John Kerry History Page    |     home
Page 6
This is America, built on Dissent, right John?
Aaaah the smell of Napalm In The Morning.....Bring It On!
Saddam's Files
New evidence of a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Thursday, May 27, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT
One thing we've learned about Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein is that the former dictator was a diligent record keeper. Coalition forces have found--literally--millions of documents. These papers are still being sorted, translated and absorbed, but they are already turning up new facts about Saddam's links to terrorism.

We realize that even raising this subject now is politically incorrect. It is an article of faith among war opponents that there were no links whatsoever--that "secular" Saddam and fundamentalist Islamic terrorists didn't mix. But John Ashcroft's press conference yesterday reminds us that the terror threat remains, and it seems especially irresponsible for journalists not to be open to new evidence. If the CIA was wrong about WMD, couldn't it have also missed Saddam's terror links?

One striking bit of new evidence is that the name Ahmed Hikmat Shakir appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the elite paramilitary group run by Saddam's son Uday and entrusted with doing much of the regime's dirty work. Our government sources, who have seen translations of the documents, say Shakir is listed with the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel.
This matters because if Shakir was an officer in the Fedayeen, it would establish a direct link between Iraq and the al Qaeda operatives who planned 9/11. Shakir was present at the January 2000 al Qaeda "summit" in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. The U.S. has never been sure whether he was there on behalf of the Iraqi regime or whether he was an Iraqi Islamicist who hooked up with al Qaeda on his own.

It is possible that the Ahmed Hikmat Shakir listed on the Fedayeen rosters is a different man from the Iraqi of the same name with the proven al Qaeda connections. His identity awaits confirmation by al Qaeda operatives in U.S. custody or perhaps by other captured documents. But our sources tell us there is no questioning the authenticity of the three Fedayeen rosters. The chain of control is impeccable. The documents were captured by the U.S. military and have been in U.S. hands ever since.

As others have reported, at the time of the summit Shakir was working at the Kuala Lumpur airport, having obtained the job through an Iraqi intelligence agent at the Iraqi embassy. The four-day al Qaeda meeting was attended by Khalid al Midhar and Nawaz al Hamzi, who were at the controls of American Airlines Flight 77 when it crashed into the Pentagon. Also on hand were Ramzi bin al Shibh, the operational planner of the 9/11 attacks, and Tawfiz al Atash, a high-ranking Osama bin Laden lieutenant and mastermind of the USS Cole bombing. Shakir left Malaysia on January 13, four days after the summit concluded.

That's not the only connection between Shakir and al Qaeda. The Iraqi next turned up in Qatar, where he was arrested on September 17, 2001, four days after the attacks in the U.S. A search of his pockets and apartment uncovered such information as the phone numbers of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers' safe houses and contacts. Also found was information pertaining to a 1995 al Qaeda plot to blow up a dozen commercial airliners over the Pacific.

After a brief detention, our friends the Qataris inexplicably released Shakir, and on October 21 he flew to Amman, Jordan. The Jordanians promptly arrested him, but under pressure from the Iraqis (and Amnesty International, which questioned his detention) and with the acquiescence of the CIA, they let him go after three months. He was last seen heading home to Baghdad.

One of the mysteries of postwar Iraq is why the Bush Administration and our $40-billion-a-year intelligence services haven't devoted more resources to probing the links between Saddam's regime and al Qaeda. In his new book, "The Connection," Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard puts together all of the many strands of intriguing evidence that the two did do business together. There's no single "smoking gun," but there sure is a lot of smoke.

The reason to care goes beyond the prewar justification for toppling Saddam and relates directly to our current security. U.S. officials believe that American civilian Nicholas Berg was beheaded in Iraq recently by Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, who is closely linked to al Qaeda and was given high-level medical treatment and sanctuary by Saddam's government. The Baathists killing U.S. soldiers are clearly working with al Qaeda now; Saddam's files might show us how they linked up in the first place.

The Links Provided within the below are important, the words of Johns own crewmates and superior officers on C-Span.
John Kerry: Not so Swift?

Posted: May 27, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Conservatives are vulnerable in at least one area of our political philosophy. We actually believe truth exists. Tucked safely away underneath our other assumptions is the belief that it is the job of reporters and editors within the media to sort out competing claims and report their findings honestly. This puts us at a tremendous advantage over the left, for which truth can never be found no matter how hard one searches – because truth does not exist.

This disparity in the hardwired makeup of conservatives and leftists is why the Swift Boat saga, and the claims of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" are important to America. By any standard, it is remarkable to learn that 17 of the 23 officers who served on Swift boats and in the command structure with fellow officer John Kerry believe he is unfit to be commander in chief. I'd like to tell you their stories. Yet if I do so, my observations will become nothing more than another bit of political froth washed up from the vast ocean of news and commentary, forgotten as soon as it is read. But you cannot watch these men tell their own stories at their May 4 press conference and be unaffected.

The group also released a letter to Mr. Kerry demanding he release of all his military records:

Specifically, we the undersigned formally request that you authorize the Department of the Navy to independently release your military records (through your execution of Standard Form 180), complete and unaltered, including your military medical records. Further, we call upon you to correct the misconceptions your campaign seeks to create as to your conduct while in Vietnam. Permit the American public the opportunity to assess your military performance upon the record, and not upon campaign rhetoric.

– Rear Adm. Roy Hoffmann, U.S. Navy
You can read the rest of the letter here.
I reviewed many of the military records posted on Mr. Kerry's website, but was unable to find his request to release the records. The Navy's initial response does mention a May 9, 2004, letter from his Senate office. It would be interesting to see the actual wording of that request, especially since it appears to have come from his Senate office, not his campaign. A quick Google search indicates that the "Standard Form 180" is the normal method of requesting one's military records be made available for all kinds of purposes.

Shortly after Saddam was captured in Iraq, a story broke about two young military intelligence analysts who had sifted through Saddam's contacts and family to locate the people closest to him. They produced a "mind map" with all the information summarized on a big sheet of paper that field commanders used daily. Ultimately, it led the soldiers on the ground to the truth about Saddam Hussein: the rat hole in which he was hiding with $750,000 in U.S. $100 bills. A similar approach would be helpful in learning the truth about Mr. Kerry.

John Kerry's privileged life didn't start when he met Theresa Heinz. His life was privileged early on – his service records already testify to that. There's a very good chance that someone in the military "took care" of young John Kerry during his stint in the Navy. The idea would have been to give him a "respectable" service record for future political aspirations. A full release of Mr. Kerry's military documents – including the seemingly innocuous ones that "aren't important" – would enable a clever reporter to identify that benefactor. Mr. Kerry's benefactor might well have been old enough that he is long dead and buried, but in the world of politics it's not always true that "dead men tell no tales."


Craige McMillan is a commentator for WorldNetDaily. He is the founder of CC&M, an exciting new initiative to reshape the way America looks at and interacts with people of faith.



Kerry's war record: Where are the media?
David Limbaugh (archive)
May 25, 2004 | Print | Send

There is no greater evidence of the mainstream media's liberal bias than their refusal to investigate and report credible claims challenging Sen. Kerry's reputed Vietnam heroism and his outlandish allegations against his own soldiers in 1971.

Since Kerry emerged as the likely Democratic presidential nominee, stories have circulated on the Web suggesting that some or all of his three Purple Hearts were dubiously earned and that he had to lobby for at least one of the medals after first being denied the distinction.

