John Kerry History Page    |     home
Page 7
This is America, built on Dissent, right John?
Aaaah the smell of Napalm In The Morning.....Bring It On!

Author Suspects GOP in Kerry FBI File Theft
Breaking from
Vietnam War historian Gerald Nicosia said Friday that burglars who broke into his house a week ago Thursday and removed thousands of documents from Sen. John Kerry's FBI files were most likely Republican operatives.

"I would say that the Republicans had the largest motivation because there definitely is... a heck of a lot of explosive stuff about Kerry in there," Nicosia told MSNBC's "Scarborough Country."

The author, who has unabashedly proclaimed his support for Kerry's presidential bid, obtained the FBI files while working on his 1999 book "Home to War," filing a Freedom of Information Act request that took eleven years to yield results.

Nicosia said he didn't think the top Democrat or his staff were worried about the 20,000 page stash of surveillance material he had on him.
"The Kerry camp had no reason to believe I would not cooperate with them," Nicosia insisted, explaining that he shared portions of the files with Kerry operatives a few days before their theft.

Still, after Nicosia used the files two weeks ago to disprove Kerry's denials that he attended a 1971 meeting of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War where a plot to assassinate pro-war politicians was discussed - some see the motivations of the file thieves differently.

"This almost sounds like a West Coast version of Watergate 2004," host Joe Scarborough told Nicosia and fellow guest Pat Buchanan. "Maybe it was an inside job by somebody in the Kerry campaign."

Indeed, if the Kerry camp was involved in the FBI file break-in, it wouldn't be the first time it had engaged in Watergate-style political sabotage.

As the New York Post reported just last month, during Kerry's 1972 bid for Congress, his younger brother, Cameron Kerry, was arrested for "breaking into... the headquarters of a Kerry opponent" in Lowell, Mass.

Kerry's brother and another campaign worker pleaded not guilty to charges of "breaking and entering with the intent to commit grand larceny."

After the arrests, candidate Kerry told the New York Times that the break-in was a preemptive strike in response to threats that phone lines to his campaign headquarters were about to be sabotaged.

Cameron Kerry is now a partner in a Boston-based law firm and has been a key financial backer of all of his brother's campaigns.

Will the real John Kerry please stand up?
Daniel Bagley
Cavalier Daily Associate Editor

TIME IS running out for Sen. John F. Kerry. At the moment, the all-but-confirmed Democratic nominee is enjoying a fair amount of success in the media and in the court of public opinion. This time is short lived. The truth of the matter is that Kerry is nothing more than a wishy-washy Massachusetts liberal, and this fact will catch up with him before November.

During the primary race, Kerry earned his stripes by bashing President Bush as much as possible. Unfortunately, Kerry can't get his opinions straight. For someone who claims that he is opposed to the war in Iraq, he certainly has a strange way going about it. In October 2002, Kerry voted to authorize the president to use force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. On Oct. 9, Kerry made the bold assertion, "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." But, of course, that was 2002. In 2004, Kerry grants himself the benefit of revisionist history.

Kerry stands on his Vietnam War record. He trumpets his four months of service on a patrol boat in Vietnam as major proof of his ability to lead. Kerry's proponents have taken great pains to force the White House to release Bush's war records, creating a major issue out of Bush's service. Unfortunately, Kerry is unwilling to offer the public the same degree of disclosure regarding his own time in the military.

Kerry served in Vietnam for a mere four months, yet received three purple hearts, a bronze star and a silver star. A purple heart signifies a wound incurred in battle, yet surprisingly none of Kerry's three wounds caused him to miss time from duty. Three purple hearts was a ticket home, and Kerry jumped on the airplane as soon as he could. Serious questions remain about the nature of these injuries and just who submitted the paperwork for these medals. In time, this information will become public, and the effect on the Kerry campaign will be profound and the public outcry will be heard.

Of course, Kerry hasn't always been proud of his service in Vietnam. When he returned home from the war he became very active in the anti-war movement, and used this to jump start his political career. He was even seen at a protest throwing away his medals. He now claims that these were not his medals, as his medals hang "proudly" in his Senate office.

It is indeed unfortunate, but it is clear that this sort of political waffling is what we can expect from John Kerry on most issues. Kerry has offered a confusing front on the issue of gay marriage. Kerry was one of only 14 senators to vote against the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by President Clinton in 1996, yet now he is on the record supporting a Massachusetts state constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. Even one of The Washington Post's ultra-liberal columnists, Marjorie Williams, admitted on March 7, "To watch Kerry floundering in the impossible contradictions of this issue [gay marriage] is to see starkly how little he is guided by core principle."

Kerry is equally misguided on the use and funding of intelligence agencies. He has specifically stated that he believes accurate intelligence is a core component of the war on terrorism. He has also chastised both the president and the various intelligence agencies on multiple occasions for their pre-war intelligence. This is all very interesting considering the fact that Kerry has voted multiple times to cut intelligence spending. In fact, as a freshman senator in the mid 1980s, Kerry introduced a bill that would have effectively gutted the intelligence agencies that exist today. I fail to see how one can claim to support the war on terrorism (if not the president), but continually vote against military and intelligence spending.

Kerry's checkered past will catch up to him before the election. Right now the American populous is teetering due to the massive attacks on President Bush; however, in time, it will become apparent that Kerry's campaign will self-destruct. A presidential candidate, in order to be successful, must stand on a strong pillar of ideals and must make his opinions clear and known. John Kerry is a wishy-washy liberal who has flip-flopped on the important issues enough times that he can no longer escape his past.
Daniel Bagley is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at

John Kerry's Claim of Three Million Jobs Lost Is False

Posted by John Armor
Saturday, April 03, 2004
Ed McMahon Proves John Kerry Wrong

John Kerry has based his claim of economic malfeasance by President Bush on the assertion that ''three million jobs have been lost'' on his watch. The original claim was 2.7 million jobs lost, but the quarrel here is not over the rounding up to an even three million. Ed McMahon has established over the last four decades that the Kerry claim is false.

We’ll get back to McMahon in a moment. First a dose of statistics.

The Department of Labor has a long and well-earned reputation for accuracy in its statistical analyses. But it has three different ways of measuring unemployment in the American economy. The first is the Employer Survey, in which a random sample of employers known to the Department are asked to report their employment changes. The results from the sample are then projected to the entire economy. This survey is the source of the Kerry claim of 2.7 jobs lost permanently (net loss of jobs) during the Bush Administration.

The second source from the Department is the Household Survey. In this a random sample of households are surveyed for information on whether the adults in them have remained employed, changed jobs, or lost their jobs and not yet replaced them. The results from this sample are then projected to the entire economy. This survey concluded that during the Bush Administration, 750,000 jobs have been GAINED. And this was before Friday’s report that in the most recent month, 308,000 jobs have been gained.

Before we get to the third measurement of American unemployment, why should the first two measurements be so far apart in their results? And, which one is more likely to be correct?

Start with this point. The Employer Survey can only reach those businesses that the Labor Department knows to exist. There is necessarily a lag time between a new business being created, and the Department becoming aware of it. Add to that the fact that the smallest businesses, Mom and Pop operations and small businesses just starting up with a tiny number of employees, are below the Department's radar.

Then add the fact, long noted by such august sources as the Wall Street Journal, that small businesses are responsible for more than half of the total job growth in the United States over the last forty years. And finally, add the fact that small businesses are born at a faster rate than large ones in good economic times. They also and die at a faster rate in bad economic times.

The conclusion is obvious. The Employer Survey will always understate the job losses in bad times, and understate the job creation in good times.

The Household Survey, on the other hand, assuming its random survey is properly constructed, will answer the question of whether people are currently employed by any kind of business, including start-up ones or sole proprietor ones. This survey should give current information. It should not lag behind reality in either direction, of jobs lost or jobs gained.

Therefore, the Kerry claim is based on false information. And anyone whose intent was to state the truth and act on that, rather than make political points regardless of the truth, would know that.

The third measure of unemployment proves the point. And Ed McMahon has nailed the point down for four decades and counting.

