John Kerry History Page    |     home
Page 8
This is America, built on Dissent, right John?
Aaaah the smell of Napalm In The Morning.....Bring It On!


March 28, 2004 -- IF elected president, will John Kerry offer the Arabs a better deal? This is the question raised in the Arab media these days.
Many different answers are given, but a consensus seems to be emerging that a Kerry presidency will lift what the Arab elite regards as its worst nightmare during the presidency of George W Bush.

The Kerry debate was kicked off by the Saudi daily Al-Jazeera, which published a front-page photo of the Massachusetts senator with Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud, the Saudi ambassador in Washington. Several other Saudi papers later ran the "friendship photo" "the history of a long and close friendship between Sen. Kerry and the Saudi kingdom."

The pan-Arab daily Asharq Alawsat, for example, claimed that Kerry's recent promise to end America's dependence on Saudi oil is merely an electoral tactic. The paper also claimed that Kerry was introduced to the Saudi ambassador by Edward Kennedy, the senior Massachusetts senator, in 1990. The two "worked hard" to organize an exhibition in Boston to introduce "Saudi culture and civilization" to Americans.

The Saudi media also cite "official documents" that testify to the "close friendship" Kerry ostensibly developed with Riyadh for more than a decade.

Kennedy's "Arab connection" is even older. In 1976, he toured several Arab capitals - including Baghdad, where he met Saddam Hussein, then Vice-President of Iraq. "Kennedy understands the Arabs because he has visited the region and developed relations with Arab leaders," says a Saudi official. "As the senior figure of the Democratic Party, Kennedy will help put a Kerry administration on the right track with regard to relations with the Arabs."

Beyond Saudi Arabia, the assumption in Arab media and political circles is that Kerry as president will abandon Bush's "dreams of change" in the Middle East and restore Washington's traditional policy of support for the status quo in the Arab world.

"We are certain that a Democratic administration will be more realistic," says a senior advisor to Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak. "Bush's talk of imposing democracy can only de-stabilize the region and produce catastrophe for all concerned."

Arab chancelleries are doing all they can to freeze all issues pending the outcome of the U.S. presidential election. But some Arab politicians reject this "wait and see" position. "For decades, we have geared Arab politics to the rhythm of American presidential elections," says Lebanese politician Walid Jumbalat. "Each time, we deluded ourselves into believing that a change at the White House would lead to a change in our favor."

Jumbalat is right. The deus ex machina of American elections has seldom helped save the Arab from a tight spot.

Many Arab leaders also fail to understand the sea-change that 9/11 has produced in the average American's view of the world. What Bush has tried to do is to reflect that change - which, incidentally, goes against his original inclination to keep the United States as clear of international affairs as possible.

Today, it is safe to say that no one can get elected president of the United States on an anti-war platform. The rise and rapid fall of Howard Dean, the anti-war populist, was a sure sign of that. Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the most ardent of the anti-war hopefuls, has failed to rise above the 1 percent level in Democrat primaries.

The Arabs should not delude themselves into believing that a Democratic administration will be able to abandon the War on Terror or ignore its root cause, which is the absence of democracy and human rights in countries where religious fascism has established itself as the key challenger to often corrupt and despotic ruling cliques.

The Arabs are not alone in deluding themselves that a Democrat at the White House will let them do as they please. Kerry's claim that several foreign leaders told him they need him to beat Bush is not as fanciful as the Republicans pretend. Some "old Europe" politicians, including France's President Jacques Chirac, also hope a President Kerry will dance to their tune - not only on Iraq, but also on issues such as the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court.

Dominique de Villepin, France's foreign minister, makes no secret of his belief that the Bush presidency has been an "aberration" and that a Democratic president will "lift the fog of war."

What the outside world must understand is that most Americans now believe that they are threatened by enemies who can strike in the very heart of the United States. But the average American's reaction is quite different from that of the Spaniards who changed their votes because of the 3/11 terrorist attacks on Madrid. Few Americans are prepared to turn the other cheek for Osama bin Laden and societies that have helped breed, raise and finance him. Nor would they share the "old Europe" illusion that one can change the nature of a man-eater by feeding him vegetables and cuddling him.

Sens. Kerry and Kennedy may be "sincere friends of the Arabs," as the Saudi media suggest. It is also quite possible that de Villepin told Kerry "you've got to beat Bush for all of us." But the problem that Arabs and some in the "old Europe" have is that they do not yet understand that, for a majority of Americans, the War on Terror is a real war - not a pose that can be altered with a change of administration.E-mail:

John Kerry on Economics: A Kinder, Gentler Mondale
March 29, 2004
by W. James Antle III

Every major presidential candidate must take part in that quadrennial ritual of introducing a plan to solve what the chattering class considers to be the nation’s most pressing economic problems. Adding to this challenge is that whatever the candidate comes up with must roughly coincide with his party’s preferred fiscal nostrums. While the problems change, the solutions don’t.
It is in this context that John Kerry trekked to Wayne State University in Detroit for the grand unveiling of his economic program, with which he intends to add 10 million new jobs, crack down on those “Benedict Arnold” CEOs who are said to be “outsourcing America” and force that wicked top 1 percent to finally pay its fair share of taxes. The last points to the difficulty inherent in the Democratic nominee achieving his first two objectives: The fiscal policy solutions of choice in Kerry’s party are raising taxes and spreading the wealth with a generous hand, two time-honored liberal panaceas which alienate swing voters and are decidedly anti-growth.
But Kerry’s no dummy. While Howard Dean wanted to follow Walter Mondale off the cliff by proposing an across-the-board tax increase, Massachusetts’ junior senator prefers following the example of Bill Clinton. His package is a mishmash of tax cuts and tax increases, with the latter targeted against those with incomes in excess of $200,000 a year, similar to what Clinton campaigned on in 1992. He is bargaining that the voters won’t care about raising someone else’s taxes – the old quip, “Don’t tax you and don’t tax me, let’s tax the man behind the tree.”
Of course, Clinton’s middle-class tax cut ended up being dumped from his 1993 economic plan before being presented to Congress and the expansion of the earned-income tax credit (which Clintonites often point to as evidence that their man cut more people’s taxes than he raised) mainly increased the number of people with no income-tax liability who received subsidies from other taxpayers. Given the coming collision of real-income bracket creep and the alternative minimum tax, one needn’t go very far out on a limb to guess that a similar tax hike to tax cut ratio might be the result of Kerry’s policies.
Kerry proposes a slight cut in the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 33 ¼ percent. But this would be offset by the tax increase borne by small-business owners and entrepreneurs in the top personal income tax bracket. Higher taxes on dividends and capital gains would have a detrimental impact on investors and the cost of capital.
Nor does the Kerry plan take into account the impact higher marginal tax rates have on incentives to engage in income-generating activities. Larry Kudlow, who I often disagree with but tends to be sensible on tax policy, took note of this in his analysis for National Review Online: “The Kerry proposal to rollback the Bush tax cuts would raise the after-tax cost and reduce the post-tax investment return on capital by more than 54 ½ percent. Taking out the upper-bracket labor-income component — which is still investment capital — the Kerry tax hike would reduce investment incentives by nearly 47 percent and work-effort returns by more that 7 ½ percent.”
The Kerry plan’s penalties on U.S. companies with operations abroad would probably do more to depress exports than halt outsourcing. He also proposed tax credits to subsidize job creation. But past “human employment tax credits” have been found wanting. In an economy that creates and destroys more than 2 million jobs a month it is difficult to identify such jobs and attribute them to the tax credit. Many companies end up being rewarded for hiring workers they would have hired anyway. A study by the Clinton Labor Department, for example, concluded that 92 percent of the new jobs cited in claiming the tax credit would have been created anyway and that the program cost three times more than it returned in employment gains.
These tax credits also second-guess the market and distort companies’ decision-making by arbitrarily rewarding them for filling certain jobs rather than making the kinds of gains in output and productivity that create jobs and sustain economic growth long-term.
Bruce Bartlett argued on his website, “In conclusion, it appears that Kerry has chosen as his centerpiece jobs program two initiatives that will be ineffective at best and positively harmful at worst. No serious economist thinks they will create anywhere close to 10 million jobs, as Kerry claims.”
The idea that raising marginal tax rates, especially on the rich, will grow the economy is based in part on perceptions of what worked during the Clinton years. According to “Rubinomics,” a fiscal policy approach identified with Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, higher taxes can be a boon for GDP if they reduce budget deficits, thus lowering interest rates. But the connection between lower interest rates and the 1993 Clinton tax increase is tenuous at best.
Other arguments in favor of Rubinomics depend on a selective reading of the 1990’s economic history. The rate of economic growth actually declined immediately following the increase in marginal income tax rates and the one-third increase in the top rate generated far less revenue than had been projected. By the time economic growth really took off and the budget moved into surplus, there had been an offsetting tax cut that slashed the capital gains tax rate from 28 percent to 20 percent and government-limiting measures ranging from welfare reform to reductions in nondefense discretionary spending.
The best that can be said for the decision to raise the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6 percent under Clinton was that it neither prevented significant growth later in the decade nor fulfilled the most hysterical Republican predictions of economic disaster. It did, after all, still leave Ronald Reagan’s tax cuts substantially intact. The same is likely to be the best possible result if Kerry’s proposal to return the top tax rate to 39.6 percent were enacted.
Bush would be in a much better position to challenge Kerry on fiscal policy if it weren’t for all the spending, borrowing and monetary pump-priming he has supported during his administration. Some of the GOP’s standard-issue economic nostrums aren’t faring any better as solutions to today’s problems; in numerous other cases, the White House and congressional Republicans aren’t living up to their free-market, small-government rhetoric nearly enough.
None of this changes the fact that Kerry’s idea of stimulating economic growth and creating new jobs is to offer a grab-bag of warmed-over proposals culminating in a net tax increase. Clinton may have taught the Democrats to use rhetoric more soothing to taxpayers and businesses than Mondale, but on substance it is evident that the party’s comprehension of markets, growth and wealth creation has progressed little in the last 20 years.
W. James Antle III

Kerry's Beacon Hill Neighbor Talks to NewsMax

As the cliché goes, sometimes the best advertising is word of mouth ... or, sometimes not. At a Palm Beach luncheon this week we were fortunate to sit in the company of an interesting Bostonian woman, who just happens to be a neighbor of John Kerry.

Oh, perhaps we'd better clarify which of Kerry's neighborhoods we mean, as he does have five different ones. This lady is a Beacon Hill neighbor.
Of course, we couldn't help but ask - and we won't mention her name - "What do you think of John Kerry?"
She told us.

"I think he's the rudest, ugliest, most arrogant man I've ever met," she replied without a second's hesitation.
She then went on to inform us that Kerry and his wife Teresa Heinz had a fire hydrant removed from the street near their home, so they would have an extra place to park.
The last anecdote she gave us was about a visit to the grocery store. It seems the Beacon Hill neighborhood has a popular little market, which is nearly always quite crowded with long lines of shoppers waiting to check out.

On one of this neighbor's shopping trips, she said, Kerry appeared with his groceries and went straight to the front of the line demanding, "I'm a senator. Take these."

Kerry chastises Rice for 9/11 commission absence
Bush campaign: Senator trying to 'politicize' panel's work
Saturday, March 27, 2004 Posted: 7:58 PM EST (0058 GMT)

KANSAS CITY, Missouri (CNN) -- Presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry chastised national security adviser Condoleezza Rice on Saturday for refusing to testify publicly before the 9/11 commission and accused the Bush administration of conducting "character assassination" against people who say things the White House doesn't like.
"If Condoleezza Rice can find time to do '60 Minutes' on television before the American people, she ought to find 60 minutes to speak to the commission under oath," Kerry said while campaigning Saturday.
Rice met privately for several hours with the commission in February, but the White House has said the rules of executive privilege preclude administration staff members, such as Rice, from appearing before a panel formed by Congress.
She has offered to participate in a second private meeting, but the commission has asked her to testify publicly under oath.
"The secretary of state, the head of the Central Intelligence Agency, the undersecretary of state ... go up there and raise their right hand and talk under oath to make America safer," Kerry said. "Certainly, we can find a way to respect executive privilege -- not to have it be an opening of the door -- but nevertheless to accomplish America's needs to protect the security of our country."
The Bush-Cheney campaign issued a written statement calling Kerry's attack on Rice "part of the Democrats' strategy to politicize the work of the 9/11 commission."
"John Kerry seeks to distract Americans from his own failed ideas for protecting America from future attacks," Bush-Cheney spokeswoman Nicolle Devenish said. "John Kerry's backward-looking approach would return us to the failed policies of treating terror as a law-enforcement matter." Read On

 John Weisman: Letter to Senator Kerry

March 12, 2004 Dear Senator Kerry:I'm puzzled and I'm troubled by your actions, both as a senator and as a candidate, and I think we, as voters, need some clarifications, explanations, and just plain talk from you now that you seem to have the support necessary to formally win the Democratic Party's presidential nomination. If you won't explain your actions clearly, you are not being honest with the voters. If you are not up-front, then you are displaying neither integrity nor character. And since President Bush's honesty, integrity, and character appear to be three of the main themes of your upcoming campaign, I think you should have to operate under the same rules of engagement as you want him to.I'll deal with integrity and character in a moment. For now, the issue on which you need to make yourself most perfectly clear is - no pun intended - transparency.For weeks now you have been pummeling the White House to be more transparent in its dealings with the 9/11 Commission; to hand over documents and memos and telephone logs and other materials that would clarify what the president knew, and when he knew it. You and your surrogates have similarly prodded other Executive departments, including OSD - the secretary of defense's office - to supply similar records.You and your surrogates, especially Sen. Kennedy, have also demanded transparency from America's intelligence community (IC) about its pre-war analysis of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. You and Sen. Kennedy want to know what the president and vice president and secretary of defense knew, and when they knew it. You want to know what the IC told them, and when.But when it comes to transparency on your part, you draw the line. The matter of your military medical records, for example. You were wounded three times and received three purple hearts. What about showing us voters the medical records? Your three purple hearts allowed you to take advantage of the Navy system, return to the USA, andaccelerate your departure from active duty so that you could run for congress by accusing the very men you served with of committing atrocities. What do your medical records say about the gravity of your wounds? Don't you think you owe transparency to prospective voters?The answer, unfortunately, is that you do not. It's a pattern with you.Neither are you are transparent in discussing your wife's charities, which appear to support some of the very groups that are protesting the Iraq war, and complain shrilly about President Bush's use of 9/11 footage in his campaign ads. You say you are transparent on the issue of outsourcing American jobs overseas. But your wife's company, Heinz, has many of its factories overseas. Isn't that outsourcing, Senator? You say you are against special interest money. But you have taken huge amounts of special interest money for your campaigns in the past. Why not just come clean.But you don't come clean. And I have come to believe that thereason you don't is because you are lacking in two of the most vital traits individuals in public service should possess: character, and integrity.My late foster brother Anthony, who was a New York City Police Officer, used to say, "Little brother Johnny, a perp is a perp is a perp." What he meant was that bad guys usually lived a pattern. He was right. Most perps repeat: repeat their crimes; repeat their MO's; repeat their mistakes. It's the flaw,the Achilles heel, in their character that allows them to be found out and arrested.And in that way, senator, you resemble a perp.You deal with threats and critics by maligning them and engaging in character assassination.Not face to face, but stealthily. Using surrogates, and by going behind their backs.That's what you did to an American patriot named Felix Rodriguez.You accused my friend Felix, who was instrumental in capturing the notorious terrorist and Marxist revolutionary Che Guevara back in 1967, of taking millions of dollars in drug money to support the anti-Sandinista forces fighting communism in Nicaragua.Not to Felix's face, of course. Somehow, on June 30, 1987, a story leaked out of the Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism and Narcotics, of which you were chairman, and made its way into Felix's hometown paper, the Miami Herald. Citing "congressional sources," the story accused Felix of soliciting a $10 million donation from the Colombian cocaine cartel.And just by coincidence, you happened at the time, to be one of Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis' prime foreign-policy advisors.And Gov. Dukakis was running for the Democratic presidential nomination, and you knew Felix had participated in two photo sessions with then-Vice President (and presumptive Republican candidate) George H.W. Bush.Accusing Felix of taking $10 mil in drug money was a great way of tarring the vice president while appearing to be above the fray.The only problem was that the story was false. It was a lie. And if Felix had been allowed to testify in open session before your committee, he would have told the world it was a lie. That way, his complete denials of your politically motivated charges would have found their way into print.But you didn't let that happen. Felix wanted transparency. He wanted to testify in open session. You didn't want transparency. You insisted on having Felix testify behind closed doors. Issues of national security, your people said. And when Felix asked you in that closed session to release his testimony, you refused. You kept the rumors going for eleven months.That particular episode, senator, demonstrated to me that you would always put the politics of personal gain - your personal gain - above issues of integrity.Let's fast forward. Today, some of your critics decry your antiwar activities; they accuse you of giving aid and comfort to the Viet Cong, the North Vietnamese military, and the communists led by Ho Chi Minh. Others, former POWs, say that your words helped the very criminals who tortured them. Still other critics cite your conflicted Senate record. And still others criticize your votes to weaken our military and defense communities. Your instinctive reaction is to smear these people.Recently, wearing a microphone you probably forgot was on, you called those critics "crooks" and "liars." Of course you did. It's your pattern, senator, to act like that.These days, your surrogates are busy leaking stories that President Bush lied about 9/11. They are busy spreading the word that he and his administration cooked the books about the Iraq war. There's no evidence presented, of course. Just the accusations. It's your pattern.Oh, there's a definite pattern here, senator. A disturbing pattern. And sooner or later that pattern is going to become transparent to voters. It's going to become transparent when people examine your voting record in black and white. It's going to become transparent when the tapes of your congressional
testimony are played on the network news - when people actually hear you accusingthe very same people alongside whom you fought of unspeakable acts of atrocity. It's going to become transparent when patriots like Felix Rodriguez start speaking publicly about how shabbily they were treated at your hands.And when that happens, the voters will come to understand the same simple truth about your character, or lack of it, that my foster brother Anthony knew so many years ago: "A perp is a perp is a perp."  2004 John Weisman. All opinions expressed in this article are theauthor's and do not necessarily reflect those of

John Kerry Vs. George W. Bush
Comparing the Character of the Candidates
March 26, 2004

by Bruce Walker

Leftists have some fundamental problems of trust with the American people. They spent eight years defending the indefensible - the Clinton White House - and declined to challenge Clinton in 1996, when it was quite obvious that he was the most dishonest president in American history.