When I first came across these items I couldn't help but wonder whether the black helicopter crowd was working overtime again. But a surprising number of those who served with Kerry in Vietnam have organized a group, "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth," to speak out against the man and his military record. They are not, contrary to Democratic propaganda, being funded by Republican operatives or the Bush campaign.

The group is committed to correcting the record about Kerry's Vietnam experience and his defamatory statements against his fellow soldiers. Seventeen of the 23 officers on the swift boats with Kerry are either part of or supportive of the group's mission.

The group held a press conference at the National Press Club on May 4 to announce its goal of exposing the real John Kerry. The mainstream media were all but silent on the matter, but C-Span cameras were there.

When the Associated Press (AP) was called on its refusal to cover the story, it released a statement saying it didn't believe it was newsworthy because it contributed nothing to the dialogue between veterans and John Kerry. (Note to AP: This isn't about some New Age touchy-feely dialogue; it's about John Kerry's record.)
Perhaps the most prominent member of the group is John O'Neill, who succeeded Kerry as skipper of one of the boats. That name caught my eye because I had watched on C-Span a replay of a 1971 debate between this same Mr. O'Neill and Kerry on "The Dick Cavett Show."

O'Neill was very articulate, impressive and exceedingly credible. He would have none of Kerry casually accusing American troops of repeatedly committing war crimes and took the arrogant young Kerry to school.

Watching this debate, I knew O'Neill was the real deal. So when he and his fellow officers say that Kerry lacks the integrity to be president, we better take notice.
In an interview with Investor's Business Daily O'Neill said, "When Kerry came forward with the war crimes charge in 1971, it just tore the soul of all of us." Not only did the overwhelming majority of American troops not commit war crimes, according to O'Neill, they "went to such elaborate lengths to avoid injuring civilians. In our little unit we lost a number of people because we would go into canals and rivers with loudspeakers instead of shooting ..."

Adding insult to injury, many of "O'Neill's group believe that Kerry actually sought out these Purple Hearts for minor injuries and was able to procure one for a mere scratch on his hand. One of Kerry's commanding officers turned down Kerry's request for a Purple Heart.

That's not all. Kerry's treating physician remembered the incident. Because some of the crewmen told him -- in 1969 -- that Kerry planned on running for president.
O'Neill said that each of Kerry's Purple Hearts is "for scratches less than a rose prick. ... Each one involves virtually no serious wound of any kind. He then used the three Purple Hearts to escape from Vietnam."

The paperwork on how the medal was awarded, according to the group, is missing. And Kerry will not sign the necessary papers to release the records.
Can you imagine the level of scrutiny the media would employ if similar charges were made against President Bush? Remember the endless AWOL stories?
But concerning Kerry, does it require any leap of faith at all to believe that a man who has confessed to war crimes would exaggerate injuries and campaign for medals in order to build a presidential resume?

Admittedly, eight of the nine survivors who served under Kerry have said favorable things. But O'Neill said that just a few years ago, more than half of them wanted nothing to do with him.

So what happened to make them change their minds? What really happened in Vietnam? And why did Kerry feel it necessary to verbally annihilate the character of the soldiers with whom he served -- when common sense alone tells us that his claims are both absurd and outrageous on their face.

Where are the media outcries about the public's sacred right to know? Just remember: to the partisan media, character only matters if the "character" is a conservative.

John Kerry to the Rescue

May 27, 2004


by Edward Daley

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, John Kerry, once said "I would turn over to the U.N. legitimate authority for the civil reconstruction, for the humanitarian mission, and for the governance [of Iraq]."

There was a time when I probably would have agreed with this sort of plan, but I stopped smoking pot twenty years ago, and started paying attention to what the U.N. is really all about. Suffice it to say that I have become less and less impressed, over the course of my adult life, with the "international community" and its capacity for dealing with anything in a straightforward and productive manner. When the U.S. isn't involved, the U.N. is about as effective at confronting the end results of human depravity and despotism as a group of pygmy marmosets. Don't get me wrong, I like marmosets quite a bit. They're comical little buggers and at least they don't ask you for money. The U.N., on the other hand, is only funny in that wholly disturbing way that Richard Simmons is, and you won't see more bums with their hands outstretched if you spend a week wandering the streets of downtown San Francisco.

Sure, we'd all like to think of the United Nations as being some wondrous, unifying entity, enriched by the essential goodness of humanity and devoid of corruption; a genuinely honorable gathering of the best of our planet's most inspired benefactors. What decent human being doesn't dream of such a utopian enterprise? Yet if you take a good look at the folks who attend meetings of the U.N. General Assembly, you can't help but wonder if most of them would be able to hold down a job handing out smiley-face stickers at Wal*Mart. These people look like grim little file clerks who only got where they are because their uncle is president of the company and owed their dad a favor.

If the United Nations was even one tenth the force for good that it was intended to be, I might be able to support it. Unfortunately, there's such a thing as the real world. In the real world, the United Nations is a largely contemptuous organization run by commies, fascist and a colorful assortment of drug dealers and livestock molesters. In the real world, U.N. members promote their agenda at the expense of other members, exhibiting little interest in world peace or even acceptable hygiene practices. In the real world, nations are too self-absorbed to be united in a common cause, and their representatives don't play well with others unless, of course, a bunch of them agree to chip in and buy the more troublesome of the group a prostitute for the weekend. In the real world, it's a dog-eat-dog existence, and the mangy little mutts sniffing around the chow line get their ears bitten off by snarling French poodles and German shepherds on a routine basis. In the real world, the Nixon administration seems perfectly inviolable when compared to the United (oil-for-bribes) Nations, and anyone who tries to tell you otherwise is either mentally unbalanced, hopelessly naive or a liar.

Which brings me back to John Kerry. Is it this guy's serious contention that we should turn over the entire reconstruction effort to the very people who prolonged the unspeakable suffering of countless innocent Iraqis for years just so they could pad their wallets, and then did everything in their power to stop us from intervening and exposing their corruption? Does Mr. Kerry also think we should let NAMBLA members run daycare centers? Heck, why doesn't the good Senator just propose relinquishing authority over that country to Osama Bin Laden right now and be done with it? It would save a lot of time, and at least John McCain would have something legitimate to bitch about for a change.

I know that President Bush is trying to work out some sort of deal with certain U.N. members concerning their limited involvement in the post-war renewal plan, but he's probably only doing that to slow the raging torrent of criticism washing over his administration by the international (socialist) press. While I am somewhat disappointed in him for caving in to the demands of people like Jacques ChIraq (sp?) at this stage of the game, I guess I can't blame him too much for trying to appear diplomatic in the face of such overwhelming criticism of his administration. At least he hasn't suggested that we allow the Axis of Weasel to take over completely and screw up everything we've worked so hard to accomplish over the course of the past fourteen months.

Kerry, on the other hand, doesn't seem to give a damn what becomes of the Iraqi society in the coming years, just as long as he can look like a true internationalist (socialist puppet) and ride into the Oval Office in November on his multi-lateralist steed. Actually, seeing that he's a Democrat, it would likely be a multi-lateralist donkey that he rides in on, but what's one more liberal jackass in the White House more or less? Whatever the case, John (I don't need no stinking convention) Kerry is clearly more interested in saying and doing whatever it takes to get elected than formulating a viable plan for the future security of Iraq.

