, the many and subtle vibrations of which you feel as keenly as James Baldwin knows the inflections of racism, is an assault on the proposition that what we have, in America, is truly worth defending. The military is to be loved or despised according as it defends that which is beloved or perpetuates that which is despised. The root question has not risen to such a level of respectability as to work itself into the platform of a national political party, but it lurks in the rhetoric of the John Kerrys, such that a blind man, running his fingers over the features of the public rhetoric, can discern the meaning of it:
Is America worth it?
That is what they are saying to you. And that is what so many Americans reacted to in the case of Lieutenant Calley. Mistakenly, they interpreted the conviction of Calley as yet another effort to discredit the military. And though they will not say it in as many words, they know that if there is no military, it will quickly follow that there will be no America, of the kind that they know, that we know. The America that listens so patiently to its John Kerrys, the America that shouldered the great burden of preserving oases of freedom after the great curtain came down with that Bolshevik subtlety that finally expressed itself in a Wall, to block citizens of the socialist utopia from leaving, en route even to John Kerry's America; the America that all but sank under the general obloquy, in order to stand by, in Southeast Asia, a commitment it had soberly made, to the cause of Containment — I shall listen patiently, decades hence, to those who argue that our commitment in Vietnam and our attempt to redeem it were tragically misconceived. I shall not listen to those who say that it was less than the highest tribute to national motivation, to collective idealism, and to international rectitude. I say this with confidence because I have never met an American who takes pleasure from the Vietnam War or who desires to exploit the Vietnamese.
So during those moments when doubt will assail you, moments that will come as surely as the temptations of the flesh, I hope you will pause. I know, I know, at the most hectic moments of one's life it isn't easy — indeed, the argument can be made that neither is it seemly — to withdraw from the front line in order to consider the general situation philosophically. But what I hope you will consider, during these moments of doubt, is the essential professional point: Without organized force, and the threat of the use of it under certain circumstances, there is no freedom, anywhere. Without freedom, there is no true humanity. If America is the monster of John Kerry, burn your commissions tomorrow morning and take others, which will not bind you in the depraved conspiracy you have heard described. If it is otherwise, remember: the freedom John Kerry enjoys, and the freedom I enjoy, are, quite simply, the result of your dedication. Do you wonder that I accepted the opportunity to salute you?
Kerry Angry at Bush for Making Vietnam an Issue
Wednesday, Feb. 4, 2004 11:26 a.m. EST
Sen. John Kerry and his media boosters are hoping bogus allegations that President Bush went AWOL from the National Guard will catapult him into the White House - but during the 1992 presidential campaign, Kerry angrily denounced Bush's father for raising Bill Clinton's Vietnam draft record.
In fact, back then, Kerry called those who wanted to make Vietnam service an issue "cowardly."
"I'm here personally to express my anger, as a veteran," Kerry told National Public Radio two months before the 1992 election, "that a president who would stand before this nation in his inaugural address and promise to put Vietnam behind us is now breaking yet another promise and trying to use Vietnam and service in order to get himself re-elected."
"That is not an act of leadership, that is an act of shame and cowardice," the Massachusetts Democrat railed.
In words that could now apply to his own presidential campaign, Kerry complained to reporters a month later that White House charges suggesting Clinton had gone AWOL from the draft were an ugly smear.
"It is a sad day when the president of the United States is willing to sully another man's reputation and challenge his patriotism merely to get elected," the current Democratic front-runner groused.
Tuesday night, Kerry pulled a 180-degree about-face on the issue of using a candidate's Vietnam-era military record, telling Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes," "There is an issue about what [Bush's] service was - and I don't know the answers."
Saying he would defend Bush's decision to enlist in the Guard, Kerry rattled off a long list of Vietnam-era options that lumped Guard service in with draft-dodging.
"I've never made any judgments about any choice somebody made about avoiding the draft, about going to Canada, going to jail, being a conscientious objector [or] going into the National Guard," he told Sean Hannity. "Those are choices people make."
Kerry's $3.95 Book a $500 Hit
In the unlikely event that you snapped up copies of John "F." Kerry's book "The New Soldier" in 1971, you could make a huge profit today.
NewsMax's investigative report about Sen. Kerry's unusual past sparked a huge response from readers this week. Although we already had posted one, many sent pictures of the hard-to-find book, which features a cover photo of anti-war protesters desecrating the U.S. flag. Kerry tried to suppress copies of the book when he ran for the U.S. House in 1972.
Many readers also told of auction sites selling the embarrassing volume (cover price: $3.95) for hundreds of dollars. As of Friday afternoon, we found that eBay had one copy going for $255 and one signed by the esteemed author for $500.
Amazon lists the book but not the price. A reviewer from Boston gave it one star out of five and wrote: "The upside down flag on the cover of the book symbolizes the Left's feelings for America and the Constitution of the United States. This book reveals a different side of John Kerry, a side everyone should know before they go to the polls.
"However, the book is good to read if you would like to get into the early mind of the New Left, and contemporary radicals, who are disgusted by 'the Bush Doctrine.'"
Amazon notes: "Customers who bought titles by John Kerry also bought titles by these authors: Wesley K. Clark, Stephen E. Lambert, Douglas Brinkley, Howard Dean, Richard Gephardt."
Amazon's sales ranking of the tome: 1,513,725. The company offers a helpful link to publishers and authors on how to "improve your sales," but even though Kerry had to mortgage his mansion to finance his campaign, we doubt he'll take this advice.
Letters to the Editor
December 6, 2002
John Kerry's war record As Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat,Considers a bid for the White House, Americans should know a few things about him that he might prefer go unmentioned; and I don't mean his $75
By Lowell Ponte
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 27, 2004
WILL COMMUNIST VIETNAM BE AMONG THE BIGGEST behind-the-scenes bankrollers of the Democratic National Convention this July 26-29 in Boston? It already has been, via a de facto intermediary, thanks to the Massachusetts boy and friend of Hanoi now likely to be nominated there as the Democrats’ presidential standard-bearer.
Senator John F. Kerry has a long political career, distinguished by his willingness to go farther Left in politics and lower for money than most other American politicians would dream of going. He has been largely unnoticed outside the liberal Northeast and the approving pages of leftist magazines and newspapers.
Read On This is a shocker!
A POW Speaks Out On Kerry
by Joe Crecca
29 Jan 04
The rigors and hardships of being a POW aside, I remember the so called "Peace Movement" and "Peace Marches" and "Rallies" that were taking placeback home in the U.S.A. Our captors were more than willing, within their means, to provide us with any and all anti-U.S. and anti-Vietnam War propaganda. Without a choice in the matter, we listened to the "Voice of Vietnam" broadcasts by "Hanoi Hannah" and were shown newspaper and magazine photos and articles about those opposing the war back in the States.
One of the peace marchers' standard slogans was to, "Bring our boys home now and, alive." The warped thinking of such people was that by demonstrating against U.S. involvement in Vietnam, they'd be shortening the war and reducing the number of American casualties. These demonstrators would also try to make one believe that their efforts would bring POWs like me home sooner. They were utterly wrong on both counts not to mention the detrimental effect their actions had on the morale of our troops and our POWs.
John F. Kerry was not just one of these demonstrators. He was leading them.
Therefore, these so-called demonstrations for peace had the exact opposite effect of what they were purporting to accomplish. Instead of shortening the war, the so-called "Peace Movement" served only to protract the conflict resulting in a vastly greater number of Americans killed and wounded, greater economic burdens and longer periods of incarceration for Americans held captive in Vietnam. The war would have been over much sooner and with a much more favorable result if those in the so-called "Peace Movement" would
have instead rallied behind the Commander-in-Chief to accomplish our mission and then, withdraw.
It is inescapable to think of the so-called peace movement and the anti-war demonstrators without also thinking how many fewer names there would now be engraved into the black granite of the Vietnam Wall if these same people had supported our efforts instead of trying to derail them. After all, fighting against a political regime that up to that time had murdered over a hundred million people couldn't have been all bad. But, John F. Kerry thought and acted differently. How many more names on the wall can he take credit for?
After the war ended, some of the war protesters hung on to their anti-war postures for a while. Some of them realized the errors of their ways almost immediately while for others it took twenty to twenty-five years.
But some, like John F. Kerry, have not realized there was anything wrong with what he did. Instead, he hopes we will see him as a courageous Vietnam veteran. I do not. He hopes we will admire his bravery. I do not. I remember him more for his misdeeds upon his return from Vietnam.
However, in the present political arena, he evidently has succeeded in gaining the support of some well-meaning but misled Americans. Given his past record, it is just astonishing that he has garnered any support from our nation's veterans.
I hope all will reconsider their support for Senator Kerry in light of his actions which were so detrimental to our Vietnam combat soldiers, sailors and airmen - many of whom are not here today to tell you themselves.
Thank you for considering my views. Please share what I have written with your fellow vets....
Joe Crecca email@example.com
22 NOV 66 - 18 FEB 73
Kerry's Voting Record
‘Comeback Kerry’ Now Faces Intense Scrutiny of Record
RUSH: I mentioned yesterday that John Kerry is going to have some trouble on the campaign trail because he's got a record that is going to be very difficult to defend, and this is one of the reasons why so many surrogates are out there speaking for Kerry, and no sooner did I say that than Morton Kondracke has put together a mini list of things that Kerry has voted for over the years and voted against that are going to add up to causing him problems.
Kerry's War Record
On the campaign trail, White House wannabe Sen. John Forbes Kerry regularly mentions his Vietnam War combat experience, during which he received three Purple Hearts, the Silver Star and Bronze Star.
However, the Massachusetts Democrat doesn't like to talk much about how he received the awards or the time after he returned home when he was rubbing shoulders with Hanoi Jane Fonda as a much-celebrated organizer for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), one of America's most radical pro-communist groups Read More
When Mr. Kerry pontificated at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Veterans Day, a group of veterans turned their backs on him and walked away. They remembered Mr. Kerry as the anti-war activist who testified before
Congress during the war, accusing veterans of being war criminals. The dust jacket of Mr. Kerry's pro-Hanoi book, "The New Soldier," features a photograph of his ragged band of radicals mocking the U.S. Marine Corps Memorial, which depicts the flag-raising on Iwo Jima, with an upside-down American flag.