Forty years ago, I worked for a firm that dealt, in part, with direct mail advertising. When the Publishers Clearing House began its then-one million dollar giveaway with Ed McMahon as its spokesman, I asked some experts in the field the logic behind giving away a million dollars, plus the payments to Ed McMahon and the phenomenal costs of running the advertisements, in order to promote the sale of magazines from Chain Saw Age (a real magazine) to Barbie Gets a Hickey (a fictitious magazine, just for fun). Here are the reasons:

Prior to the creation of that campaign, folks like the Publishers Clearing House hired thousands of cubicle workers to use phone directories, crisscross directories, and all other possible sources to build mailing lists. It was their task to find out that Jane Doe had married and her name was now Jane Smith. Or to find out that John Jones had moved across town or across the nation, and what his new address was.

This process was time-consuming, expensive, and always lagged behind current reality on the ground. Enter the Ed McMahon give-away program with its original one million dollar top prize that has since grown to ten million dollars. (In the fine print that campaign points out both that the prizes are paid out over 19 years, therefore a much smaller amount in current dollars than the stated prize. The small print also indicates that ''no purchase is necessary.'' Many new magazine subscribers miss those points. But I digress.) Why does the McMahon program succeed? Because it is based on the fundamental economic incentive.

It is based on greed.

People who think that sending in their correct name and address might gain them a million dollars or more have the incentive to do exactly that. And furthermore, they will give the address they are moving to in the next few months, if that applies, for the same reason. For Publishers Clearing House, the total cost and accuracy of this method of getting addresses are better than under the old method.

What does the Department of Labor do that is similar to Ed McMahon? It gives away money. (Actually, the money is both state and federal, but the feds control the process.) Sure, it's not in one large lump to one very delighted family, but in small amounts weekly. But the incentive is the same. People have to give their real names and addresses in order to receive their money. I'm leaving aside the aspect of fraud by applicants, because there is no reason to believe that is proportionally any worse today than it was in the Clinton Administration, or in any administration prior to that.

The current unemployment rate is 5.7% as of last Friday. Coincidentally, that is nearly identical to the average unemployment rate during the Clinton Administration, which the Democrats offer as the shining economic results that we have lost, and therefore ought to return to. If there really were three million people who had lost their jobs and not found new ones, the unemployment rate could not possibly stand at 5.7%. Again, the Kerry claim is proved false.

There is also the point that 5.7% unemployment is, according to most economists, close to the level that will set off inflation as job demand in specific categories or places becomes more than the available employees, driving pay rates up in a bidding war. All economic systems have certain slack rates. It is impossible to avoid. Apartment complexes can approach but never reach, 100% occupancy. The same goes for airlines. And for factory use. You get the idea.

The fall-back position of the Democrats is this, which I heard most recently last week from Congressman Rick Fazio on TV: ''Well, the official statistics don't account for people who don't have jobs and have given up looking.'' The question of whether people have ''dropped out'' of the job market because of long-term frustration is an important one that has long been studied in detail. A Heritage Foundation report issued last week pinned down the figures on this.

During the Clinton Administration, the ''drop out'' rate from the job markets was 0.23%. Today it stands at 0.30%. That is a very slight difference, It cannot account for three million people out of work, permanently.

One last point about the Kerry claim on lost jobs. The sales pitch includes the claim that ''Bush is as bad as Hoover.'' Given the average level of cultural illiteracy among Americans today, the reactions to that statement might be, ''What do vacuum cleaners have to do with unemployment?'' Or for those who are a little more knowledgeable, ''What does the former head of the F.B.I, have to do with unemployment?''

For those who recall that Herbert Hoover was president at the time the Great Depression began, there are still statistical games being played by the Democrats. When Hoover was president, the national population was about 40% of what it is today. And most households had a single wage-earner, the reverse of today’s pattern where most households have two wage-earners.

Bottom line, if the unemployment rate now (Bush) was as bad as it was then (Hoover), approximately 12 million people would have to be out of work. Even the Democrats, if pushed, would have to admit the falsity of this claim. By the way, John Kerry reduced his job loss claim to 2.6 million in a statement released on Friday.

There is a line that I didn't use more than forty years ago when I was debating John Kerry and his views in the Political Union at Yale University. It applied then, but it also applies now. Here it is: ''You, sir, are far too intelligent to believe what you just said. I am therefore compelled to conclude that you are a liar.''

- 30 -

John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an exploratory committee to run for Congress.

Scary, Scary John Kerry - Frank

Saturday, April 03 2004 @ 05:23 AM EST
"Back in 1998 Senator Kerry voted along with Dennis Kucinich in support of Clinton's "Iraq Liberation Act," which has served as political.."

By Josh Frank

Finally a reason to get excited, as we now have before us an electable candidate worthy of taking on George W. Bush and his coterie of neoconservatives next November. Well, at least that's what the scared liberals out there would have us believe. But John Kerry is neither electable nor exciting. He is a Zionist sympathizer who supports Bush's "road map for peace" in Israel and Palestine, as well as a corporate Neoliberal, who voted in support of NAFTA, normalized free-trade with China, and the US's $17.9 billion dollar "aid" package to the IMF.

Not to mention Kerry is also a proclaimed War Criminal, where he participated in bloody swift boat patrol missions on the Mekong Delta near Cambodia in Vietnam. And as he put it in to Crosby Noyes of the Washington Evening Star upon his return in 1971, "[During those missions] I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 caliber machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions."

However, Kerry's defenders still claim that at least he's better than George W. Bush. Under a selective microscope perhaps, but by and large Kerry and Bush see eye to eye on the critical issues of our times.

For instance, Kerry criticizes Bush for not having enough troops in Iraq and says he will increase the US count by 40,000 within his first 100 days in office (this statement came prior to Spain's announcement that they will be pulling out their 1,300 troops by the end of June). Kerry also chastises Bush for abusing his authority by invading Iraq, but defends his vote authorizing unilateral force and says, "I can pledge ... to the American people: I will never conduct a war or start a war because we want to." Looks like he'll just vote for one instead.

Back in 1998 Senator Kerry voted along with Dennis Kucinich in support of Clinton's "Iraq Liberation Act," which has served as political leverage for Bush's Iraq "regime change". And one year after that horrid display Kerry voted in favor of allowing US air strikes against Yugoslavia, which gave General Wesley Clark the green light to bomb, as William Blum put it, with "an almost sadistic fanaticism".

Well at least Kerry is an environmentalist though, right? Not exactly.

Despite John Kerry's cozy relationship with ghoulish green organizations like the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters, he should not be mistaken for a friend of nature. Kerry does not support the Kyoto Protocol, and as he told Grist Magazine in an interview last year, "[The Kyoto agreement] doesn't ask enough of developing nations, the nations that are going to be producing much greater emissions and which we need to get on the right course now through technology transfer." Somebody should mention to Senator Kerry that currently, despite the US accounting for only 4% of the world's population, we still emit over a quarter of the globe's CO2. But no, Kerry won't call on the US to set an example to developing countries, that would asking too much of the US.

And just last year Kerry decided not to cast a vote against a portion of Bush's chainsaw Forest Plan (HR 1904), which authorized $760 million to thin out dense national forests under the pretext of increasing ecosystem health. This, combined with his support for Fast Track legislation, bombing of Afghanistan, and chemical fumigation in Colombia to counter coca and opium production -- provides us with a clear indication that not only is Kerry not an environmentalist, he's also not that good at pretending to be.

So how about Kerry on the home front? Let's see, although Kerry did oppose Clinton's 1996 Effective Death Penalty Act, he embraced Attorney General Ashcroft's Patriot Act and the expansion of that egregious bill into Patriot Act II as well as the Homeland Security bill. He also decided not to vote against Bush's Tax Cuts for the wealthy, and as Public Citizen notes, Kerry has missed ten crucial Senate votes while campaigning for the Presidency including; an amendment to prevent energy market manipulation, a medical negligence bill, and a vital fuel efficiency amendment.

So what is all the fuss about? Call it the real life version of "Fear Factor", where soft-shelled liberals are forced to swallow empty hopes that John Kerry can save them from the clutches of Bush's wrath. Time will tell whether or not swing voters see any real difference between Kerry and our sitting president. And as Kerry continuously fails to challenge the US's global Empire or its domestic fractures back home, he will continue to fail the American people -- not to mention the rest of the world.