Here's an idea, how about we appoint Ted Kennedy to head the Iraqi interim government... maybe let out a few of Saddam's old uniforms for him to wear just to help him look the part. Nancy (the war is unwinnable) Pelosi could be his Vice President in charge of morale, and Bill Clinton could oversee activities at Iraq's Al-Zafarania women's prison. We could also let Hans Blix be Ted's public relations secretary. Blix could spend the next year or so explaining to the Iraqi people why removing Hussein from power in the first place was a bad idea and combing the desert in search of Kennedy's integrity.

John Kerry's Theme: Anger, Bitterness, Cynicism and Communism?

May 23, 2004


by Joe Mariani

It's taken him quite a long time, but John Kerry has finally settled on a campaign theme. On 17 May 2004, Kerry told the Wall Street Journal that "Talking about 'Let America be America again' is tapping into that value system that people think makes this country strong." The problem is that "Let America Be America Again" was actually a rather bitter poem written by a poet named Langston Hughes in 1938. A poem that repeats the claim that, "America never was America to me," and derides America's "false patriotic wreath" in much the same manner that today's Liberals attack displays of patriotism.

Let America be America again.
Let it be the dream it used to be.
Let it be the pioneer on the plain
Seeking a home where he himself is free.

(America never was America to me.)

Let America be the dream the dreamers dreamed--
Let it be that great strong land of love
Where never kings connive nor tyrants scheme
That any man be crushed by one above.

(It never was America to me.)

O, let my land be a land where Liberty
Is crowned with no false patriotic wreath,
But opportunity is real, and life is free,
Equality is in the air we breathe.

(There's never been equality for me, Nor freedom in this "homeland of the free.")

This is the same Langston Hughes who wrote in 1932, in "Good-Morning, Revolution," Together, We can take anything:

Factories, arsenals, buses, ships,
Railroads, forests, fields, orchards,
Bus lines, telegraphs, radios,
(Jesus! Raise hell with radios!)
Steel mills, coal mines, oil wells, gas,
All the tools of production.
(Great day in the morning!)

Everything—And turn ‘em over to the people who work.
Rule and run ‘em for us people who work.
Boy! Them Radios—
Broadcasting that very first morning to USSR:
Another member the International Soviets done come
Greetings to the Socialist Soviet Republics
Hey you rioting workers everywhere greetings.

And we’ll sign it: Germany
Sign it: China
Sign it: Africa
Sign it: Poland
Sign it: Italy
Sign it: America
Sign it with my own name: Worker

On that day when no one will be hungry, cold, oppressed, Anywhere in the world again.

Hughes also "wrote in his 1938 poem, "Goodbye Christ,"

Goodbye,
Christ Jesus Lord God Jehova,
Beat it on away from here now.
Make way for a new guy with no religion at all –
A real guy name
Marx communist Lenin Peasant Stalin Worker ME –
I said, ME!

Yes, Langston Hughes was a Communist, and his poetry strongly reflected that belief system. He is described by James Smethurst in his 1999 book The New Red Negro: The Literary Left and African American Poetry, 1930-1946 as the author of "revolutionary or militant poems aimed at an audience defined largely by the cultural institutions of the CPUSA and the Comintern." Hughes was brought before the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1953 to account for his membership in the Communist Party USA, but managed to convince the members that "the pro-Communist works he had published no longer represented his thinking." Unfortunately for his social life, "Communists bitterly resented the way he abandoned professed members of the party, including W. E. B. Du Bois and Paul Robeson, whom Hughes had lauded in earlier decades." Hughes had coldly abandoned his principles to save his writing career. This is the theme for the Kerry campaign? These are the values that "people think makes this country strong" -- anger, bitterness, cynicism and Communism? If we ask, "what people think that?" would we be told that it's none of our business?
Well, at least it does express the attitude of the anti-war activists Kerry once represented as a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and those who still oppose freedom and democracy for the Iraqi people, while advocating Communism for all.

(Hat tip to CrushKerry.com for this one.)  Joe Mariani

The prospect of Kerry is scary
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Where does John Kerry stand on the war in Iraq today? Where did he stand yesterday? The week before? Where will he stand between now and November? What does he really believe about it?

This isn't just another superfluous column on Kerry's wishy-washy-ness. After all, foolish consistencies are apparently the hobgoblin of little Republican minds. No, I'm not even going to get into Kerry's recent admission that we still might find WMD in Iraq. (Memo to John: We just did). Nor will I expect an apology from the senator for repeatedly calling the president a liar about WMD: "He misled every one of us."

I also won't emphasize Kerry's bizarre turnaround saying he would now consider appointing pro-life justices to the Supreme Court when a few months ago he made it clear he would apply a pro-abortion litmus test for his judicial appointments.

No, the point here is not to demonstrate Kerry's vintage vacillation in general, which is no more difficult than shooting ducks in a barrel. Rather, it is to call your attention specifically to his obvious uncertainty about what we should do in Iraq and just how scary that is for a man who is but a red state or two away from the Oval Office.

While Kerry's felicitous flip-flopping facility should give us pause over his leadership credentials, its particular application to his policy toward Iraq is sobering. Do we ever stop to think just how serious our mission in Iraq is and how difficult it will be to accomplish even with a resolute, decisive commander in chief?

Well, what if in November we wind up with a new president who isn't even convinced we should be in Iraq, much less that we ought to stay there? Forget Kerry's squalid squishiness — just tell me what he believes about Iraq and about American security.


Not long ago he acknowledged, perhaps reluctantly, that we had to stay the course in Iraq. He even suggested he might send in more troops to get the job done.

Granted, I could never square his newfound hawkishness with his competition with Howard Dean during the primaries to prove which was the most anti-war candidate. But in the last few days we see that he's reverting to form, hinting at a possible pullout of our troops from Iraq. Maybe his recidivism can be traced to his recent meetings with his new best buddies Ralph Nader and Howard Dean.

During an interview with Associated Press reporters, after first lambasting President Bush for the umpteenth time for his "unilateralism," which just makes me nauseous, frankly, he gave us yet another "nuanced" position on Iraq.

In a knee-jerk, anti-Vietnam-like, deja vu moment, the enlightened senator and best friend of that intoxicated-even-when-he-isn't-drunk flamethrower, Ted Kennedy, promised to avoid a quagmire in Iraq, saying, "It will not take long to do what is necessary" there.

Then, doing an unwitting impersonation of the man (Richard Nixon) all Democrats continue to loathe almost as much as President Bush, Kerry said, "It will not be like Vietnam. I will get our troops home from Iraq with honor and with the interests of our country entirely protected." Hold it — isn't that exactly like Vietnam was supposed to be? Vietnamization, anyone?

Disturbingly, ominously, Kerry referred to Iraq as the "death zone." "I'm not going to tell you we won't shift deployments from one place to another, but we're not going to be engaged in an active kind of death zone the way we are today," said Kerry.

Chew on that for a minute. We can conduct war from distant ships that fire cruise missiles or from bombers 30,000 feet over enemy terrain, but we will not put our troops in harm's way.

I challenge you to find some coherency in John Kerry's approach to terrorism and Iraq. If our cause in Iraq is important, wasn't it worth pursuing despite our failure to persuade every last one of the nations Kerry deemed indispensable to the coalition, like France and Germany, to join us?