Retired Gen. George S. Patton III charged that Mr. Kerry's actions as an anti-war activist had "given aid and comfort to the enemy," as had the actions of Ramsey Clark and Jane Fonda. Also, Mr. Kerry lied when he
threw what he claimed were his war medals over the White House fence; he later admitted they weren't his. Now they are displayed on his office wall.
Long after he changed sides in congressional hearings, Mr. Kerry lobbied for renewed trade relations with Hanoi. At the same time, his cousin C. StewartForbes, chief Executive for Colliers International, assisted in
brokering a $905 million deal to develop a deep-sea port at Vung Tau, Vietnam; an odd coincidence.
As noted in the Inside Politics column of Nov. 14 (Nation), historian Douglas Brinkley is writing Mr. Kerry's biography. Hopefully, he'll include the senator's latest ignominious feat: preventing the Vietnam Human Rights
Act (HR2833) from coming to a vote in the Senate, claiming human rights would deteriorate as a result. His actions sent a clear signal to Hanoi that Congress cares little about the human rights for which so many Americans fought and died.
The State Department ranked Vietnam among the 10 regimes worldwide least tolerant of religious freedom. Recently, 354 churches of the Montagnards, a Christian ethnic minority, were forcibly disbanded, and by mid-October, more than 50 Christian pastors and elders had been arrested in Dak Lak province alone.
On Oct. 29, the secret police executed three Montagnards by lethal injection simply for protesting religious repression. The communists are conducting a program against the Montagnards, forcing Christians to drink a mixture of goat's blood and alcohol and renounce Christianity. Thousands have been killed or imprisoned or have just "disappeared." The Montagnards lost one-half of their adult male population fighting for the United States, and without them, there might be thousands more American names on that somber black granite wall at the Vietnam memorial.
As Mr. Kerry contemplates a run for the presidency, people must remember that he has fought harder for Hanoi as an anti-war activist and a senator than he did against the Vietnamese communists while serving in the Navy in Vietnam.
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001
From: Vietnam Veterans Against the War <"firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: John Kerry on Vietnam Atrocities
From VVAW's mailbox to all on VVAWNET and VVAWINC:
[Looks like Kerry has begun his presidential 'retooling' for 2004--jtm]
Portion of John Kerry remarks on NBC's "Meet the Press" May 6, 2001:
The Real John Kerry
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.
STUDENTS CALL ON KERRY TO DISAVOW 70'S ANTI-WAR STATEMENT, OR DROP OUT.
by Leonard Magruder
In 1972 a book was published that contained statements by well known personalities at the time, pro and con, the Vietnam War. Called "The Eloquence of Protest " it was edited by Harrison E. Salisbury, and published by Houghton Mifflin. Among the statements was one by Navy Lieutenant John Kerry,testifying for his organization, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971. At that time, and still today, I had strong ideas on the subject of the war, and have often have spoken out on the issue. While I did not see accuracy in a number of statements that Kerry made, I had read a lot about the war, felt I understood the feelings that produced such an outburst so did not complain at that time.
But now John Kerry is running for the highest office in the land, for President, in times as perilous as any America has ever faced. So a few days ago I took a second look at his statement and came away with these questions.
Isn't it clear that these statements had been heavily influenced by the standard arguments of the anti-war movement at the time, and haven't those arguments been shown in repeated history books in recent years to have been seriously misrepresentative of that war? Would not someone who had been so wide of the mark
in his understanding of that war be dangerous to the nation as a Commander-in-Chief, unless he had changed his mind significantly in later years ? While themedia today frequently mentions Senator Kerry's distinguished career in Vietnam, and rightly so, it has studiously avoided mentioning his major role in organizing Vietnam Veterans Against the War, or his speech to Congress condemning that war.
We think it vitally important that the media ask of Senator Kerry if he still stands by the statements he made to Congress in 1971. These statements were significantly at odds with majority American opinion on the war at that time and they clearly parallel the opinions of the campus war protests, which, in the long run made a major contribution to the failure of that campaign and the triumph of tyranny and genocide in Southeast Asia.
If he disavows his earlier position, that would be a major blow to the myths about Vietnam that are still being perpetuated in media and university to protect those who avoided that fight for freedom. If he does not disavow
his earlier position then we call on him to drop out of the race for the Presidency.
In the following what I do is quote some of the more startling passages from Mr. Kerry's statement and comment on them, in some cases borrowing information from the noted historian Lewis Sorley who describes the very same period in his recent book on Vietnam , "A Better War." Mr. Sorley is the historian who was selected to be the main analyst in the recent highly acclaimed 4-volume film series on the Vietnam War, "The Long Way Home Project", introduced by H. Norman Schwartkopf. If Kerry does disavow his 1971 statement then we also ask that he use his considerable influence to get PBS to air this series nationally to help heal the bitter division in the country that still exists between those who served and those who did not serve. We cannot go forward into a dangerous future without national unity. It is time to end the undeserved aura of
idealism that media and university attach to the phrase "anti-war activist", when in actual fact it should be viewed as shameful.
Excerpts from Senator Kerry's 1971 statement to Congress, followed by my comments.
"Several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to warcrimes 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 re-lived the absolute horror of what this country , in a sense made them do. They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals , cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Kahn, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side... We are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia. "
It is common knowledge that the medals that Kerry threw over the fence in Washington at Dewey Canyon lll were not his own. They are on his wall in his office. Kerry's was a fake sacrifice, but keeping the medals does show he cares about his reputation as a soldier . But he should have remembered that other veterans cared equally when he talked about "the crimes this country, in a sense, made them do." I had to read tons of Army manuals in becoming anR.O.T.C. 2nd Lieutenant, (although I never served , being transfered during the
Korean War to Honorary Reserve because of medical problems.) And I know that nothing in those manuals orders soldiers to do any of the things Kerry mentioned.
We know things like this happened, but they were crimes and were prosecuted when possible. Historian Guenter Lewy points out in statistical form in his highly acclaimed and objective history "America in Vietnam", that atrocities in Vietnam did not differ significantly in that war from any other American war.
"The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in
Psychologists, who were usually against the war, to buttress their position, charged the war with having created a "killer instinct" for which there was not the slightest shred of evidence. We know this from comparing the rates of crimes by Vietnam vets with the rest of the country over the years. Wrote the noted sociologist and student of war Charles Moskos, "Psychologists tried to portray the soldier as variously, wanton perpetrators of atrocities or proto-fascist automatons." The truth is the mental health community prostituted itself in creating this myth to forward its politics, using the suffering of the veterans to do so.
Also, what was "nothing" about the enormous sacrifice of men and treasure the U.S. expended to try to help a small country who asked for our aid against the horrors that we know occured when that country went down ?
"We are men who have returned with a sense of anger , and a sense of betrayal which no one yet has grasped. We are angry because we feel that we have been used in the worst fashion by the administration of this country."
A Harris poll in the 1980's found that 91% said they were glad they served, 74% said they enjoyed their time in the military, and 66% said they would serve again. As to the effects of their service many said it made them more ambitious, more determined to make something of their lives, that it made them more serious and that they appreciated America more, valued life more. Does this sound like men who were "used."
"We in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country , because those Agnew calls misfits (war protestors) were standing up for us in a way that nobody else in this country dared to, because so many who have died would have returned to this country to join the misfits in their efforts to ask for an immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam.
The identification with the goals of the campus war protestors, or anti-war movement, is very clear. Kerry was reportedly (U.S.Veterans Dispatch) a supporter of the "People's Peace Treaty", a "peoples" declaration to end
the war drawn up in communist East Germany based on 9 points taken from Viet Cong peace proposals. The "Boston Herald Traveler" reported that Kerry marched in a protest on Dec. 12, 1971 in a group carrying Viet Cong flags and placards in support of China, Cuba, the USSR and Hanoi.
Only those in the anti-war movement called for "immediately withdrawal" an ignominious solution that the majority would not even consider. Nor did the protestors care about the soldiers. Again and again in my documentary, based on 68 interviews, "The Shame of the War Protestors: Vietnam Vets Speak Out",
the veterans of that war said , "When we came home, the protestors didn't care about us." Many told about being harassed, insulted, ostrasized, and even spit upon at airports when they returned.
"To attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam... by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of
hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart."
Is there any question but what the 58,000 plus lives that were given in South Vietnam was in a noble effort to preserve freedom for an oppressed people ?
American soldiers did give the South Vietnamese freedom. By late 1969 almost the entire population was thought to be living under substantially secure conditions. Said Ambassador Bunker, "By the end of 1972 one could travel anywhere in South Vietnam without security forces or anything else, even though by then American forces were about all gone." The American soldier never got any credit for all he did for the South Vietnamese, the media never mentioned it to the American people.
As to what tore the country apart, it was the protestors, and here is what the nation thought about them. (From "America in Our Time," by Godfrey Hodgson)
"At the height of the war, the Harris Poll showed that 69 % of the public believed that anti-war demonstrations were "acts of disloyalty against the boys fighting in Vietnam," 65% agreed that "protestors were giving aid and
comfort to the enemy," 64% said they were not "serious , thoughtful critics of the war, just peaceniks and hippies having a ball." A poll by the University of Michigan showed that reactions to "Vietnam war protestors", was "by a wide margin, the most negative shown any group."
"We are probably angriest about all that we were told about Vietnam and about the mystical war against Communism. We found that not only was it a civil war, but that the Vietnamese were hard put to take up the fight against the threat we were supposedly saving them from.
Was there something 'mystical' about the soldiers he saw dying all around him?
Did he not know that is was because Communist soldiers from the North were trying to enslave South Vietnam ? While the partition of South Vietnam into two sections makes the charge of "civil war" problematic, the fact remains it was clearly a war between a South Vietnam seeking freedom, against a totalitarian aggressor from the North, something neither the Communists nor the anti-war movement ever acknowledged. As for "hard put", few realize that in every campaign, the South Vietamese Army lost over twice as many soldiers as we
did. The figures for the five major offensives are as follows: (from "Vietnam in Military Statistics", a major history of the Vietnam War by Micheal Clodfelter.) It was never made know by the media, by the way, just how badly the enemy was mauled during this war.You can see that below.