Leftists also hide their true beliefs. When pundits talk about the need of Kerry to move back to the center, what they really mean is the need for Kerry to conceal his true beliefs. The surreal Leftism of Gore, after losing the presidency, and of Dean, while losing the Democrat nomination, shows just how radical Leftists like Kerry are.
Compounding these fundamental problems, Leftists are used to having withering artillery barrages - unanswered by the Right - pummel their real or imagined enemies. Conservatives and Republicans are accustomed to every single real or imaginary flaw exposed to heartless public scrutiny. Leftists and Democrats are accustomed to having the most egregious and clear flaws totally ignored by the Leftist establishment media, which once dominated public consciousness. Read On

An Open Letter to John Kerry

By Larry Purdy | March 26, 2004
Benedict Arnold was a war hero, wounded in battle---before he turned against his country. Hitler was likewise a decorated and wounded veteran of the First World War. Being a war hero is not a lifetime . . . exempt[ion] . . . from responsibility for what you do thereafter. -- Thomas Sowell. [1]
Not that long ago you wrote a letter to President Bush in which you accused him of reopening the wounds of the Vietnam war for “personal political gain.” Putting aside the stunning hypocrisy of your claim in view of your own nonstop references to your service in that conflict, culminating in your most recent campaign advertisement, please allow me to respond.
As a former naval officer who also served in Vietnam, I had thought that tragic war was behind us. I assumed you, too, had put Vietnam behind us. But it has been you---not the President---who has made Vietnam an issue. Speaking personally, I feel you have every right to do so.
Let me begin by saying that during my entire twelve month tour supporting the swift boat division in which you served in An Thoi, as well as the Seawolves (Navy attack helicopters), Strike Attack Boats (STABs) and SEALs in My Tho and Dong Tam, I never once heard reports about, much less witnessed, the sorts of atrocities you have accused American servicemen of committing. What I witnessed were young men, often frightened at the prospect of operating in areas largely controlled by the enemy, who did their jobs as skillfully and honorably as they knew how. While I do not presume to speak for them, and obviously I cannot speak for you, I did not know a single person in Vietnam who did any of the things you described.
With that in mind, let’s talk about what you described, beginning with your testimony before Congress on April 22, 1971, two years after you returned from Vietnam. You said many interesting things including the following:
[S]everal months ago in Detroit [referring to what you later describe as the “Winter Soldier Investigation”], we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command.
They . . . had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in [a] fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam . . . . [2]
These are very serious allegations. I assume you did not make them lightly. So here are a few straightforward questions to which all Americans (but most particularly all living Vietnam veterans) deserve your thoughtful response:
1. Did you or any of the men who served under your command commit any of the “war crimes” you described in your testimony? (page 180) If so, what did you do when you were there to stop these crimes from occurring?
2. You testified that the men who participated with you in the “Winter Soldier Investigation” in Detroit “relived the absolute horror of what this country . . . made them do.” (page 180) Having described these actions in great detail, did you come away feeling a certain sympathy with, say, Nazi storm troopers or concentration camp guards, who also claimed that they were doing only what their country made them do?
3. Would you agree that there were American servicemen who, unlike you and your “Winter Soldier” colleagues, found the strength to refuse to engage in the sorts of atrocities you described? And would you agree that these men (in vastly greater numbers than those who appeared with you in Detroit) displayed more courage and character than did you?
4. Do you believe any former United States military officer who so much as tolerated the sort of behavior you described in your testimony should be elected President of the United States?
5. Despite the blatant and outrageous violations of the Geneva Conventions by the Viet Cong and the NVA, you testified that America was “more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions.” (page 185) Were you serious when you said that?
Putting aside your testimony about how you and your “Winter Soldier” friends behaved during your tours of duty, of equal interest were your general observations about America and its institutions. For example, you offered the following observation (which reportedly elicited laughter from the “Winter Soldiers” who filled the chamber during your testimony):
The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands. . . I think that politically, historically, the one thing that people try to do, [is] . . . to satisfy their felt needs, and you can satisfy those needs with almost any kind of political structure, giving it one name or the other. In this name [sic] it is democratic; in others it is communism; in others it is benevolent dictatorship. As long as those needs are satisfied, that structure will exist. (p. 195)
6. Is this still your world view? If so, should not most Americans be rightly concerned over the prospect of a Kerry presidency? And do your words, above, perhaps best explain why some Europeans, like the newly-elected Socialist Party leader of Spain, Mr. Zapatero (who clearly wants to see America fail in her effort to bring democracy to Iraq), wish for a Kerry victory in November 2004?
7. What effect do you suppose your Congressional testimony had on the subsequent North Vietnamese treatment of our POW’s? Do you believe your virulent anti-American comments provided “aid and comfort” to those like NVA General Vo Nguyen Giap who were continuing to try to maim and kill U.S. servicemen still engaged in the fighting?
8. Did you in 1971 (and do you today) share the view expressed by Senator George McGovern who, in 1995, reportedly stated to another highly decorated Vietnam veteran, “What you don’t understand is that I didn’t want us to win [the Vietnam] war”? [3] Surely you can answer that.
An Honorable Alternative?
Mr. Kerry, have you ever considered what both America and Vietnam might look like today had men like you and Senator McGovern chosen a different path? Without asking you to abandon a principled opposition to the war, what if you had decided not to falsely slander the actions of the vast majority of American servicemen who honorably served in Vietnam but instead had returned and testified in favor of a policy akin to the modern-day Powell Doctrine? Stated simply: Do not send American troops anywhere unless you (a) are certain the cause is morally justified, (b) mean to win, and (c) intend to use every military tactic and weapon system reasonably necessary to protect our servicemen while they are in harm’s way. Hypothetically, had that been the argument of a well-educated, brave and highly decorated young naval officer in 1971, and had Congress listened, how many millions of Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian men, women and children might have been saved from horrifying deaths which occurred after your speech? How many fewer American POW’s might have been subjected to continued torture and death? How many sons and daughters, American and Vietnamese, would have their fathers and mothers safely home with them today and be living (particularly in the case of South Vietnam) in a much freer world? [4] How many fewer names might today appear on the Wall?
I don’t blame you for criticizing the manner in which U.S. policy in Vietnam was pursued. It was insane. I, like you, returned from Vietnam believing that the war was a mistake. It was a mistake, not because of what America originally set out to accomplish, but because our leaders (Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, and those who surrounded them) never mustered the political will to give those who honorably served there the means (nor, eventually any reason) to win. Clearly our leaders lacked belief in the moral certainty of the cause. But I did not; at least not initially. I went to Vietnam because, like most of us, I believed that our country was intent on defending the freedom of an ally against the documented tyranny of a brutal foe. If you did not share that belief, for what possible reason did you volunteer to return?
After realizing that our government had no real intention of winning the war, I, too, returned with the view that no American should have been sent to die in Vietnam under those circumstances. But that conclusion was not weighted down with the vicious anti-American, anti-military, anti-war, pro-Viet Cong, pro-Ho Chi Minh, pro-Communist rhetoric which you not only adopted, but worked tirelessly to promote. More fundamentally, mine was not a conclusion which required a corollary that the Americans who served in Vietnam were, on balance, no better than barbarians. The vast, vast majority of American servicemen didn’t rape, pillage or plunder. They didn’t cut off ears, heads or limbs of enemy combatants. They knew (as you, too, should have known) that such activities were not only wrong but were flatly proscribed and rightly punishable.
For what it’s worth, there wasn’t a day during my entire tour when I didn’t try to leave Vietnam a better, more secure place because of our presence. At the same time, there wasn’t a day when I didn’t hope that any VC who wished me dead would be killed by the swift boat crews, or by the Seawolves, STABs or SEALs, before he had the chance to act on that wish.
I would feel the same were I serving in Iraq today. The difference is this. There is a moral clarity surrounding our mission in Iraq---notwithstanding the difficulties our servicemen and women continue to face---which our nation’s leaders failed to muster when we were serving in Vietnam. It is a clarity which seems to elude you. You seem frozen, as if it were still 1971. You seem incapable of distinguishing the success of America and her allies in removing a brutal dictator in Iraq from our failure to accomplish a similar goal in Vietnam. Or maybe it’s simply the case that, as with Vietnam, you are desiring a similar outcome in Iraq purely for “personal political gain.”
The nation deserves to know.
[Note: Mr. Purdy is a 1968 graduate of the United States Naval Academy who served in Vietnam from December 1969 until December 1970. He was assigned as one of the support personnel with NSA Det An Thoi, the main base for the swift boat group in which John Kerry served in the early part of 1969.]

I have written two widely-distributed editorials concerning the actions of democratic Presidential candidate John Forbes Kerry that have
circulated the globe. In the first, the more popular, I wrote of my wife's rotator cuff surgery, but I wish to address much deeper wounds. Kerry's
people have now said that I have slung mud, and I have. First, I was throwing it back, but more importantly; it was mud compiled from the dirt
that has surrounded John Kerry since he first decided to run for President around 1970, mixed in with the blood and tears of those who fought in Vietnam, the men and women that he betrayed.

John Kerry is a decorated Vietnam veteran, but much more so is retired green beret Colonel (Ola) Lee Mize. Lee Mize, as an NCO, received the Congressional Medal of Honor in the Korean War, this nation's highest award for extreme heroism and gallantry in battle, and later retired as a full bird colonel after four full tours in the Vietnam War.

Retired army Sergeant First Class Sammy L. Davis also earned the coveted Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions with the 9th Infantry
Division in Vietnam in 1967. Generals, even Presidents, traditionally salute Medal of Honor recipients when they see them, as these men are so revered. Both of these very special men wanted to give me direct quotes specifically for this editorial concerning John F. Kerry.

Lee Mize said, "What he (John Kerry) did to our Vietnam veterans, throwing his medals over the fence, his testifying before Congress (in
1971), and hanging around with Jane Fonda. Then, never regretting his made-up lies and his testimony, that is a real shame. It is equally
disgusting the way he put down our National Guard and our Reserves. He certainly is a two-faced individual."

Sammy Davis, the second MOH recipient I spoke with, said of Kerry, "He has done great disservice to every Vietnam veteran by his actions after he came home from Vietnam. He was in a position of power and could have implemented positive changes for veterans and active duty military personnel during the past 18 years, but he chose not to do so."

When asked on TV, in January, about George W. Bush's record in the Air National Guard, John Kerry mugged for the TV cameras and said, "I am not going to question someone's decision back then to join the National Guard, go to Canada, be a conscientious objector, or go AWOL."
Kerry did not stop to think, when he made such a statement, lumping National Guard service in with being AWOL or a draft dodger, that he was
not only dishonoring the 6,077 men who died in Vietnam who were in the National Guard and Reserves, those who trained hard to protect our homeland and be a reserve force, but he also denigrated the 140 recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor in our nation's history who were members of the National Guard. That is what I said: 140 Medal of Honor recipients were in the National Guard.

My wife is the most beautiful, but also the toughest individual I know. She is public about being the victim of both acquaintance rape and gang
rape, close to thirty years ago. Now, as a fifth degree black belt, a master, she has even been presented the prestigious Jefferson Award, in big part, for teaching women and girls how to fight back and win. In some ways, I have hated it when she prepares to conduct another Sexual Assault Prevention Clinic, as she emotionally is raped all over again, and I have to hold her many nights while she cries.

The few who have decried my attempts to call out about the emotional rape of Vietnam veterans by John F. Kerry, have said, "Vietnam was three decades ago. Why bring it up now? Let's talk about today's issues." You cannot forget a rape. It is a life sentence for the victim. Just
ask a Vietnam veteran.

I will not let people forget about the rape of our proud, long-standing strength of America, our military, and its leadership in Vietnam. It was
conducted like an acquaintance rape. We were betrayed by one in a position of trust, and that hurts worse than stranger rape. Let us talk today's facts: John Kerry called us his "Band of Brothers," and now flaunts his hero status to get elected. What has he done for his
"Band Brothers?" Each session of Congress is 2 years in length. In the eighties, in the 99th Congress, Kerry's first two years, when you
would think he would be full of enthusiasm and eager to fix things, Kerry proposed 1 measly veteran-related bill, S1033. It died. In the 100th
Congress, he proposed 1 measly veteran-related bill, S1510. It died, too. The 101st Congress, he proposed 1 measly veteran-related bill, S2128. It also died, but he did propose an amendment to a bill S2884. It died. Then, in the 102nd , 103rd , 104th, 105th , 106th , and 107th sessions of Congress, 12 years, Kerry proposed ZERO bills related to veterans issues, his "Band of Brothers."

Finally, in the 108th Congress, closing in on two decades of seniority, but more importantly, deciding to run for the Presidency, Kerry sponsored 1 measly veteran-related bill, S1112. It died. Now, Chief Hypocrite John F. Kerry, and his ardent supporters, attack Bush to divert his own miserable record, especially as it relates to those he calls his "Band of Brothers." When anybody like me fires back, they are pounced-upon and denounced as "mud-slingers."

Here is some factual mud: George W. Bush has increased military pay 21%. Kerry voted against military pay raises 12 times.
Kerry and his spinners have said that Bush is decimating the Veterans Administration. FACT: According to, Bush's 2005 fiscal
budget increases VA funding by 40% over when Bush took office, Bush has cut administrative time in VA by half, the Annenberg Center says that funding for veterans under Bush is increasing twice as fast under Bush as it did under Clinton, and vets getting health benefits now has increased by over 27% under Bush. Under previous Presidents, democratic and republican, I always was treated like a bastard stepchild at VA hospitals. Since Bush became President, I am treated like a veteran with respect and dignity and have never had to wait for more than a half an hour for an appointment.

Now Kerry, you and your cronies attack and belittle our commander-in-chief while we are at war, giving more propaganda to the enemy,
all for what, . . . votes. Saddam Hussein? Iraq? Your own words and common sense answers that question, definitively.

"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry 1/23/03

"disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our
security."- Sen. John F. Kerry, 10/9/02

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Ted Kennedy, 9/27/02

"Iraq is a long way from here, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." Madeline Albright, 2/18/98

FACT: George W. Bush volunteered for extra service time to be trained as a jet pilot, no walk in the park itself, and voluntarily requested the
release of 450 pages of his own personal military records, and they have been misrepresented and propagandized to attack him. Kerry touts his war hero status but adamantly refuses to request the public release of his own military records. He is a decorated hero. Being a decorated hero, why would he not release his records? What does he have to hide? Now, Richard Clarke, an eight-year Clinton loyalist, has conveniently
released his supposed tell-all book against the Bush Administration. He now slanders a President he publicly praised in a recorded 2002 news interview for taking a much tougher non-nonsense stance against the Al Q'Aida than his predecessor. I am an author: I know the value of releasing a book that creates controversy; and at this time, releasing this book can potentially put millions into Clarke's pockets. I wish I was releasing a book right now.

He said in his book that Bush did nothing militarily until November after the attacks on September 11, 2001. Clarke's words about our military action at that time show how much he was NOT "in-the-loop." Special Forces and Special Operations is a very, very tight-knit community, and most of us, even ones not on active duty anymore, knew that President Bush had two Special Forces (Green Beret) A-Teams on the ground in Afghanistan within 48 hours of the first jet slamming into the World Trade Center. Within two hours of the 9-11 attacks, military plans were underway at USSOCOM headquarters at MacDill AFB, Florida.

What about John Kerry? Once a predator, always a predator. We, the true Band of Brothers were his victims once, but we will be silent no more. We choose to be victors, not victims.

We, the 25,000,000 veterans in this country have power, and we have proven we have courage, can get the job done, and function as a team. We will call and write the major sponsors of NBC, CBS, CNN, and ABC and tell them we are sick of their news departments spinning the news with subtleties and outright lies against our Commander-in-Chief and in favor of the democratic presidential candidate. We will tell those sponsors we will boycott their products if this is not stopped immediately. We will write to, or e-mail, FOX NEWS and similar organizations, and insist that they have people such as me on to address these issues. I will be happy to go head-to-head with John Kerry, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Mike Wallace, or whoever they want to represent their liberal agenda, instead of news reporting like they are supposed to do.

We will talk to our democratic and independent friends and relatives and tell them we all must put our country ahead of political parties.
We all know who the foreign leaders are that want John Kerry in the White House: the leaders of North Korea, Spain, France, the Hammas, PLO, mideast jihadists, overly-zealous mullahs, and let's not forget Osama bin Laden. They are hoping and praying to get George W. Bush out of the White House and John Kerry in. Why is that?

If you actually believe Kerry would do better than Bush on the economy and that is more important to you than our defense, ask yourself this
question: How many times have you seen a Brinks truck follow a hearse to a cemetery?

Don Bendell served as an officer in four Special Forces Groups, including a tour on a green beret A-team in Vietnam in 1968-1969, and was in the Top Secret Phoenix Program

Why John Kerry Must Retract his Position on Venezuela

The democratic candidate for President of the United States, John Kerry, published a statement on his web site this past March 19, setting forth his position on the political situation in Venezuela. In this declaration, Kerry relies on inaccurate information and repeats views identical to those of the Venezuelan opposition to democratically-elected President Hugo Chavez.
We examine below Kerry’s statement in more detail: Read On

FBI verifies Kerry at 'assassination summit'
Records back claim he was at meeting that discussed killing senators

Posted: March 23, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern
By Scott Stanley Jr.
© 2004 Insight/News World Communications Inc.
News management may have reached an embarrassing low in the Los Angeles Times for March 23 where an article by staff writer John M. Glionna purports to offer selections from the FBI file on soon-to-be Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry, who was under surveillance by the G-Men as a member of the executive board of the pro-Viet Cong Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
Presenting items from 50 documents carefully selected from what it reported were 14 boxes of related government papers 12 feet high, the Times confirmed from the FBI and other witnesses that Kerry had resigned from the VVAW leadership in November 1971 at a Kansas City board meeting to run for Congress.
For years Kerry claimed that he had resigned after a July 1971 meeting in St. Louis and had not been present for the Kansas City meeting that was moved from venue to venue to try to avoid FBI surveillance of the group's most secret plans.
The reason official confirmation that he did not leave the group until after the Kansas City meeting is important, say specialists on radical activities during the Vietnam era, is that the FBI documents confirm earlier reports by those present that Kerry participated in a closed-door discussion of a proposal to assassinate seven U.S. senators who were special targets of Hanoi, with whose agents selected leaders of VVAW had been meeting.
The Los Angeles Times made no mention of this part of the story, broken 10 days earlier in the New York Sun by founding New York Times books editor Tom Lipscomb and since spiked by editors coast to coast.
Kerry reportedly voted against the killings but did not leave the meeting and call a cop. Until the FBI surveillance report surfaced to put him in the middle of the assassination discussion, Kerry claimed to have resigned before the meeting at which VVAW discussed the murder plan.
After Kerry left the board of VVAW, with which he had made his national reputation, the FBI ceased surveillance of his activities according to a bureau memo in early 1972.
Previous story:
Scott Stanley is the deputy managing editor of Insight magazine.

Kerry camp hiring 'assassin'?
Man who plotted murder of congressmen offered job

Posted: March 15, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004
A Vietnam veteran who plotted to kill members of Congress in 1971 is reportedly ready to accept a position working in the presidential campaign of John Kerry.
Leaders of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, including John Kerry, debated a plot to assassinate congressmen in November 1971, according to a report in the New York Sun.
The Kerry campaign denies the senator and presidential candidate was present at the meeting, saying he quit the organization prior to the heated session in Kansas City, Nov. 12-15, 1971.
However, Randy Barnes of Missouri Veterans for Kerry, disputes that account. Barnes participated in the meeting and he says Kerry, then 27, was at the meeting, voted against the plot and then resigned from the organization. According to the Sun report, another Vietnam vet who attended the meeting, Terry Du-Bose, agreed that Kerry was there.
That the VVAW debated killing members of Congress is not a new revelation. The plot was reported in Gerald Nicosia's 2001 book, "Home To War," that one of the key leaders of the organization, Scott Camil, "proposed the assassination of the most hard-core conservative members of Congress, as well as any other powerful, intractable opponents of the antiwar movement." The book reports on the Kansas City meeting at which Camil's plan was debated and then voted down.
In a cover blurb on the book, Kerry said it "ties together the many threads of a difficult period." Kerry hosted a party for the book in the Hart Senate Office Building that was televised on C-SPAN, according to the Sun.
Camil, never prosecuted for the plot, plans to accept an offer by the Florida Kerry organization to become active in the presidential campaign, according to the report. Camil's plot, involving eight to 10 Marines, targeted the Southern senatorial leadership including John Stennis, Strom Thurmond and John Tower.
Kerry's service in Vietnam and his activities after the war have become a major source of controversy – especially with other Vietnam veterans.
Last week, one of his crew members accused him of cowardice and making strategic mistakes in battle. The testimony of Steven Gardner, a gunner's mate on the first patrol boat commanded by Kerry in the Mekong delta, contradicts accounts of the senator's military career that depict him as a brave and aggressive lieutenant who won three Purple Hearts.
"He absolutely did not want to engage the enemy when I was with him,'' Gardner said in an interview with the Boston Globe. "He wouldn't go in there and search. That is why I have a negative viewpoint of John Kerry."
Gardner has refused to join the tight-knit group of Vietnam veterans who are passionate supporters of their former comrade's White House bid.
Kerry is said to be "angry'' about the slur.