And shouldn't we continue until we complete the mission, rather than allowing the antiwar voices at home to prevail — as Senator Kerry and his ilk did 30 years ago?

At this point in our national history, nothing is more important — apart from spiritual things — than how we provide for our national security. With President Bush, at least, we know where we stand. We know where he stands.

We know he has the courage and leadership to steer the ship of state in the direction of the nation's best interests during this time of war. With John Kerry, we truly don't have a clue.

Kerry's Meeting With Communists Violated US Law, Says Author
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
May 20, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - The 1970 meeting that current Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry conducted with North Vietnamese communists may have violated several U.S. laws, according to an author and researcher who has studied the issue.

Kerry met with representatives from "both delegations" of the Vietnamese peace process in Paris in 1970, according to Kerry's own testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971. But Kerry's meetings with the Vietnamese delegations were in direct violation of laws which forbade private citizens from negotiating with foreign powers, according to researcher and author Jerry Corsi, who began studying the anti-war movement in the early 1970s.

According to Corsi, Kerry violated U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953. "A U.S. citizen cannot go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power," Corsi told CNSNews.com.

By Kerry's own admission, he met in 1970 with delegations from the North Vietnamese communist government and discussed how the Vietnam War should be stopped.

Kerry explained to Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman J. William Fulbright in a question and answer session on Capitol Hill a year after his Paris meetings that the war needed to be stopped "immediately and unilaterally." Then Kerry added, "I have been to Paris. I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government (PVR)."

However, both of the delegations to which Kerry referred were communist. Neither included the U.S. allied, South Vietnamese or any members of the U.S. delegation. The Democratic Republic of Vietnam was the government of the North Vietnamese communists and the Provisional Revolutionary Government was an arm of the North Vietnamese government that included the Vietcong.

Kerry did meet face-to-face with the PVR's negotiator Madam Nguyen Thi Binh, according to his presidential campaign spokesman Michael Meehan. Madam Binh's peace plan was being proposed by the North Vietnamese communists as a way to bring a quick end to the war.

But Corsi alleged that Kerry's meeting with Madam Binh and the government of North Vietnam was a direct violation of U.S. law.

"In [Kerry's] first meeting in 1970, meeting with Madam Binh, Kerry was still a naval reservist -- not only a U.S. citizen, but a naval reservist -- stepping outside the boundaries to meet with one of the principle figures of our enemy in Vietnam, Madam Binh, and the Viet Cong at the same time. [Former Nixon administration aide Henry] Kissinger was trying to negotiate with them formally," Corsi told CNSNews.com.

Corsi's recent essay, titled "Kerry and the Paris Peace Talks," published on ~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040421205043310"wintersoldier.com, details Kerry's meetings and the possible violations of U.S. law.

Corsi also asserted that by 1971, Kerry may have violated another law by completely adopting the rhetoric and objectives of the North Vietnamese communists.

"Article three: Section three [of the U.S. Constitution], which defines treason, says you cannot give support to the enemy in time of war and here you have Kerry giving a press conference in Washington on July 22, 1971 (a year after his meeting with the communist delegations in Paris) advocating the North Vietnamese peace plan and saying that is what President Nixon ought to accept," Corsi explained.

"If Madam Binh had been there herself at that press conference, she would have said exactly what Kerry said. The only difference is she would not have done it with a Boston accent," Corsi said.

The ~freepnet/kerry/staticpages/index.php?page=20040401194200505"7 Point Plan, was created by the North Vietnamese communists and was nothing more than a "surrender" for the U.S., according to Corsi.

"You don't advocate that [7 point] plan unless you are on the communist side. It was seen as surrender. [The U.S.] would have had to pay reparations and agree that we essentially lost the war," Corsi said.

"Kerry was openly advocating that the communist position was correct and that we were wrong. He had become a spokesman for the communist party," Corsi added.

Kerry's presidential campaign did not return repeated phone calls seeking comment, but campaign spokesman Michael Meehan told the Boston Globe in March that, "Kerry had no role whatsoever in the Paris peace talks or negotiations."

"He did not engage in any negotiations and did not attend any session of the talks," Meehan added.

Kerry "went to Paris on a private trip, where he had one brief meeting with Madam Binh and others. In an effort to find facts, he learned that status of the peace talks from their point of view and about any progress in resolving the conflict, particularly as it related to the fate of the POWs," Meehan added. Kerry was reportedly on his honeymoon with his first wife Julia Thorne when he met with the communist delegations.

But Corsi does not accept the Kerry campaign's explanation.

"[Kerry spokesman] Meehan made it sound like they were just there on a honeymoon and they got a meeting with Madam Binh, but not every American honeymooner got to meet with Madam Binh. Unless you had a political objective and they identified you as somebody as sympathetic, you were not going to get invited to a meeting with Madam Binh," Corsi said.

"Kerry has skirted with the issue of violating these laws," Corsi added. "[The Kerry campaign is] trying to fudge on the issue because they don't want to come clean on it entirely."

See Related Articles:
Kerry, McCain Alleged to be 'Fast Friends' of Vietnamese Communists (May 20, 2004)
Kerry 'Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief,' Say Former Military Colleagues (May 3, 2004)
Communists Infiltrated Kerry's Anti-War Group, Historian Says (April 1, 2004)
Kerry Lying About Anti-War Past, Supporter Alleges (March 18, 2004)



 Melancholy Democrats Queasy Over John Kerry
                  By Isaiah Z. Sterrett
                  May 20, 2004




 REMEMBER the Clinton years? Democrats were so much happier then.  Their biggest worry was impeachment—and even that wasn’t too serious.  They won easily in 1992, thanks to Ross Perot’s ambitions and George H.W. Bush’s lack of ambitions, and they won again four  Kansas Who Have Precisely No Chance of Winning.
There were problems for America, of course—dead soldiers in Africa and the Middle-East; Elian Gonzales thrown back to Cuba; cigars in  the Oval Office (not inhaled); Osama bin Laden who knows where; and  the President’s unelected wife secretly planning healthcare policy.   But Democrats didn’t worry.  As President Clinton said, "we'll just have to win."  
Democrats aren’t nearly as cheery as they were then.
The economy is good, which, if you’re a Democrat, is never as much  fun as a bad economy.  Because of President Bush’s economic policies, over 30 million families with children will get an average  tax cut of over $1000; 23 million small business owners will get an average tax cut of over $2000; and six million single mothers will
get an average tax cut of $550.  
John Kerry’s only economic positions are to cut taxes on corporations, which won’t sit well with much of his base, and to raise taxes on the people.  He also plans to unveil a “comprehensive economic agenda” which he claims will create 10 million jobs.  Specifics have yet to be divulged, but one can assume with rather
impressive certainty that it will be more “vague” than “comprehensive,” and more “meaningless chitchat,” than “agenda.”  
And speaking of things that are bad for Democrats, news from Iraq is  improving.  This is especially good for Republicans since news from Iraq was never too bad.  Sec. Rumsfeld, or, as he’s known in Democrat circles, “Primary Target,” is not planning to resign any  time soon, and the public seems to be about as interested in Abu
Ghraib as kindergartners are in Sophocles.  
 Unlike Democrats, Americans were slightly more offended watching Nick Berg get his head sawed off than they were by seeing photos of
sadistic soldiers and petrified prisoners act like they were on some heavily-caffeinated version of “Fear Factor.”
Happily, we now have a legitimate reason to stop talking about Abu Ghraib and focus on one of liberals’ favorite topics:  weapons of
 mass destruction.  
 As the observant reader will recall, liberals began screeching about WMD approximately twenty minutes after the war began.  We quickly found three trucks designed for the assembly of poison gas, but  liberals said this didn’t count—much like babies in the womb,  Floridians who voted for Bush, and Presidents sodomozing
 subordinates.  
 Then on Monday it was reported that “traces” of sarin nerve agent  were found in an exploded artillery shell in Iraq.  By Tuesday we   learned that there were over three liters of sarin gas—enough to kill thousands.  (This, The New York Times wrote off as “no major threat.”)   
To summarize:  we found an exploded shell (“weapon”) filled with gas capable of killing people (“of mass destruction.”)  
I guess liberals were wrong about this one, too.  
And as if Democrats don’t have enough reason to be down in the    dumps, John Kerry’s numbers are dropping.  According to a recent Fox News/Opinion Dynamics poll, they’re even dropping among Democrats, which, if my calculus is correct, is an important group for a Democratic candidate to win.
Unlike Clinton, the Senator from Massachusetts doesn’t have the ability to energize the folks and methodically work his way to the top.  Kerry is tedious, overbearing, aloof, and comically palaverous.  Plus he’s wrong about everything.  For Goodness sake,   even The Village Voice thinks he’s a boorish bore.
Like Cindy Lauper’s “girls,” Democrats just want to have fun.  They value power and fame more than America, so they’ll do anything to win.  But while winning requires new ideas, Democrats are stuck in the seedy pawn shops of past failures.