1968-the Tet Offensive- U.S.- 1,829 KIA (killed in action), South
Vietnam-2,788 KIA, Communist forces- 45,000 KIA
1969- U.S. -9,414 KIA, South Vietnam - 21,833 KIA, Communist forces -156,954 KIA
1970 (includes Cambodian incursion)- U.S. -4,221 KIA, South Vietnam-23,345
KIA, Communist forces- 103,638 KIA
Laos Invasion (Lam Son 719, with U.S. air support only)- SouthVietnam-3,800
KIA, Communist forces, -13,668 KIA
1972 - Easter Offensive (with U.S.air support only) -South Vietnnam 15,000 KIA, Communist forces - 83,000.
"We found most people didn't even know the difference between Communism and Democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies and without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted the United States of America to leave them alone
in peace. and they sided with whichever military force was present, be it Viet Cong, North Vietnamese, or American."
The most devious of all the anti-war arguments. President Thieu distributed 600,000 weapons to his people. No government in doubt of theyearning for democracy of its people would have dared do this. In the villages and the hamlets the People's Self-Defense Force had mushroomed during 1969. At years end, now organized into a combat arm and a support arm, the PSDHF had more than 1,300,000 men and women in the combat arm, backed up by another 1,735,000 people in the support arm, all ready to stop Communists.
Also, why was there no uprising against the Americans during the Tet Offensive, or any effort to aid the invaders, and why did the South Vietnamese Army then almost double, largely due to volunteers ? How could an 'uncaring ' people put together an army of over one million, sacrifice over 250,000 soldiers in battle, and fight against Communism, alone, for two years after the Americans had left, when, even with occasional stumbling, there were greatvictories as in the Easter Offensive, and An Loc."The basic fact of life", said the
noted American commander John Vann , "is that the overwhelming majority of the population - somewhere about 95% - prefer the government of Vietnam to a Communist government."For two years the South Vietnamese held out, until Ted Kennedy, Kerry's biggest supporter, led anti-war forces in Congress in cutting off all ammunition to South Vietnam.
We are hoping that over the years Senator Kerry has come to see that the anti-war position was mistaken, that it fell for enemy propaganda, and that he will say so. If not then there is no way that he can be trusted on matters of national security and he should abandon his quest for the Presidency, as that is the number one issue.The media keeps talking about Kerry's "strong national security credentials." That is questionable. There is nothing in Kerry's speech tht shows any sign of "stong national security credentials." It is very possible to be a much decorated soldier and still have little understanding of the very war in which one is fighting. It is clear Kerry did not, and therefore might not understand the current war.
For John Kerry's full '71 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, please see:
National and foreign media
Major media- New Hampshire
Vietnam vets in Congress
Heads of Vietnam vet organizations
Faculty and student org. -K.U.
Board of Advisors - National
Mr. Richard Kitson - President, Vietnam Veterans of America - Suffolk Chapter (New York)
Mr. Dennis Garbosky - founder, Vietnam War Historical Society (New York)
Lt. Col. Chuck Allen (ret.) - founder, “National Vietnam Veterans Review” (North Carolina)
Mr. Ray Gallagher - past Commander, American Legion - Toronto (Canada)
Col. Stanley Horton - former Director, V.V.Leadership- Houston (Texas)
Mr. John Lowe - Commander, Native American Veterans Association (Kansas)
Mr. Roger Young - Co-Editor, “Northwest Veterans Newsletter”, and military consultant - (Washington)
Mr. Stephen Markley - former Director, V.V.Leadership - Minnesota (Kansas)
Dr. William Beausay - Academic Consultant - psychology (Ohio)
Mr. Steve Hawkins - President, Committee on the Crisis in Education (Kansas)
Mr. William Street - history - Vietnam War (Hawaii)
Dr. Richard G. Stevens - Professor of Political Science Emeritus-Institute of World Politics (Washington, D.C.)
Mr. Dan M. Steinruck - Virginia State Director for Point Man Ministries (Virginia)
Mr. Bernie Russo - President, VVA Chapter #484, Editor, VVA Newspaper- Conn. Edition (Connecticut)
Mr. Joseph P. Larson - Consultant - Computer Science (Kansas)
Beverly Haire - Consultant - POW/MIA issues (Florida)
Mr. Bill Laurie - Academic Consultant - History of Vietnam War (Arizona)
Rev. Lloyd Snodgrass - Academic Consultant -Theology (Kansas)
“Your activities, indeed, sound very worthwhile.”
- Edwin Feulner - President - The Heritage Foundation
“Very best wishes for success in your important work.” - Former President George Bush
“I salute your aims… my best wishes in this.” - Charlton Heston - actor, producer
“The purpose and goals you have outlined for Vietnam Veterans for Academic Reform are excellent and I commend you and your colleagues.” -Pat Robertson -Chairman - the Christian Broadcasting Network, Inc.
“Very best wishes for your important work.” Christopher Demuth - President -American Enterprise Institute
“Your concerns regarding the academic climate on our nation’s college campuses will be provided to the Legion’s National Committee on Education.” - The American Legion
“I never miss an opportunity to thank Vietnam veterans for serving their country. …best wishes for great success.” - H. Norman Schwarzkopf - General, U.S.Army (ret.)
“Thanks for all your efforts on behalf of Vietnam veterans .”- Micheal Clodfelter - Vietnam veteran and author of Vietnam in Military Statistics :A Study of the Indochina Wars, l772-l991 “You have done an exhaustive bit of research and I congratulate you .” -
General William C. Westmoreland “Its conforting to know that folks like you are in the trenches taking a
stand in mainstream America. Keep up the good work.” -
Karl Day - Editor -Washington Watch “…has greatest respect for veterans and takes this very seriously.”
- Office of Kweisi Mfume -President - NAACP “Many of your aims have been the subject of articles in VFW Magazine. Good luck with your project.”
- Richard Kolb - Editor-in-Chief - VFW Magazine “With the help of people like you we can achieve a real breakthrough in academic freedom .”
- Reed Irvine - Chairman - Accuracy in Academia “… holds deep respect for the overwhelming contributions and sacrifices veterans have made.” - Office of Steven Spielberg - movie producer “Best of luck with your enterprise”
- William F. Buckley Jr.- National Review.
“I share your objectives “ - James Buchanan, Nobel Laureate - George Mason
Kerry doesn't deserve Vietnam vets' support.
Do You Want to Go Back to the Sixties?
January 27, 2004
Vietnam veteran Stephen Sherman wrote a noteworthy op-ed for the Wall Street Journal headlined: "Conduct Unbecoming - Kerry Doesn't Deserve Vietnam Vet Support." He writes: "Service in Vietnam is an important credential to me. Many felt that such service was beneath them, and removed themselves from the manpower pool." He praises Kerry for his service in Vietnam, but expresses disappointment at his actions upon returning home.
his book 'Stolen Valor,' B.G. Burkett points out that Mr. Kerry liberally used phony veterans to testify to atrocities they could not possibly have committed."
More: "Mr. Kerry hasn't given me any reason to trust his judgment. As co-chairman of the Senate investigating committee, he quashed a revealing inquiry into the POW/MIA issue, and he supports trade initiatives with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam while blocking any legislation requiring Hanoi to adhere to basic human rights." Sherman closes: "[J]ust as Mr. Kerry threw away medals only to claim them back again, Senator Kerry voted to take action against Iraq, but claims to take that vote back by voting against funding the result."
and its lunatic, bloodthirsty military must be stopped. There's nostalgia for this period of American life for all the reasons that made it so awful. In fact, they seek to find new Vietnams in everything! Do the American people really want to relive the worst aspects of the Sixties? Do we want to have a war that ended in the 1970s be the #1 campaign issue in the second presidential election of the 2000s? Before it's all over, the Democrats are going to try to make you think that George W. Bush had something to do with Vietnam or whatever his attitudes were 30 years ago about the war. What happened to looking to the future, folks?
Hanois Friend In The Senate
In 2002 the US Senate experienced something bizarre in the extreme. A bill was passed by the House, Sept. 6th 2001, with a margin of 410 to 1. It was called HR2833 or Vietnam Human Rights Act. But the Senate was never allowed to vote on it. For almost a year it was buried in the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA despite strong protests from all quarters within and without the government. In other words it was killed in Committee and the killer was Senator John Forbes Kerry, Committee chairman. His action of rejecting the almost unanimous vote of the House and preventing the Senate from exercising its authority on this issue could only mean one of two things. Either he believed his own idea was better for the nation than that of all members of Congress; or he placed something even above the national interests.
Anyway, for the past two years the Viet communists have been arrogantly and defyingly stepping up their persecution of religious leaders, political dissenters and their genocidal policy of the Montagnards in the Central Highlands (See Repression of Montagnards, a publication of Human Rights Watch). That was the main reason the House passed HR2833 so readily. This bill didn't cut aid outright; it only made true progress in human rights a condition for receiving non-humanitarian aid. That was not much of a requirement since any civilized nation is morally bound to respect human rights anyway. But the communists didn't accept the deal. They wanted to receive aid at least at last year's level of 1.3 billion dollars, and keep violating human rights as before. That meant HR2833 must go.
To justify his action Kerry simply offered the following arguments: The bill undermines the US government's ability to promote economic reforms in Vietnam; ongoing relations with Vietnam will promote greater political freedom; the bill may hinder rather than advance the course of human rights in Vietnam; denying aid would actually slow human rights improvements.
That kind of reasoning might make some sense to himself, but to others, especially the Viet expatriates, that's a lot of rubbish. For a year their newspapers and radio stations made that issue the main topic of discussion. They held protest demonstrations in dozens of cities throughout the country. The biggest one started on Sunday August 18 at Senator Kerry's office in Boston and lasted for a whole week. Participants numbered in the hundreds including local people and many delegations from Viet communities throughout the US. In addition, the Vietnam Veterans sent delegations from some states to show their support. Some city officials and one state senator also came to address the crowd.
Thus everybody is now aware of the assistance and protection Kerry gave to the Viet communists. He made it possible for them at least for now to violate human rights and at the same time obtain full extent of American aid and trade, including most-favored-nation, now called normal trade status. But to be so effective Kerry must begin the service long ago. He must cover up the so-called POW/MIA national scandal which almost blew open right after the Operation Homecoming in 1973, then play a key role in the normalization of diplomatic relations and the lifting of the trade embargo. In fact he helped the Viet communists even during the war. It is therefore useful to take a look at the early stage of his career.