Democrats vs. U.S. Troops

By Shawn Macomber | March 23, 2004
On the face of things, Congressional Resolution 557 seems the sort of innocuous legislation destined to fly through Congress with little if any debate. The resolution acknowledges the one year anniversary of the commencement of hostilities in Iraq. It covers four major points: It commends the “valiant service” of U.S. and Coalition forces in Iraq; it praises Iraqis for their courage under the long, brutal reign of Saddam Hussein and for creating an interim constitution; and, finally, it posits that “the United States and the world have been made safer with the removal of Saddam Hussein and his regime from power in Iraq.” Hammering home that final point, the litany of atrocities and deceptions that defined the Hussein regime are listed yet again.
Whether they supported the war or not, you would be hard pressed to find a member of Congress who doesn’t take advantage of any and all opportunities to praise American troops. Even far-left members whose rhetoric and actions suggest they would like to call in UN peacekeepers to patrol the Pentagon understand that praising our servicemen and women is a part of the job one shirks at their own electoral risk. Since the resolution carefully avoids any mention of George W. Bush’s leadership, there would appear to be very little downside for Democrats in supporting it. Instead, Democrats used the vote as an excuse to throw one of their patented Election Year 2004 temper tantrums.
The problem, Democrats screamed to every reporter in sight, was that they were not consulted on the language of the resolution. “Partisanship! Partisanship!” they cried. “I'm indignant, insulted and embarrassed that no one came to me and asked me about this resolution,” Pennsylvania Democrat Rep. John P. Murtha, told Republicans. “I'm embarrassed that you would come up with a partisan resolution without consultation with any Democrat.”
Then Democrats begin explaining the language they would liked to have seen incorporated into the resolution. Put simply, the donkeys’ idea of supporting the troops gives new meaning to the phrase, “damning with faint praise.”
Imagine you’re a young soldier having just finished another hard day patrolling the dangerous streets of Baghdad or Basra, and someone hands you the following “thank you” card, courtesy the Democratic Party. You may be risking your life daily, but Democrats want to be sure you understand that, “A final judgment on the value of activities in Iraq cannot be made until Iraq is stable and secure.”
In other word: Rebuilding schools and hospitals, ending the days of torture sessions and rape rooms – well, it’s just not clear whether that was of “value” yet.
The Democrats also wanted the number of soldiers killed and wounded listed, something the soldiers they are supposed to be thanking are probably more keenly aware of than somebody who spends their days in the Capitol ever will be. From there, the Democrats‘ perfect resolution would have demanded that President Bush “take steps to correct he failure of the United States government to plan adequately for the postwar occupation of Iraq,” admit the war was based on “failed intelligence” and promise to do more to help U.S. veterans.
In light of this sort of uplifting prose, Republicans locking Democrats out of the room while crafting the resolution starts to look like a stroke of genius. Shame is an increasingly scarce commodity in today’s Democratic Party. Here they are, crying partisanship because they were unable to turn a non-partisan resolution into a commercial for John Kerry. The Democrats’ 2004 strategy is crystal clear: Iraq must be portrayed as a failure at all costs. This mission takes precedence over honesty, over Congressional decorum, and, indeed, over issuing a heartfelt thank you to troops on the anniversary of a war they went to fight on our behalf.
Since the resolution did not damn George W. Bush to Hell and call for his impeachment, many Democrats voted against it. What should have been a unanimous resolution passed by a margin of 327-to-93. All the no votes were Democrats.
Democrats wanted to have their angry press conference, where conspiracy theories abounded. “This resolution was designed by political consultants to achieve a unanimous no vote from Democrats to be used to create negative ads to hurt us this year,” said Rep. Brad Sherman, a California Democrat. Sherman did not explain why he fell for the Republicans’ wicked plot.
Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York said he was only upset because the resolution didn‘t encourage “unity.” Of course, “unity” can only be had when Republicans admit every last paranoid criticism of Bush is Gospel truth. “[The resolution] is not designed to talk about things that can unify us as Americans and as a Congress,” he told Newsday. “They are putting things in there that they know everybody doesn't agree with. Safer? How are you going to say that to the people of Spain?”
(Well, first of all, there was terrorism before we went into Iraq. Our action in Iraq was neither the beginning nor the end of terrorism. And secondly, why do we have to say anything to the people of Spain in a resolution commending U.S. soldiers?)
Barbara Lee, the only member of the House to vote against toppling the Taliban during the aftermath of Sept. 11, described the resolution as “horrible and misleading” and an example of a Republican “pattern of distortion and deception.”
“This resolution…ignores the victims of this war, ignores the alleged Weapons of Mass Destruction, and ignores the costs to our credibility, to our alliances, and to our domestic priorities,” Lee said, showing more contempt for the Bush administration than Saddam Hussein‘s. “This resolution also fails to address the New World Order – or disorder that has been created by this war. It fails to mention the fact that the Doctrine of Preemption on which the Iraq War was based has undermined long-standing alliances, weakened the effectiveness of the United Nations, and damaged our nation’s credibility with the international community.”
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi issued her predictable self-aggrandizing, shrill sophistry.
“With their resolution, the Republicans are in denial as to why we went into Iraq, in denial as to the current state of stability and security in Iraq, and are denying our men and women the benefits, the equipment and the quality intelligence that they deserve as they serve our country,” Pelosi said, apparently choosing to forget her own vote against the $87 billion to supply troops with those very items.
During the debate over the resolution, several Democrats gleefully pointed out the continuing U.S. casualties and the horrific attack in Spain as proof that the Bush administration’s foreign policy was flawed. You can almost see the DNC’s talking points written on their foreheads. “Our mission in Iraq has not been accomplished,” Rep. Steny Hoyer of Maryland said. “Even as we speak here, a car bomb has rocked Baghdad and killed more than 20 people.” Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida, “The mission is far from being accomplished and President Bush will be judged harshly for the tragic events of the last year.” Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania: “Is it safer today in Spain? Is it safer in the Middle East? Putting it on paper doesn't mean that we're out of the conflict.”
Some just missed the point entirely.
“This resolution is more about what the Republican leadership wants us to forget about the past year,” Rep. James McGovern of Massachusetts said. “The costs, the bloated contracts, the lies, no weapons, no ties to al-Qaeda, the flawed intelligence, the wounded and the dead.” Right. Either that or it was about commending U.S. and coalition soldiers.
But at least the representatives had fire. Their national team was bland at best.
“While our brave servicemen and women have helped us make progress on this front, that doesn't change the fact that on the anniversary of Iraq, Bush's rhetoric on terrorism is still at odds with his priorities,” said Jano Cabrera, a spokesman for the DNC. This begs the question: Who is “us”? “This president not only allowed his stubborn, go-it-alone Iraq policy to weaken the alliance that emerged in the days after 9-11, but also failed to provide the focus and resources necessary to fully protect our ports, airlines and borders.”
Towards the end of the rancorous debate, the resolution’s sponsor, Republican Rep. Henry Hyde pleaded with the Democrats to tone the political rhetoric down long enough to pass the resolution.
“Regardless of our disagreements on process and how we got here, I would argue that in the interests of, dare I say, patriotism and standing up for our country in this war, I would ask that everybody read the resolution,” he said. “It is simple and straightforward.”
Henry Hyde dared to say “patriotism,” and likely his liberal colleagues use the word often enough as well. But Hyde proved his dedication to patriotism with Resolution 557, while many of his Democratic counterparts were only able to prove their dedication to political warfare.

Kerry Still Backpedaling on Presence at 1971 Anti-War Meetings
By Marc Morano Senior Staff Writer
March 24, 2004

( - Five days after reported that Democrat John Kerry had attended a 1971 anti-war meeting at which the possible assassination of U.S. senators was discussed, the presidential hopeful is still backpedaling on statements regarding his whereabouts during that meeting.

Kerry at first denied attending the November 1971 meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) in Kansas City, Mo. According to FBI files obtained by, that 1971 meeting included talk of possibly assassinating U.S. senators. VVAW members discussed targeting then-Senators Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, John Tower of Texas and John Stennis of Mississippi because of their continuing support for the Vietnam war.

Early last week, Kerry's presidential campaign spokesman David Wade told the New York Sun, "Kerry was not at the Kansas City meeting." Wade added that Kerry had resigned from the VVAW "sometime in the summer of 1971."

But following the March 18 publication of the report, in which the FBI files were used to corroborate Kerry''s attendance at the meeting, Wade reversed himself.

"If there are valid FBI surveillance reports from credible sources that place some of those disagreements in Kansas City, we accept that historical footnote in the account of his work to end the difficult and divisive war," Wade said in a statement late last week.

Kerry also retreated from an earlier comment he made in response to a question about former VVAW executive director Al Hubbard. Kerry and Hubbard appeared together on an April 18, 1971 broadcast of the news show Meet the Press to discuss their anti-war efforts.

But Hubbard, who had passed himself off as a decorated Air Force captain, was later shown to have lied about his military record. An investigation in 1971 by a CBS News reporter revealed that there were no military records showing that Hubbard had either served in Vietnam or was injured there.

When asked about his relationship with Hubbard, Kerry said at a televised press conference two weeks ago, "I haven't talked to Al Hubbard since that week" of the April 1971 Meet the Press appearance.

But after reported that FBI files and eyewitness accounts from former VVAW members had placed Kerry and Hubbard in the same place on several occasions after the Meet the Press appearance, the Kerry campaign conceded that the senator was also incorrect on that point.

Other news outlets, including the New York Times, the Washington Post and ABC News picked up on aspects of the stories this week, reporting on the FBI surveillance of Kerry and his group and Kerry's inaccurate assertions regarding when he resigned from the VVAW and the last time he saw Hubbard.

Gerald Nicosia, author of the book Home to War: A History of the Vietnam Veterans' Movement and a Kerry supporter, told last week that Kerry was being less than truthful about his anti-war activities.

"I am having some problems with the things he is saying right now, which are not matching up with accuracy," Nicosia said.

"I am in kind of an awkward position here. I am a Kerry supporter and I certainly don't want to do anything that hurts him. On the other hand, my number one allegiance is to truth. So I am going to go with where the facts are, and John is going to have to deal with that," Nicosia said.

Kerry hosted a reception in Nicosia's honor in 2001 when the book was released and ~content"praised it as an "important new book [that] ties together the many threads of a difficult period in our history every American should take the time to understand in its totality."

More recently, Nicosia offered some advice for Kerry: "The chickens are coming home to roost, and unfortunately he is starting to backtrack and I personally don't think backtracking is going to work because people are going to go at him and find the discrepancies," Nicosia said.

Gen. Giap: Kerry's Group Helped Hanoi Defeat U.S.

The North Vietnamese general in charge of the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam in 1975 credited a group led by Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry with helping him achieve victory.

In his 1985 memoir about the war, Gen. Vo Nguyen Giap wrote that if it weren't for organizations like Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered to the U.S. - according to Fox News Channel war historian Oliver North.

That's why, he predicted on Tuesday, the Vietnam War issue "is going to blow up in Kerry's face."

"People are going to remember Gen. Giap saying if it weren't for these guys [Kerry's group], we would have lost," North told radio host Sean Hannity.
"The Vietnam Veterans Against the War encouraged people to desert, encouraged people to mutiny - some used what they wrote to justify fragging officers," noted the former Marine lieutenant colonel, who earned two purple hearts in Vietnam.

"John Kerry has blood of American soldiers on his hands," North said.
                  By J. Grant Swank, Jr.
                  Mar 22, 2004

Senator John F. Kerry — every man’s man. Sure thing. One of us.But let a Kerry merry make on an Idaho slope, and the real elitist shows his snooty persona. Kerry curses. He lets go with one of those  expletives — FCC, check it out — when describing a secret service man who accidentally plowed into him in the snow. Kerry fell down, though he told reporters, "I don't fall down." (Deity incarnate we have here?) He hit bottom in the white. Of course, it was all caught on camera for the scene was a photo op set
up. But Kerry had not counted on tumbling. Instead, he had wanted to appear as one of those sports fellows who manages quite well when  taking to athletic.

Kerry cursed. Kerry fell down. Kerry got reported worldwide on his Friday flop. Immediately when I heard about his cursing a secret service man, I thought that that’s what an elitist will do — whether the elitist  has money or not. It’s a mindset. There are some folk who have not  all that much cash who can play elitist if they want to.

I recall flying from Jamaica. There on the plane were people in the  same economic class as myself. But to hear those loudmouths order everybody around one would have thought they owned the plane. The same when on the island. In fact, in some situations I was downright embarrassed by the way some Americans treated the Jamaicans. Of course, we’ve come to call these people "The Ugly Americans." When in college, I gave a book report on that publication; so one can imagine that the sorry image has been around for some decades.So when it comes to being snooty, one does not have to be really rich. It’s a state of attitude. It’s a flop over in the head — and
heart. Therefore, when Kerry curses a man whose employ is to guard Kerry’s life with his own, I could not help but conclude that Kerry  in the White House will have a high old time of it, for certain. And you can imagine what it will be like if Ms. T Heinz hits the deck on Pennsylvania Avenue. Watch for the kitchen crew to go on
strike. And the bedmaking squad. And the chauffeurs. And the lawnsmen and women. Whew. What a mess it will be on staff in those otherwise pleasant environs.

Honestly, it’s going to be one nightmare if Kerry gets elected — and  I’m not just talking about the political and moral issues that are at stake — abortion, euthanasia, practicing homosexuality lifestyle,  etc. I’m talking now about the nose bending that the Kerry’s will cause when merely walking down the hall. Talk about freezing out the
staff — even in mid-summer.

I really feel for that secret service gentleman today. What an attitude he must have! That is, he’s had to go into restraining attitude control, obviously. But I have a hunch he’s heart those words before. No doubt he’ll write a book about the foul-mouthed Kerry when it’s all over.

But really, America shouldn’t even have to face a choice between a Bush and a Kerry this November. Can’t the Dems come up with some other persona than a wishy-washy candidate who suffers from  illusions while all the while carrying a chip on his shoulder the size of a billion dollar bill? Then to curse about a service man
being human enough to plow into him without meaning to. What’s the world coming to anyhow?

And it’s only March. Lord help us!
email comments to
John Kerry’s Internationalism
March 22, 2004
by Roger Wm. Hughes

John Kerry sent his friend Sen. Ted (Chappaquiddick) Kennedy to appear on NBC’s Meet the Press. And Kennedy proved why he is the Democrat that Republicans hate and loathe, showing clearly that his arrogant, contemptuous, pugnaciousness (and that was his good side) had not diminished.

Besides calling President Bush a traitor, liar, criminal and the scourge of the earth, Kennedy once again the need for internationalizing our foreign policy and called our current allies nothing but a sham. Note: the allies that are not present who have any meaning to the current coalition are the French, Germans and Russians. These are the countries that Kerry’s proxy Sen. Kennedy, of course, is clamoring to be given greater sway and power over America’s foreign policy.
This push for greater internationalism is perplexing given the track records of France, Russia and lately Germany.

For years the French Foreign Minister has advocated Europe develop a stronger military force to offset America’s military might following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Prior to that time France, Germany and most other European countries except England did little in the way of keeping up with changing military technology. They chose instead to live under the umbrella of protection provided by America. And under their current administration, Germany has aligned with France.
These countries reaped a huge economic benefit of not having to spend on defense with the security provided by the U.S.

Sadly, their lack of military ability became apparent as Europe allowed the Serbian holocaust to occur. Now, the same American military that protected them and allowed them to avoid spending money on their own militaries has routed out Saddam Hussein. And in the process of removing him from power, these countries’ economic stability and influence in the world is threatened. Why? Because they can no longer secure their lucrative contracts with dictators like Saddam Hussein because the U. S. can act unilaterally.

Part of the problem is that Socialism in these country is bankrupting their ability to compete economically in the world save for economic isolationism that is further destroying their economy.

While there is a need to cooperate in the world, it does not make sense that America would seek to give greater power to faux-friends who want to curtail American influence and economic opportunity.

With Ted Kennedy barking for John Kerry on Meet the Press today advocating greater internationalization (France, Germany, Russia…) of our military efforts, Kerry’s intent comes into focus.

In examining Kerry’s record, it becomes clearer that Kerry is stuck in the 1960’s. The Washington Post pointed out that even President Bill Clinton wasn’t international enough for Kerry:

When President Bill Clinton referred to the United States as "the indispensable nation" during his second inaugural address in 1997, and then as other U.S. officials picked up the term, Sen. John F. Kerry recoiled. He turned to his longtime foreign policy aide Nancy Stetson to ask, "Why are we adopting such an arrogant, obnoxious tone?"
The part of the Post article regarding why Kerry is the way he is may have been said best by Robert Kagan.
"Robert Kagan, senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said he senses that Kerry in recent years has been refashioning his foreign-policy persona, making it appear tougher, in preparation for a run for the presidency. "The question, setting aside the campaign, is: Where is John Kerry's heart?" said Kagan, who has advocated a muscular U.S. approach to world affairs. "My sense is his heart is in the anti-Vietnam, '70s-'80s left."
Roger Wm. Hughes

Having it both ways with John Kerry
By DAVID BROOKS - The New York Times - 03/21/04
The 1990s were a confusing decade. The certainties of the Cold War were gone and new threats appeared. It fell to one man, John Kerry, the Human Nebula, to bring fog out of the darkness, opacity out of the confusion, bewilderment out of the void.

Kerry established himself early as the senator most likely to pierce through the superficial clarity and embrace the miasma. The gulf war had just ended. It was time to look back for lessons learned. ‘‘There are those trying to say somehow that Democrats should be admitting they were wrong'' in opposing the gulf war resolution, Kerry noted in one Senate floor speech. But he added, ‘‘There is not a right or wrong here. There was a correctness in the president's judgment about timing. But that does not mean there was an incorrectness in the judgment other people made about timing.''

For you see, Kerry continued, ‘‘Again and again and again in the debate, it was made clear that the vote of the U.S. Senate and the House on the authorization of immediate use of force on Jan. 12 was not a vote as to whether or not force should be used.''

In laying out the Kerry Doctrine — that in voting on a use-of-force resolution that is not a use-of-force resolution, the opposite of the correct answer is also the correct answer — Kerry was venturing off into the realm of Post-Cartesian Multivariate Co-Directionality that would mark so many of his major foreign policy statements.

The next crisis occurred in Somalia. Again, the U.S. Senate faced what appeared to lesser minds as a clear choice: To withdraw in the wake of U.S. casualties or not to withdraw. The oxymoronically gifted junior senator from Massachusetts perceived an equivocation between the modalities, ‘‘The choice for the United States of America is not between two alternatives only: Staying in or getting out. There are many other choices in between which better reflect the aspirations and hopes of our country.''

Kerry backed a policy of interventionist withdrawal, which jibed with the ‘‘third way'' option embraced by President Bill Clinton himself. As Kerry noted, ‘‘I think that the president today made the right decision to try to establish a process which will maintain the capacity of our forces, protect them, and to disengage while simultaneously upholding the mission we have set out to accomplish.''