John Kerry's Anti-Veteran Legacy

By Lt. Col. Gordon Cucullu
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 17, 2004
John F. Kerry has made a conscious decision to base his 2004 presidential campaign on his war record. (In case you are unaware, the Senator served in the Navy in Vietnam). He commanded a small, brown water vessel called a swift boat. The swifties operated in a riverine environment; typical missions were to escort troops in landing craft, guard larger boats carrying supplies to distant outposts, and route and point reconnaissance.

Kerry was assigned to the swift boats after working offshore on larger ships. When he transferred to the swift boats, they were used to ferry personnel and material from shore- to offshore-vessels. Only after he had transferred to the unit was the swift boat mission changed to combat.

Swift boat crews were vulnerable to ambush from the banks of the rivers. The boats, armed with machine guns and small arms, almost always engaged the enemy from the river. On very rare occasions, the crew might go ashore to police the battlefield. The swift boat mission demanded independent thinking, initiative and courage from the crew.
Young John Kerry spent approximately four months in Vietnam. For purposes of comparison, a normal tour of duty in Vietnam was 12 months. He submitted a request to curtail his tour after incurring his third wound, having thereby received his third Purple Heart medal. Reassignment based on wounds received was not automatic but was at the initiative of each eligible service member.

When Kerry returned to the states, he wore a Silver Star for valor, the three Purple Hearts and a Bronze Star for service in a combat area. To that point, he is to be thanked for his service to his country. But from then on things went terribly wrong. In a coldly calculated maneuver, Kerry plunged into the most virulent element of the antiwar movement, associated with violent demonstrations.

Even membership in this group, while causing some concern, would not in itself be damning. But Kerry assumed a leadership role. Kerry was not “coincidentally” located near Jane Fonda. He was the lead speaker in events in which she was backup. They planned demonstrations and programs together. They were fellow self-styled revolutionaries.

Kerry flew to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese representative to the peace negotiations. They met privately for several hours. Their conversation is not public. It is known that afterwards Kerry loudly advocated removal of all U.S. forces from South Vietnam as a way of obtaining release of our POWs held by Hanoi.
He became a core member and leader of the group Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), mostly made up of men who had not only never been to Vietnam and had never served in the military.

(B.G. Burkett in his excellent book Stolen Valor catalogs an extraordinarily vast number of Vietnam wannabes in the VVAW who have sullied the reputation of real veterans. Almost all of them used the war as a way of making money or attaining influence.)

This is where legitimate vets have serious issues with Senator Kerry. As part of his involvement and rise to leadership in the VVAW and with the other antiwar groups such as those including Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda and the rest of the dregs, Kerry turned viciously on his fellow veterans. He testified before Congress, giving lurid tales – all manufactured – of atrocities that were ‘normal’ and ‘known by officials at all levels’ in Vietnam.

Kerry described disgusting things: torture, rape, burnings, dismemberment, violence against civilians and more as if they were common daily fare. In fact he said specifically that these crimes occurred virtually on a 24/7 routine basis with no interference, indeed with encouragement, from higher headquarters.
He went on to describe the Vietnam veteran as someone psychologically damaged by the war. In his words the Vietnam vet was a soldier driven to heavy drug and alcohol use, incapable of readjustment to normal civilian life after have been required to engage in atrocities ‘worse than Genghis Khan.’ One need only look as far as the crowd surrounding Kerry - the scrufty, fatigue-wearing, long hair, strung out misfits - to see how terrible the war was to its poor, innocent soldiers. Except that it was all a lie. Kerry’s testimony and his organization created a myth that persists to this day.

Hollywood, of course, loves the myth: Coming Home, Deerhunter, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Born of the Forth of July, Rambo, and many more all raged at the war and exploited the myth. Indeed they pushed it so deep into the American conscious that most ordinary citizens cringe at the thought of a Vietnam veteran. They think that the whacked-out, crazy, drug-besotted image is the real one. How tragic for our veterans then and now. And John F. Kerry was and continues to be a major factor in perpetuating this gross lie, this appalling disrespect.

Today the persistence of this anti-veteran image still manifests itself in tragic ways. A terrific young man, Ranger Corporal Pat Tillman, recently gave his life for his country in Afghanistan. Tillman was not unique in his dedication, concern and patriotism: an extraordinary number of young people share that with him. And a majority of those who served in all our previous wars - including Vietnam - were cut from the same special cloth.

What made Tillman unique was that he was a successful professional athlete who turned down a multi-million dollar contract to join the army and fight against those who attacked us. His idea of loyalty was to pay back to his country for all the opportunities it had give him. And he sacrificed all so that we might stay free.
But the repugnant legacy created by John Kerry, the anti-Vietnam war movement leaders and their ilk persists unabated. Tillman has been attacked in the most disgusting manner as a ‘dead dumb jock’ and an ‘idiot who died for oil’ by the vulgar extreme left that Kerry helped create and continues to court for votes and support.
So I don’t care about where or if he tossed his medals or ribbons, or how deep the scratch was that got him a cheap Purple Heart. All those I can forgive. But the legacy of disrespect and contempt that Kerry intentionally produced and deliberately exploits to this day for his political benefit is unforgivable. It is for his post-war behavior that he must answer to his fellow veterans.

We are not your ‘band of brothers,’ Senator. You betrayed us and we want no part of you. You have caused too many people too much pain. Have the decency to leave us alone and stop using your fellow veterans as props to advance your career. For once, act like a man.