John Forbes Kerry was the son of a Foreign Service officer and, on his mother's side, of the wealthy China-trading Forbes family; attended the exclusive Yale University where he became member of the secret society Skull and Bones, the same fraternity incidentally that President George W. Bush , his father and his grand-father joined. After college in 1966 he was not as lucky as Bill Clinton in another year because his plan to study in Europe was denied by the Draft Board and he had to join the Navy.
In Vietnam he commanded a river patrol boat and was awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. He left Vietnam in 1969, asked for and obtained a release from the Navy to run for Congress. In 1970 he ran for Congress and lost; then lost again in 1972. During those campaigns he was the leader of the Vietnam Veterans against the War, a group of anti-war protesters, radical activists and America bashers. He accused American soldiers of rape and torture and branded American leaders as war criminals.
A senatorial seat was available in 1984 and Kerry was eager to capture it. Besides sharpening his anti-war and pro-Hanoi rhetoric, he positioned himself to the left of everybody in every issue. This time with much help from the media he won by a margin of 10 percent. Soon after becoming senator, Kerry visited Nicaragua and upon return proposed a cease-fire between the government forces and the freedom fighters. This prompted the House of Representatives to scratch the Contra aid package. President Ortega now asked Mosow for more military aid and easily finished off the Contras.
In 1991 Senator Kerry became chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA, with Senator Bob Smith as vice-chairman. From that vantage point Kerry could do much to help Hanoi, but first he had to deal with the hidden scandal of abandoned POWs which might crack open and destroy all his plans. Read On
Kerry's Conflict Of Interest
Ironically in Kerry's campaign, one of his key issues is charging Bush with is special interests in business dealings. Hypocrisy? You figure it out.
While Kerry was advocating for the communists in Hanoi when he was Chairman of the Senate Select Committee for POW/MIA Affairs and there after, in Congress and the White House, an offshore subsidiary of Boston-based Colliers International got a $1 Billion exclusive contract with Hanoi to renovate the port in Vung Tau, Vietnam. Colliers also received an exclusive real estate license. Kerry is on the powerful Foreign Relations Committee.
Kerry's cousin, C. Stewart Forbes, reportedly is a manager of Kerry's three "blind" trusts and is the CEO of Colliers. It was illegal to do so at that time but they got away with it by having Hanoi reward the contract to one of Collier's offshore subsidiaries.
Plans for Billions in Investments
Spotlight, July 19, 1993
By Mike Blair
A deal was recently struck by a Singapore partner of a giant Boston-based real estate conglomerate to build a nearly $1 billion port in Vietnam. It's an example of the business opportunities giant U.S. corporations expect to be generated by lifting the U.S. trade embargo from Vietnam and making International Monetary Fund loans available to Hanoi.
Colliers International, one of the world's largest real estate concerns with 129 offices in North and Central America, Europe and the so-called Pacific Rim nations, generates annually more than $300 million in revenues annually.
It has assisted in brokering a $905 million deal to develop a deep-sea port at Vung Tau, about 80 miles southeast of Ho Chi Minh City.
Colliers International, through a partner firm, Colliers Jardines of Singapore, has put together a massive plan which will allow heavy transport ships to dock at Vung Tau, a recreational area for U.S. troops during the
According to C. Stewart Forbes, chief executive officer of Colliers International, the project will take four years to complete and is currently the largest investment scheme under way in Vietnam. "I think this represents the best elements of brokerage, matching a need-in this case a country-with the money and the capability." Forbes told the Boston Herald, "This kind of infrastructure is sorely needed in Vietnam."
According to Forges, work at Vung Tau will be done primarily by Japanese engineering and construction firms.
Although direct U.S. investment in Vietnam is illegal until the Clinton administration lifts the trade embargo against the communist state, Forbes said the Colliers deal is legal because it was done through a foreign
partner, Colliers Jardines.
The SPOTLIGHT has been told, although it has not been confirmed that the Singapore branch of the French Banque Indonesia is involved in the financial end of the giant port project.
According to Vietnamese-American businessman Ly Tranh Binh, the Vietnamese government has allegedly deposited $700,000 in the Singapore branch of the French bank as a partial payment for U.S. Commerce Secretary Ron Brown's alleged efforts to get the Clinton administration to drop the U.S. trade embargo, which will likely take place in September (see accompanying story on page 1).
A large number of U.S. industrial giants, including Kodak, Boeing and Du Pont, have already opened offices in Vietnam in anticipation of the lifting of the embargo.
"I visited Vietnam in December," Forbes said. "Upon my return we announced the opening of an office in Ho Chi Minh City by Colliers Jardines."
He explains further, "Colliers Jardines, a joint venture between Colliers International Australia and Jardine Matheson, a Bermuda-based company with its principal holdings of Hong Kong, has secured a license to conduct real estate-related services in Vietnam."
Regarding the issue of American POWs and MIAs, Forbes said: "while greatly respecting the commitment of the men and women who served in Vietnam, particularly the sacrifice of those who did not return, we are
preparing for the embargo to be lifted and wish to encourage that process."
Forbes is a cousin of Sen. John Forbes Kerry (D-Mass), who served as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW and MIA Affairs and frequently used the committee as a forum to encourage the lifting of the trade embargo and/or normalization of relations with Vietnam.
Kerry was a strong advocate of rapprochement with Vietnam long before he was named to the select committee.
A decorated Vietnam vet, Kerry quit the Navy during the war to become an anti-war activist, serving as a leader of the radical Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
Kerry, according to his Senate financial disclosure forms, is a beneficiary of three "blind" trusts, which were created in 1965. Members of the Forbes family are trustees of all three.
Stewart Forbes states that he has "never discussed this matter [the Colliers interest in Vietnam] with Senator nor anyone on his staff."
Kerry On The Pow/MIA 's
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
December 1992 Issue
Today, there is extreme pressure on members of Congress to lift the trade embargo with Vietnam and to establish diplomatic relations with Hanoi, both actions are opposed by the POW/MIA activists.
McCain, like his fellow Senator, Mr. Kerry, favors lifting the embargo and both were on record as such long before they became associated with the Select Committee. In fact, the efforts of both have reflected at times more interest in bettering relations with Vietnam, in consort with greedy U.S. big business interests, than resolving the POW/MIA issue by accounting for the missing men; in McCain's case his FELLOW POWs.
However, before becoming a powerful figure in Congress, McCain the candidate, said: "The regime in Hanoi, politically degenerate even by totalitarian standards, refused to provide or even assist in providing a satisfactory accounting of American MIAs . . .
Kerry On Weapons Of Mass Destruction
"[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
"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 mas destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 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
This is just John Kerry Excerts...there are more from Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Bob Graham, Al Gore, Bob Byrd..and many more.....
SO NOW THE DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM! ...I think not!!
John Kerry and Other Men's Money
by Ann Coulter
Posted Jan 29, 2004
After the New Hampshire primary, Dennis Kucinich's new slogan is: ".001 Percent of America Can't Be Wrong!" John Edwards' new slogan is: "Vote for Me or We'll See You in Court." Joe Lieberman's new slogan is: "Sixth Place Is Not an Option." (Bumper sticker version: "Ask Me About My Delegate.") Al Sharpton's new slogan is "Hello? Room Service?" Wesley Clark's new slogan is: "Leading America's War on Fetuses." Howard Dean's new slogan is: "I Want to Be Your President ... And So Do I!"
That leaves John Kerry (new slogan: "Nous Sommes Nombre Un!"), who is winning Democratic voters in droves on the basis of his superior ability to taunt George Bush for his lack of combat experience. Like every war hero I've ever met, John Kerry seems content to spend his days bragging about his battlefield exploits. Wait, wait ... Let me correct that last sentence: like no war hero I've ever met ...
As everyone has heard approximately 1 billion times by now, Kerry boasts that he has REAL experience with aircraft carriers, and if Bush wants to run on national security, then ... BRING IT ON!
I note that when George Bush directed that precise phrase at Islamic terrorists who yearn to slaughter American women and children, liberals were enraged at the macho posturing of it. But they feel "Bring it on!" is a perfectly appropriate expression when directed at a dangerous warmonger like George Bush. ("Bring it on!" was deemed better than Kerry's first impulse, "Let's get busy, sister!")
Kerry was indisputably brave in Vietnam, and it's kind of cute to see Democrats pretend to admire military service. Physical courage, like chastity, is something liberals usually deride, but are tickled when it accidentally manifests itself in one of their own. One has to stand in awe of Kerry's military service 33 years ago. Of course, that's where it ends, including with Kerry -- inasmuch as, upon his return from war in 1970, he promptly began trashing his fellow Vietnam vets by calling them genocidal murderers.
But if Bush can't talk to Kerry about the horrors of war, then Kerry sure as hell can't talk to anyone about the plight of the middle class. Kerry's life experience consists of living off other men's money by marrying their wives and daughters. Read the rest of the article in Human Events On Line
Mideast misconceptions of Kerry and Dean Americans are right on target again, but the leading Democratic candidates for President are way out of touch on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
by Ariel Natan Pasko January 29, 2004
Both Democratic wanna-be presidents, John Kerry and Howard Dean, proved recently how out of step with the rest of America they are in regard to U.S. policy vis-a-vis the Israeli-Palestinian issue.
The leading U.S. Democratic presidential contender, John Kerry, reportedly said that the government in Israel currently lacks someone - i.e. Sharon - who can provide the goods in everything connected to negotiations with the Palestinians.
Yet, according to a poll commissioned by the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) and carried out by the firm of McLaughlin & Associates during mid-January of 2004 - the poll questioned 1,000 Americans from throughout the United States - 67.4% of Americans say that the Palestinian Arabs have not met U.S. President Bush's conditions for statehood, such as fighting terrorism, halting incitement to murder, and respecting human rights. So why blame the Israeli government?
Kerry, who spoke at a political rally ahead of the New Hampshire primary, criticized the settlement policy of the Israeli government, i.e. building homes for Jews in their ancestral homeland. He said that it was a mistake to increase building there at this time. When will it be a good time? When Palestinian Arabs stop hating Jews and being racist?