The Balkan crisis emerged, and again the Congress seemed to face a tough decision, whether to authorize the use of American force. But then the Boston Fog Machine rolled in: ‘‘It is important to remember that this resolution does not authorize the use of American ground troops in Bosnia, nor does it specifically authorize the use of air or naval power. It simply associates the U.S. Senate with the current policies of this administration and of the Security Council.'' The vote, Kerry concluded, was over whether to associate with a process that would determine certain necessary conditions involving uncertain modalities, which must be explored, in order to reach certain desirable ends.

The Iraq problem returned in 1998, and Kerry proved again that there is no world crisis so grave it can't be addressed with a fusillade of subordinate clauses. Teams of highly trained spelunkers have descended into the darkness of the floor speech he gave on Oct. 10, 1998, searching for meaning, though none have returned alive.

In a characteristic sentence, which admittedly sounds better in the original French, Kerry exclaimed: ‘‘We know from our largely unsuccessful attempts to enlist the cooperation of other nations, especially industrialized trading nations, in efforts to impose and enforce somewhat more ambitious standards on nations such as Iran, China, Burma and Syria, that the willingness of most other nations — including a number who are joined in the sanctions to isolate Iraq — is neither wide nor deep to join in imposing sanctions on a sovereign nation to spur it to ‘clean up its act' and comport its actions with accepted international norms.''

Can anyone say Churchillian?

Kerry has made clear that if he is elected president, the nation will never face a caveat shortage. He has established the foragainst method, which has enabled him to be foragainst the war in Iraq, foragainst the Patriot Act and foragainst No Child Left Behind. If you decide to vote for him this year, there would be a correctness in that judgment, but if you decide to vote for George Bush, that would also be correct.

DAVID BROOKS is a columnist for the New York Times

John 'Flapjack' Kerry - Part 2

March 21, 2004

by Kevin McCullough

The "mystery" of which foreign leaders are "endorsing" John Kerry continues to elude the public (as well as Kerry himself). For the record Kerry is big in socialist countries. The two foreign leaders that have "gone public" endorsing him are Kim Jong Il of North Korea, as well as the newly elected terrorist-appeasing socialist Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, of Spain. Of course now that former Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamed (an avowed anti-semite) has jumped on board, the Kerry people are wishing they had never even heard the term "foreign leaders".

But "Flapjack" has gotten a tad testy over the issue. The fact that he made up the assertion aside, he finds it annoying that people keep hounding him about it. He even told a voter attending his town hall meeting in Pennsylvania, that it was "none of his (the voter's) business as to who the 'foreign leaders' were that he had met with." Talk about hospitality. This remarkable act of good will was followed by much finger pointing and irritated lecturing of said voter - also excellent good-will campaign techniques.
Flapjack is bothered by the reality he has created. That is, he cooks on one side until the heat gets too hot then he flips. But it seems that when John F. Kerry has his "Flapjack” attributes highlighted he also has a slight temper. Unfortunately for him the early and all too easy primary did not help him prepare for the true test of a Presidential campaign. And it’s starting to show.

When a liberal lacks substance, he must manipulate facts or imagine them. He must also ask people to believe him in spite of the facts. Telling off voters for asking you to substantiate a claim that you know you made up is infuriating thus why Flapjack found himself ridiculing the poor man. But the week didn't get any easier for Kerry as it went on.

On Wednesday Kerry trying to defend himself against the charge that he had voted against supplying body armor for the troops in Iraq said, "I actually did vote for the 87 billion dollars before I voted against it."

Ok maybe he believes Americans are lemmings. Maybe we lack the "grace" or "sophistication" of the brie stuffing, merlot chugging French, but even the les incompetents, know that sounds ridiculous.

As Vice President Cheney pointed out on Wednesday, "Kerry voted against body armor for troops when he opposed the $87 billion emergency supplemental bill to pay for operations and reconstruction in Iraq that was passed in October last year."

But speaking to an audience after wrapping up the democratic nomination with his win in Illinois Kerry said, "I can tell you right now: in a Kerry Administration, no one will be getting body armor as a gift from a loved one; it will come from the Armed Forces of the United States of America. We will supply our troops with everything they need."
John "Flapjack" Kerry also took differing tones and positions on Iraq all in one 24 hour span.

"Flapjack" the appeaser said "We are still bogged down in Iraq and the administration stubbornly holds to failed policies... What we have seen is a steady loss of lives and mounting cost in dollars with no end in sight. The lesson here is fundamental: At times, conflict comes, and the decision must be made. For a president, the decision may be lonely, but that does not mean that America should go it alone."

Hours later, following the deadly bombing of 12 Iraqis in Baghdad, "Flapjack" the "fighter" released a written statement: "The United States must send a strong message that these cowardly acts will only strengthen our resolve... We must make it clear to all that now is the time to come together to fight our common enemies."
A day in the life of John "Flapjack" Kerry is certainly difficult for his campaign spoke-persons to keep track of...
"Let's see... Note to campaign staff...have Howard Dean link Bush to Spain bombings at our press conference."
Hours later...

"Bad idea...release statement saying 'it’s not our position'..."

I feel like that trying to make cohesive sense of what John Kerry's message intends is like reading a book beginning with page one and alternating every other page with the end of the book and working your way toward the middle. I guess you could figure it all out - but the effort it would take would be far more trouble than its worth.
Kevin McCullough

John Kerry, “The Raw Deal:" The Senator and his Media Thugs Politicize 9/11
by Doug Schmitz
20 March 2004

The Kerry campaign is currently sporting their latest placard, “John Kerry: The Real Deal” for the Massachusetts Senator’s newest anti-Bush smear campaign.

Go ahead, you deluded or dishonest folks who claim George W. Bush has no business discussing or showing the 2001 attacks on America in his advertising. Go right ahead with your coordinated, contemptuous complaining – paid for in part by foundations and organizations lubricated by Mrs. John Kerry’s ketchup-drenched dollars.

It doesn’t matter now, not after what happened yesterday in Madrid. Not after the worst terror strike on a Western country since 9/11. You wish to keep the president from centering his presidential campaign on his stewardship of the War on Terror. The mainstream American media are all too happy to follow your lead. Unfortunately, the world’s terrorists just refuse to play along.
— John Podhoretz, New York Post columnist and author of Bush Country: How Dubya Became a Great President While Driving Liberals Insane.

According to a poll conducted last week by the Andreas McKenna Research group, a whopping 60 percent of 800 registered voters surveyed said they thought global terrorists would back John Kerry in this year’s election.

Moreover, reported last Saturday that officials of terrorist-friendly North Korea are “stalling negotiations on dismantling their nuclear program, hinting that they hope to get a better deal from the U.S. if a Democrat wins in November.”

This is very telling since Kerry has already proven – much like Bill Clinton and Al Gore did – that he’s nothing more than a spineless enemy appeaser, as evidenced by his daily flip-flops on the war on terror, his voting against every major weapons system, his serial gutting of intelligence and defense spending, as well as his anti-American rants upon returning from his brief stint in Vietnam.

Ironically, the Kerry campaign is currently sporting their latest placard, “John Kerry: The Real Deal” for the Massachusetts Senator’s newest anti-Bush smear campaign. However, judging from what is only beginning to be unearthed about his willful lies and distortions about the Bush Administration, Kerry has quickly become the “The Raw Deal.”

Just the fact that Ted Kennedy (who accused Bush of “concocting a war in Texas for political gain”) and Howard Dean (who, like Kerry, still shows inane support for Saddam Hussein and confederate flags) both endorse Kerry is actually a testament against Kerry, who has proven every day to be more unfit than ever for the U.S. presidency.

Consequently, Kerry has now chosen to launch pre-emptive strikes against Bush, choosing instead to take the very low road of Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy and Al Gore in their sullied tradition of vintage Democrat gutter politics.

As Mort Kondracke, editor of Roll Call, observed: “The level of attacks coming from the Democrats so far outweigh anything coming from the Republicans, it’s laughable.”

Because in Kerry’s never-ending crusade to score political points, his media spin-doctors are already willing to aid and abet their most liberal Democrat as he continues his unconscionably politicizing of the worst terrorist attacks in U.S. history: 9/11.


Without question, Kerry’s sinister anti-Bush media cabal is spewing out their usual leftist propaganda for the Democratic Party, all in the hopes of ousting the man they hate the most – President George W. Bush, who has done more for the war on terror and national security than any of the enemy-appeasing Democrats combined.

As usual, however – and as shown in the following article by the New York Times, which recently endorsed Kerry, Democrats once again take center stage and are showcased as the party of supposedly take-their-word-for-it credibility by the media elite – juxtaposed to The Times’ liberal slant of routinely manufactured GOP improprieties.

In effect, Times reporter Jim Rutenberg actually paints Kerry as the consummate victim, who supposedly felt compelled to “immediately” respond to Bush’s alleged “attack ad:”

The move seemed intended as much to push back against Mr. Bush as it did to signal to Democrats — and potential donors — that Mr. Kerry will not hesitate to respond to attacks, as Democratic candidates have done in past presidential campaigns.
In his latest smear-a-thon against Bush, Kerry repeatedly claims that Bush is “misleading America,” while Kerry is actually the very one who consistently hoodwinks the American people about his pathetic voting record and anti-war background.

Entitled “Kerry, Focus of Attack Ad, Reacts With One of His Own,” Rutenberg should have re-named his March 13 headline: “Kerry, Who Has Consistently Attacked Bush, Reacts With One Of His Own, After Whining Like a Big Cry Baby About Bush’s Alleged Attacks.”

What The Times fails to realize is that there’s nothing wrong with the Bush Administration telling the truth about Kerry’s misleading record, despite the fact that Bush has remained silent all this time. Kerry continues to lie about and distort Bush’s record – thanks to questionable funding from his very rich wife, Teresa Heinz, heiress to the Heinz ketchup fortune. Teresa Heinz recently spearheaded Peaceful Tomorrows, a Far Left group of 9/11 families that John and Teresa Heinz Kerry financed – and reportedly coached – to work the media circuit in a feeble attempt to stop Bush’s ads.

Undoubtedly, the Kerrys are getting a lot of free publicity from their Democratic friends in the media, who will likely never expose Kerry’s campaign ties to soft money.


Painting Kerry as the poor little victim of Bush’s non-attack ads, NBC Today co-host Ann Curry on March 9 was “taken aback by Bush 'bashing his opponent' about a Senate vote (on intelligence funding) taken nine years ago – as if that is somehow out of bounds,” noted Geoff Dickens of the Media Research Center (MRC).

During a session with Tim Russert, Curry played a clip from Bush about how Kerry pushed for a cut in intelligence funding:

His bill was so deeply irresponsible that he didn’t have a single co-sponsor in the United States Senate. Once again, Senator Kerry is trying to have it both ways. He’s for good intelligence, yet he was willing to gut the intelligence services.
Curry later lamented: “An incumbent President bashing his opponent about a bill from nine years ago that never even came to a vote.”

As if Kerry is above and beyond ever being challenged for his patent dishonesty.

For instance, MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on his March 4 Countdown program, practically salivated over a story about a small number of relatives (from Teresa Heinz’s well-financed foundation), who complained about Bush’s use of the 9/11 images.

Quote: ‘It’s as sick as people who stole things out of the place.’ Some firefighters, some families of the victims of 9/11, protesting President Bush’s new campaign ad.
Not surprising, NBC’s liberal host Katie Couric spoke to Bush campaign adviser Karen Hughes on the March 4 Today Show, insinuating that all 9/11 families felt the same way.

But Couric intentionally neglected to mention quotes from a New York Daily News article of 9/11 relatives who support the Bush ads:

One September 11th widow told the [New York] Daily News this morning she was offended by the use of 9/11 images in these ads, saying quote, ‘After three thousand people were murdered on his watch, it seems to me that takes an awful lot of audacity. Honestly, it’s in poor taste.’ What’s your response to that?” Couric said snidely.

What’s more, NBC Nightly News White House correspondent David Gregory weaved his own liberal, anti-Bush opinions into the following segment about the Bush ads:

This is not the first time Mr. Bush has been accused of using the 9/11 attack for political gain. In May of 2002 the White House was criticized for allowing congressional Republicans to use a picture of the President on Air Force One speaking to the Vice President just hours after the attacks on New York and Washington. Political analysts say the President is once again walking a fine line.
As usual in the mainstream media’s collective mindset, Republicans are the unscrupulous ones; it’s never the Democrats, whose unfounded lies and misrepresentations become the bulk of their news coverage – which are typically used against Republicans. As if Democrats are never to be questioned, second-guessed or challenged on anything they say or do.

In effect, Democrats like Kerry can level any unsubstantiated charge they want (i.e., Kerry’s calling Republicans “the most crooked, lying group I have ever seen”) and never have to worry about being challenged by their media allies.

To date, Kerry has never been questioned about his childish rant against the GOP. But if a Republican had said the same thing, the media elite would be demanding an apology (that they still have never demanded from Kerry). Now, Hillary Clinton, one of the most dishonest politicians in Washington, is actually backing Kerry’s asinine statement. So look for Kerry and Hillary’s media buddies to run with this story without challenge).

In yet another example of leftist media bias, when Kerry recently threatened to send his lynch mob of liberal lawyers down to Florida the day after the November election to challenge the results (if they aren’t to his liking), the media elite has already ignored Kerry’s duplicity in his premeditated, Gore-style hijacking of the Florida electorate.

Again, if a Republican had made the same threat, the media elite would be accusing them of trying to “steal the election,” even though the media elite ignored revelations that Gore was accused of voter fraud in preventing over 10,000 military votes from arriving in the U.S. because Gore knew they’d likely be Republican votes for Bush. Now, Kerry wants complete control over the Florida election results – and the media elite could care less.


Accordingly, Teresa Heinz recently told NPR that if need be, she would find a way to circumvent campaign finance laws beyond her allotted $2,000 donation, warning that she wouldn’t be averse to squeezing her multi-billion dollar ketchup bottle to repel what she perceives as Bush’s “personal attacks.” But don’t look for CNN, The Times or Dan Rather to expose the Kerry’s financial treachery.

Heinz’s planned political heist is reminiscent of the recent antics of billionaire George Soros. A staunch Democrat and self-professed Bush-hater, Soros vowed – and even said he’d make it his mission in life – to go completely broke, if it meant defeating Bush this fall. But the media elite has once again looked the other way on this one.

Moreover, the leftist media still covered for Kerry when he tried to politicize Bush’s recent visit to a New York City memorial ceremony. In fact, the MRC said ABC’s Charles Gibson used Bush’s visit to parrot liberal complaints about 9/11 images in the Bush ad: “Gibson claimed the ad had “ignited” controversy and debate but didn’t tell viewers that the complaints were from a small group of liberals and a pro-Kerry union.”

Kerry has also been trying to make political hay out of Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe’s bogus AWOL charge that Bush was absent during some of his service in the National Guard.

According to a March 7 article in the UK Telegraph, in a Bill Clinton-like draft-dodging move, Kerry was actually the one trying to avoid his military responsibilities.

UK Telegraph’s New York reporter Charles Laurence wrote that Kerry tried to defer his military service for a year, according to a newly rediscovered newspaper article in a Harvard University newspaper:

"He wrote to his local recruitment board seeking permission to spend a further 12 months studying in Paris, after completing his degree course at Yale University in the mid-1960s,” Laurence reported.

"The revelation appears to undercut Sen. Kerry’s carefully-cultivated image as a man who willingly served his country in a dangerous war - in supposed contrast to President Bush, who served in the Texas National Guard and thus avoided being sent to Vietnam."
Laurence added that when the Telegraph tried to contact Kerry headquarters to give the Massachusetts Senator a chance to confirm or deny the story, their phone calls were never returned.

Definitely, Kerry has the willing accomplices of The Times, CNN and Dan Rather, as well as other media elite, to do his propagandizing in a calculated effort to try to take out Bush this fall. But then again, that’s all the Left has going for them – blatant lies, distortions and dirty campaign tricks as they try to slant public opinion against Bush.

In other words, Kerry can run on his trumped-up record, but Bush cannot run on his admirable success in winning two separate wars? – that has been the defining moment of his presidency. But to the media elite, Bush is being political and Kerry is not.


Speaking of media leftists running damage control for the Democrats, although Kerry declared in 2002 that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and needed to be stopped, a CNN promo for an upcoming interview with U.S. enemy Hans Blix, said: “What does he think about our fruitless search for WMDs?” By editorializing even its promos, CNN displays their utter contempt for Bush – and favor for Kerry.

In the long run, it’s Bush who constantly has to defend himself, while the Democrats get the mikes, the sound bites, the air time and the prominent news coverage, as leftist portals like CNN treat their fellow Democrats as royalty, as well as trustworthy news sources.

For example, CNN anchor Fredricka Whitfield started one of her March 13 segments by suggesting that Bush and the Republicans were “attacking” Kerry, while the Democrats only wanted answers about Bush’s supposed “credibility” problem. Apparently, CNN believes that their beloved Democrats’ proven lack of credibility can never be questioned.

But with Bush and the GOP – which CNN obviously loathes, it’s fair game, without any objectivity, fairness or balance. No wonder Fox News is number one in the ratings. People are sick and tired of the Dan Rathers of the news industry that repeatedly distort and tilt the news in the Democrats’ favor, while always finding fault with Republicans.

For instance, on last Thursday’s NBC Nightly News, Tom Brokaw blathered: “The Bush-Cheney campaign is out tonight with its first ad attacking Kerry by name. The new ad, which will begin airing tomorrow in 18 battleground states, calls Kerry quote, ‘wrong on taxes, wrong on defense.’ A radio version of the ad will also run in select markets.”

According to the MRC, Brokaw avoided portraying Kerry as the one who made a baseless allegation about criminal conduct. Instead, Brokaw highlighted how Kerry, standing in front of a group of U.S. Senators, “lit into what he called ‘Republican hit squads’ specializing in ‘trying to destroy people.’

“The previous day, a wireless mike that Kerry was wearing picked up his comment that his opponents are quote, ‘the most crooked, lying group I have ever seen.’ And Kerry won’t take that back.”

(In another classic, Clinton-style pathological flip-flop, Kerry on Monday morning hypocritically accused Bush of not supplying our troops with body armor, when it was Kerry who voted against sending it to Iraq. Bush had already included the request for body armor in the $87 billion earmarked for Iraq, which Kerry also voted against.)


Speaking of Kerry’s apathy concerning the war on terror, according to Washington investigative reporter Paul Sperry, Kerry often boasts how he “sounded the alarm on terrorism years before 9/ 11,” referring to his 1997 book, The New War.

But Kerry didn’t blast it when it really counted, Sperry wrote – four months before the hijackings, when he was hand-delivered evidence of serious security breaches at Logan International Airport, with specific warnings that terrorists could exploit them:

"Former FAA security officials say the Massachusetts senator had the power to prevent at least the Boston hijackings and save the World Trade Center and thousands of lives, yet he failed to take effective action after they gave him a prophetic warning that his state’s main airport was vulnerable to multiple hijackings,” Sperry wrote in the March 15 edition of the New York Post.
Again, as Kerry continues to accuse Bush of “misleading America” into the war in Iraq, the Kerry media cabal has flatly refused to expose Kerry’s treasonous dereliction of duty in responding to a tip that could have prevented the hijackings at Logan International Airport. Much like Clinton’s fear of racial profiling, Kerry did nothing as well.


While Kerry continues his unsubstantiated charges against the Bush Administration, his media friends will not likely investigate his phony claims.

Still refusing to disavow his hypocritical remark about “the most crooked, lying” Republicans – a comment he made in front of his fellow partisan Democratic Senators, Kerry arrogantly said: “I have no intention whatsoever of apologizing for my remarks. I think the Republicans need to start talking about the real issues before the country.”