John Kerry's VP?

April 3, 2004

by Lanny Grant

Popular wisdon is: former vice president Hillary Clinton...I mean, First Lady...will step in as Kerry’s running mate. More than likely, Rudy Giuliani will challenge Hillary for her Senate seat in November. That race would be much closer if Giuliani was running against Osama bin Laden or a retarded mule. When they lose, she can blame Kerry for the defeat and spend the next four years campaigning for the presidency.

In the best of worlds, who would the Democrats want as a running mate for Kerry?

Karl Marx

The liberal's Jesus Christ. They emulate every word. The results have been indisputable. Like Christianity, Communism has spread to every corner of the Earth, founded the most powerful and successful country in history, with a copy of the communist manifesto found in every motel room across the country.

Vladimir Lenin

The liberal's Apostle Paul. He singlehandedly took the teachings of the liberal’s Jesus Christ and spread them across his country, Russia. The results have been sweepingly successful.

Joseph Stalin

Liberal's all-time favorite foreign leader. He showed the world that Communism could work...if you could only defeat the damn United States.


Liberal's second favorite ruler of all time. He bankrupted the public treasury to fund needless extravagances. He tortured and killed his opponents. Lived a life of debauchery, sleaze and sexual depravity.

Jack the Ripper

Liberals like any felon who eludes law enforcement officials and prosecution.

Elisaebeth Bathori

Elizabeth Bathory was a Hungarian countess who lived during the 1500's. She tortured, killed and cannibalized over six hundred peasants before her death in 1614. This makes her the most productive serial killer of all time, and a liberal hero: she triumphed in a field dominated by men. Her other claim to fame was her vanity. She would drink the blood of virgins in hopes it would keep her forever young. A very strong argument can be made that Elizabeth Bathory was the first feminist.

And, of course, Saddam Hussein

Liberals are glad he is out of power but didn’t want to remove him. They are glad that innocent Iraqi’s aren’t no longer being dismembered and executed, not in that order, in front of their families, but did nothing to stop them. Since liberals think Saddam was just the victim of a vendetta by the gunslingin’ cowboy son of the man he tried to assassinate, and evil America imperialists who are on a bloodthirsty rampage to spread terror - democracy, justice and peace – across the world, he would make a fine running mate for John Kerry. After all, they can relate.
Lanny Grant

John Kerry's Waffles
If you don't like the Democratic nominee's views, just wait a week.
By Michael Grunwald
Posted Wednesday, March 3, 2004, at 2:46 PM PT

Last week, President Bush offered a wry critique of his Democratic challengers. "They're for tax cuts and against them. They're for NAFTA and against NAFTA. They're for the Patriot Act and against the Patriot Act. They're in favor of liberating Iraq, and opposed to it. And that's just one senator from Massachusetts." Now that John Kerry is the presumptive Democratic nominee, Republicans are sure to focus the spotlight on his history of flip-flops. Kerry did vote for the Patriot Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the war in Iraq, even though he constantly trashes the Patriot Act, the No Child Left Behind Act, and the war in Iraq. He voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which limited marriage to a man and a woman, but he now says marriage should be limited to a man and a woman. (Although he also points out that he once attended a gay wedding.) And those are just the better-known issues on which Kerry has "evolved."

Here, then, since John Edwards was too polite to mention them (though President Bush won't be), is a guide to some of Kerry's other reversals on substantive issues. This list doesn't include quickly withdrawn gaffes, such as Kerry's recent suggestion (retracted after an uproar from Jewish groups) that he might make James Baker or Jimmy Carter his Middle East envoy. It doesn't include long-renounced youthful indiscretions, such as his proposal after returning from Vietnam to eliminate most of the CIA. It doesn't include less clear-cut sins of omission and opportunism, such as his stirring denunciations of companies caught in accounting frauds, even though he supported a 1995 law protecting those companies from liability. And it doesn't include the inevitable fund-raising hypocrisies that accompany all modern campaigns, such as his donations from some of the "Benedict Arnold" companies he routinely rips on the trail, or his bundling of contributions from special interests despite his high-minded rejection of PAC money. Even so, the list is long, and it isn't all-inclusive. Kerry's supporters cite his reversals as evidence of the senator's capacity for nuance and complexity, growth and change. His critics say they represent a fundamental lack of principles. Either way, we'll be hearing a lot about them over the next eight months.
Kerry's Original Position
Kerry's Revised Position
Welfare Reform
In 1988, Sen. Kerry voted against a proposal to require at least one parent in any two-parent welfare family to work a mere 16 hours a week, declaring the work requirement "troublesome to me."
During his 1996 re-election campaign, when his Republican challenger, Gov. William Weld, was calling him soft on welfare, Kerry voted for the much stricter welfare reform law that Clinton signed into law.
Mandatory Minimums
In 1993 and 1994, the senator from liberal Massachusetts voted against mandatory minimum sentences for gang activity, gun crimes, drug trafficking, and drug sales to minors, explaining in an impassioned speech that long sentences for some dealers who sell to minors would be "enormous injustices" and that some convicted drug offenders were "so barely culpable it is sad." He also said congressionally imposed mandatory minimums made no sense and would just create turf battles between federal and local prosecutors.
Today, presidential candidate Kerry strongly supports mandatory minimum sentences for federal crimes, including the sale of drugs to minors.
Affirmative Action
In 1992, Kerry created a huge stir among liberals and civil rights groups with a major policy address arguing that affirmative action has "kept America thinking in racial terms" and helped promote a "culture of dependency."
Today, Kerry's campaign Web site vows to "Preserve Affirmative Action," noting that he "consistently opposed efforts in the Senate to undermine or eliminate affirmative action programs, and supports programs that seeks to enhance diversity." It doesn't mention any downside.
Death Penalty
During one of his debates with Weld in 1996, Kerry ridiculed the idea of capital punishment for terrorists as a "terrorist protection policy," predicting that it would just discourage other nations from extraditing captured terrorists to the United States.
Kerry still opposes capital punishment, but he now makes an exception for terrorists.
Education Reform
In a 1998 policy speech the Boston Globe described as "a dramatic break from Democratic dogma," Kerry challenged teachers unions by proposing to gut their tenure and seniority systems, giving principals far more power to hire and fire unqualified or unmotivated teachers.
Today, Kerry once again espouses pure Democratic dogma on education. His Web site pledges to "stop blaming and start supporting public school educators," vowing to give them "better training and better pay, with more career opportunities, more empowerment and more mentors." It doesn't mention seniority or tenure.
Double Taxation
In December 2002, Kerry broke with Democratic dogma yet again in a Cleveland speech, calling for the abolition of the unfair "double taxation" of stock dividends in order to promote more investment and more accurate valuations of companies.
Five weeks later, after President Bush proposed a second round of tax cuts that included an end to this double taxation, Kerry changed his tune. He voted against the dividend tax cuts that were ultimately enacted by Congress and now hopes to roll them back as president, along with Bush's other tax cuts for upper-income Americans.
Gas Taxation
In 1994, when the Concord Coalition gave Kerry a failing rating for his deficit reduction votes, he complained that he should have gotten credit for supporting a 50-cent increase in the gas tax.
Today he no longer supports any increase in the gas tax.
Social Security
During the 1996 campaign, when I was a Globe reporter, Kerry told me the Social Security system should be overhauled. He said Congress should consider raising the retirement age and means-testing benefits and called it "wacky" that payroll taxes did not apply to income over $62,700. "I know it's all going to be unpopular," he said. "But this program has serious problems, and we have a generational responsibility to fix them."
Kerry no longer wants to mess with Social Security. "John Kerry will never balance the budget on the backs of America's seniors," his Web site promises.
Kerry has been a consistent supporter of free trade deals, and as late as December, when reporters asked if there was any issue on which he was prepared to disagree with Democratic interest groups, Kerry replied: "Trade." Slate editor Jacob Weisberg came away impressed by the depth of Kerry's commitment to the issue: "Unlike Edwards, he supports international trade agreements without qualification."
But that was three months ago! In recent weeks, when Kerry has talked trade, he has talked nothing but qualification, calling for "fair trade" rather than "free trade," claiming to agree completely with the protectionist Edwards on trade issues, and vowing to "put teeth" into environmental and labor restrictions in agreements like NAFTA.