Yet, 66.6% of Americans disagree with the Arab position that all Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria - the West Bank - and Gaza should be expelled from their homes. Most Americans see Jews continuing to live in all parts of their ancient homeland; even after a peace deal is made.
John Kerry called for strengthening the Palestinian Authority so that it will be stronger than Hamas. Here, Kerry's main rival, former front-runner Howard Dean, agrees with him. Dean said at a campaign event recently, that America should increase resources for the Palestinian Authority in order to persuade the Palestinians to relinquish the right of return.
I guess they haven't heard about how Arafat and his cronies have embezzled most of the donor money they've been given till now. That's hundreds of millions of dollars, and the reason that even the pro-Palestinian European Union has curtailed funding to the Palestinian Authority.
Yet, 65.2% of Americans say the Palestinian Authority "cannot be trusted to fulfill peace agreements that it signs with Israel." That means most Americans don't believe the Palestinian Arabs will stop terror or give up the right of return.
And even more Americans, 73.6% say the U.S. should stop sending the $200-million each year to the Palestinian Arabs, that it does send. So why exactly do Howard Dean and John Kerry want to waste American taxpayer dollars? Read On
John Kerry Says He Worked Hard to Become Mr. Heinz
1/30/2004 - William Grim
Paris, France - Speaking from his presidential campaign headquarters this morning, Senator John F. Kerry-Heinz denied accusations from his opponents for the Democrat nomination that he is a “glorified gigolo” and “playboy” who has used his wife’s millions to garner a top position in the crowded field for the Democrat nomination.
Kerry-Heinz seemed particularly upset at the Rev. Al Sharpton’s characterization of him as a “lazy ass cracker who’s never worked a day in his life.” Kerry-Heinz’s voice almost displayed emotion as he told the press, “I’ll have you know that I worked very hard to become Mr. Heinz and have access to my wife’s inheritance. I had to work out three hours a day and undergo a strict nutritional regimen to be able to compete against the young gigolos out there, many of whom are two decades younger than me. And I did it before viagra.”
Kerry-Heinz then stormed out of the session, but returned briefly to announce, “And another thing. Bagging an older wealthy widow has changed me in many ways. I have a lot more respect for Richard Gere now.”
In related news, Senator Kerry-Heinz announced that if he is elected president he will divorce his current wife and will marry either Queen Noor of Jordan, Anna-Nicole Smith or a widow to be named later.
From The Atlanta Journal Constitution
Jan 29, 2004
GUEST COLUMN: SEN. JOHN KERRY
Vietnam stance irks veterans
By TERRY GARLOCK
Terry L. Garlock of Peachtree City was a Cobra helicopter pilot in Vietnam.
• Were John Kerry's protests against the Vietnam War inappropriate?
Now that U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is claiming the veteran vote based on his war record, both sides of that story should be told.
To appreciate the dark side of Kerry's war record, you should know a few things about Vietnam veterans.
The public and the press make a mistake when they divide us into decorated veterans like Kerry and then all the others.
We like to think of ourselves as brothers -- those who fought the enemy directly in combat and those who provided vital support in protected areas that were in many cases exposed to attack.
Even today, when two Vietnam veterans meet for the first time, they might say, "Welcome home, brother!" because many were never welcomed home. They met the cold shoulder of an ungrateful nation on their return.
Those of us whose job was combat feel an even deeper sense of brotherhood. We learned to trust our brothers on the ground, on the water and in the air to do the right things to protect one another, a bond that cannot be fully explained in words.
We quietly feared dying in battle, but there was something we feared even more. We knew if we should panic under fire and fail to do our job, we might lose our brothers' trust or we might lose their lives, and this we feared more than anything.
Like Kerry, I have a couple of medals, but who has what medal among combat veterans doesn't make a dime's worth of difference between us. What matters is that we are, for the rest of our life, brothers who kept faith with one another in a miserable war.
A young Kerry, however, broke faith with his brothers when he returned to the United States. With the financial aid of Jane Fonda, he led highly visible protests against the war. He wrote a book that many considered to be pro-Hanoi, titled "The New Soldier."
The cover photo of his book depicted veterans in a mismatch of military uniforms mocking the legendary image of Marines raising the American flag atop Mount Suribachi in the 1945 battle for Iwo Jima, holding the American flag upside down.
Kerry publicly supported Hanoi's position to use our POWs as a bargaining chip in negotiations for a peace agreement. Kerry threw what appeared to be his medals over a fence in front of the Capitol building in protest, on camera of course, but was caught in his lie years later when his medals turned up displayed on his office wall.
Many good and decent people opposed the Vietnam War. Many of us who fought it hated it, too. I know I did.
But like Fonda's infamous visit to Hanoi in 1972, Kerry's public actions encouraged our enemy at a time they were killing America's sons. Decades after the war was done, interviews with our former enemy's leaders confirmed that public protests in the United States, like Kerry's, played a significant role in their strategy.
Many of us wonder which of our brothers who died young would be alive today had people like Fonda and Kerry objected to the war in a more suitable way.
Now that it serves his ambition to be president, Kerry reminds the public of his war record daily. But the dark side of that record is not being told. Many Vietnam veterans have taken notice, and many of us will vigorously oppose Kerry's election to any office.
Terry L. Garlock of Peachtree City was a Cobra helicopter pilot in Vietnam. He received the Purple Heart, Bronze Star and Distinguished Flying Cross.
Comments On Terry Garlocks Story Above :
I, too, am a Vietnam veteran. Having served Nov. 1968 to Nov. 1969 in the US Army 1st Division, 28th Battalion, Charlie Company, machine gun squad. I too have medals and, like most grunts, am most proud of my combat infantryman badge. I have been very fortunate in life, have a great job, loving wife and many friends. Frankly my service in Vietnam is a very faint memory.
Like you I remember anger and frustration. But combat soldiers in all wars, for all time, bitch constantly. Just the way it is with combat soldiers. But you are absolutely correct in saying we are brothers, and that makes us family. And until Vietnam, soldiers did not air out family business to people who could not understand what war is about.
Vietnam was not the first unjust war. Almost as many Americans died in the Korean "police action." Talk about unfair, Korean veterans while dying in the tens of thousands weren't recognized as war veterans until years after their war. Where were the welcome home parades for Korean veterans? They just came home and went about their business of becoming productive Americans. As most of the Vietnam veterans did. And what about the fine soldiers that are fighting for our freedom today? They are the best, and I am honored to consider myself an older brother of these men and women.
I for one was embarrassed by guys like John Kerry, and his friend Jane Fonda, saying they represented me. It is documented that Jane Fonda toured Vietnam prisoner of war camps, telling our captive soldiers that they were baby killers. F-4E Pilot Jerry Driscoll and Col. Larry Corrigan have both testified about Fonda's infamous POW camp tours.
You are also correct in saying that John Kerry broke the faith with his brothers. I was not aware of his book, "The New Soldier," but the cover is a sacrilege to all the men and women who have sacrificed their lives defending this country. He should be ashamed of himself.
John Seger, Alpharetta
If there is full and verified disclosure of the information about John Kerry in Mr. Garlock's article, including his book with its treasonous cover, his association with Hanoi Jane, and his faked tossing of his medals Senator Kerry can forget the suuport of veterans and a large segment of patriotic Americans.
Karl Woltersdorf, Fulton County
Terry Garlock is 100% correct! The willingness of liberals to stab America in the back is absolutely appalling. John Kerry's actions were a ploy to gain sympathy and support from left wing radicals and by doing so, he obviously succeeded.This left(way left!)of center candidate should be soundly repudiated by the American voter. This would surely send a message to these radicals, that we are sick and tired of the left wing's attempt to "reconstruct" America to their own sick liking. Thank you, Mr. Garlock, for bringing this mans deplorable past to our attention.
Sincerely, Earl Eubanks, Fayette Co.
As I've been watching Sen Kerry of late reminding audiences of his Vietnam service with Max Cleland and other veterans in towe I've experienced a slow anger. I've not been able to explain this anger to anyone. I can usually even convince myself that its totally unreasonable. After all, the man served in Vietnam honorably and had a perfect right to protest. But I just can't forget how I felt in 1970 when I came back from Vietnam. I was a nineteen year old combat veteran with a purple heart, two bronze stars and a combat infantrymans badge. Of all the protestors I saw, the ones that I held the most disdain for was my fellow veterans. I felt like they were personally turning their back on me. Of all the people I felt I could count on, I felt that other veterans would understand. When I saw their disheveled appearance wearing odd assortment of uniforms and medals that often didn't match their claims of service, I knew that "they" would be the yardstick civilians would use to judge us. Hollywood proved me right. Think about Vietnam veteran and what image do you conjure up. I realize my feelings arent reasonable and probably not even fair, but its just the way I feel.
JOHNEY R. FRIAR, Master Sergeant, U.S. Army, Retired, Auburn
When Sen. Kerry did what he did in the early 70's, I felt as Mr Garlock did. My war was the one before, and I believed it to be necessary, and that Sen Kerry was wrong. Later I read a book called "Street of Joy", talked to Viet Nam veterans, and began to change my mind.
Here we are, involved in a war today that has no purpose and has no foreseeable end. Once again, we have faulty intelligence and are provided with bad equipment which causes us to lose men every day for no reason.
If I could be face to face with Sen Kerry right now, I would say two things: Welcome Brother and How Can I Help.
M/Sgt Jack Wilroy, Woodstock
I believe that Kerry's actions of protesting the Vietnam war were scandalous. He made blatant and false accusations against U.S. soldiers. If Americans have or ever had a negative image of the Vietnam veteran it is in part due to the work of John Kerry. He made a phony protest gesture when he threw away someone else's medals and claimed them to be his own. He encouraged actions by the US government that would have been very pro-Hanoi and anti-POW.
Kerry's days as anti-war protester were marked by a profound disdain of the American soldiers fighting in Vietnam and what they were doing.
Kerry has no business running to be commander-in-chief.
-- Gary Comer, Orlando FL
I hope that Mr. Terry Garlock's opposition to John Kerry as President because of Mr. Kerry's position on the Vietnam War is also reserved for the war hawks "draft dodgers," who saw no problems for others to make the sacrifices, for a cause they believed in but did not have the guts to fight for. Namely, George W. and his henchmen.