But isn’t this exactly what Kerry is avoiding? Kerry’s the one who’s running from the truth. Kerry’s the one on the defensive, with his media attack dogs ready and willing to go for the Republican jugular, without questioning Kerry’s positions on the real issues.

As a result, Kerry’s arrogance continues to show no bounds, especially concerning Kerry’s alleged support from brutal despots. (In his 1997 book, Kerry called terrorist leader Yasser Arafat a “role model” and a “statesman.”)

Last Monday, Kerry told reporters in Florida that he had supposedly met with foreign leaders who privately endorsed him, releasing another lie – and tickling the ears of the salivating, anti-Bush media elite:

“I’ve met with foreign leaders who can’t go out and say this publicly,” Kerry claimed. “But, boy, they look at you and say: ‘You’ve got to win this. You’ve got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.’ Things like that.”

Unlike the consecutive censoring coming from the Kerry-friendly media, the Washington Times reported last Friday that Kerry “refused to provide any information to support his assertion earlier this week that he has met with foreign leaders who beseeched him to prevail over President Bush in November’s election.”

According to Senate records and his own published schedules, Kerry has made no official foreign trips since January 2003. In fact, the Washington Times also reported “an extensive review of Kerry’s travel schedule domestically revealed only one opportunity for the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee to meet with foreign leaders here.”

Moreover, aides and supporters of Kerry added that “providing names of the leaders or their countries would injure those nations’ ongoing relations with the current Bush Administration.”

But when has Kerry ever worried about supporting our nation before, especially if it meant getting one up on the Bush Administration – regardless of whether or not it jeopardized our national security?

During a March 14 town hall meeting in Bethlehem, Pa., audience member Cedric Brown accused Kerry of lying about seeking support from these so-called foreign leaders. Kerry immediately flip-flopped, claiming that he was actually talking about our U.S. allies. Kerry flatly refused to name names. Don’t expect his media buddies to ask him. But you can bet that if Kerry were a Republican, they would be demanding that he spill the beans.

Kerry also had the audacity to tell Brown that it wasn’t any of his business to know, when, in fact, as a U.S. senator getting paid by our tax dollars, it certainly is our business to know whom our politicians are meeting – especially if these supposed leaders Kerry claimed to have met with are from terrorist-friendly states. Interestingly, France is already hoping Kerry wins, as well as the president-elect of Spain’s Socialist Party.

General Colin Powell told Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace that “if [Kerry] feels it is that important an assertion to make, he ought to list some names. If he can’t list names, then perhaps he should find something else to talk about.”

In a typical Democrat style of avoiding questions when caught in a lie, Kerry went as far as demanding to know if Brown voted for Bush – as if that mattered. Imagine what the media elite would do to Bush if he insulted an audience member the same way Kerry did.

The truth is, Kerry never met with any foreign officials, according to official Senate travel records kept by the travel secretary. But because Kerry was caught in yet another one of his patent lies, he turns the tables in a Clinton-style maneuver and attacks an innocent audience member who had the guts to stand up to Kerry’s daily prevarications.

The media elite will also try to slant Kerry’s Howard Dean-like meltdown in his favor – especially when he outright lied to Brown about meeting with the foreign leaders Kerry claimed were supporting him.

Our country simply cannot take another eight years of a Bill Clinton-style liar like Kerry. And we simply should not tolerate the leftist media’s irresponsibility in not exposing him. A fatal flaw has been exposed in Kerry’s latest lie about supposedly meeting with foreign leaders and his media friends will do whatever it takes to repair the damage. We should expect honesty out of leaders, as well as the mainstream media.


In stark contrast, Reuters Political Correspondent John Whitesides, in his March 14 story, referred to Brown, who challenged Kerry, as a “persistent Republican,” who “demanded at a town hall meeting to know who the leaders were.” Whitesides also labeled Brown as a “registered Republican,” further insinuating that, because Brown is a Republican, he had no right to expect the truth from Kerry. But these same media elites continue to treat Democrats like Kerry with favoritism.

Still another story that has never seen the light of day from the pro-Democrat media comes from presidential biographer Douglas Brinkley, author of the Kerry biography, Tour of Duty, which supposedly chronicles Kerry’s Vietnam War exploits.

According to Brinkley, Kerry attended a meeting of fellow members of VVAW. In the November 1971 meeting in Kansas City, Kerry allegedly heard about a plot to assassinate pro-Vietnam War U.S. Senators.

Brinkley said in his book that if it turns out that Kerry knew of the treasonous plan, he had an obligation to go to the authorities:

"The question is: did Kerry quit [VVAW] before Kansas City or did he quit after Kansas City,” Brinkley recently told WABC Radio’s Steve Malzberg. “If he quit after Kansas City, that means he clearly knew about this assassination plot against the Senators and never went to the authorities. (Article down below shows he did know)

What’s more, Kerry claimed he submitted an official letter of resignation to the VVAW just days before the Kansas City meeting. But two Vietnam veterans who attended the meeting told the New York Sun on March 12 that Kerry was definitely at the meeting.

Meanwhile, per Kerry’s Clinton-like modus operandi, copies of his resignation letter are nowhere to be found. In addition, because Kerry resigned after the meeting, he already would have known about the alleged murder plot.

But, as usual, the American people don’t know a thing about this latest skeleton coming out of Kerry’s closet because the media elites are either keeping it under raps, or just don’t care to compromise any slim chance Kerry might have of beating Bush this fall.


Speaking of another of Kerry’s many skeletons his media companions refuse to drag out of his closet is his rhetoric about stopping “special interest” money from flowing in political campaigns, especially since Kerry’s own pockets are lined with soft money.

In his New Hampshire victory speech, Kerry blathered, “I have a message for the influence peddlers, for the polluters, the HMOs, the big drug companies that get in the way, the big oil, and the special interests who now call the White House their home: We’re coming. You’re going.”

But according to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), last year Kerry accepted more money from lobbyists than any other senator; Kerry also just happens to be the wealthiest politician in Washington, whose wife, Teresa, once again, is heiress to the Heinz ketchup empire’s multi-billion dollar fortune’s money belt.

The CRP added that Kerry also received more than half a million dollars from the health care industry, with many financial firms giving well over $3 million. In an interesting side note, Kerry also just happens to sit on the Senate Finance Committee. But, of course, Dan Rather or CNN won’t be telling you that.

Once again, in the leftist media, Democrats come out the big winners in the White House press corps jackpot, while Republicans and conservatives end up on the losing end, simply because they aren’t in the same political and ideological camp.

In fact, Republicans are routinely the ones who are undermined and negatively portrayed, while Democrats are continually depicted as credible news sources that can never be questioned or second-guessed on any erroneous comments they make.

By all intents and purposes, media elitists like Dan Rather and CNN are no longer journalists – they’re propagandists for the Democratic Party, who are all too willing to do whatever it would take to get a Democrat back in the White House. That’s because the media elite ignores anything that would be detrimental to the Democrats.

(For example, when Kerry recently claimed that he wouldn’t mind being referred to as “the second black president,” the mainstream media ignored it. But if a Republican had uttered such racism, it would have been splashed all over the evening news – much like the media elite’s savage witch-hunt of Trent Lott. But, in the same vein, known racist Democrats Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings still get free passes from the media elite.)


In fact, Kerry’s not-so-off-the-cuff comment, where he referred to “the Republican attack machine,” was meant to be the typical bone for his leftist media friends to fetch. Kerry probably figured that if he continued to lie about Bush and Republicans, his media thugs would keep the attention off his irresponsible carpet-bombing conspiracy theories and onto his daily, amplified fabrications about Bush. To Kerry, the end justifies the means.

One such bogus charge Kerry once leveled against his own U.S. comrades that the mainstream media have yet to report is his claim that his fellow soldiers had “personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan...” In a particular note of hypocrisy, Kerry later admitted he never witnessed it, with the media elite still remaining silent. Again, if he were a Republican, the partisan press would have mercilessly vilified him.

Upon returning safely onto U. S. soil, Kerry, in 1971, immediately formed Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), a group of embittered, anti-U.S. veterans that had been marshalling around Kerry’s canard. In fact, Kerry had repeated these same lies on Meet the Press, with supposed Vietnam veteran Al Hubbard, who was later discovered to be a total fraud, having never once served in Vietnam. Nonetheless, Kerry had never disavowed these false charges he leveled against his fellow soldiers, as well as the U.S.

But while Kerry viciously accuses anyone who dares to challenge him as coming from the “Republican attack squads,” there are others who have been legitimately scarred by Kerry’s shameful treason against our country.


Case in point: Laura Bartholomew Armstrong, daughter of Lt. Col. Roger J. “Black Bart” Bartholomew, a First Air Cavalry rocket artillery helicopter pilot who was killed in Vietnam on Thanksgiving Day 1968, when she was eight years old.

In a March 1 Wall Street Journal op-ed piece, Armstrong, a former journalist with a military newspaper and a U.S. Marine widow, said she was appalled by Kerry’s latest assertions that Bush “has reopened the wounds of Vietnam,” when Kerry has been the one to play the Vietnam card for his own political opportunism:

“For months, “Armstrong wrote, “I’ve heard President Bush talking about the present, while Mr. Kerry and the media want to focus on the past. I think we need to see the whole picture.

“As the kid of a real war hero who did not come back, I’d like to comment not on Kerry’s service, but his post-service activities. Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Mr. Kerry’s organization of choice when he returned from his shortened tour of duty in Vietnam (and his springboard to fame), was known to me even as a child. The organization, while providing a place for angst-ridden vets to land after coming home, had an awful effect on those of us who lost our fathers.

“It was bad enough to hear our dads criticized by those who hated the military, but to hear vets allege rampant war crimes and call their fellow soldiers evil before all the world really twisted the knife. Mr. Kerry led the way, proud in the company of Jane Fonda and others we believed had caused the deaths of good men. This group’s testimony tarnished honorable actions. After taking the oath to preserve and protect, they grandstanded, throwing service awards in a show of defiance that diminished each sacrifice.”

Despite Kerry’s outright fabrications about Vietnam, as well as Iraq, Kerry knows that his leftist media pals won’t hold him accountable for his slanderous gaffes. Rather, Kerry’s malicious canards will continue to go under-reported, unchallenged (and taken as gospel), as his daily anti-Bush rants become fodder for his media buddies’ news menus.

For instance, while Democrats like Kerry supposedly fear a “right-wing” takeover of the courts, they systematically filibuster every judicial nominee by getting their own leftist judicial activists who legislate from the bench – as in the recent passage of Massachusetts’ abominable and oxymoronic legalization of “gay marriage.”

Moreover, while Kerry and Howard Dean supposedly fear the “right-wing” control of the media, liberals already control CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, NPR, The Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, USA Today, the Chicago Tribune, Time and Newsweek magazines.

What’s more, the Left also has their fair share of leftist writers who crank out pages and pages of lies and Bush-hating, leftist propaganda from the likes of Al Franken, Michael Moore, Jim Hightower, Paul Krugman, Joe Conason, Molly Ivins, Mark Green, David Corn and Martha Nussbaum. Definitely, the liberal voice is continually being heard.

But whenever the truth does come out about Kerry’s miserable voting record and anti-American stance that likely had cost ten of thousands of innocent lives in Vietnam, he screams about a phantom, non-existent “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Since Kerry cannot handle the truth, he openly slanders anyone who confronts him with the truth.


Clearly, Kerry is far more interested in waging his partisan war of words against Bush than he is about fighting the war on terror. Kerry, in the end, is a fraud with absolutely no character or integrity, as he’s proven time and again when he slandered our country and our soldiers after asking to leave early from Vietnam. Truth be told, Kerry has become an antiquated political opportunist who cares more about photo ops than he does about honorably serving and protecting our country from our enemies.

That’s because Kerry and other partisan Democrats forget about 9/11 and want to sweep it under the rug like it never happened. As a result, Kerry’s media cohorts act as if he and rest of the Democrats always should have the final say on everything political – and care nothing about getting to the truth behind why we fight the war on terror in the first place.

Instead of running PR, the media elite needs to expose Kerry for the immature smear-monger he is and stop parroting his unsubstantiated allegations for their nightly vitriol. Kerry needs to quit playing his dog-eared Vietnam War card and start talking about the real issues. Because as it stands right now, the American people don’t really know his positions on anything, especially Iraq, because of his serial flip-flopping and waffling.

Once more, Kerry needs to stop running at the mouth, quit dropping his little F-bombs of sophomoric conspiracy theories to his friends in the media and start cleaning up his act. In fact, Kerry’s own Web site is currently riddled with vulgar anti-Bush obscenities.

How’s that for mature leadership for our country in the face of continued global terrorism? But the mainstream media had a field day when Bush called New York Times leftist reporter Adam Clymer an a—hole. Now they disingenuously ignore Kerry’s gaffe.

But when it’s all said and done – and Kerry’s finished making a complete fool of himself in his anti-U.S. rants against the war on terror, it will take another four years of Bush’s honorable military leadership to repair the damage done by Kerry and the rest of the traitors from the Clinton Administration, who never responded to the terrorist threat – and who continually ignored the very terrorist cells that attacked us on 9/11.

In the end, leftists like Kerry don’t want to take responsibility for Clinton’s failure to keep his promises to go after the terrorists for: The 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed 6 and injured 1,000; the 1993 Mogadishu firefight that killed 18 U.S. soldiers; the 1995 Oklahoma City terrorist attack on the federal building by American extremists that killed 168, wounding several hundred others; the 1995 Saudi Arabia car bomb that killed 5 U.S. military personnel; the 1996 Khobal Towers bombing that killed 19 U.S. soldiers, wounding 515; the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa that killed 231 citizens, 12 Americans and injured 5,000; the 2000 USS Cole attack in Yemen that killed 17 U.S. sailors, wounding 39.

(This is why Kerry has been silent about the recent terrorist attacks in Spain because he knows he’ll have to defend his crusade against the war in Iraq, which will further expose him as a fraud. This is especially true since there now is a reported link with Al-Quaeda, which he and his other partisan Democrats previously denied with Iraq.)

Yet, neither Kerry – nor his mainstream media allies – has ever held Clinton personally accountable for any of these terrorist attacks perpetrated against the U.S. that happened on Clinton’s watch. In effect, Clinton could have prevented 9/11.

Paradoxically, if elected president, Kerry said he would relegate possible terrorist attacks to local law enforcement, just like Clinton did. But where was the media elite when Clinton promised, after every terrorist attack, to go after Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden (of which Clinton had three opportunities to capture but didn’t) and Al-Quaeda?


CK Rairden, editor of the Washington Dispatch, wrote in his Feb. 23 column: “Kerry had stated ad nauseam that he was ready for any national security questions with a “bring it on” mantra that now appears to be nothing more than an applause line.” Actually Bush said “Bring 'em on.”

As General Colin Powell said, Rairden added that Kerry should quit playing political games and start acting like a man by either putting up or shutting up:

“America is at war, and the Kerry campaign would serve itself better to prepare answers, not excuses and victimization. The Bush campaign telegraphed their strategy to question John Kerry’s long congressional voting record, and Kerry invited it, stated that he was prepared for it by delivering his signature applause line at every stop on the stump. “Bring----It----On.” The invitation has been accepted. The Bush team is ready to “bring it,” Rairden wrote.
But as long as Kerry’s left-wing colleagues keep covering for him by not holding his feet to the fire – like they do with Bush on a daily basis, don’t expect Kerry or any other partisan Democrat to be open and honest about anything he or she says or does.

Just as thousands of grieving Spanish voters recently handed over their U.S.-allied government to their enemy-appeasing Socialist Party, Democrats now seem to want to do the same here in the U.S. by giving our government over to the likes of Communist-friendly John Kerry, who seems to have an affection for terrorists.

In the end, Kerry shouldn’t be lusting after the White House; based on his faulty record and lack of commitment to telling the truth, he should be running for the president of his beloved U.N.

A blogger this Monday on the MRC Web site had this to say about the enemy-appeasing Kerry: “The terrorists won the Spain election. The Socialists there haven’t the courage and strength for the fight; neither does our “socialists,” the Lefties of this nation. So if Kerry wins, Al Quaeda wins here, too. And the fight is lost.”

(While the fight is far from lost, this serves as an example of how Americans are beginning to seek out other alternative news sources to get the rest of the story they aren’t getting from the pro-Democratic media.)

Now that Spain’s incoming prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero (who wants Kerry to win the November election), has vowed to pull out Spanish troops from Iraq (thereby further jeopardizing our allied relationship with Spain), look for Kerry to promise to do the same with U.S. troops, if elected (God forbid!) – and all with the unquestionable and unwavering support of his media sycophants.

Most likely, if it means putting Bush in a bad light, Kerry’s media thugs are already drooling over this one.

Doug Schmitz is a conservative columnist who regularly contributes to, and has been a guest columnist for Accuracy in Media ( © Doug Schmitz. All Rights Reserved.
Email Doug Schmitz

John Kerry’s Fatal Conceit

by Roger Wm. Hughes

Fredrich A. Hayek wrote a book titled “The Fatal Conceit” that is multi-layered in its many messages and lessons. However, the book reduces the flaws of socialism to one major fatal conceit that an individual or a group of individuals can know everything. This, of course, is necessary for social planning and therefore for socialism to be successful.

Senator John Kerry’s fatal conceit is that he believes his service in Vietnam equates to our blind trust in his ability to protect America.

Howard Dean on NBC’s Meet the Press stated the Presidential election will be about jobs, "after all either I or Kerry would protect America and fight the War on Terrorism."
This conceit leads them to believe that because there is a War on Terrorism, America will trust just anyone to handle it.

Coinciding with Kerry’s conceit that his service in Vietnam equates to blind trust in his ability to protect America is the other false premise -- that Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time and the wrong place and we are failing.

In short, Kerry’s argument is, “lets get on with the issues of jobs, healthcare and education.” After all, Kerry’s fatal conceit concludes, he can fight the War on Terrorism as well as Bush -- if not better.


For a moment, let us forego Kerry’s past record of voting to decimate our national defense and C.I.A. Let us instead examine the key component of the Democrats’ proposal to fix the Bush problem by "Internationalizing the War."

Kerry has referenced our current coalition partners as the “bribed and coerced.” However, the two key players Kerry is really saying are lacking from our coalition are France and Germany.

Robert Kagan writes in “Of paradise and power: America and Europe in the new world order” that France and Germany have an alliance and a desire to "limit’ America’s power. Kagan also writes that the conflict in Iraq was greater than France, Germany and Russia’s financial interest in continuing to make money from the Saddam Hussein regime. It was also about the fact that America has provided an unparalleled level of security to "Old Europe" – so much so that they have come to believe we can all just ‘sit down and talk it out.’ In short, they do not subscribe to Bismarck’s "real politics." … that is, if people are shooting at you, you should do something about it.
The other thing that is enormously disturbing about Kerry’s position is that it is reminiscent of the two erroneous foreign policy assumptions of the Clinton administration. One was that the long history of geopolitical conflict had come to an end. The second was that international politics would center around globalization and environmental issues, déjà vu.
Will America buy into this viewpoint on how America should defend itself?
Polls indicate the answer is no. This, despite Kerry’s attempts to show that he would be a better defender of America by attacking Bush for not taking care of veterans and cutting their benefits -- something that is not altogether true.

The truth is, Bush’s taking on Saddam Hussein has made America safer and stronger. It enforced several U.N. resolutions that weren’t being enforced -- one of the real reasons for going into Iraq. It has changed the dynamics of power in the region and is achieving results from Libya, Yemen, Iran and Syria. Democracy in Iraq will be devastating to our enemies. The Democrats’ position that Israel and Palestine must be solved first has been proven to be equally wrong, but our success in Iraq will also help gain progress with the Israel/ Palestine problem.