Our War Friends Betrayed By John Kerry
April 1, 2004
Joseph L. Galloway

Betrayal is an ugly word, but sometimes it needs to be spoken. The Montagnard people of the Vietnam highlands have been betrayed by both friends and enemies, time and again. The betrayal continues.

It's not a pretty story, and among the names that figure into this is that of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., who is running for the presidency of the United States.

The Montagnards are a simple mountain people who were pawns in foreign wars that dragged on in Vietnam for decades. They were loyal soldiers for first the French and then the U.S. Special Forces from the 1940s through much of the 1970s. They are still paying the price for that, and for wanting to be left alone in their high green mountains.

The French dubbed them "Montagnards," or mountain people. The Americans nicknamed them "the Yards" and loved them both for their loyalty and their warrior spirit. The lowland Vietnamese, both North and South, applied the contemptuous name "Moi," or savages, to them and have, at various times, sought to wipe them out.

For a thousand years and more, the Montagnards, or Dega People as they call themselves, inhabited the Central Highlands of Vietnam, living the lives of hunter-gatherers. They would clear small patches of the red laterite soil and, for a few seasons, grow a bit of grain and manioc and yams. When the soil wore out, they moved their thatch-roofed homes on stilts to another place and cleared another bit of ground.

In 1954, the South Vietnamese government under President Ngo Dinh Diem forced thousands of Montagnards into resettlement camps and began a program to resettle ethnic Vietnamese on tribal lands. The communist government of Vietnam, since its victory in 1975, has done much the same thing.

The Montagnards, who once numbered more than a million, have dwindled to fewer than 650,000 during a time when the Vietnamese population has more than doubled to 60 million in a postwar baby boom.

I wish I could tell you that the missing Montagnards, who soldiered for our Green Berets, could be found among the hundreds of thousands of refugees from Vietnam who have settled in the United States since the end of the war. But I can't. No more than 2,000 of the Montagnard have found sanctuary in this country, most in the area of North Carolina around Fort Bragg where the Special Forces headquarters is located.

Many were killed in the desperate fighting that enveloped the Central Highlands during the war. Many more just died, their villages destroyed, their way of life likewise destroyed.

In early 2001, thousands of Montagnards demonstrated for freedom of religion and for a return of their land. The Hanoi government sent in soldiers and police to crush them. Many were killed; many were tried and sentenced to prison. More than a thousand fled across the border into Cambodia. In 2002-03, the Bush administration took almost all of them in, and they joined 600 Montagnard resettled in two earlier batches - 200 in 1986 and 400 in 1992.

In 2001, the Vietnam Human Rights Act was introduced in Congress. It tied future U.S. aid to Vietnam to the Hanoi government improving its abysmal human rights record, including persecution of the Montagnards. It passed the House with 410 ayes and only one no. But in the Senate, Kerry locked the bill up in committee and refused to allow it to go the floor for debate and a vote. In effect, Kerry killed the human rights bill.

At the time, Kerry said the measure would not improve human rights but instead would weaken Vietnamese human rights activists and strengthen the hard-liners who oppose U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

My military friends who fought in the Central Highlands alongside the loyal Montagnards carry memories, pain and guilt over the fate of their friends who were left behind when the last helicopters lifted off the roof in Saigon in 1975.

I carry a memory of my own from a hot November morning in 1965 when a battalion of the 1st Cavalry Division marched into a remote Montagnard village east of Plei Me. As we came into the village, a toothless old man rushed out, hurriedly buttoning his old French army tunic, clutching a tattered little French flag. He thought his old comrades had finally come back to get him.

They never came, just as we will never come. The only question is whether the Vietnamese can somehow be persuaded to allow the Montagnards to survive as a people in what is left of their mountains, now heavily logged and denuded.

Betrayal is an ugly word, and an even uglier memory.

Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young" [Random House, 1992].

John Kerry: Lost In Space

April 2, 2004

by Lanny Grant

Scientists now believe Mars was once hospitable to salt water. They also now believe they have finally located John Kerry’s home planet.
It’s the only explanation. He’s proof there is life on other planets. “Intelligent” life remains to be seen.

John Kerry, and Al Gore before him, is an approximation of a politician by an alien species. Listening to Al Gore was like listening to numbers and data intonated in a voice only slightly more human than HAL from “2001,” or that female voice who tells you which gates are which at the airport. Listening to John Kerry is like listening to a cybernetic robot created with the prime directive of Running For President Of The United States. Only they forgot to program in morals, values, stances and personal views. And they were unable to fix the glitch that causes him to tell you that he served in Vietnam over and over and over again.

When the overwhelming majority of Americans wanted to take out Saddam, Kerry voted for the resolution to go to war. But, then came Howard Dean who energized the fanatical fringe of the Left, which is 99.9% of the Democratic party. (I guess fringe means Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh, Zell Miller and the occasional Republican John McCain.)

Fearing that he may be caught red-handed with principles, John Kerry dropped them as fast as his first millionaire wife. Who could blame him? We all know how much power the pro-socialism, pro partial birth abortion, anti-war, anti-Christian cult holds over a country founded on Judeo-Christian values and capitalism.
Then Congress voted for an $87 billion dollar package to aid our landmark effort in Iraq. Kerry voted against it. But the polls showed that the majority of Americans still supported the war effort, and overwhelming wanted President Bush to lead the War on Terrorism. What has ensued over the past few weeks is logic that only made sense to a being alien to Earth, or a robot with its circuits scrambled.

Kerry says – see if you can follow this – that he voted for the war resolution ONLY if President Bush exhausted all diplomatic means, built a “broad coalition” of allies and allowed the inspectors time to search for WMD’s. Even though the war resolution was simply “do you want to go war with Iraq?” Now Kerry says he is against the war because President Bush did everything Democrats wanted. He spent over a year at the UN - a year longer than Clinton spent getting permission to take out a dictator in Yugoslavia who had never made a threat against the United States. The UN pulled the inspectors out of Iraq because Saddam was not allowing them access to areas, which happened to be where we assumed the WMD’s would be. And President Bush also got every country on board that matters except France and Germany. (Not getting Paraguay and Uganda doesn’t qualify as not building a “broad coalition.”)

Kerry also wants to raise gas prices to $2 a gallon as the standard, because the comfort of herds of elk in the inhospitable tundra of Alaska are more important than drilling our own oil so we wouldn't be at the mercy of countries that despise us. He also wants to brutally scourge those who make over $200,000 a year with his own cat of nine tails – exorbitant taxes. You know, the people who own businesses and create jobs for all Americans. It’s a good idea to take money out of their pockets.
Only a being from outer space or programmed by lunatics can make heads or tails of this logic. Then again, it isn’t “his” logic. John Kerry is a sock puppet. The anti-American values sect is making his mouth move.
Lanny Grant

Need Intelligence? Don't Ask John Kerry
By C.W. BILL YOUNG and PORTER GOSS Special for The Tampa Tribune