Kerry's Wife Pays Less Taxes Than Median Family
For a long time Steve Forbes has been advocating a flat tax. He says this is the only way to make sure the rich pay their fair share of taxes due Uncle Sam.
Now we know why Steve Forbes wants the flat tax. Wealthy individuals such as Teresa Heinz Kerry pay less in taxes, proportionately, than does the median U.S. family.
This fact was illustrated to us by a NewsMax reader, Robert Clay of California.

Mr. Clay writes:
"According to HUD, the median family income for the U.S. for 2003 was $56,500. After applying the standard deduction of $9,500 for married filing jointly we end up with a taxable income of $47,000. This puts the average family in the 15 percent tax bracket. Kerry's wife, using tax shelters, managed to pay only an effective federal tax rate of 11.5 percent, compared with the top federal income tax rate of 35 percent. She paid $587,000 on an income of $5.1M.

"If Kerry wants the rich to pay more he should start with his wife."

Despite the release of partial financial information, John and Teresa Kerry have not explained why, if it's so important for the evil rich to pay more taxes, they didn't add a voluntary addition to their check to the IRS.

Kerry to Endorse New 'Purple Heart' Band-Aids
05/06/04 NEW BRUNSWICK, New Jersey
Senator John Kerry, the recipient of three Purple Hearts, has signed a contract with Johnson & Johnson to endorse a new line of band-aids.

The band-aids will be small purple hearts designed to cover minor, superficial wounds like Kerry suffered as a lieutenant in the Vietnam War.

"We're proud to be working with Senator Kerry," said a Johnson & Johnson spokesperson. "We plan to use actual shrapnel removed from his arm in our ad campaign to highlight the small size of our J&J Band-Aid brand Purple Heart bandages."

The doctor who treated Kerry at Cam Ranh Bay, Vietnam, recently described the procedure used to treat the wound that won the senator his first Purple Heart.

"First, I located the wound with the aid of a magnifying glass," said Dr. Louis Letson. "Then, I used a pair of tweezers to extract the shrapnel, which measured approximately one centimeter in length and two to three millimeters in diameter.

"Finally, I covered the wound with one of those little round band-aids people use to cover corns on their toes."

The Band-Aid endorsement is not the first for Senator Kerry.

It comes on the heels of two other high-profile endorsement deals Kerry has signed with Waffle House and Flip-Flops, Inc.
©2004 RealStupidNews.com

Luis Jose Perez Garrameda: Answer to John Kerry ... as if I were President Chavez
Luis Jose Perez Garrameda writes: Mr. Kerry, Some days ago you made statements regarding my person; you gave these statements to a Hispanic television station called UNIVISION, one of whose shareholders I understand is a Cuban, Gustavo Cisneros, who was involved in the coup d’etat against me on April 11, 2002. I ask you to refer to an article published in News Week International at the end of April 2002, written by Joseph Contreras and Michael Isikoff, who discovered Cisneros’s participation in the April coup.
Click here for the original Spanish text
In your declarations you said that I was rapidly becoming a dictator. I don’t know from where or why you drew this conclusion, but I believe that a person who aspires to be the President of one of the most important countries in the world should, before arriving at such conclusions, research the matter at length, in this case the facts about Venezuela and its government policies. Because you are obviously unaware of these facts I am going to summarize a few items regarding my government and person.
I am the constitutional President of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, elected by secret direct ballot, winning with more than 3.7 million in August, 2002. I have won seven elections in this country, among which there have been two referenda.
I was ousted on April 11, 2002, by a conspiracy in which the corrupt military, owners of the media, managers of the PDVSA (Petroleum Company), corrupt trade union leaders, and people of the Catholic Church among others, took part.
After having been overthrown and incarcerated, the brave Venezuelan people rescued me on April 13, 2002, and restored me to the post of President. All of those involved in this coup remain in liberty thanks to a ruling of the corrupt High Court which decreed that in Venezuela there was no coup rather only a vacancy in the presidency
My enemies have blocked the television channels, one state station (VTV) and another (CATIA TV).
Between December 2002 and January 2003, those who participated in my overthrow initiated a strike in which they sabotaged the petroleum industry (PDVSA) in order to stop the flow of gasoline and inhibit petroleum exports. Food distributing companies hid stocks of food and wholesale distributors closed their doors affecting small retail shops. In those days there were all kinds of reprisals against the people, but at no moment did the government react by using public force against anyone. Instead we dedicated ourselves to importing gasoline, food and other items in order to alleviate the situation we had been plunged into by the participants of the coup.
In addition, I would like to inform you of some aspects of policy which my government has undertaken.
We have taught more than ONE MILLION Venezuelans to read, a number corroborated by UNESCO (the Robinson mission). Since I became president not one single journal or communication outlet in Venezuela has been closed, be it radio or TV. Rather, new communications companies have been started, both private and public, and neither has any single journalist been harassed.
Under my government there are no political prisoners.
In Venezuela, by means of the private communication media (TV and radio), there are more than 100 daily broadcasts at the national level, which attack my government, my family, my associates and all those who assist our task. I am the only Venezuelan President who has been insulted publicly by journalists and moderators of programs of public opinion.
We have created a net of Internet centers for the popular classes called INFOCENTROS, with the idea that all people should have access to the Internet.
We have created projects for people who do not have the resources to study, in order for them to have access to the secondary schools and universities. (Sucre, Riva and Bolivarian University projects).
We have developed plans to provide medical care for the poorest members of the society. (Barrio Adentro project)
We have created special food outlets for the most underprivileged people (MERCAL).
We are developing employment programs for the entire population. (Vuelvan Caras project) We have given incentives to the construction industry and are developing a railway and metro system. (Metro Caracas, Metro Valencia, Metro The Teques, Valles del Tuy Train, Second Bridge over the Orinoco).
International companies such as Telefonica de Espana, Movilnet-Verizon, KELLOGS, General Motors and others have invested multi-millions of dollars in our country.
I am not going to present more arguments, but I invite you and your collaborators to visit Venezuela and see for yourselves. In addition I wish to pose the following question to you: if I were or was thinking of becoming a dictator, would I be undertaking such a manner of development in and for my country?
Translated by Karl Koth

This Just In: John Kerry Is Dull
Jonathan David Morris, 05/06/04

In the Village Voice last week, James Ridgeway suggested the Democrats should pick a new presidential candidate.

"With the air gushing out of John Kerry's balloon," he wrote, "it may be only a matter of time until political insiders in Washington face the dread reality that the junior senator from Massachusetts doesn't have what it takes to win and has got to go. As arrogant and out of it as the Democratic political establishment is, even these pols know the party's got to have someone to run against George Bush."

A few days later, on Fox News Watch, the Fox News Channel's in-house media critics wondered if maybe -- just maybe -- the media's underwhelmed with Kerry and ready to turn on him. Now, that may well be, but where's the newsflash here? So Kerry's about as likable as the bird flu. So what? This isn't new news. Welcome to one year ago.

The Democrats didn't want a compelling candidate. The media didn't want one, either. They already had one, and his name was Howard Dean. He was the only Democrat who caught on with voters, and the Democrats, in turn, said no one would vote for him.

He was too liberal, they said. Unelectable.

And the media played along with it.

Yet Dean was one of the more conservative candidates from either major party. In Vermont, for example, he worked to balance budgets. He also defaulted to states' rights on gay marriage and gun control, putting him to the Right of many federalist Republicans.