So, the question is: why would America elect someone who has voted against funding for 24 critical weapon systems, wants to give greater influence to France and Germany whose goal is to curtail our power, voted to cut funding for the C.I.A., thinks we should have waited for the United Nations and criticizes our current coalition members and allies as being coerced or bribed?
Roger Wm. Hughes

The Lies, Hypocrisy, and Indifference of John Kerry
Andy Obermann
John Kerry is a walking contradiction. He hasn't held a steady position on any major issue in his entire record of public service. Now it seems that his past is really coming back to haunt him. Of all the explanations John Kerry should give to the American people, I'll settle for three.

First of all, in case you haven't heard, foreign leaders from across the globe have endorsed John Kerry. Well, that is, if you ask the senator. You see, several days ago, Kerry, when speaking before a group of Floridians on the campaign trail, decided it was time to announce this stinging revelation. "They [unnamed foreign leaders] look at you [Kerry] and say, 'Boy, you've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy [President Bush]. We need a new policy.'"

When pressed to name names, Kerry's aides declined. "In terms of who he's talked to, we're not going to discuss that," said spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter. "I know it would be helpful, but we're not going into that." A week later, at a Kerry rally, a man pressed the senator again. Kerry replied by questioning the man's political affiliation and passing him off as a typical Republican bomb thrower.

Smooth. So, Kerry has decided it isn't necessary to answer questions from Republicans. Well, I suppose that would be fine if he were running to be President of the Democrats, but he's running to be President of the United States — Republicans included.

I have been able to find two key endorsements for John Kerry by foreign leaders. One came from Iran — and the other from North Korea. I'll even stipulate that Spain's newly elected socialist government will follow suit. So, Kerry may have the socialists and already has two despotic regimes behind him? Well, I guess they are foreign leaders.

Secondly, a recent report has revealed that Kerry, in 1997, actually supported unilateral military operations to unseat Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Appearing on CNN's "Crossfire," on Nov. 12, 1997, the great internationalist even declared that the same UN approval he now preaches for on campaign stops wouldn't be necessary for then-President Bill Clinton to launce an offensive against Saddam's regime. "The administration is making it clear they don't even need the UN security council to sign off on a material furthermore, I think the United States has always reserved the right and will reserve the right to act in its best interests."

He went on to criticize Germany, France, and Russia, asking where their "backbone" was in standing against Hussein.

Kerry's 1997 rhetoric sounds vaguely similar to someone from the present day. Who could that be? Why, President Bush, that's who. So, the lesson is, if a Democrat is in office, Saddam is fair game, but if a Republican is in office, we're going to war for Halliburton.

Finally, and probably most interesting, is Kerry's pre-9/11 indifference to warnings concerning airline security.

As we all know, John Kerry is from Massachusetts. And, in case you need reminding, two of the planes hijacked on 9/11 originated from Logan International Airport, in Boston, Massachusetts. Here is the interesting part: On May 7, 2001, Brian Sullivan, a special agent for the Federal Aviation Administration (who has since retired) warned Kerry of the likelihood of a hijacking and the ease with which one could occur.

Sullivan attempted to bring Kerry's attention to a news broadcast exposing security weaknesses at Logan. Sullivan included a letter detailing FAA failures and the threat they cause for the American people — and attempt by the FAA to prevent this information from coming to light. "The FAA does everything it can to prevent news reports of this nature under the guise of it being a public safety issue...Think what the result would be of a coordinated attack which took down several domestic flights on the same day. Considering the current threats, it is almost likely."

Kerry, in a reply to Sullivan, seemed indifferent to the warnings of possible attacks. In the return letter, Kerry informed Sullivan that the tape of the news program had been forwarded to the Department of Transportation, and asked that the Office of Inspector General report back to his staff when conclusions were made. This report came too late.

Steve Elson, also an FAA security specialist, gave Kerry another warning. In June of 2001, Elson informed Jamie Wise, a Kerry staffer, of the possibility of attacks, but was turned away because he was not one of Kerry's constituents. It isn't clear if Elson's concerns ever reached the Senator.

These frightening premonitions came only two months before the September 11 tragedy.

Am I saying the 9/11 is a result of Kerry's irresponsibility? No. One would be hard pressed to find any American, Senator or not, who thought that an attack the scale of 9/11 would be plausible before that fateful day. I am saying, however, Kerry had the opportunity to look into these issues further, but, because he did not take the threat seriously, allowed the warnings to slip through the cracks of bureaucracy.

It is almost sad that Democrats tied their hopes to a man like John Kerry. If he manages to defeat President Bush in November, America will be the worse for it.

 Kerry Backs Away From Statements About 1971 Anti-War Meeting
By Marc Morano Senior Staff Writer
March 19, 2004

( - A spokesman for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has retreated from an earlier statement claiming Kerry was not present at a November 1971 anti-war meeting in which the possible assassination of U.S. senators was discussed. "John Kerry had no personal recollection of this meeting 33 years ago," Kerry spokesman David Wade said in a statement provided to The New York Sun Thursday. Gerald Nicosia, a Kerry supporter and author of the book Home to War , was the source of the FBI documents obtained by , proving, in Nicosia's judgment, that Kerry did attend the meetings.
See Earlier Article\\Politics\\archive\\200403\\POL20040318a.html

Kerry Lying About Anti-War Past, Supporter Alleges
Full Article from New York Sun

The New York Sun

March 19, 2004 Friday


By JOSH GERSTEIN, Staff Reporter of the Sun


Senator Kerry of Massachusetts yesterday retreated from his earlier steadfast denials that he attended a meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War at which a plan to assassinate U.S. Senators was debated.

The reversal came as new evidence, including reports from FBI informants, emerged that contradicted Mr. Kerry's previous statements about the gathering, which was held in Kansas City, Mo. in November 1971.

"John Kerry had no personal recollection of this meeting 33 years ago," a Kerry campaign spokesman, David Wade, said in a statement e-mailed last night from Idaho, where Mr. Kerry is on vacation.

Mr. Wade said Mr. Kerry does remember "disagreements with elements of VVAW leadership" that led to his resignation, but the statement did not specify what the disagreements were.

"If there are valid FBI surveillance reports from credible sources that place some of those disagreements in Kansas City, we accept that historical footnote in the account of his work to end the difficult and divisive war," the statement said.

It did not address the murder plot, though as recently as Wednesday a top aide to Mr. Kerry said that the Massachusetts senator and presumptive Democratic presidential nominee was "absolutely certain" he was not present when the assassination plan, known as the "Phoenix Project," was discussed.

The New York Sun first reported last week that other anti-war activists placed Mr. Kerry at the Kansas City meeting. A total of six people have now said publicly that they remember seeing Mr. Kerry there. Participants say the plot was voted down, and several say they remember Mr. Kerry speaking and voting against it.

A historian and expert on activism against the Vietnam War, Gerald Nicosia, provided the Sun yesterday with minutes of the meeting.

Mr. Nicosia also read quotes from FBI surveillance documents he obtained under the Freedom of Information Act as he was preparing his 2001 book, "Home to War."

"My evidence is incontrovertible. He was there," Mr. Nicosia said in an interview yesterday. "There's no way that five or six agents saw his ghost there," said the historian, who lives in Marin County, north of San Francisco.

Mr. Nicosia said that the records show Mr. Kerry resigned from the group on the third day of the meeting, following discussion of the assassination plan and an argument between Mr. Kerry and another VVAW national coordinator, Al Hubbard.

Reading from an FBI informant report, Mr. Nicosia said, "John Kerry at a national Vietnam Veterans Against the War meeting appeared and announced to those present that he resigned for personal reasons but said he would be able to speak for VVAW" at future events. Another document "describes a conversation actually a confrontation between John Kerry and Hubbard that was taking place on one of the days of that meeting," Mr. Nicosia added.

Mr. Nicosia said it is clear that Mr. Kerry and the others resigned because of the extreme actions the group was considering.

"It's kind of unmistakable to see a pattern. All four of them were out the door, bingo, the morning after" the so-called Phoenix plot was discussed, the author said.

Mr. Nicosia generally declined to speculate on why Mr. Kerry had denied being present. However, the author did observe, "Especially if you're running for president, you don't want to be associated with a plot for assassinating people."

Mr. Nicosia repeatedly stressed that he was not calling Mr. Kerry a liar and said he has no animus towards the senator. The historian said he sent copies of some of the documents to the Kerry campaign yesterday morning on his own initiative. "I think Senator Kerry better get his story straight on this," Mr. Nicosia said.

"I'm a Kerry supporter. I honor the guy," Mr. Nicosia said. He noted that Mr. Kerry threw a book party for "Home at War" at the Hart Senate Office Building. The senator also wrote a positive blurb for the book's dust jacket.

The book does not mention Mr. Kerry's presence at the Kansas City meeting. Mr. Nicosia said he did not have the FBI files as he was writing the manuscript. Other accounts led him to think that Mr. Kerry had quit the group at a July meeting in St. Louis.

Mr. Nicosia also provided the Sun with minutes of the meeting that he obtained from the Wisconsin state archives, which hold most of VVAW's papers.

The minutes, prepared at the group's national office in New York, recount the actions taken by VVAW's "emergency steering committee" during the four-day meeting, which ran from November 12 to 15, 1971. The minutes indicate that at the end of the day on Saturday, November 13, discussion turned to "national actions and other things." The meeting is reported to have adjourned at 10 p.m. and resumed at 11 a.m. Sunday. The document goes on to say that the group passed a motion to hold a "national action... in 3 to 5 different sites." The next entry in the minutes is, "John Kerry, Scott Moore, Mike Oliver and Skip Roberts resigned as national coordinators." A later entry indicates that it was decided that the resignations and the decision on the "national action" should be reflected in all the group's papers.

According to Mr. Nicosia, the FBI documents and other records do not include any direct reference to the assassination plot. However, Mr. Nicosia said some informants who attended the Kansas City meeting warned the FBI of a "drastic move toward more violent actions."

A VVAW chapter newsletter obtained by the Sun reports that after "much argument" the Kansas City meeting went into closed session "for various opaque reasons of security and expediency in order to discuss the national Christmas action." The newsletter also notes the resignation of Mr. Kerry and the other three leaders. It cites "personality conflicts and differences in political philosophies" as the main reasons for the resignations.

A group of VVAW members seized the Statue of Liberty on behalf of the group on December 27, 1971. It's unclear whether that action was approved at the Kansas City meeting in November.

The three other men who appear to have resigned along with Mr. Kerry did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

Mr. Moore did not reply to an e-mail and messages left at his home. Mr. Roberts is now the legislative director for the Service Employees International Union, which is supporting Mr. Kerry's presidential bid. Reached at his union office Wednesday, Mr. Roberts said he would call back but did not. Efforts to locate Mr. Oliver were unsuccessful.

Earlier in the week, some aides to Mr. Kerry suggested that because he appeared on a PBS "Firing Line" broadcast with William F. Buckley on November 14, 1971, Mr. Kerry could not have attended the Kansas City gathering. But that contention also disintegrated yesterday on closer examination.

Tapes of the "Firing Line" television program are housed at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. An archivist there, Carol Leadenham, told the Sun that Mr. Kerry and Mr. Buckley taped a program on November 2, 1971. No air date was noted, but Ms. Leadenham said it is likely that it aired about two weeks later.

"That's about the usual time between the taping and the air date," she said.

Some discrepancies in Mr. Kerry's earlier statements about VVAW remain unaddressed by the campaign. Last week, Mr. Kerry said he last saw Mr. Hubbard in April 1971, shortly before a National Review article exposed Mr. Hubbard for exaggerating his rank and his service record in Vietnam. However, a New York Times report put Mr. Kerry at a fund-raiser with Mr. Hubbard on Long Island on August 29, 1971. Now, Mr. Nicosia's documents indicate that Mr. Kerry had a verbal altercation with Mr. Hubbard in November of that year.

Whether He “Met” Them Or He “Heard From” Them – He Still Hasn’t “Named” Them

First Kerry Said He “Met Foreign Leaders” Who Endorsed His Candidacy. “‘I’ve met foreign leaders who can’t go out and say this publicly, but boy they look at you and say, “You’ve got to win this, you’ve got to beat this guy, we need a new policy,” things like that,’ he said.” (Patricia Wilson, “Kerry Predicts Character Attacks, Foreign Support,” Reuters, 3/8/04)

Kerry Believes He “Heard From” Foreign Leaders, While Continuing To Assert He Also “Had Meetings” And “Conversations.” “[K]erry disputed the wording of his comment, and tried to change the subject from individual leaders’ specific support of his efforts to oust President Bush to a broader deterioration of the United States’ international reputation. ‘I think the quote, the quote in the comment I made publicly, I believe, was that I “heard from,” that’s the direct quote,’ Mr. Kerry said. ‘I’ve likewise had meetings. I’ve also had conversations. I said I’ve heard from, that was what I believe I said.’” (Jodi Wilgoren, “Kerry Remark On Foreign Leaders Faulted,” The New York Times, 3/15/04)

Spokeswoman Said Kerry’s Meetings With Foreign Leaders Are “Private.” “Who are these foreign leaders, and what is Mr. Kerry privately saying that makes them so enthusiastic about his candidacy? … [I]s the Senator using the phone? E-mail? Or was he just making the whole thing up? ‘In terms of who he’s talked to, we’re not going to discuss that,’ Kerry campaign spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter told the Times. ‘I know it would be helpful, but we’re not going into that. His counsels are kept private.’ In fact, Mr. Kerry himself made this issue public.” (Editorial, “Kerry’s Foreign Legion,” The Wall Street Journal, 3/15/04)

North Koreans Warm To Kerry Rhetoric. “In the past few weeks, speeches by the Massachusetts senator have been broadcast on Radio Pyongyang and reported in glowing terms by the Korea Central News Agency (KCNA), the official mouthpiece of Mr. Kim’s communist regime. … ‘Senator Kerry, who is seeking the presidential candidacy of the Democratic Party, sharply criticized President Bush, saying it was an ill-considered act to deny direct dialogue with North Korea,’ said the news agency. … Pyongyang’s friendly attitude towards Mr. Kerry contrasts with its strong anti-Bush rhetoric.’” (James Harding and Andrew Ward, “North Korea Warms To Senator’s US Presidency Bid,” Financial Times, 3/5/04)

National Unity Dies
Kerry's war: Bush first, terrorism later.

Friday, March 19, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST
Remember the remarkable coming together Americans experienced after the terrorists' mass murders of September 11? It's dead. It sank beneath the ever-churning waves of America's presidential politics. Global terror may be a big problem, but not bigger than winning the presidency.
Here is an excerpt from John Kerry's speech this week to the firefighters' union:
"After September 11th, President Bush went to New York, stood at Ground Zero, stood with our firefighters. I wish the president would go back now and ask whether he has stood with you since that day. You should never have to worry about getting the health benefits and collective bargaining rights that you've earned. And President Bush should never forget that the 343 heroes that we lost on 9/11 were not only parents and children, brothers and husbands, fiancés and best friends; they were also proud members of Locals 94 and 854. They never forgot it, and neither will we."
In a paragraph, the Democrats' candidate for the presidency has conjoined September 11, the response to the collapse of the two World Trade Center Towers, collective bargaining, health benefits and the most basic ties of family to membership in a union local.
One may argue, as many will, whether this is more or less different than President Bush's TV ads that include September 11. Nor is it entirely bad that democracies press society-rending events such as this against the template of national politics. We are doing precisely that now with gay marriage. We would rather take our chances with a vote than a system of government in which autocrats can send people into hopeless, purposeless war.

What should be troubling to anyone who thinks that homicidal terror is a clear and present danger each hour to the life of innocents everywhere is to see how easily our politics has been able to reduce September 11 and terrorism to the level of union-hall politicking. The reconstruction of Ground Zero, for instance, has pretty much disappeared entirely into the familiar swamps of New York's politics. Given the almost daily reminders of terrorism's toll on innocent life, one might have hoped this to be one center that would hold.
When a city is hit by earthquake, flood or fire, with many dead and parts of the city in ruins, normally everyone agrees that the city is in ruins and all must pull together to do something about it. Not so the war on terror. There is barely any aspect of this phenomenon today that is not subjected in the U.S. to political challenge. The rumored news yesterday that Pakistan had surrounded al-Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri recalls accusations that the administration had "failed" to capture Osama bin Laden, or alternatively, had him and would announce it closer to the election. At this level, terror has become an abstraction serving the perceived realities of politics.
For the better part of a year, the Democratic candidates have been walking a fine line on this issue. They have a large party constituency that generally opposes the exercise of U.S. military power anywhere. Yet polls suggest most Americans support the war in Iraq and against terror generally, and do so in numbers greater than their support now for President Bush. Thus the party's stockpot of candidates, now reduced to John Kerry, have had to argue that we all agree it is a "good thing" that Saddam is gone, but--what? Somehow, on this the first anniversary of the Iraq war, Mr. Kerry is in the position of holding that pretty much everything else having to do with Iraq has been all wrong. And that everything George Bush had done to fight terror elsewhere since September 11 is all wrong.
So reduced, the subject of terror in U.S. politics is barely distinguishable from any other partisan grievance--Halliburton, John Ashcroft, the reimportation of drugs from Canada. Politics is always rough and tumble, and no complaint there. It is, however, a complaint about Mr. Kerry tossing out the terrorist baby with the opposition bathwater.

The Kerry campaign so far hasn't elevated much above the tenor or level at which the Democratic presidential contenders politicked for nearly a year. Then as now, Mr. Kerry suggests there is nothing in the Bush presidency--not one moment, utterance or act since George Bush took the oath of office--that does not deserve to be opposed and reversed.
This total, rejectionist stance is relatively new in American politics. The conventional explanation is that the Democrats' constituencies demand it, but that's been true for 25 years. The deeper reason is younger than that. It flows directly from Democratic anger over the outcome of the Florida legal challenge in 2000. For Democrats it remains the fire that can never be extinguished. They are set against the Bush presidency in its totality--its policies, its personalities, its existence. Like Irish nationalists, Democrats harbor Florida as the event they will never forgive, and it has had the effect of turning American politics into a kind of Northern Ireland.

In his firefighters speech (which is at and deserves to be read in its entirety), Sen. Kerry said: "This administration has put a tax giveaway for the very wealthiest of our nation over making sure that we do all that we can to win the war on terror here at home. . . . America doesn't need leaders who play politics with 9/11 or see the war on terror as just another campaign issue."
This is a serious charge. It clearly is accusing George Bush of acting in bad faith every day since the towers fell and an airliner was crashed into the Pentagon. Not everyone needs to love George Bush, but delegitimizing America's 2 1/2-year effort against terrorism is a dangerous game. For my money, the presidential debates can't come fast enough.
Mr. Henninger is deputy editor of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. His column appears Fridays in the Journal and on

The rage of Paris, but sour at home | Queen Latifah may or may not be the only "foreign leader" to actually endorse John Kerry, but it's clear that the Democratic campaign so far is working better abroad than it is at home.