With the end of the Cold War, some in the Clinton White House and the Democrat-controlled Congress saw the opportunity in the 1990s to sharply curtail spending on one of their least favorite government organizations: the Central Intelligence Agency.
Especially in the early Clinton years, the cuts were deep, far- reaching and devastating to the ability of the CIA to keep America safe.
Overseas intelligence operations were canceled and about 40 percent of those recruited to spy for America's interests were let go. Officers in the clandestine service - the core of our overseas intelligence operations - declined by about 25 percent. Approximately one-third of overseas offices watching America's enemies were shut down. Little effort was made to upgrade desperately needed language and regional expertise to confront emerging threats in the Middle East.
In short, the United States lost its eyes and ears in many parts of the world.
Then-CIA director John Deutch issued a directive in 1995 that significantly limited the recruitment of spies. Operatives were discouraged from recruiting those whose backgrounds included unsavory aspects such as human rights violations. Such individuals are, by their very nature, the types who have close-in access to the plans and intentions of international terrorist movements, criminal enterprises and dictatorial regimes such as that of Saddam Hussein. U.S. intelligence capabilities atrophied seriously.
Where was the junior senator from Massachusetts? Serving as a senior member of the Senate Intelligence Committee from 1993 to 2000, John Kerry had direct oversight for every facet of the U.S. intelligence community. Did he fight the cuts in intelligence spending or the restraints on U.S. intelligence operatives?
Far from it. In fact, he was leading the way to make deep and devastating cuts.
Kerry's antipathy to the U.S. intelligence community dates back to his first unsuccessful run for Congress in 1970, when Kerry promised to ``almost eliminate CIA activity'' if elected. Nearly 20 years later, in 1997, Kerry questioned his colleagues in the Congress, ``Now that [Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow?'' During his 19 years in the Congress, John Kerry proposed or supported cuts in intelligence spending reaching into the billions.
Tragically, while Kerry was leading efforts in Congress to dismantle the nation's intelligence capabilities, the world was getting more dangerous. In 1993, during his first year on the Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence, Osama bin Laden directed al- Qaida's first successful terrorist strike on U.S. soil: blowing up a car bomb in the basement garage of the World Trade Center, killing six and wounding 1,000. In 1996, another likely al- Qaida attack on U.S. Air Force's Khobar Towers barracks in Dahran, Saudi Arabia, killed 19 Americans and wounded 515 Americans and Saudis. In 1998, U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were attacked by al-Qaida suicide bombers, killing 234 people and wounding more than 5,000. In 2000, during the final year of Sen. Kerry's tenure as a congressional overseer of U.S. intelligence programs, al-Qaida attacked and nearly sank the USS Cole, killing 17 American sailors and wounding 39.
Kerry, like many other Democrats, now complains that U.S. intelligence has been inadequate to meet the challenges of the war on terrorism and Iraq. The Bush administration did indeed inherit a demoralized and downsized intelligence community, but if John Kerry wants to criticize those shortcomings, he should first account for his own record.
In the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has made the most sweeping reforms in intelligence in decades. Budgets are up, recruitment of key capabilities is up, morale is up and U.S. intelligence operatives are leading in new and innovative ways to try to keep America safe from terrorism.
It would be irresponsible to guarantee that the nation will ever be completely safe. But because of President Bush's leadership, we are certainly safer as a result of his support for a revitalized, well-funded and more effective U.S. intelligence community. And, as the record shows, all without the support of the junior senator from Massachusetts.
C.W. Bill Young, R-Largo, chairs the House Appropriations Committee. Porter Goss, R-Sanibel, chairs the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

Clarke's About-Face on Iraq

By Christopher Hitchens | March 31, 2004
Opposition to the Bush policy since Sept. 11, 2001, has taken one of four forms. There are those who continue to believe that there must have been some administration collusion in the planning and timing of the attacks. (I notice that yet another book alleging this has attracted endorsements from about half of The Nation's editorial board.) There are those who feel that America has antagonized the Muslim world enough already, and that the use of force in Afghanistan and Iraq only makes the enemy more angry. There are those who think that Iraq is "a war too far" (to annex David Rieff's phrase) and a distraction from the hunt for al-Qaida as well as a dangerous exercise in pre-emption. And there are those who think that the Clinton administration would have done, indeed was doing, a superior job.
Of course this quartet of positions is not mutually exclusive, and elements of each are to be found in one another, but the third and fourth ones have emerged as the safest and most consensual with the reception accorded to Richard Clarke's book. Among those claiming to be vindicated by his testimony are Daniel Benjamin and Steven Simon, two senior counterterrorism figures from the Clinton National Security Council, whose not-bad book The Age of Sacred Terror, published in 2002, bears re-reading. Among other things, it contains (on Pages 230-233 and 336-338 of the paperback version) an interesting profile of Richard Clarke, who is depicted as an egotistical pain in the ass who had the merit of getting things right. This seems fair: He has been exposed as wildly wrong in saying that Condoleezza Rice had never even heard of al-Qaida—an allegation that almost amounts to the dread charge of "character assassination"—and his operatic bow to the families of the victims is fine unless you think (as don't we all?) that one shouldn't appear to exploit Sept. 11 for partisan purposes. However, when in office he worked to develop the Predator drone, pushed for aid to the Northern Alliance, and leant heavily on the CIA and FBI to stop their wicked practice of hiding information from each other, and one can picture his rage at learning that the hijackers had bought seats using their "terrorism watch list" names.
The Benjamin-Simon book contains a long account of the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993 and also a stern defense of Clinton's decision in August 1998 to hit the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Sudan with cruise missiles. What is interesting is the strong Iraqi footprint that is to be found in both episodes. Abdul Rahman Yasin, one of the makers of the bomb that exploded at the World Trade Center, was picked up by the FBI, questioned, and incredibly enough released pending further interrogation as a "cooperative witness." He went straight to Amman and thence to Baghdad, where he remained under Saddam Hussein's protection until last year. As Clarke told the Sept. 11 commission last week: "The Iraqi government didn't cooperate in turning him over and gave him sanctuary, as it did give sanctuary to other terrorists." That's putting it mildly, when you recall that Abu Nidal's organization was a wing of the Baath Party, and that the late Abu Abbas of Klinghoffer fame was traveling on an Iraqi diplomatic passport. But, hold on a moment—doesn't every smart person know that there's no connection between Saddam Hussein and the world of terror?
Ah, we meant to say no connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Well, in that case, how do you explain the conviction, shared by Clarke and Benjamin and Simon, that Iraq was behind Bin Laden's deadly operation in Sudan? The Age of Sacred Terror justifies the Clinton strike on Khartoum on the grounds that "Iraqi weapons-scientists" were linked to Bin Laden's factory and that the suggestive chemical EMPTA, detected at the site, was used only by Iraq to make VX nerve gas. At the time, Clarke defended the bombing in almost the same words, telling the press that he was "sure" that "intelligence existed linking bin Laden to Al Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts and the National Islamic Front in Sudan." The U.N. arms inspector upon whom all three relied at the time, for corroborating evidence implicating Saddam, was a man who has since become famous: David Kay.
I should say that I am criticized by name in the Benjamin-Simon book for a series of anti-Clinton articles that I wrote at the time of the Al-Shifa raid. Even if the factory was not an aspirin-producing pharmaceutical plant, there seemed no justification for bombing it without warning and without even notifying Congress, let alone the United Nations. Talk about pre-emptive and unilateral. Foul as the Sudanese regime was, it did have diplomatic relations with Washington and it had previously agreed to deport Bin Laden to Afghanistan (which was possibly, in retrospect, a mistake). There should have been a demand for inspections, followed by retaliation in case of noncompliance. Anyway, whatever the forensic truth about the factory may have been, the Clinton administration clearly regarded it as a front for Iraq/al-Qaida cooperation. Benjamin and Simon say that all would have been clear had the Clinton administration been willing to disclose its sources and methods: I'd say that the case for declassifying that stuff would now be an overwhelming one, and I hope to hear them (and Richard Clarke) make it.
The second raid that week, on an al-Qaida base in Afghanistan, missed Bin Laden but did kill some officers of the Pakistani secret police, or Inter-Service Intelligence, who were in his camp. Here, as one ought to have seen more clearly, was another link of state-sponsorship, connecting Pakistan to the Taliban and al-Qaida. One of the crucial reasons for apathy and inaction, in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, was the fact that two of the prime movers in jihad sponsorship, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, were considered official "friends," not least by the American intelligence "community." An unnoticed benefit of regime change in Afghanistan and Iraq is the extent to which both the Pakistani and Saudi oligarchies have been "turned" and their wings clipped.
To listen to Clarke now, you could almost imagine that the invasion of Afghanistan and eviction of the Taliban—the actual first response of the administration to Sept. 11—had not taken place. To listen to Clarke, also, you would suppose that any Iraqi connection to terrorism was sucked straight out of Rumsfeld's or Wolfowitz's thumb. One theory that does collapse completely is that of administration foreknowledge—the Bush people were evidently in no shape to take any quick advantage of the events and seemingly hadn't bothered to plant even one Iraqi among the mainly Saudi hijackers. But in my experience, dud theories die only to be replaced by new and even dumber ones. The current reigning favorite is that fighting al-Qaida in Iraq is a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida.