Dean wasn't a peacenik, either. He opposed the Second Gulf War, but supported the First, and supported the war in Afghanistan. He even supported sending troops to Liberia. As noted anti-war writer Justin Raimondo put it, "[Dean] is no more opposed to our imperial foreign policy than is Joe Lieberman -- or George W. Bush."

When Dean "imploded" on stage after the Iowa caucuses, however, the establishment kicked it into high gear. Dean was unstable, they said. He wasn't fit to lead.

Can any man seeking the presidency -- and the power to end the world with the push of a single button -- possibly be "stable" by any conventional stretch? Good question, but never you mind. By the time the New Hampshire primaries rolled around, clips of Dean screaming were overplayed -- and played out -- to a level usually reserved for rock radio staples like Pink Floyd and Queen. Is it any wonder no one wanted to hear him anymore? Lord knows, after thirteen years, I'm sick of hearing Pearl Jam's "Jeremy" on the radio every hour.

Now, that's not to say Dean's scream wasn't silly. It was. And he was also becoming arrogant by that time (telling a man at an open forum to "sit down, you've had your say" couldn't've helped his cause). But the media was pushing Kerry's electability long before Dean's "meltdown." For a time there, Kerry was polling on par with Carol Moseley Braun. But still, the pundits said, Dean's anti-war traction wouldn't -- indeed, couldn't -- translate in the general election.

Yes, it was Kerry, they said, who could beat George Bush -- even as Kerry made Dean's "unelectable" war platform his own.

So now that's who the Democrats are left with. John F'n Kerry. Mr. Electable. For all the talk of George Bush being dumb, this guy is about as empty a vessel as empty vessels come. Not intellectually, but charismatically. He's like a computer. Computers process complex information. They accomplish grand tasks. Yet they only know two things: Zero and One. And that's how John Kerry operates. His mouth is a disk drive. He'll say what he's programmed to say.

Oh, the Iraq war isn't going well? Insert Anti-War 2.004.

Oh, the economy's not creating jobs? Insert Tax-the-Rich Pro, Outsourcing Expansion Pack.

Even John Kerry's most ardent supporters don't seem to support John Kerry. They support the idea of John Kerry. They support this notion that he's electable. But what, exactly, is this notion based on?

Is it his long and undistinguished Senate career?

Is it his haircut?

Is it anything at all?

As far as I can tell, Kerry is only electable because we were told he's electable. Other than that, he's uninspiring.

And what an interesting choice, I might add, for the Anyone-But-Bush crowd. I guess they mean it when they say "anyone." He certainly isn't less militaristic. According to a quote on his campaign site: "Americans deserve a principled diplomacy... backed by undoubted military might... based on enlightened self-interest, not the zero-sum logic of power politics." Why doesn't he come right out and say America knows what's best for the rest of the world? And how is this different than our current policy of democracy-from-above?

Kerry says he'll internationalize the Iraq effort. He'll bring in NATO and the U.N., and sink us further into the world-government mire.

Yeah.

Because the current bureaucracy just isn't big enough.

So now let's return to the question up top: Can John Kerry win the White House? As it stands, he's running neck-and-neck -- but only neck-and-neck -- with a once impossibly-popular president coming off his toughest month yet. According to James Ridgeway, this means Kerry is doomed. "If things proceed as they are," Ridgeway concludes, "the dim-bulb Dem leaders are going to be very sorry they screwed Howard Dean." That may be, but, in fairness, we've got several months to go.

A more important question, then, is: Why did the Democrats want a boring -- I'm sorry, "electable" -- candidate anyway?

Is it because Kerry's just a placeholder for Hillary Clinton? Or is it because Bush and Kerry -- both members of a secret society, Skull and Bones -- are placeholders for each other? Those are the theories right now, and I won't rule them out. But still, I'd like to believe our political parties are too dumb to come up with such elaborate schemes.

As a friend of mine -- who couldn't care less about politics -- puts it, the Skull and Bones connection means Bush and Kerry have probably spanked each other with paddles at some point in their lives. What an excellent way of looking at the '04 election. This is the era of the "closely divided" electorate, after all. Bush and Kerry want the White House, and the media's going to help them win it -- provided they both do just enough to lose.

Local Doctor Treated Senator John Kerry for Purple Heart Wound
Carson Clark Reports, 5/5/04
Doctor Louis Letson of Scottsboro served in Vietnam at the same time that presidential candidate John Kerry did. In fact, Dr. Letson treated Kerry for a wound--the same wound for which Kerry later received a Purple Heart.
Now, as the Democratic nominee for president, Kerry is facing criticism from some of those who served with him. They have publicly said Kerry doesn't deserve that particular Purple Heart.
Last year Doctor Letson wrote an account of Kerry's treatment for a friend. His account contradicts what Kerry says about the incident. Kerry says he took enemy fire. His colleagues say Kerry's wound actually came from a mortar round Kerry himself fired at a river bank.
Doctor Letson says in his account: "What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. . . It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle. I simply removed the metal. . . with forceps. The wound was covered with a Band-Aid."
Self Inflicted or Friendly Fire wounds don't Count for PH!!


John Kerry - Catholic Warrior

May 6, 2004
by Lisa Fabrizio

There’s an old saying around these parts: If you bring your business to the bar, it becomes the bar’s business. John F. Kerry has, for most of his adult life, run for political office on the strength of his Vietnam service record and, in Massachusetts where this once counted, as a professed Catholic. Now that he’s in the biggest race of his life, he’s feeling a bit tender toward those who are questioning the validity of both of these issues.

For those of you born on Venus, Kerry served in the Navy as a “swift boat” commander for four months in Vietnam where he was awarded three Purple Hearts and a Silver and Bronze Star. His incessant insertion of his Vietnam service into every imaginable discourse is the stuff of which stand-up comics’ dreams are made.

Now that some old comrades-in-arms and investigative reporters have presented some events of Kerry’s past differently than he recalls, he has been waxing righteously indignant. Despite the fact that he and his Band of Brothers Tour provided the ammo, he brazenly expects his enemies to hold their fire.

Most oddly though, his claim to exemption from analysis of his service record is based on the service itself; the same service he used to defame his fellow soldiers thirty long years ago. The very medals or ribbons he did or did not throw over the U.S. Capitol fence have now been redeemed at their original value; that is, as symbols of honor.

More strange still is his assertion that his military experience--the highlights of which apparently were his own war crimes--now uniquely qualifies him to be Commander in Chief. A curious claim for someone who advocates a stronger “public-diplomacy effort."
A new raft of TV ads designed to “re-introduce” Kerry to a yawning public debuted this week, with the two most frequently shown containing no less than fifteen Vietnam references in their combined two minutes. That’s one every eight seconds for those keeping score at home--or often enough to suggest his impugning President Bush for exploiting the War on Terror is just a tad hypocritical.
The logic of all this seems to boil down to another old adage: I can call my wife anything I want, but you’d better not. In other words, Vietnam is an issue that is his and his alone and any criticism or investigation of his record concerning same should be taboo.
Also on this list is his religious affiliation of choice. His frequent trips to church have been well chronicled as he so often mentions his Catholicism on the hustings. How Catholic is John Kerry? Try this from his press clippings: “He’s married to a millionaire wife who took notice when she overheard him singing Catholic hymns in Portuguese during a church service at an environmental summit in Brazil.” I kid you not.