-- Luigi G. Mazzoni, Vietnam Veteran, Vietnam Against The War Veteran, Duluth, Ga.
I am a vietnam vet.i would not vote for kerry the man is deeply flawed needs to go home and spend the rest of his life thinking about what is...is.he used us before and now he's using us agai may be jane fonda can help him. I sure wont.
-- jimmy dale freeman, ramer tn.
Mr. Garlock seems to me right on the mark. As a 1966 draftee I am one of those thousands of servicemen who never came close to combat and are proud to have at least worn the uniform. We can only give a salute to that "band of brothers" who actually served as combat vets, because we'll never know. The word is "faith", as Mr. Garlock points out.
Kerry knows the answer and will have to convince his brothers like Mr. Garlock, that he Kerry, kept the faith.
-- V.A. Villarino, San Diego, Ca
Terry Garlock's article is a purely political attack without substance. Note the statements: Kerry wrote a book "than many considered to be pro-Hanoi. " He "was caught in a lie" when he kept his medals after he threw "what appeared to be his medals" over the fence.
But the most insidious and irresponsible is Garlock's insinuation that American soldiers died because of war protesters, such as Kerry. Would the US have won quickly the war in the absence of protests? He must be dreaming. If the protests contributed to ending the war, then they saved lives. Mr. Garlock implies that people should not protest a war while the country's soldiers are fighting, no matter how wrong or ill advised the war is. We have seen such a view before -- in Nazi Germany and Japan during World War II.
Miroslav Marek, Atlanta
Unlike Terry Garlock, I considered it my civic duty to learn the history of Vietnam. France waged a bloody war of conquest in the 1840s and thereafter generated wealth by appropriating Vietnam's resources. That is the international equivalent of home invasion and armed robbery.
America was guilty of receiving stolen goods by buying rubber and other products of French imperialism in Vietnam.
After World War II, Vietnamese patriots kicked France out of their land. If I were Vietnamese, I would have joined them, just as I expect my brother Garlock to fight beside me if aliens invade Georgia to make a profit.
After the Vietnamese expelled France, the United States manipulated Vietnam's elections to establish a puppet regime. The capitalist objective was to control the resources and 'globalize' Vietnam. Plus, Bechtel earned billions (your tax dollars) in war construction.
Mr. Garlock, why don't you wonder how many of your brothers died as a result of this treason?
The result of such immoral foreign policy is global hatred for America. History demonstrates that the downfall of empires has always been external aggression and internal dissension.
John Kerry and Jane Fonda were not traitors, Mr. Garlock. They envisioned a lasting America, trading partner with the world, not exploiter of it. They envisioned an America all citizens would support. Like you, they used the means available to advance their cause. Like many soldiers, they made mistakes.
Given the prevalence of American violence, they displayed as much patriotic courage in protesting the war as you did in fighting it. They were told, 'America, love it or leave it.' They chose the third, patriotic alternative - change it.
Mr. Garlock, if you are a moral citizen, you will comprehend their Constitutional and human right to do so, not to mention their historical wisdom.
Does Terry L. Garlock's article about John Kerry's failure to be a "brother" because he opposed the Vietnam War after he returned home as a medal-bearing hero of the conflict mean that Garlock considers George W Bush a "brother" since he did not demonstrate against the war but safely sat it out as a member of the Air National Guard in the safe confines of the American Soutwest? --
William Allen, Atlanta
I read republican Terry Garlocks' letter on Sen. Kerry. Please print another letter from the overwhelming majority of the vets. that do support Kerry. I listened to Kerry in 1971 when I was in college and he did what he felt was best for the country and told it like it was about the war. He was actually there and had the courage to speak against the war when he returned. Apparently Mr. Garlock had no such courage. Also Mr. Garlocks' statement about Ms. Fonda is false. This is part of the Republican parties politics of personal destruction.
I suppose Mr. Garlock will have no trouble voting for George W. Bush even though he is officially AWOL at best and a deserter at worst. He never showed up for his transfer to the Alabama National Guard from Texas during time of war. The media never talks about this because of their Republican slant.
Dale Peterson, Fayette Co
Terry Garlock is right on target. I wasn't a war hero, but as a Vietnam Era Veteran who also was discharged in 1971, I can relate to the impact of anti-war protestors. Unlike the veterans of WWII, Korea and the Persian Gulf, we were not met with parades and adulation upon returning home. On the contrary, we were made to feel ashamed that we served our county because of protestor leaders like John Kerry.
Vietnam was a mistake by our policy-makers and we should never forget that. But we should also remember that "those who serve during wartime, should have the total support of the people." John Kerry should be exposed for his failure to support his bothers in arms.
Terry L. Griffis, Roswell
I think Kerry's and all other protests were inappropriate. On June 4th l969 I lost my only son (at that time ) killed in combat one week before he was to come home. His unit was the 173 Airborne Brigade. I served in WW II in the l7th Airborne Division and, yes, like my son Harry I saw many months of combat and, yes, like my son received lots of medals including the purple heart. Yes Kerry's stance, as Terry Garlock advised, makes me mad as hell.
Another thing that is making me really angry is the mal-use of the word 'hero' by the News Media. If Kerry is a hero for what he did in combat then World War II produced hundreds of thounsands of heros. Get with it a bronze star or a silver star or a purple heart or a bronze arrowhead do not make a hero. Take a look at the deeds of Sgt. York WW I . He was a real hero. Yes I typed this letter myself and I will be eighty-one come September.
Pascal B. Hopkins, Ejllijay
To Terry Garlock,
Welcome Home Brother!
Sen. John Kerry is typical of most politicos. He will step on and use anyone to get elected, even his brothers. It is too bad that Mr. Kerry's unconscionable stance when he came home has not been emphasized in the media. But what can you expect.
Mr. Kerry will never get my vote. He lost me when he got into bed with that traitor Jane Fonda who is responsible for untold numbers of our brothers not returning from Vietnam.
Glenn Brannon, Cherokee County
Hats off to my brother, Garry L. Garlock, for his right-on article about Senator Kerry. I can assure you as a two-tour Vietnam veteran that the ratio of Vietnam veterans who are supportatvive of Kerry are equivalent to the ratio of Generals who voted for a democrats in the last general election. Bob Lanzotti, Smyrna
How about putting Terry Garlock's article from 1/29 in issue on the AJC web site so everyone can see it and forward to as many people as possible. Kerry is a disgrace to this country and the fact he is running for President is a joke. He is a stooge for Ted Kennedy who should be in jail. This country needs to really examine itself and wake up to what is right and what is wrong. To Terry Garlock I say thanks for bringing this up.
Tom Carroll, Tucker, Ga
Reading Terry L. Garlock's "Vietnam stance irks veterans" reminded me once again why my parents brought us to this country. How fortunate we are to be able to express our opinions so freely.
I remember hearing Jane Fonda back in the early 70's when I was a freshman at the University of Florida. When she started in on Cuba and Castro I go so angry. I thought she doesn't know what she is talking about. Just as I don't agree with everything that Jane Fonda or John Kerry have done and said, I admire and respect them both. They've stood up for their beliefs, both have done more than their share of good for our country.
It isn't always pretty and it is more complex than we want it to be, its being an American and I for one am glad to be one.
Mario Petrirena, Decatur
I see no dark side to John Kerry's Vietnam service.
I was opposed to the war, had no viable alternative to the draft, and served as an infantryman in Vietnam with the First Cavalry Division from June 1969 to June 1970. I am proud of my service and also proud that I marched with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War on Veteran's Day 1971. I am not proud of my country for this misguided adventure in Asia.
I will vote for John Kerry in the primary and I hope to vote for him again in November.
Alfred D. Andrew, Dunwoody
After serving bravely in Vietnam, Kerry returns to the US and tries to get the message out that the war is a mistake by writing a book and testifying to Congress. How much more appropriate can you be? Certainly more appropriate that printing this hatchet job and then asking for readers to pile on. Is this a preview of the kind of campaign coverage we are to expect? Put "too liberal for Georgia" in your AJC search engine and see how you trashed Max Cleland. How many days was that phrase not in your paper in the last two months of the campaign?
Ted Darc, Atlanta
I seldom read editorials as well written as Terry Garlock's atticle about John Kerry. It was truthful, well researched, emotional without being overly passionate and it was accurate and timely.
I'm not a 'my Nation right or wrong' fanatic, but I certainly do support my Nation and I served it proudly during the 1960's.
Kerry had a right to dissent, but not the way he did it. Not protesting in uniform and not by lying about tossing his medals.
His association with Jane Fonda and his book with the American Flag upside down gave support to our enemies at a time when our military was fighting a war and I feel that those actions border on treason.
Terry Garlock points out that Kerry doesn't mention all that during his campaign speeches, he now proudly says he served and won medals.
Sorry Sen. Kerry, you 'broke faith with your brothers'.
Paul De Francis, Dunwoody
Terry Garlock expresses the inner conflict so many Vietnam veterans have--pride in service and strong bonds of friendship for those we served with, yet frustration with the conduct of that war and disillusionment with our government and to some extent with our country. Kerry rode the disillusionment to political prominence in the 1970s, but now is reaching back to the pride in service for a broader base of voters. Both moves smack of opportunism; at least one is indicative of hypocrisy.
When I returned from Vietnam in 1970 and entered graduate school on the G.I. Bill, I joined the college Veterans' Club. I found several men I could talk comfortably with, although our conversations were almost never on Vietnam. But I also found several who were organizers for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and they would talk about nothing but Vietnam. I soon left the club and found peace of mind by solitary jogging. Maybe John Kerry should try that.
Roger Soiset, Lilburn
i don't believe john kerry's protests against the vietnam war were inappropriate, because we are entitled to express our beliefs in this country. but, since he renounced his war record in favor of protesting the war, he has no business touting that record now, just because it serves his quest to be president. that's inappropriate!!!
steve bernthal, blairsville
I am a veteran of the Korean Conflict who, like Vietnam veterans, were never welcomed home. I has always been my opinion that John Kerry's activities during the Vietnam conflict were equivalent to those of Tokyo Rose during World Warr II. It is also my opinion that he does not deserve to hold his current office, let alone the office of President.