Senator Kerry Take Note...Here's a REAL SOLDIER!!
In three Months you were back in the f****** States...Pussy!
Wounds can't keep National Guard Soldier away from Unit
Army News Service
March 26, 2004

Soldier Stories -- Three months after suffering serious wounds from a rocket propelled grenade attack, Staff Sgt. Matt Hayden was back with his Rhode Island National Guard unit in Iraq.

Hayden, 34, was coming out of the Fallujah police station Aug. 5 when terrorists opened fire on the building. A grenade exploded a few yards from him, sending shrapnel searing into his body. It gouged a hole in his left hand, ripped into the back of his right knee, and tore away part of a steel plate in the back of his body armor.

Four surgeries in Iraq, Germany and at Walter Reed Army Medical Center – where he received a Purple Heart from Vice President Dick Cheney – put him back on his feet, ready to return to his unit, the 115th Military Police Company, in November.

Doctors cut muscle from his calf and took a skin graft from his upper thigh to repair his knee. Some predicted it would take up to a year to fully recover. Hayden proved them wrong, passing a complete physical fitness test in order to rejoin his unit.

"I probably could have milked it and said I was all done,'' said Hayden, a former Marine who joined the Guard in 1994 to get into police work. "I probably could have stayed in Rhode Island after I had finished my convalescent leave. But I had to get back to my guys."

Hayden now expects to come home in late March or early April – with his unit.

John Kerry: Lessons of the fall
By Kathleen Parker
Mar 31, 2004

 When Sen. John F. Kerry fell -- or was toppled by a Secret Service  agent -- from his perch on a snowboard recently, the would-be  president clarified events with rare grace:            "I don't fall down," he said. "That son-of-a-bitch ran into me." Or  "knocked me over," depending on which version you read. Spoken like a true 7-year-old. Any parent will recognize the template: Little boy falls down, then jumps to his feet and declares  for the benefit of anyone who will indulge his fractured ego: "I meant to do that."

Sometimes the little tyke will run over to his mother if she's nearby and hit her for good measure. Smart mommies understand that  the lad can't bear the humiliation and has to blame his one true love, the one who is supposed to protect him from both mortal and  psychic pain. Similarly, the presumptive Democratic nominee verbally backhanded             the Secret Service fellow, who was supposed to protect the senator, not deck him in the snow.

When little boys blame their mothers, it is an altogether adorable and forgivable moment. Grown-ups appreciative of the sweet fragility of little boys let the moment pass.            The same symbolic gesture by a 60-year-old presidential contender -- who by now ought to have worked out such narcissistic kinks -- is altogether unadorable. And we just can't let it pass, or fail to  mention that while Kerry's quoting scripture this week, he might  linger over Proverbs 16:18: "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."

 There's no shame in falling from a snowboard, after all, which is  what most people do no matter their age. How much more gracious and charitable had Kerry, clearly an able athlete, managed to forgive the poor clumsy chap who mowed him down. And, we might add, how much  more manly.

 Despite our nation's Gay Moment, an image of manliness remains a criterion for American presidents. Which brings us unavoidably to Kerry's choice of sports and photo-ops. You see President George W. Bush whacking brambles at his Texas  ranch, jogging sweat-streaked through blistering heat, chopping wood -- all universally recognized as manly tasks, even if performed by a  former cheerleader. Then you catch Kerry, who shouldn't need to prove his manhood -- he  served in Vietnam, you know -- engaging in preppy sports that require resorts and expensive equipment: skiing, snowboarding,  windsurfing. Not exactly the populist sports of choice. Can't the man shoot hoops? Or toss a football while, say, not skiing in Aspen? Catch much?

 To each his own and all that. Presumably he's trying to demonstrate  to America's youth and renegade Deaniacs his total coolness. Dewd!  But Kerry needn't bother courting the Bubba vote, no matter how many peanut farmers join him on the dais, as long as he keeps choosing  activities that include resort wear and outfits. When Kerry does join the human fray -- on a bicycle for instance --  he wears those little padded shorts and a helmet. I'm sure biker  shorts are helpful and headgear is certainly safe. Give the man             points for obeying the rules and setting a good example for all the other boys and girls. But it was precisely in anticipation of Kerry fully decked for bicycling that the word "dork" was invented.

They say you can learn a lot about a man by engaging him in sports. Plenty of businessmen play golf expressly for this purpose. Get a  man out on the green and find out what he's made of. Or across the net for a few sets of tennis. Or in a duck blind if, say, you've got an important Supreme Court case hanging in the balance. In the lighter play of sport, man's truer nature tends to reveal itself. You can observe how he conducts himself under pressure, in the heat of competition, whether he displays anger, self-control or  humor. Whether he takes the game (or himself) too seriously. Whether  he's a team player or a prima donna. Whether you want to do business with him. Or whether you want him to lead your country.

 Every man gets bruised from time to time. There's no dishonor in it. Where there's potential dishonor is in that instant of humiliation  when we're no longer in control. In that moment, the world gets a  glimpse of who we really are.And contrary to what Kerry said that day, we all fall down.
 Email Kathleen Parker

An Open Letter To Senator Kerry
Dear Senator Kerry:

Since it has become clear that you will probably be the Democratic nominee for President, I have spent a great deal of time researching your war record and your record as a professional politician. The reason is simple, you aspire to be the Commander in Chief who would lead my sons and their fellow soldiers in time of war. I simply wanted to know if you possess the necessary qualifications to be trusted in that respect.

You see I belong to a family of proud U.S. veterans. I was a Captain in the Army Reserve, my father was a decorated Lieutenant in World War II and I have four sons who have either served, or are currently serving in the military. The oldest is an Army Lieutenant still on active duty in Afghanistan after already being honored for his service in Iraq. The youngest is an E-4 with the military police. His National Guard unit just finished their second tour of active duty, including six months in Guantanamo Bay. My two other sons have served in the national guard and the navy.

In looking at your record I found myself comparing it not only to that of my father and my sons, but to the people they served with. My father served with the 87th Chemical Mortar Battalion in Europe. They landed on Utah Beach and fought for 317 straight days including the Cherbourg Peninsula, Aachen, the Hurtgen Forest, and the Battle of the Bulge. You earned a Silver Star in Vietnam for chasing down and finishing off a wounded and retreating enemy soldier. My father won a Bronze Star for single handedly charging and knocking out a German machine gun nest that had his men pinned down. You received three purple hearts for what appears to be three minor scratches. In fact you only missed a combined total of two days of duty for these wounds. The men of my father's unit, the 87th, had to be admonished by there commanding officer because: It has been brought to our attention that some men are covering up wounds and refusing medical attention for fear of being evacuated and p! ermanently separated from this organization... It was also a common problem for seriously wounded soldiers to go AWOL from hospitals in order to rejoin their units. You used your three purple hearts to leave Vietnam early.

My oldest boy came home from Iraq with numerous commendations and then proceeded to volunteer to go to Afghanistan and from there back to Iraq again. My sons and father have never had anything but the highest regard and respect for their fellow soldiers. Yet, you came home to publicly charge your fellow fighting men with being war criminals and to urge their defeat by the enemy. You even wrote a book that had a cover which mocked the heroism of the U.S. Marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima. Our current crop of soldiers has a philosophy that no one gets left behind and they have practiced that from Somalia to the battlefields of the Middle East. Yet as chairman of a Senate committee looking into allegations that many of your fellow servicemen had been left behind as prisoners in Vietnam, you chose to defend the brutal Vietnamese regime. You even went so far as to refer to the families of the POWs and MIAs as Professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists, and! dime-store Rambos.
As a Senator you voted against the 1991 Gulf War, and have repeatedly voted against funds to supply our troops with the best equipment, and against money to improve our intelligence capability. I find this particularly ironic since as a Presidential candidate you are highly critical of our pre-war intelligence in Iraq. However, you did vote to authorize the President to go to war, but have since proceeded to do everything you can to undermine the efforts of our government and our troops to win. Is this what our fighting men and women can expect of you if you are their Commander in Chief? Will you gladly send them to war, only to then aid the enemy by undermining the morale of our troops and cutting off the weapons they need to win?