Monsieur Kerry, the rage of Paris, the toast of Berlin, sprouting in Brussels and boffo in Brittany, continues to insist that a lot of world leaders have endorsed him, but only privately. He told one citizen with an inquiring mind the other day in Pennsylvania that it was none of his business who those world leaders are. Officials of the governments of France, Germany, Russia, Canada and Mexico have said they're as puzzled as the rest of us about who these mystery leaders might be. No word yet from Lower Volta, Upper Slobbovia or Grand Marnier. Late-night comic David Letterman says Queen Latifah, the bountifully busty big-booted movie star, is the only Kerry-mad world leader he can find, but Her Royal Highness, actually as American as Chicago, is said to be vacationing in Tahiti and could not be reached to say whether she gets the joke.
Nevertheless, it's true that Monsieur Kerry is a man for all European seasons. The French, as you might expect, are gaga and it's not even April. His haughty Gallic face is spread across newspapers and newsmagazines, and radio and television talk shows can't get enough Kerry talk.

"People are going crazy," the chairwoman of Democrats Abroad tells the New York Sun. "My phone is ringing from morning to night because everybody wants to know about Kerry. I'm even getting calls from French people asking if they can contribute to the campaign."

The French generally think about as much of the Americans as the Americans think of the French, which is usually not very much, and these early spasms of delight are not about America, but about Monsieur Kerry, whom our French friends regard as more French than American. (Can 60 million Frenchmen be wrong?) He was educated, after all, at a boarding school in Switzerland, where he learned to speak fluent nuance, and this skill naturally endears him to the average French official who has been taught to say "I surrender" in several languages. He spent his boyhood summers with French cousins in Brittany, and can order snails or chitlins (which the French call tripes a la mode de Caen) in several dialects. He can sneer at "the Anglo-Saxons" at war in Iraq with the fluent elegance of Jacques Chirac. When he vows to restore the glory of France all Europe cheers.

"There is no question the Bush administration is unpopular in France, as it is across Europe," Guillaume Parmentier, director of the French Center on the United States, tells the Sun. "Bush himself is deeply unpopular. He is perceived as being nonpresidential; even his demeanor makes Europeans uneasy."
The chairman of Democrats Abroad, who seems to have been abroad too long, agrees. Kerry "is the closest thing that you will have to a French politician, with a certain diplomacy, a certain elegance," she says. "He is more like a leader would be in Europe. He doesn't look like a Texan."

Indeed he doesn't, but it's not clear how French frenzy, German gaga, Belgian delirium or partisan hysteria in Luxembourg will help Monsieur Kerry and the Democrats at home. Taking solace in foreign approval when things go sour at home has become a Democratic disease. When even his Democratic friends took offense at Bill Clinton's enthusiasm for the oral in the Oval Office pantry, he consoled himself with the sympathetic clucking of admirers abroad, who never understood why Americans regard lying about sex, even under oath, as grounds for impeachment.

The Democratic yearning for European approval surfaces in dangerous ways. Stephen Breyer, one of the Democratic justices on the Supreme Court, is eager to submit the Constitution to European editing. "Our Constitution and how it fits into the governing documents of other nations," he says, "will be a challenge for the next generation." Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Clinton legacy on the court, goes further. She and her colleagues, she says, "are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives."
Thomas Jefferson admonished us to entertain "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind," but cutting the Constitution down to European size, like measuring a man who would be president by European standards, would puzzle the dead white men who wrote the Constitution. Monsieur Kerry might be the most puzzled of all, when he discovers that he's swimming up the wrong mainstream.

Republicans Open Up on John Kerry
Posted March 18, 2004

Republicans have finally gone on the offensive against Sen. John Kerry, the likely presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. Yesterday, Vice President Dick Cheney hammered Kerry as a waffler whose record on national-security raises serious questions. But, Cheney said, "At least this much is clear: Had the decision belonged to Sen. Kerry, Saddam Hussein would still be in power today in Iraq. In fact, Saddam would almost certainly still be in control of Kuwait."

House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas also criticized Kerry during a House debate concerning the war in Iraq. DeLay noted that Kerry said he initially had supported $87 billion in Iraqi war spending last year under a plan that would have financed it with a tax surcharge on the wealthy. "He just wanted it contingent on tax increases," DeLay said, "as if holding body armor and ammunition hostage to a political agenda is a legitimate position for a national leader."

For more, read Vice President Dick Cheney's remarks at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Tom DeLay's Iraq Resolution Floor remarks and "House GOP Rallies Around Bush" in the Washington Post.

John Kerry Campaign Won't Respond to Destroying Woman's Abortion Sign
by Steven Ertelt Editor
March 18, 2004
Washington, DC ( -- The campaign of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has refused to respond to requests for comment as to why a campaign staffer destroyed a woman's sign at a recent Kerry rally. Kerry saw Rebecca Porter's sign, saying "My Abortion Hurt Me," and a staffer tore it to shreds only moments after.
In an exclusive story last week, Porter said Kerry was "shocked and surprised" to see her sign. She said a campaign official then took her sign and tore it to pieces. The same staff member destroy a similar sign brought by Porter's friend Cindy. has made four attempts to obtain comment from the Kerry campaign.

Kerry's Florida campaign office refused to comment on the situation saying the national headquarters in Washington fields all media calls.

Adam Abram, a press assistant at Kerry's national office, said he was unable to comment and would have to find a Florida campaign representative to respond to our request for an interview.

When the Kerry campaign failed to call back, spoke with Abram two more times. On both occasions, Abram would not comment and would not provide contact information for a campaign representative who would.

Porter isn't pleased at the Kerry campaign's refusal to respond.

"I'm very disappointed that he will not acknowledge what happened at his rally," Porter told

"As a presidential candidate for all the people -- including me -- I think he should speak to his staff and apologize to Cindy and I for their actions and guarantee that it won't happen again to other women."

Porter said other women may attend Kerry events to help him understand abortion's negative impact on women.

"My concern is for other women who may be planning on going to his other rallies. I don't want them to have their property destroyed either. I want their freedom of speech rights protected," Porter said.

Porter, who is the Florida director of Operation Outcry Silent No More, a group that helps women share how their abortions hurt them, said she si curious to know Kerry's thoughts about her sign.

"As a supporter of abortion rights, how does he feel about the fact that abortion does hurt many women and men," Porter told "Abortion takes the life of our children and leaves many very wounded individuals."

At the event, Porter made her way to an area where Kerry was shaking hands.

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

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

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

The sign tore and Porter let go. After he had possession of it, the Kerry staffer "tore it to pieces" and walked away. "He wouldn't even let me have the pieces," Porter said.

Exclusive: U.S. Finds Radioactive Missiles in Iraq
Charles R. Smith
Tuesday, March 9, 2004
U.S. Army troops operating at a former Iraqi air base recently made a startling discovery: Russian-made missiles marked with radioactive warning signs.
Army bomb disposal troops confirmed using Geiger counters that the missiles are indeed radioactive.
The discovery is not, however, considered the long-sought "smoking gun" of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.
The missiles appear to be part of a cache of weapons supplied to Iraq before the 1991 Gulf War.
The Russian-made R-60, NATO code name AA-8 Aphid, air-to-air missiles are part of a huge stockpile of former Iraqi Air Force munitions uncovered in over a dozen concrete bunkers.
Photos Courtesy U.S. Army
The Russian-made missiles are more than 6 feet long. Each carries 1.6 kilograms or about 3.5 pounds of radioactive uranium wrapped around a high explosive warhead.
The uranium is not pure enough nor in large enough quantity to be a nuclear warhead but it is dangerous enough, as you can see from the label:
Photos Courtesy U.S. Army
U.S. bomb experts noted the R-60 warheads are similar in design and content to a so-called "dirty bomb" that could contaminate a small area with radioactive materials.
Difficult Disposal
The discovery of the uranium-laced R-60 missiles illustrates the difficulty that coalition troops have in trying to dispose of the billons of dollars of Iraqi weapons left behind after the second war.
The R-60 missiles cannot simply be destroyed because the uranium-laced warheads could pose a health hazard to coalition troops and Iraqi civilians.
Army bomb-disposal experts have gathered up all the R-60 missiles found at the site and quarantined them at a single, heavily guarded location.
The R-60 has a very small 6-kilogram (13.2-pound) explosive warhead. The R-60 missiles supplied to Iraq by Russia contained uranium in their warheads to assist the small explosive charge in destroying targeted aircraft.
Russian weapons designers added the uranium belt to the missile in order to knock-out western aircraft using the dense metal as a way to punch through heavily armored sections of U.S. made jets.
U.S. troops also found a small number of advanced R-60M warheads at the site. The R-60M missiles are equipped with an advanced laser destruct system that detonates the warhead when it passes close to a target aircraft.
More Russian Missiles
In addition, U.S. troops uncovered several large air-to-surface Kh-28 missiles, NATO code-named AS-9 Kyle.
Photos Courtesy U.S. Army
The Kh-28 is a Russian-made, anti-radar, air-to-surface missile with a top speed of more than 2,000 miles an hour.
The missile is approximately 19.5 feet long, 17 inches in diameter, has a wingspan of 5.5 feet and weighs more than 1,500 pounds. It carries a conventional 340-pound high-explosive warhead and has a range of 54 miles.
U.S weapons experts are also handling the Kh-28 missiles carefully, but not because of its electronic radar-seeking warhead.
The Kh-28 is powered by a liquid-propellant propulsion system that consists of a fuel tank and an oxidizer tank. The oxidizer is a dangerous chemical known as "red fuming nitric acid" or IRFNA. Each missile carries approximately 20 gallons of IRFNA.
The oxidizer is considered to be highly dangerous and a possible carcinogen. U.S. Air Force disposal squads dismantled a Kh-28 found after the 1991 Gulf War using full Hazmat suits and special anti-chemical gear.
Again, U.S. forces are taking great care in the disposal of the missiles for fear of exposing coalition troops and local civilians to hazardous chemicals such as the oxidizer found in the Kh-28 missiles.

Kerry Lying About Anti-War Past, Supporter Alleges
By Marc Morano Senior Staff Writer
March 18, 2004

( - A Vietnam War historian and supporter of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has told that Kerry is lying about key events related to his anti-war activities in 1971.

Kerry said he hasn't spoken to former anti-war associate Al Hubbard since the two men appeared side by side on national television in April 1971, but according to author Gerald Nicosia, that assertion is wrong. So is Kerry's insistence that he did not attend a November 1971 meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), at which group members discussed the possibility of assassinating U.S. senators who were still supporting the war in Vietnam, Nicosia said.

Nicosia backed up his comments regarding Kerry's presence at the November 1971 meeting by providing with the FBI's redacted files about that meeting.

Questions about events that happened 33 years ago continue to nag the Kerry candidacy as the Massachusetts Democrat's November match-up against President Bush comes into sharper focus.

Kerry faces increasing skepticism about answers he gave to certain questions as well as recent statements he made, including his claim that some foreign leaders had told him they were hopeful Bush would be defeated this year.

Among the questions surrounding Kerry's involvement as a 27-year-old anti-war protester are those about his relationship with Hubbard, the former executive director of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Kerry and Hubbard appeared on NBC's Meet the Press on April 18, 1971 to argue for an end to the war.

But shortly thereafter, Hubbard, who had been introduced on the NBC program as a decorated Air Force captain, was exposed for having exaggerated his military credentials. A separate news investigation revealed that there were no military records showing that Hubbard had either served in Vietnam or was injured there.

Last week, during a Capitol Hill news conference, asked Kerry whether he was still in touch with Hubbard or whether he was willing to repudiate Hubbard because of Hubbard's fabricated war record.

"I haven't talked to Al Hubbard since that week" of the Meet the Press appearance, Kerry replied. Kerry also said he did not believe that VVAW's credibility was hurt as a result of Hubbard falsifying his war record.

But Gerald Nicosia, author of the book Home to War: A History of the Vietnam Veterans' Movement and a Kerry supporter, disagreed with Kerry's contention that he and Hubbard saw no more of each other after the week of April 18, 1971.

"That is bull****. No, no, [Kerry] saw [Hubbard] at numerous meetings after that, including the one I talk about in my book, the July meeting in St. Louis," Nicosia told .

[Kerry] saw [Hubbard] in July, and according to FBI [files on Vietnam Veterans Against the War] and the minutes of those meetings, [Kerry] probably saw him in November [1971] too," Nicosia said.

Kerry and Hubbard had a heated argument at the St. Louis meeting in July that was "witnessed by 200 veterans," according to Nicosia.

Despite the presidential candidate's claim last week that Hubbard had not hurt the anti-war group's credibility in 1971, Kerry actually believed otherwise, according to Nicosia.

"There was a big fight with Al Hubbard in which Kerry confronted him and they were screaming at each other across the hall," Nicosia explained. Hubbard, who had ties to the radical Black Panthers group, and Kerry "couldn't have been more opposite personalities," Nicosia said.

The simmering tension between the two men finally reached a boil in St. Louis, Nicosia said, with Kerry shouting, "Who are you, Al Hubbard? Are you even really a veteran?

"So it was a big screaming match," he added.

Nicosia told he was uncomfortable disputing Kerry's statements.

"I am in kind of an awkward position here. I am a Kerry supporter and I certainly don't want to do anything that hurts him. On the other hand, my number one allegiance is to truth. So I am going to go with where the facts are, and John is going to have to deal with that," Nicosia said.

"I am having some problems with the things he is saying right now, which are not matching up with accuracy," he added.

November 1971 meeting

Nicosia also disputed Kerry's denial that he was in attendance when VVAW members met in Kansas City in November 1971 to discuss the possibility of assassinating U.S. senators still committed to the Vietnam War.

Kerry was at the meeting, Nicosia insisted, pointing to FBI files and the minutes from the VVAW meeting, which he has obtained. "The minutes of the meeting -- November 12th through the15th -- it's got John Kerry there, it's got John Kerry resigning there on the third day," Nicosia said.

Nicosia provided with a copy of the FBI's redacted files of that November 1971 VVAW meeting. The files refer to the fact that Kerry had "resigned for 'personal reasons.'"

"You are talking to a Kerry supporter, but I will tell you, after everything that I have heard and seen, I would conclude that he was there," he added.

Nicosia said he is not sure why Kerry is answering questions on the issue in the manner he is.

"Why didn't [former President Bill] Clinton say he [had sex with] Monica Lewinsky? It took him until he had to be confronted with the hard evidence before he said he did," Nicosia said.

"I think [Kerry] may be worried or the people around him may be worried that his association with VVAW is a very negative thing and they want John to back away from it," he added.

Nicosia concluded with advice for Kerry.

"The chickens are coming home to roost, and unfortunately he is starting to backtrack and I personally don't think backtracking is going to work because people are going to go at him and find the discrepancies," Nicosia said.

As recently as two days ago, Kerry's presidential campaign spokesman David Wade told the New York Sun that, "Kerry was not at the Kansas City meeting." Wade added that Kerry had resigned from the VVAW "sometime in the summer of 1971."

See Earlier Stories:
Kerry Says Credibility Not Damaged By Former Comrade's Lie (March 11, 2004)
 Kerry-Linked Anti-War Group Can't Bury Deceit (March 3, 2004)
 Most Media Refused to Expose Kerry's Anti-War Cohort (March 3, 2004)

An Open Letter To John Kerry
King Features Syndicate

Dear Sen. Kerry:
In the interests of your campaign and your party's desire to unseat George W. Bush, you have some explaining to do. During the primary campaign, your Democratic opponents accused you of flip-flopping on several important issues, such as your vote in favor of the Iraq War resolution.

Certainly your sensitivity to nuance, your ability to see shades of gray where George Bush sees only black and white, explains some of your difficulty. Shades of gray don't do well in political campaigns, where primary colors are the rule. And your long and distinguished service in the Senate has no doubt led to genuine changes in some positions. But the denial that you are a liberal is almost impossible to reconcile.

When the National Journal said your Senate record makes you one of the most liberal members of the Senate, you called that "a laughable characterization" and "the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen in my life." Wow!

Liberals, who make up a substantial portion of the Democratic Party and a significant portion of the independent vote, are entitled to ask, "What gives?" It isn't just the National Journal that has branded you as a liberal. So has the liberal lobbying group Americans for Democratic Action. Senator, check your own Web site. It says you are for rolling back tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, for tax credits to both save and create jobs, for real investment in our schools. You've voted, in the words of your own campaign, for "every major piece of civil rights legislation to come before Congress since 1985, as well as the Equal Rights Amendment." You count yourself (and are considered by others) a leader on environmental protection issues. You are committed to saving Medicare and Social Security, and you are an internationalist in foreign policy.

What are you ashamed of? Are you afflicted with the Dukakis syndrome -- that loss of nerve that has allowed conservatives both to define and to demonize liberalism for the past decade and more? You remember, of course, that it was during the 1988 presidential campaign that George Bush I attacked Democrat Michael Dukakis both for opposing the Vietnam War and for stating he was a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Both proved, Bush said, that Dukakis was a liberal. Dukakis responded to that as an attack on his patriotism. He defended neither liberalism nor the ACLU.

Dukakis might have responded by saying: "I am surprised, Mr. Bush, that you are not a member of the ACLU. We do not have to agree on all the positions that the ACLU may take on this issue or that, but we should applaud its effort to protect the rights of Americans, even those charged with heinous crimes." Dukakis might have defended liberalism as the legacy of FDR and Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy -- none of whom were anything like 100 percent liberals but all of whom advanced the cause of a truly liberal democracy.

But by ducking the issue, Dukakis opened the way for the far right to make "L" for liberal a scarlet letter with which to brand all who oppose them. In the course of that 1988 exchange, Bush offered a telling observation, saying, in effect, that liberals don't like being called liberal. You seem to have reaffirmed that analysis.

If 1988 taught us anything, it is that a candidate who lacks the courage of his convictions cannot hope to convince the nation that he should be given its leadership. So, Senator, some detailed explanations are in order if you hope to have any chance of defeating even a wounded George II in November. You cannot let the Bush league define you or the issues. You have to do that yourself. Take my advice and lay it all out, before it's too late.

Write to Walter Cronkite c/o King Features Syndicate, 888 Seventh Ave., New York, NY 10019, or e-mail him at

Peaceful Tomorrows, Leftist Todays
By Tom Ryan | March 17, 2004

A flood of anti-Bush headlines poured across the news outlets last week like a tidal wave: “Sept. 11 Families Disgusted By Bush Campaign Ads;” “Bush Ads Using 9/11 Images Stir Anger;” “Bush Exploiting 9/11;” and “Has Bush No Shame?” Morning and evening editions of national newspapers led with the story, and the major news television networks revisited the debate every half an hour like clockwork.
The controversy arose from Bush’s presidential ad campaign, which depicts brief images of the World Trade Center after the tragedy of 9/11. Colleen Kelly, who lost her brother Bill Kelly Jr. in the attacks on September 11th, told reporters, "I am afraid these ads, and others to follow, will be part of an ugly political jousting match between candidates, where one side attacks the other as somehow indifferent to the horrors of the day. President Bush can responsibly promote his ideas for confronting our threat from terrorism without overwhelming people with the very sacred images of our loved ones’ murders." Kelly continued, "It makes me sick. Would you ever go to someone's gravesite and use that as an instrument of politics?" What Kelly did not tell the media is that she is the New York area coordinator for a group called September Eleventh Families For Peaceful Tomorrows. Peering under the veil of this media outbreak aimed at condemning the ads is this organization and a longtime leftist activist named David Fenton. The irony of Kelly’s remarks is that Peaceful Tomorrows is precisely an “instrument of politics.”
Peaceful Tomorrows; which is coordinated by liberal public relations specialist David Fenton, and funded by the liberal grant-giving Tides Foundation; is an antiwar support organization founded by individuals who lost loved ones in the terrorist attacks of September 11th. To date, Peaceful Tomorrows is comprised of 120 family members of 9/11 victims, as well as supporters and volunteers ranging in the thousands. Formed as a supposedly nonpartisan group opposing the War on Terror, Peaceful Tomorrows has taken its message across the country and around the world, with members of the group speaking at universities, participating in the antiwar marches in Washington, D.C., and taking to the airwaves whenever a media occasion arises. Their founding mission is to “break the cycle of violence and retaliation engendered by war.” However, their focus in the last week has shifted from protesting the War on Terror, to protesting the President’s recent ad campaign.
Added to their lengthy résumé, which includes participating in the “No More Victims Tour,” the "Not In Our Name" rally and a series of other antiwar demonstrations, Peaceful Tomorrows is the recipient of funding from the Tides Center, which is dually funded by the Vira Heinz Endowment and the Howard Heinz Endowment – chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry. Read On
Three Special Forces Officers thrown overboard by Kerry at Town Hall Meeting

On March 6th in Houston, three Special Forces Officers thrown overboard by Kerry. The Houston Chronicle misreported it -- no surprise. Vietnam Veterans needs to "dog" Kerry at all of his campaign stops in ever increasing numbers. The three SF'ers probably could have objected louder to being thrown out. The Kerry event was supposed to be a town hall meeting, and even though he rented the hall, he shouldn't have had the SF'ers removed unless they were being disruptive, which they were not, but they did display the "Anti-Kerry" banner.