James E. Stoll, Cobb County
I am a veteran over 26 years US Army, served in Korea (the forgotten war) and Vietnam (the protested war) and am very proud of the service my brothers and sisters gave to our country. When you are in the military, you might not agree or like what you are ordered to do, but you do it without question, without that we would not have the strongest military in the world. And like Kerry, I have been awarded medals for my combat service in Korea/Vietnam , but the big difference , I and my brothers and sisters take pride from day one in what we accomplished or tried to accomplish, not like Kerry who uses his service record as a tool, ie, when it was popular to protest, there he was , right up front with Fonda protesting the war in congress, forgetting all about his fellow military still serving and dying in Vietnam , Publically throwing his medals over the white house fence and then when he decides to enter the political field, here comes his "I am a Vietnam Veteran " which he is , but a hot/cold one, whenever it is convient for him, and displaying his medals (which he threw away) on his office walls.
This is one Veteran that will NOT be supporting him in his bid to become President (Commander in Chief), I do not want a leader that goes in many directions only when it is good for him, not good for the country and his fellow brothers and sisters in arms.
Jerry L Elliott, Fayetteville
Yes, John Kerry's protests against the Vietnam War were Inappropriate.
It was early 1962 on our first day out to sea as we heading for a six month deployment in the Mediterranean. One of the main landing gear of a F4 Phantom jet had accidentally been guided into the catwalk of the aircraft carrier. Unbeknown to the flight deck crew there was jet fuel on the wing of the F4 which protruded over the edge of the ship. A young sailor (whose job it was) climbed onto the wing of the F4 to connect a tilly strap for lifting the F4 from the catwalk. He slid, like on a playground slide, down the wing of the F4 and into the sea. The ship was moving slowly and we could see him struggling to stay afloat, life jackets were thrown to him. A helicopter was launched for his recovery but he went down and was never recovered. This is only one of many similar instances. I know there are many instances where those who like this young American paid the ultimate price in many ways for our freedoms even in non-combat situations. Was the value of this young American's service less than the value of those like Kerry and others who returned and wish to brag and appear to place the value of their service above that of others? This young person quietly served and gave his all and will never return to publicly throw away the medals that a grateful nation may have awarded him. I honor the service of all veterans and am very suspicious of those who want to place the value of their service above that of others. Those who never returned alive have the greatest value of all and with their return they took no public stand against the war efforts of their appreciative nation. Their only public stand is perhaps a cross in Arlington, head stone in private cemeteries or the Tomb of the Unknowns. Actions of protest like that which Kerry was involved in only serve to embolden the enemy who seek to kill Americans. Now he has the gall to brag of his service and patriotism.
Walt Farmer, McDonough
Your headline should have read: "Vietnam stance irks SOME veterans - not all" Terry Garlock may have been a hero in Vietnam, but not here in my view. I am a veteran of the Korean War, was born in Saigon, Fr. Indo-China, and thus followed the Vietnam War very closely. John Kerry's views on the war are mine exactly. I applaud him for speaking out in ways I could not.
Richard J.L. Martin, Sandy Springs
I recently received this email from a life-long friend,a WW2 Navy veteran, now retired and living in Virginia Beach,Va. It relates what a hypocrite Kerry is, bragging on a service record, when he REALLY hates veterans, the military and in essence the USA.
The enemies of the USA are not all in Iraq, Iran, China, Pakistan, France. John Kerry's past anti-military activities prove that he is not morally qualified to be president of the USA and anyone who reads this email or Terry Garlock's article in the AJC-Jan29 has to know he is a true enemy of democracy and the people of the United States.
Emory Drinkard, LaGrange
As a Vietnam Vet from 1969-1970, I find much agreement with Terry Garlock's editorial. I well remember John Kerry's actions and activities during 1971, but who among us was not young and easily influenced by a changing political, cultural and social environment in the USA when we came home. All we saw were negatives towards us, and Kerry fell into the trap. It is time to forgive and forget, but I find it hard to reward those who avoided service to America with accolades and power, i.e. Howard Dean, Bill Clinton and maybe The President himself. We need leaders to stand up for our veterans and serving military warriors, if Kerry can do that so be it. I hope President Bush will show us that he can do that as well, if not let the best man win. So far only John McCain deserves that mantle. It is a dangereous world, and America can not afford to be led by anyone who vaccilates or gambles with the lives of American soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines.
William Crawford Jones, Roswell
Americans are justifiably protective of our Constitutional rights, including freedom of speech. The right to peacefully dissent from our government's policies and actions, including military engagements, is one of the more significant distinctions that can be made between our form of government and many others around the world.
However, few among us believe that that right extends to providing aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war (even if undeclared). Furthermore, it is one thing to reject the rationale, and even the motives, of our elected officials; it is quite another to embrace a foreign government that uses torture and targets innocent civilians as a deliberate and calculated part of its overall strategy.
It is my understanding that Ms. Fonda has expressed remorse and regret over her actions during that period which clearly stepped over the line described above. To the extent that Senator Kerry's actions similarly crossed that line, as Mr. Garlock accuses, I am of the opinion that he owes the American people an apology, also.
Philip Hinson, Cobb County
I'm writing regarding John Kerry's protests against the Vietnam War. Any time our country is at war, protesting is inappropriate. I think John Kerry should have been tried for treason and also Jane Fonda. No one likes war. It all boils down to greed and power. We will always have wars and rumors of wars. This was foretold by Jesus Christ in Luke 21:9. There's a piece of my heart in Vietnam. My son served two tours of duty in Vietnam when he was 18 and 19. It's almost unbearable to have a loved one in a war, but we have to defend our country. I thank God for a president that loves and respects our armed services. The young men who fought in Vietnam contracted agent orange, hepatitis, and suffer emotional syndrome, but I believe they would do the same thing again. As for John Kerry, Terry Garlock's article in the AJC was excellent, and I agree with him 100%. I don't think Kerry will get too many Baby Boomer's and Vietnam votes.
Thanks for giving me a chance to express my opinion God Bless America!
I am in agreement with Mr. Garlock's piont of view. I am a combat Vietnam Vet with a few medals of my own. In hindsight, which is usually 20/20, I share some of the concerns expressed by those who oppossed the War but there is an appropriate and credible way to do that. John Kerry comes across as someone who only does the popular thing for the advancement of his career. I'm not real happy with President Bush but I sure find it difficult to support Senator Kerry.
"We,Vietnam Vets, were that which others did not want to be; went where others feared to go and did what others failed to do"..................and I am able to say that I was proud of what I was.............a soldier. I guess Senator Kerry did things he is not proud and didn't respect being a soldier and doesn't respect those of us who did what we did. Maybe he was in the
Navy. J. Kenneth Torreyson, Atlanta
I believe this question is misleading. Of course every American has the right to protest or voice his/her opinion. However, for John Kerry to use only one side of his war record to boost his way to the White House is most certainly an issue. My husband is also a Viet Nam veteran and he like all the other veterans never asked to be sent to fight a war which was considered just a conflict. But they went, they fought, they provided support. When they came home no one but their families welcomed them. The protests led by Jane Fonda (and I can't even go there without tears) and Kerry were hurtful to the nation. John Kerry's actions speak louder than his rhetoric and I would be ashamed to have him represent this country. Terry Garlock's editorial comments in today's AJC hit the nail on the head. Kudos to him for speaking out!
Linda Rucker, Alpharetta
We could learn a lot from Mr. Garlock's experience that is applicable today. Many, famous, US citizens, known throughout the World, are against the Iraq war in the US. Is that not energizing and encouraging our enemy to continue to fight in hopes of conquering a country divided? If you want to protest the war, do it with your VOTE in November.
Sutton Shaw, Sharpsburg
John Jerry returned from Viet Nam a war hero who turned his back on his comrades in the military. He locked arms with a bunch of renegade vagabonds who called themselves soldiers and spit in our face. Some of those who said they were veterans and had committed horrible crimes while serving in Viet Nam turned out to be fakes. Kerry wrote a book called 'The New Soldier' that voices his views on the military but the book is out of print. Maybe Mr. Kerry ask the publisher for reprints so that we can read his on words. I am a Viet Nam veteran and I am waiting on Mr. Kerry to explain to me and the American people why he joined forces with Jane Fonda who caused a lot of misery for those of us who served.
-- Thomas Gill, Waycross
I was never in the military, so I will have to take Mr. Garlock's word on the veteran viewpoint. I am sick though of hearing about Kerry and Vietnam like the two are synonymous somehow. Kerry seeming can't get past his role in it and he apparently isn't going to let the rest of us forget it either.
Besides, touting a war record now might make more sense if you hadn't made such a public display of repudiating it as soon as you returned home.
The whole thing kind of reminds me of Jimmy Carter telling us repeatedly about being a "nuclur" engineer in the Navy. Like Kerry, Carter also told us he was opposed to the war in Vietnam. Unlike Kerry he told us about this deeply held belief after the war ended. Kerry at least told us during the war, be it in a very public forum that launched his later career.
Regardless, Kerry trading on his service record now to make it appear he has the stuff to be commander-in-chief is just as opportunistic as Carter's post war admission apparently intended to make us think he had the courage of his convictions. Neither holds water.
The whole thing is indicative of Kerry's opportunistic style in general: like using his middle initial to imply a connection to a prior senator from Massachusetts with the initials JFK; the foul mouth tough guy image he adopts when convenient; being disingenuous about his past rhetoric regarding Iraq; trying hard to identify with the average guy despite his preppy background and marriage to a deceased Senate colleague?s wife who is worth more than all the average guys put together; being more than willing to tax the rest of us to death when he already has his (wife's) millions.
In short, he is fraud, and on muitple levels. The Democrats might as well stop now because they have found their man.
-- Robert Cagle, Atlanta, Ga
Senator John Kerry's protests were absolutely correct. He volunteered for Vietnam and served with distinction. When he returned to the United States, he took an honorable and principaled stand against the war and worked to bring his brothers home. I for one shudder to think how many more lives would have been wasted had not men of conscience, like Kerry, stood up against the war.
I'm also, frankly, a little amazed that a "decorated veteran" like Garlock is apparently ignorant of the fact that replacement medals can be ordered by any deserving veteran or his family members. Certainly Senator Kerry wouldn't be the first veteran whose feelings changed about his military service over the years.