Our country is at war Senator, and as has been the case in every war since the American Revolution, a member of my family is serving their country during the war. Now you want me to trust you to lead my sons in this fight.

Sorry Senator, but when I compare your record to those who have fought and died for this nation, and are currently fighting and dying, the answer is not just no, but Hell No!

Michael Connelly
Dallas, Texas

The public tantrum of a bureaucrat | Maybe it's true that "hell hath no fury like a woman scorned," but William Congreve, the 17th-century playwright who thought he had seen everything, never met a Washington bureaucrat.

Richard A. Clarke, who was employed by a succession of presidents to offer advice on how to deal with international terrorism, has entertained Washington this week with his attempt to get even with George W. Bush for (a) not taking his advice, (b) not giving him a job with a more-important sounding title or (c) both.

Mr. Clarke's public tantrum follows close on a similar fit of foaming resentment by fellow author Paul O'Neill, the secretary of the Treasury who was summarily canned by President Bush. The president offered him nothing else but advice to get a job. Mr. O'Neill's tenure at Treasury was distinguished only by his outburst on leaving, when he described the president presiding over a typical Cabinet meeting as "like a blind man in a roomful of deaf people." The meaningless description offered a clue as to why Mr. O'Neill was dumped. A president is entitled to expect his Treasury chief to think and speak clearly enough to make change from a $10 bill.

Richard Clarke apparently brought a similarly focused intelligence to his job, and that he lasted so long testifies mostly to the reluctance at the top of the government to cashier bureaucrats who have nothing much to offer but goofiness and a familiar face.

Mr. Clarke, in his testimony to the bipartisan committee investigating security and intelligence lapses leading to September 11, sharply scolded President Bush for not preventing the destruction of the World Trade Center and the attack on the Pentagon, and for not doing what he should be doing to punish al Qaeda instead of misadventuring into Iraq. But it's clear that what really bugs Mr. Clarke is that the president does not share Mr. Clarke's estimation of the wit, the erudition and the wisdom of Richard Clarke.

Mr. Clarke is, in a word, a geek. There's nothing wrong with geekhood; geeks are crucial to making things work as technology becomes ever more complicated and ever more crucial to how we live our lives. But it's the single-mindedness necessary to being a geek that makes geeks vulnerable to tunnel vision.

"The retirement of Richard Clarke is appropriate to the reality of the war on terror," says George Smith, a senior fellow at Global, a defense and technology think tank in Washington. "Years ago, Clarke bet his national-security career on the idea that 'electronic war' was going to be the real war. He lost, because as al Qaeda and [the war in] Iraq have shown, the real action is still of the blood and guts kind."

As Bill Clinton's terror guru, Mr. Clarke preached the coming of the end of the world by cyberterror, foreseeing doom not by the spread of anthrax or smallpox virus among flesh and blood humans, but the spread of software viruses that would change the template, if not the face, of modern warfare. The old-fashioned violence of September 11, delivering death by fire and desolation, suddenly made the idea of stealing Saddam Hussein's e-mail or drowning his regime in spam seem silly, indeed. The endless flood of spam in behalf of Viagra, penis enlargement and breast enhancement can make you want to kill somebody, but spam is only potted scam, after all.

Mr. Clarke tried to persuade President Reagan to subvert Moammar Gadhafi by dispatching SR-71 Blackbirds to smother Libya in sonic booms, accompanied by sailing a fleet of rafts across the Mediterranean to wash upon the shores of Tripoli to frighten Gadhafi into thinking invasion was imminent. All he left out of this cockamamie scenario was a broadcast of the Marines Hymn (" ... from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli ... "). The scheme was quietly buried, but Mr. Clarke, alas for later presidents and national security, survived.

The New Republic reported that it was Mr. Clarke's idea to retaliate for the bombing of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania by targeting Osama bin Laden's deserted training camps in Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan that was making not chemicals for warfare, but aspirin. In the days that followed, Bill Clinton could have used the aspirin.

Mr. Clarke, the cheri du jour of the elite media, complains that George W. didn't listen to him. With his record of accomplishment in a succession of administrations, the scandal is not that he wasn't listened to but that somebody persuaded George W. to keep him in the White House. Since taking care of bureaucrats has become the first purpose of government, maybe the president did owe him something. Somebody should have sent him over to the motor pool to detail the president's limousine.

Just a gigilo
Ann Coulter on John Kerry ...

If Bush can't talk to Kerry about the horrors of war, then Kerry sure can't talk to anyone about the plight of the middle class. Kerry's life experience consists of living off other men's money by marrying their wives and daughters. For over 30 years, Kerry's primary occupation has been stalking lonely heiresses. Not to get back to his combat experience, but Kerry sees a room full of wealthy widows as "a target-rich environment." This is a guy whose experience dealing with tax problems is based on spending his entire adult life being supported by rich women. What does a kept man know about taxes?

In 1970, Kerry married into the family of Julia Thorne -- a family estimated to be worth about $300 million. She got depressed, so he promptly left her and ! was soon seen catting around with Hollywood starlets, mostly while the cad was still married.
(Apparently, JFK really was his mentor.) Thorne is well-bred enough to say nothing ill of her Lothario ex-husband. He is, after all, the father of her children -- a fact that never seemed to constrain him.

When Kerry was about to become the latest Heinz family charity, he sought to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, despite the fact that it had produced two children. It seems his second meal ticket, Teresa Heinz, wanted the first marriage annulled -- and Heinz is worth more than $700 million. Kerry claims he will stand up to powerful interests, but he can't even stand up to his wife.

Heinz made Kerry sign a prenuptial agreement, presumably aware of how careless he is with other people's property, such as other people's Vietnam War medals, which Kerry threw on the ground during a 1971 anti-war demonstration.

At pains to make Ker! ry sound like a normal American, his campaign has described how Kerry risked everything, mortgaging his home in Boston to help pay for his presidential campaign. Technically, Kerry took out a $6 million mortgage for "his share" of "the family's home" -- which was bought with the Heinz family fortune.
(Why should he spend his own money? He didn't throw away his own medals.) I'm sure the average working stiff in Massachusetts can relate to a guy who borrows $6 million against his house to pay for TV ads.

Kerry's campaign has stoutly insisted that he will pay off the mortgage himself, with no help from his rich wife. Let's see: According to tax returns released by his campaign, in 2002, Kerry's income was $144,091. But as The Washington Post recently reported, even a $5 million mortgage paid back over 30 years at favorable interest rates would cost $30,389 a month -- or $364,668 a year. (The math doesn't work. His catsup heiress wife will have to loan him money to pay off his campaign debt. Re! member she is worth $700 million dollars.)

The Democrats' joy at nominating Kerry is perplexing. To be sure, liberals take a peculiar, wrathful pleasure in supporting pacifist military types. And Kerry's life story is not without a certain feral aggression. But if we're going to determine fitness for office based on life experience, Kerry clearly has no experience dealing with problems of typical Americans since he is a cad and a gigolo living in the lap of other men's money.

Kerry is like some character in a Balzac novel, an adventurer twirling the end of his mustache and preying on rich women. This low-born poseur with his threadbare pseudo-Brahmin family bought a political career with one rich woman's money, dumped her, and made off with another heiress to enable him to run for president. If Democrats want to talk about middle-class tax cuts, couldn't they nominate someone who hasn't been a poodle to rich women for past 33 years?
From Ann Coulter

Church and state separate: John Kerry Press Trust of India
New York, March 29
US Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has advised church officials against telling American politicians what to do in the context of their public life.
Kerry was responding to a statement by a Vatican official to Time magazine that people in Rome are "becoming more and more aware that there's a problem of John Kerry and a potential scandal with his apparent profession of his Catholic faith and some of stances, particular abortion."
Commenting on it, Kerry told Time, "I don't tell Church officials what to do and Church officials shouldn't tell American politicians what to do in the context of our public life."
"I don't think it complicates things at all," he said, "We have separation of church and state in this country. As John Kennedy said very clearly, I will be a President who happens to be Catholic, not a Catholic President."
Kerry and other Catholic politicians, Time notes, have long argued that their religious beliefs need not influence their actions as elected representatives.
That position is what provoked New York's Archbishop John Cardinal O'Connor in 1984 to castigate both New York Governor Mario Cuomo and Democratic vice presidential nominee Geraldine Ferraro, who are both pro-choice.
In the Democratic primaries, Kerry ran particularly strong with Catholics-winning significantly larger shares of their votes in states like New Hampshire, Missouri and Tennessee than he received from Protestants.
"There are literally millions of American Catholics who struggle with different feelings and different issues at different times," Kerry told Time.