With respects to anyone attending Kerry's events, It is recommended to just to take a seat and keep any animosities to themselves until Kerry actually arrives and started speaking. It is alright to boo when others clap, but not to block other people's view or make noises just to stop his speaking. Anyone planning to go to these rallies, be respectful and don't be disruptive, make your point at the Q&A sessions.

Questions on all topics are OK, but you might want to question him about his Heroic Status, how he got the three PH and how he left Vietnam early. These are sore points for him.

Anyone knowing Kerry itinerary, please send to me for dissemination.
VVAK buttons are available in several quantities from, among other places,

March 6, 2004
Kerry Throws Three Special Forces Officers Overboard Senator slams Vietnam Veterans at HCC forum
By Stephen Sherman
A minor incident occurred at the Kerry “Town Hall Meeting” in Houston on March 6th. The Houston Chronicle reported it as follows:
“Promised protests failed to materialize, although three demonstrators were ejected from the event after unfurling a banner that read, "Vietnam Veterans Are Not Fonda Kerry," a reference to conservative attempts to link Kerry's opposition to the war to actress Jane Fonda.”
There is no reason to expect accuracy or veracity from an information source that turned the Tet Offensive from a Communist disaster to a Communist victory, but the truth should worth the extra effort. What should have been reported was:
“Three Vietnam Veterans, all former Army Special Forces Officers, were ejected from the event [a town hall meeting] because they were wearing buttons that read “Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry.” As the vets were leaving, they unfurled a banner that read “Vietnam Veterans Are Not Fonda Kerry,” after which they joined their former South Vietnamese allies who were protesting Kerry’s single-handed blockage of a human rights amendment against the Communist Government of Vietnam. After the audience was rid of any potential dissenters, Candidate Kerry entered, to convene his scripted event.”
Despite the liberal media “attempt to link” the veterans with the “Right wing Republican Attack Machine,” they were not. I should know because I was one of the Houston Three.
A week short of thirty five years before this event, LT jg John Kerry pulled a Special Forces Officer back into his boat after the officer fell overboard in a mine explosion. That Officer, 1LT Jim Rassman, surfaced during the Iowa Caucus and the coverage of his hugging his purported savior seemed to propel Kerry’s campaign out of its doldrums.
I was at my computer adding to my files on Special Forces history when SOG veteran and author, John Plaster, phoned me, told me to turn on the TV and asked if this guy was for real. According to my records, he was. In the next few days as the Kerry momentum soared, I was inundated with calls with the same question from people who were upset that the media was assigning Kerry as their spokesperson. I recorded my concerns in a Wall Street Journal article (“Conduct Unbecoming,” WSJ 1/26/04) and got even more calls from fellow vets who had serious objections to the Kerry candidacy.
When it was announced on the news that Kerry was coming to Houston, I called two of my friends and asked them if they would join me. I stood in line for several hours and, with my friends, we were allowed into the rented Community College auditorium. We wore a button that I had made up “Vietnam Veterans Against Kerry” and I had in my pocket the banner noted above. While waiting for Kerry’s arrival, we stood against the back wall of the auditorium, so as to not block anyone’s view of the proceedings and we were interviewed by various members of the media to whom we told that we were there to disabuse the media of the notion that all veterans supported Kerry.
Kerry’s arrival time came and went. We were approached by several uniformed security officers, who asked us to leave. We asked them if the Kerry campaign really wished to throw Vietnam Veterans out of his town hall meeting. They responded that the hall was rented and the campaign staff wanted us to leave. We departed, unfurling a 2’x3’ banner on the way out.
But the story doesn’t end there. A Houston Chronicle reporter followed us out of the building and interviewed us extensively. If I must say so, we represent a quite interesting bit of local color. The irony of the Kerry camp throwing 3 Special Forces overboard after they had used the recovery of one Special Forces Officer to such great effect, should have been a side-bar too great for a local paper to resist, but, in the interests of their own partisan politics, they did.
John Kerry and I have a history together, though we have never met. I spent my formative years in Lexington, Massachusetts. My home town prides itself as the birthplace of Liberty. (A very nice couple (Democrats) in line behind me was from Acton. I reminded them that “the Battle of Lexington was fought in Concord by men from Acton.”) While I was in Vietnam on a second, civilian, tour, John Kerry was arrested in my home town. I wrote a letter that was published in the Lexington Minuteman chiding the protestors for their misinformed opinions. Lexington is also governed, as is much of Massachusetts, through Town Hall Meetings. John Kerry and I know Town Hall Meetings and this was a Town Hall Meeting only in a spin doctor’s eyes. I also voted for and later mourned for John Fitzgerald Kennedy and John Forbes Kerry may have the initials, but he is no JFK.
I hope the ironies continue; Kerry gained national prominence protesting the “establishment” as head of an organization that did little to check its members’ bonafides. He won his first election with a band of ostensible Vet supporters called “Dog Hunters” harassing his opponent. Kerry kept office in Massachusetts, by out-liberaling the most Liberal Massachusan. Kerry climbed to the top of the Bush-hating Pack of Nine with the help of a Special Forces LT who couldn’t read the map.
Later in its story, the Houston Chronicle reports that in “San Antonio, several protesters gathered at Kerry's rally site with signs proclaiming, ‘Red, White and Bush’ and ‘Vietnam Vets Against Kerry.’” Perhaps a new band of Dog Hunters will confront Kerry as he campaigns. Perhaps throwing three Special Forces Officers overboard will create a ripple that slowly will spread around the Nation. Maybe I will evolve into the new label the Kerry camp is trying to pin on me – “Right Wing Attack Machine.” Perhaps the Democrats who now support him will ask themselves “If the Vietnam Veterans are as bad as John F[onda] Kerry said we veterans were, why should the voters want a ticking time-bomb like John F’n Kerry in the White House?
Stephen Sherman ( served as a Lieutenant with 5th Special Forces Group (Abn) in Vietnam, 1967-1968. He maintains a database and publishes archival information on Special Forces in SE Asia.
I’m certain that the SF Officers with me at the Kerry Town Hall Meeting and many other Veterans would be happy to expound on the propriety of letting Kerry out of Massachusetts. Let me know if you would like to talk with someone who is not a liberal stooge. My email is There is also some footage of the interviews conducted at the event.

File "Kerry-Houston2.doc" removed by Spam Sleuth




New Witness:
 Kerry Was Present at Dark Plot Meeting:
Group Debated and Voted Down Plan To Assassinate Senators | Another witness has come forward to attest that John Kerry was at a November 1971 meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War at which the group debated and voted down a plan to assassinate senators who supported the Vietnam War.
A Kerry campaign spokesman, David Wade, has said Mr. Kerry did not attend the Kansas City meeting, and Kerry biographer Douglas Brinkley has said Mr. Kerry told him he was a "noshow."
"Kerry may have resigned shortly after that meeting or at the meeting…" recalled the VVAW Kansas State coordinator at the time, John Musgrave, in an interview that was published Saturday in the Kansas City Star. Mr. Musgrave is the third VVAW member at the time that has been named as seeing Mr. Kerry at Kansas City. Mr. Musgrave specifically remembered Mr. Kerry's attendance and his speaking against the murder plot against the senators.
The Star cited the national director of Veterans for Kerry, a former VVAW member, John Hurley, as saying: "I think he is confusing the St. Louis and Kansas City meetings."
But if Mr. Hurley is acknowledging that Mr. Kerry was present at the earlier St. Louis meeting, he is disagreeing with the Kerry spokesman, Mr.Wade, and calling into doubt a recent statement by Mr. Kerry.
At a Capitol Hill press conference Thursday, Mr. Kerry was asked by a reporter if he thought his credibility had been affected by his close association with Al Hubbard, a key VVAW colleague of Mr. Kerry's who had appointed him to the leadership of Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
Mr. Hubbard claimed to be a wounded Air Force officer who had served at Danang during the Vietnam War. He appeared with Mr. Kerry many times, including the "Meet the Press" interview after Mr. Kerry's Senate testimony about American "war crimes" in Vietnam. But Mr. Hubbard was never in Vietnam, was never wounded, and was not an officer, as subsequent research and Mr.Kerry himself have pointed out.
Mr.Kerry answered he had not spoken to Mr. Hubbard since the week of April 19, 1971. But in the New York Times of August 30, 1971, reporter Enid Nemy, covering an East Hampton fund-raising party for the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, states: "Later, Mr. Kerry and Al Hubbard, another veteran, explained some of the aims of the organization…." Read On

The Secret Life of John Kerry
March 17, 2004

by Bruce Walker

John Kerry appears to pass through life quietly observing information critical to the welfare of America and maintaining scrupulous silence until this information can advance what is really important: his political career.

While a commissioned officer in the American military in Vietnam, Kerry solemnly advises Congress that he observed American soldiers routinely commit crimes against humanity. Why did Kerry wait until he was safely out of the military and in the United States to report war crimes? Why did he accept military decorations related to such outrageous behavior? Consider what would we think of a German officer running for Chancellor of West Germany in 1980 who said:

"I was a German officer commanding a squad of soldiers in the German Army on the Eastern Front in 1941. I saw German troops line up and machine gun rows of Jewish men, women and children as my troops marched along. I also personally saw German enlisted men commit many other offenses in violation of international law and the rules of military conduct."

Why did he not risk his military reputation at the time to save these innocent lives? Why did he not decline the decorations bestowed on him in this campaign? (It has been done before) Where are the official, written reports filed at the time these crimes took placed signed by Officer Kerry? Where is the tender of the resignation of his commission which is all that honor could require of a man who saw what Kerry claims to have seen?  Read On

Left-Wingers' Attacks on Bush Are Slap in Face to Servicemen
By John H. Wambough Jr.

George W. Bush and I were fighter pilots. Lt. Bush flew F-102s in the Air National Guard 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron; I flew F-105s in combat with the 34th Tactical Fighter Squadron. Both our flying assignments were inherently dangerous - Bush's because of the high-performance nature of the fighter-interceptor aircraft he was flying, the training required to fly the F-102, and the high risks that come with all-weather (night and day) intercept missions.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe and the antiwar left wing of t
he Democratic Party relentlessly have attacked the service of Bush and by inference other pilots and service members in the Air National Guard and Reserve forces as cowards and shirkers of responsibility for not being in Vietnam. Their flippant slandering of our Guard and Reserve forces in an effort to discredit President Bush and win an election is beyond the pale. They have no decency left.

Lt. Bush's opportunity to fly jets and serve his country came through the Air National Guard when he was 22 years old. Like Bush, my goal as a young man was to fly high-performance jet-fighter aircraft, and both of us realized our dream. I don't remember looking ahead at that time in my life (and I'm sure Bush didn't either) to what missions we could be assigned - peacetime or wartime. All we wanted to do as young men was to fly these magnificent flying machines (jets) and enjoy the opportunity to serve our country. Contributing to the Air National Guard's air-defense mission, Bush flew hundreds of hours in the F-102, the world's first supersonic, all-weather jet-interceptor aircraft; he served his country protecting the United States.

Neither Lt. Bush nor I had control over mission assignment, where we would be deployed or how the service would task the units to which we were assigned. Bush gladly would have gone to Vietnam or anywhere else his unit was deployed, but the reality was that he had no say as to how his unit would be utilized to support our country's national-security interests. Such decisions were above our pay grade. Bush's mission as a squadron fighter-interceptor pilot was to intercept and destroy enemy aircraft inbound to the United States - Soviet nuclear bombers, for example. Remember, we were still in the Cold War in the 1970s and air defense was a high-priority mission. Today our air-defense forces protect us against aircraft with terrorists on board.

I can say from my experience that flying operational fighter jets is highly dangerous. People don't strap fighter jets to their backside if they are overly concerned for their future. While in F-105 training at McConnell Air Force Base in early 1968, we lost five aircraft in six weeks (one aircraft crashed in air-to-air combat training, one aircraft crashed on the air-to-ground gunnery range, one crashed on takeoff, one crashed on final approach at a nearby airfield, and one crashed coming back from a cross-country mission). My nephew was killed while flying a Marine Corp EA-6B Prowler during a low-level stateside training mission. I was in a flight where an F-105 pilot was killed while we were training on an air-ground gunnery range. Also, I've been in F-105 and F-111 operational units where a number of pilots were killed while training for their wartime missions. We got really good at flying "missing-man formations" and doing memorial services for our fallen comrades and their families. I can assure you that Bush was continuously exposed to similar dangers during all-weather scrambles and during training exercises, as evidenced by the F-102 pilots killed in his unit.

Cowards (or people who lack courage) don't take on the risks that Lt. Bush did in flying fighter-interceptor aircraft. Flying jets in wing formation in all kinds of weather and carrying explosive ordnance on board is dangerous work. The pilots in these squadrons (including Bush) did what their country asked them to do. They performed their assigned mission and did it well. In November 1970 the commander of the Texas Air National Guard, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian (now deceased), called Bush, then 24, "a dynamic, outstanding young officer" who stood out as "a top-notch fighter-interceptor pilot. Lt. Bush's skills far exceed his contemporaries." Killian further wrote: "He is a natural leader whom his contemporaries look to for leadership. Lt. Bush is also a good follower with outstanding disciplinary traits and an impeccable military bearing."

As a fighter-squadron commander in the U.S. Air Force, I know that the young people who make up these squadrons are the cream of the crop: top performers, talented, courageous and willing to take on any mission presented to them. Everyone in these units realizes that they serve to protect the national-security interests of the United States and that they can be mobilized - with short notice - to deploy anywhere in the world.

During the Vietnam conflict military-pilot training was greatly expanded to accommodate the increased need for pilots. Thousands of pilots were trained during this conflict, primarily to support mission and pilot-rotation requirements. F-105 pilots, F-4 fighter pilots and the pilots of other combat aircraft routinely were rotated out of the combat theater after completing 100 combat missions. That meant that other pilots needed to be trained to take their place. As the Vietnam conflict began to phase down around 1971, there was a surplus of hundreds of pilots in the U.S. military and relatively few flying jobs. Thus, the active-duty force as well as the Air National Guard and Reserve forces were very accommodating to many who wanted to pursue alternative career paths (such as going to Harvard Business School). In fact, these sorts of administrative actions (early releases) helped alleviate the pilot-surplus challenges facing the military.

Just as Lt. Bush's supervisor released him from the Air National Guard to go to Harvard, I released a pilot from the Air Force months early when I was commander of the 4442nd Tactical Control Group so he could participate in the pilot-hiring cycle of Delta Airlines. I could have held this pilot to the end of his service commitment but chose not to, since letting him go early created no hardship for our unit. Rather, it gave a pilot who had served his country well an immediate opportunity for a future career. I point this out so that the public will know that commanders have the prerogative to make decisions that take into consideration the needs of the unit and the needs of an individual ready to make a career transition out of the service. Bush's squadron commander of 30-plus years ago would have known where Bush was or, at the very least, how to contact him should that have been necessary. The bottom line: Lt. Bush's documented Air National Guard service exceeded the requirements set forth in his Guard contract and he received an honorable discharge.

As Bush completed his flying assignment in April 1972, the Air National Guard was phasing out F-102s. What we know is that he flew fighter jets, he embraced the inherent high risk of flying an F-102, he served our country honorably and he met his Air National Guard requirements. The attacks on Bush are designed to diminish his service to our country in the eyes of our citizens and soldiers some 30 years after he received an honorable discharge. This is truly reprehensible.

There is a much bigger story to be told than anything related to Bush's honorable service. It is the story of a fringe element of the Democratic Party that will stoop to any depth, including attacking the motives of service members in the Air National Guard and Reserve, to obtain political power. It is a fringe element willing to undermine the confidence of our fighting forces in their commander in chief in the midst of our global war on terrorism. And this fringe element places political power higher on its priority list than U.S. national security.

Political leadership should be about looking ahead, not behind. But since we are looking 30 years behind, I will make two comments. First, Lt. Bush put his butt on the line every time he scrambled on an air-defense mission. He is a true hero of whom our soldiers and citizens should be rightfully proud. Second, the service of our Guard and Reserve soldiers should never be denigrated or diminished for political purposes or to win an election.

After serving in Vietnam, I returned to a country that was largely unappreciative of military service. It is sad that the most recent attacks on our commander in chief have resulted in reopening the feelings and wounds of bygone years, and brings back thoughts of many comrades in arms who never returned to the United States.

Although it is fair to recognize Kerry's four-month war record and medals, it is what he did after leaving the military that deserves the greatest scrutiny. He became a turncoat by misrepresenting to the American public what our soldiers were doing in Southeast Asia. Along with Jane Fonda and the rest of the antiwar movement, he maligned, mocked and discredited our soldiers while they were still engaged in battle. He lied about what our soldiers were doing in combat. He defamed our brave fighting men. The ultimate insult our citizens could inflict on the U.S. Armed Forces would be to vote into office (as commander in chief) the person who betrayed his comrades in arms while they were still fighting and dying on the battlefield and in air combat.

Further, military people understand that Kerry has voted against the major weapons systems needed by the military to carry out its mission. Additionally, he has voted against CIA funding of human intelligence needed to preclude attacks on our country (such as 9/11) and protect our citizens and soldiers overseas. Sen. Kerry voted for the war in Iraq and then voted against funding the war after our troops were placed in harm's way.

The question everyone needs to ask themselves before voting in November is: Who do you trust to handle our national security? I trust President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge.

John H. Wambough Jr. is a retired Air Force colonel with 28 years of service. During the Vietnam War he flew F-105 tactical fighter aircraft over Laos and North Vietnam out of Korat Air Base in Thailand from 1968 to 1969. Contact Wambough at

Did the Media Give Us John Kerry?

Posted by Vincent Fiore
Tuesday, March 16, 2004

It was not all that long ago that the Gallup Poll had Senator John Kerry rated at an abysmal 9% nationwide, in the single-digit cellar with the likes of Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Carol Moseley Braun, and the Rev. Al Sharpton.

The 9% reflected a January 9-11 sampling of 426 Democrats who seemed about as enamored with Senator Kerry as a canary would be with the cat. However, in just three short weeks from that date, John Kerry went from almost invisible to invincible, leading all remaining Democrats at 49%. By that time, Kerry had pulled off the twin victories of Iowa and New Hampshire. By February 16, the stodgy John Kerry had effectively claimed the mantle of the Democratic nominee, polling among Democrats at a blistering 65%.

But let's backtrack a bit. ...... Read On

Next Page

Readers Comments - click the link to view

To Leave Comments click here-Leave a Comment

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

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