-- Jodi Mai, Smyrna, GA
While I salute Mr. Galock service in Vietnam, I could not disagree more with his characterization of Mr. Kerry's anti-war stance as wrong, or his "dark side". I believe many reasonable people who study the Vietnam era can come to the conclusion that our involvement in that war was a mistake. The final outcome, communist North Vietnam taking over the South did not, as the proponants of the war predicted, cause a "domino effect". It was exactly Patriotism at its best that had a Vietnam war hero like John Kerry come to the reasoned conclusion that American's were dieing for the wrong reason.
Now, once again America needs a leader that can come to the conclusion that we are a country of men, not angels and when mistakes are made our minds and hearts need to change before the monuments we build to our dead heroes become to large.
-- Rich Brunner, Peachtree City, GA
I am a Viet Nam era veteran. I volunteered but was never sent. I know that being a veteran does not allow us to corner the market when it comes to justifying wars or condemning them. I do know that those that openly protested our presence in 'The Nam' did not do our troops at home or abroad any favors. It was a tough time made even tougher by the protesters that aided our enemy. I said that to say this. I did not support the invasion of Iraq. However, once the decision was made, I will support our troops with every breath I take. What kind of soldier, fights in a war, comes back home and publicly leads protests against that war, while his 'brothers' that he served with are still fighting for their lives in combat? What kind of public servant(senator) votes to invade Iraq and once the troops are there, votes against funding them? Were both of these 'moves' made for political reasons? Absolutely! Kerry brings no honor to veterans or current soldiers. He is a liberal politician that leaves troops in harms way if the political winds blow that way! I can't wait to vote against him. He is no hero! He is a traitor to the troops, past and present!
-- John Hayes, Camilla, GA
By serving in a combat zone Kerry clearly earned the right to speak out against the war; unlike George Bush, Jr. the coward who avoided the draft with a politically orchestrated appointment to the National Guard.
Let's cut to the facts - We have a Commander in Chief who was a draft dodger, and a candidate who proved his patriotism to his country. Draft dodgers shouldn't be sending ANYONE to war!!!
-- Dan Devine, ABE, PA
What ever happened to the First Amendment? Are we to believe that after serving two (2) tours of duty in Vietnam, being wounded, saving his mens' lives and watching others die that he (Kerry) is somehow "disloyal" or "unpatriotic" for daring to actually exersize his rights upon his return home? If a decorated combat vet like Kerry can be demonized and maligned as being a "traitor" for expressing his opinion, then who else among us is safe from that kind of malicious vitriol?
In case any of you have forgotten, John Kerry wasn't exactly the only American who was opposed to the war in Vietnam. There were millions and millions of Americans (including myself) who concluded that we had been misled regarding the causes of the war (sound familiar?), that the South Vietnamese government was hopelessly corrupt and inept, that Americans were doing a disproportionate amount of the fighting, that the war was unwinable,and that far too many Americans had died there with no end in sight.
Unlike George W. Bush, who used his father's influence to get him into the Texas National Guard during the war, and who didn't even bother to report for duty during the last year of his enlistment, at least John Kerry had the guts not only to finish his tour of duty, but to volunteer for a second tour!
What did Kerry and all other Vietnam vets fight for if not the right to dissent? I am fed up with all of these chickenhawks, armchair generals and right-wing shills insinuating that it is "disloyal" or "unpatriotic" for an American to disagree with the policies of his/her government. Nothing could be further from the truth! This country was founded on dissent and the right to dissent is the cornerstone of any free society.
-- Donald G. Bowers, Atlanta,GA
Thousands of protests were appropriate because Americans learned from the protests that the war was a usless loss of life. The last 30 years have shown that America got nothing for all the lives it gave. I hope most Americans will not be saying that about Iraq.
Just because LBJ wanted the war does not mean we all should not question his wisdom on it.
-- Bill Slaugenhop, Jasper, Ga
No, Sen. Kerry's Vietnam War protests were absolutely not inappropriate. There are many Vietnam veterans who are supporting Sen. Kerry in his bid for the presidency. Former Sen. Max Cleland, who lost both legs and one arm in Vietnam, and whose patriotism was questioned by the Bushites (how dare they, but they did), has endorsed Sen. Kerry. If there is one thing certain in this old world, it is that people are going to disagree. While I respect Mr. Garlock's Vietnam service, I agree with Sen. Kerry's Vietnam viewpoint. After all, he served as well.
-- Gayle Wright, Temple, GA
Terry L. Garlock would have you believe that an AWOL National Guardsman who spent the war flying over Alabama a few times is more "heroic" than a veteran who actually fought in Vietnam and received the battle scars to prove it. Kerry saw the war first-hand and was offended by it. I have far more respect for Kerry than I do someone like Bush who feigns a military background. Terry L. Garlock previously questioned the patriotism of Max Cleland in a 2002 article, preferring a man like Saxby Chambliss, who couldn't serve in the military because of "bad knees", but oddly enough those "bad knees" didn't keep him from playing college football.
Is Terry L. Garlock an advocate for veterans or simply a Republican shill? He seems to come out of the woodwork to spill venom towards any Democrat that challenges the Republican machine. I would ask Mr. Garlock how he feels about the extensive cuts in services his friends like Bush and Chambliss have made to veterans. I find that much more disrespectful than Kerry's protests.
-- Carlton Wyatt, Douglasville, GA
At least Kerry showed up. Neither Bush nor Clinton did, did they?
-- Larry Schneider, Tucker
Veterans take wars very seriously. The Vietnam War-long remembered harbor a deep and heartfelt meaning to all of us veterans, regardless of what wars has been fought. John Kerry protest against the war tell many veterans that he will be a "one-sided" while running for office and then he will become two-sided after the election providing he win! Chances are, many people have not taken the opportunity to visit the Vietnam Veteran's Memorial, better known as the "Black-Wall". It is a place that you will never forget. Ever name will be forever remember and it will stick-out more than anything you have ever seen. 58,000 lives was lost during the Vietnam conflict. I agree that the Vietnam War took place during the so called "flower-child" error. Nothing could be understood as to waht was taking place because the information and news was slow in coming. What news that was received concerning the war, it was all about the body count which gave people a very negative reaction about the war. The men and women who fought the war or took part in it; they will tell any one they were glad they had the opportunity to serve. To date, a greatful nation remian in debts to our fighting men and women who died and those who still live.
-- Deacon Robert-Willis Henry, Kennesaw, Georgia
Senator Kerry's protests in opposition to the Vietnam war were decidedly inapporiate. His actions along with Jane Fonda's actions did nothing but aid and abet our enemy. Who knows how many American lives they cost? Julian Austin former Navy fighter pilot
-- Julian L Austin, Dade City Florida
Kerry betrayed our trust. What do you call a person who supported our enemy during war? Many Americans soldiers died unnecessary because of Kerry and Jane Fonda.
We made mistakes and paid dearly when we lost the Vietnam War.
Kerry will not get my vote. Wake up America?
-- Dan Freeman, San Jose, California
John Kerry went to Vietnam and put his life on the line on his tour of duty.
For that reason he had a right to say what ever he wanted to about the war whe he got back home.
One article says had Kerry and Fonda not objected the war more lives would have been spared. I say poppycock! That war was nothing but a money making machine for the ones who had defense contracts with the government and never wanted that war to end.
-- Cathy Johns, Atlanta
Yes, Kerry's conduct was deplorable. Terry Garlock's column in your 29 January edition said it well when he wrote, "...Kerry's public actions encouraged our enemy at a time they were killing America's sons." Now, like Bill Clinton before him, he wants us to remember only bits and pieces of his past. We would do well to remember that he chose to denigrate and humiliate his fellow soldiers, chose to mock the heros of WW2, chose to dishonor the American flag, chose to lie about his medals by staging his little melodrama at the White House. With stunning insensitivity and hubris he finds nothing incongruent with his past behavior and his current bid to be this nations moral compass and commander-in-chief. Quite disgusting when you think about it.
-- S. Kevin Barger, Esq., Major, USAF (Ret), Staunton, VA
This is the same argument heard over and over again by the right wing Republicans. Lets go back and look seriously at the Vietnam War. We had politicians deeply involved with a military/industrial complex bent on continuing the war for profit purposes. We had politicians who were so adament that the war was being 'won' that the US gov. continued the hypocrisy. The war, after 5 years, looked like it would go on forever. John Kerry, Jane Fonda, the whole anti-war movement did what they thought was their only available form of protest. Ms. Fonda went to Hanoi, John Kerry stayed home and worked within our system of civil disobediance to change the process and get us out. Not only was it their right, but their responsibility as citizens of the United States to do their utmost to change what they perceived (and its been proved they were correct) to be an unjust war. I pall at the thought of how many more of our soldiers would have been killed in the name of a profit for industry if we hadn't had these two out there fighting to end the Viet Nam war.
-- Andy Hall, Atlanta
The only thing inappropriate about Kerry's protests is that he didn't stand by his convictions. The sham of throwing away his medals, which turned up later on his office wall and the speeches today about how he served proudly in Vietnam and that this qualifies him to be President; these are the inappropriate things. I am a Libertarian, but I vote for candidates I respect regardless of party. I would have much more respect for Kerry had he either stuck to his beliefs, or stood up and apologized to his fellow Vietnam veterans for his actions when he was younger. But to boast of being a decorated veteran without issuing that apology seems to me a slap in the face of all those who fought because their country asked it of them, and an insult to the memory of all who died in Vietnam.
-- Debra Padgett, Cherokee County
Kerry is perhaps the most repulsive figure ever to actively persue the Presidency. The nation must have sunk to new lows to even consider this liberal for any political office.
-- Paul Sliger, Caryville TN
Not unlike some of the anti-war protests of today, John Kerry's was completely inappropriate. The absurd protests and Democratic presendential contender's anti-war rhetoric only serves the enemy. Unfortunatly, the ignorant of history(mostly democrats) have their right to protest. What ALL Americans should know and contemplate is that the branch of ISLAM that wants to exterminate all other religions prays dailey for a democrat victory in November.
And to be fair to ISLAM, that religion does get it right with the women situation. What is the divorce rate in an Islamic country? I understand what those people are fighting for and against. It is only a matter of time that we pollute their society with out-of-wedlock births and lawyers.
-- john t. harris, bethlehem, georgia
Back To Page 1 Next Page