Questioning John Kerry's Loyalties

Posted by Judson Cox
Monday, March 29, 2004
It is ironic that John F. Kerry calls President Bush’s foreign policy arrogant. Kerry is the image of arrogance, too rich and important to answer to the voters. He is more concerned with world opinion than the concerns of America. Kerry has stated, '''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.'' Kerry’s response to an American voter who asked him to explain his statement was, ''That's not your business, it's mine.''

As Vice President Cheney said, ''Sen. Kerry speaks often about the need for international cooperation, and has vowed to usher in a 'golden age of American diplomacy.' He is fond of mentioning that some countries did not support America's actions in Iraq. Yet of the many nations that have joined our coalition--allies and friends of the United States--Sen. Kerry speaks with open contempt. Great Britain, Australia, Italy, Spain, Poland, and more than 20 other nations have contributed and sacrificed for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Sen. Kerry calls these countries, quote, 'window dressing.' They are, in his words, 'a coalition of the coerced and the bribed.' ''

It is not without reason that Sen. Kerry has become known as the ''haughty, French-looking candidate.'' Regardless of his appearance and demeanor, Kerry’s ideology and voting record is in accord with France, a nation whose stated goals are to oppose the interests of, and diminish the influence of, America. He has voted against nearly all of our weapons programs, voted to undermine our intelligence agencies, and cut the funding of our military at every opportunity. He has made every effort to undermine national security.

Kerry’s post-Vietnam service has proven that he will side with America’s enemies and betray our troops. Not only did the VietCong credit Kerry’s ''Vietnam Veteran’s Against the War'' with enabling the communists to win, but Kerry accused American soldiers of war crimes before the United States Congress. More recently, Kerry voted against funding our soldiers in Iraq. Kerry explained, ''I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.'' Kerry’s arrogance is such that he believes the voters too stupid to understand that a vote against funding our troops is actually a vote against funding our troops!

Kerry’s aid and comfort to the VietCong shows that he will side with our enemies, so who are those foreign leaders?

Kim Jong Il, the communist dictator of North Korea, broadcasts Kerry’s speeches on Radio Pyongyang along with his glowing commentary.

Jean Bertrand-Aristide, Haiti's ousted dictator. Kerry told the New York Times he would have intervened to keep Aristide in power.

Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, Spain’s new anti-war socialist prime minister, has endorsed John Kerry for president.

Mahathir Mohamad, former prime minister of Malaysia, said, ''I think Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of people and of the rest of the world.'' Mahathir is a renowned anti-Semite.

Yasser Arafat, whom John Kerry described as a ''statesman'' and a ''role model'' in his 1997 book, ''The New War.''

Presumably Hugo Chavez, the Venezuelan dictator, who opposes President Bush, and Fidel Castro, whom Kerry has openly praised are Kerry boosters--Kerry won’t say.

It is not an implausible assumption that all of the anti-American, anti-Semitic, socialist, and communist dictators of the world would prefer a Kerry presidency, since President Bush has shown a willingness and determination to remove their like from power. John Kerry has vowed not to take any action without United Nations approval. Considering that much of the leadership was being bribed by Saddam Hussein, one should not expect Kerry to be a force for freedom in the world.

Since the arrogant Kerry considers himself above question by average American voters, I will quote a statement by someone on his own level. ''I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible.'' That was Kerry on ''Meet the Press'' in September of last year, regarding why he should vote in favor of funding our troops--the $87 billion he voted for, then against. As in his Vietnam protest days, Kerry may not have been an open traitor to the United States, but his interests were certainly in line with our enemies.

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

Questioning John Kerry’s Service
By Judson Cox
Mar 29, 2004

Senator Kerry sites Vietnam as his defining experience, and qualifies his every position by referencing his service.  Without  Vietnam, Kerry is just a “haughty, French-looking Democrat”.   Kerry  has made a career of politicizing war.  He gained national recognition through speaking against the war.  Now, he travels the
 campaign trail with his “band of brothers” to trumpet his service in  Vietnam.

By Kerry’s own admission, however, his service in Vietnam was less than honorable.  “I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others,”  said Kerry as an anti-war activist guest on NBC’s Meet the Press (quoted in Brinkley’s book, page 362), “in that I shot in free fire  zones, fired .50-caliber machine [gun] bullets, used             harass-and-interdiction fire, joined in search-and-destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts are contrary to the laws of  the Geneva Convention…” (Lowell Ponte, “Cash-and-Kerry, Part Two,”  January 28, 2004, Front Page Magazine.) While in command of Swift Boat No. 44, Kerry and crew functioned   without forethought in a ''Free Fire Zone'' injudiciously firing at targets of opportunity achieving a number of enemy kills along with  some civilian deaths as well.  His body count included a woman, her  baby, a 12-year-old boy, an elderly man and several South Vietnamese soldiers.  He freely admits enjoining in this type of activity and the casualties they caused--even the civilian casualties…   He then took command of a second swift boat, No. 94, which operated in the  Mekong Delta…It was with this assignment that he was awarded his            Silver Star for killing a Viet Cong soldier who was already pinned  down and wounded in a ''Hooch'' courtesy of Kerry’s .50 caliber  gunner. (Frank Salvato, “John Kerry's Past: Disturbing on Many  Levels” March 6, 2004, ChronWatch) Massachusetts Democrats are seldom punished for taking lives, but in  the case of John Kerry, such an investigation may be warranted.  If we are to believe the atrocities he admits to, Kerry is a dangerous  madman who went on a killing spree the moment he set foot in             Vietnam.  Kerry only served in Vietnam for four months.  If Sen. Kerry is the psychopathic murderer he claims to be, he must have stayed rather busy!

Equally as strange as the massacres Kerry claims to have committed in his remarkably short tour, is that a movie crew seems to have been following him through the jungles.  Kerry’s campaign  commercials show footage of the time he spent in Vietnam, and many politicians, friends and reporters recount spending evenings in the             Kerry mansions watching the Senator’s “home movies” of Vietnam.  Again, he was only there for four months!  I know several Vietnam veterans, some of whom served two and three full tours of duty (without committing any war crimes), none of whom have their service on film.  This raises the question of who was doing the filming, and             why?

 Perhaps John Kerry’s four months were nothing more than a political move, for the purpose of establishing credibility.  Kerry transferred out of Vietnam early, to a state-side assignment, where he spent his time driving Adam Walinsky to deliver anti-war speeches.  Then, he received an early discharge from the Navy and  began working with the Vietnam Veterans Against the War.  In that  position, he testified before Congress, recounting unfounded  accusations of war crimes committed by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam, and otherwise engaged in anti-American propaganda to aid the enemy.

In 1971, the Communist Daily World published photos of Kerry speaking as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). The  April 23, 1971 Daily World boasted that the marchers displayed a banner depicting a portrait of Communist Party leader Angela Davis, who was on record stating: "I am dedicated to the overthrow of your             system of government and your society."…By frequently participating in VVAW’s demonstrations, Kerry found himself marching alongside what the Boston Herald Traveler identified as "revolutionary  Communists." The December 12, 1971 Herald Traveler reported the  presence of an "abundance of Vietcong flags, clenched fists raised             in the air, and placards plainly bearing legends in support of  China, Cuba, the USSR, North Korea and the Hanoi government." (John F. McManus, “Kerry Postures as a War Hero,” May 5, 2003, The New  American, via Sen. Kerry’s record seems to show a man of anything but honor.  He has admitted to being a war criminal, and engaged in activities  bordering on treason.  We should remember his record next time Kerry  and his surrogates accuse President Bush of using war for political gain.

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,