But he is unabashedly pro-abortion, and in one of those moments which would have been publicized everywhere had a conservative been the culprit, he claimed last year that "there is no such thing as a partial birth," not pausing to explain the reason he voted many times against bills banning it.

He’s been threatened with being refused Communion by some in the U.S. Catholic hierarchy and feels this is unfair and even un-American stating, “I think that it's important to not have the church instructing politicians. That is an inappropriate crossing of the line in America."

However, the church requires all Catholics to reject abortion as murder but does have a few words directed at lawmakers: “No public official, especially one claiming to be a faithful and serious Catholic, can reasonably advocate for or actively support direct attacks on innocent human life.” Please note the use of the word “innocent.”

Kerry continues to receive Communion even after a top Vatican cardinal said politicians who support abortion rights should be denied the Eucharist. His usual place of worship, The Paulist Center in Boston is interesting because, as explained by the AP, “it attracts Catholics uncomfortable with some of the Vatican's orthodox teachings or who otherwise feel alienated from the Roman Catholic Church.”

These are more commonly referred to as “cafeteria Catholics,” who pick and choose their beliefs, and one is not surprised to find Kerry there among those who can find nuance even in religion. Nuance is, after all, an almost religious commodity among Democrats.
John Kerry has been the most photographed Christian Democrat since Bill Clinton, his fellow anti-war traveler and skilled practitioner of nuance. In support of Clinton’s 1992 candidacy, Kerry said, “We certainly do not need something as complex and emotional as Vietnam reduced to simple campaign rhetoric.”

Would that we should be so lucky.



 Kerry 'Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief', Say Former Military Colleagues
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
May 03, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Hundreds of former commanders and military colleagues of presumptive Democratic nominee John Kerry are set to declare in a signed letter that he is "unfit to be commander-in-chief." They will do so at a press conference in Washington on Tuesday.

"What is going to happen on Tuesday is an event that is really historical in dimension," John O'Neill, a Vietnam veteran who served in the Navy as a PCF (Patrol Craft Fast) boat commander, told CNSNews.com . The event, which is expected to draw about 25 of the letter-signers, is being organized by a newly formed group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

"We have 19 of 23 officers who served with [Kerry]. We have every commanding officer he ever had in Vietnam. They all signed a letter that says he is unfit to be commander-in-chief," O'Neill said.

O'Neill, currently a Houston, Texas, based attorney, is no stranger to Kerry. O'Neill served in the same naval unit as Kerry and commanded Kerry's swift boat after Kerry returned to the United States. Kerry's command of the PCF boat lasted four months and ended shortly after he received his third Purple Heart. According to naval regulations at the time, any soldier who received three Purple Hearts could request a transfer out of the combat zone.

Kerry and O'Neill engaged in a nationally televised debate in 1971 on The Dick Cavett Show over Kerry's allegations that many Vietnam soldiers had routinely engaged in atrocities such as raping and cutting off ears and heads of Vietnamese soldiers and citizens. Kerry was the then spokesman for the anti-war group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

"We are going to be presenting a letter that deals with Kerry's unfitness to be commander and chief that has been signed by hundreds of swift boat sailors, including most of those who served with Kerry," O'Neill explained.

"The ranks of the people signing [the letter] range from admiral down to seaman, and they run across the entire spectrum of politics, specialties, and political feelings about the Vietnam War," he added.

Among those scheduled to attend the event at the National Press Club and declare Kerry unfit for the role of commander-in-chief are retired Naval Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, who was the commander of the Navy Coastal Surveillance Force, which included the swift boats on which Kerry served.

Also scheduled to be present at the event is Kerry's former commanding officer, Lt. Commander Grant Hibbard. Hibbard recently questioned whether Kerry deserved the first of his three Purple Hearts that he received in Vietnam. Hibbard doubted both the severity of the wound and whether it resulted from enemy fire.

"I've had thorns from a rose that were worse" than Kerry's wound for which he received a Purple Heart, Hibbard told the Boston Globe in April.

Organizers are confident that Tuesday's event and the letter with hundreds of signatures will educate people about Kerry.

"It is one of the largest outpourings of concern about him being commander-in-chief that anybody could have in a presidential campaign and it is by the people who know him best," O'Neill said.

'Unfit Commander-in-Chief'

Swift Boat Veterans For Truth maintains that Kerry's fellow Vietnam veterans are almost uniform in their disdain for his military service and anti-war protests.

"Not only a majority of the people who served with him feel that way, but a vast and overwhelming majority," O'Neill said. He added that more than "ninety percent of the people contacted by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth responded to the request to sign their name, with only 12 declining to sign.

"Comrades who actually served with him, almost all of them, are opposed to him, and believe he would be an unfit commander in chief and intend to bring the truth of his actual record to the attention of the American people," O'Neill said.

O'Neill hopes the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth can reveal to the American people what he sees as Kerry's flawed character.

"In the military, loyalty between commanders and the troops serving them is a two-way street. We have here a guy (Kerry) that with all of us in the field [in Vietnam] -- actually fighting the North Vietnamese -- came home and then falsely accused all of us of war crimes at a time when the people in uniform couldn't even respond," O'Neill said.

"And he did that knowing that was a lie," he added.

'Real John Kerry'

B. G. Burkett, author of the book Stolen Valor and a military researcher, believes that Tuesday's event will not be dismissed easily by Kerry's campaign as a "partisan" attack.

"There are probably just as many Democrats amongst sailors who sailed swift boats as there are Republicans. What Kerry fails to realize is this has nothing to do with politics -- this has to with Vietnam Veterans who served, who have a beef with John Kerry's service, both during and after the war," Burkett told CNSNews.com.

"The American people do not know John Kerry and hopefully the swift boat crews and other Vietnam veterans will make sure that the American public knows the real John Kerry," he added.

Jim Loftus of Kerry's press office referred questions about Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's event on Tuesday to spokesman David Wade. Wade did not return CNSNews.com's requests for comment.


KERRY LIED . . . while good men died:

a gathering of Vietnam veterans from across America Where: The West Front of the U.S. Capitol Building Washington, DC
When: Sunday, Sept 12, 2004 2:00-4:00 PM (EDT)
Why: To tell the truth about Vietnam veterans.
To counter the lies told about Vietnam veterans by John Kerry        Printable flyer Click here

KERRY BOATMATE: VIETNAM TROUBLES JUST BEGINNING
04/27/04 11:30 AM



Kerry Boatmate: Vietnam Troubles Just Beginning

Sen. John Kerry's Monday morning meltdown on "Good Morning America" may be just the beginning of his troubles, according to one of his Vietnam boatmates, who is warning that more of the men who served alongside the Massachusetts Democrat are preparing to go public with their accounts.

Texas lawyer John O'Neill, who served on Kerry's swiftboat after he left Vietnam just four months into his tour, told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg on Sunday, "I was in exactly the same unit. There were many people who were there simultaneously with him who are all about to speak."

O'Neill gained brief fame in 1971 when he debated Kerry on the "Dick Cavett Show" and forced him to admit he never personally witnessed the war crimes he'd been accusing U.S. troops of committing.

Though he's been contacted by Kerry's opponents every time the Massachusetts Democrat has run for office in the 33-years since - O'Neill
has refused to speak out. Until now.

Referring to reports this week in the Boston Globe questioning whether Kerry may have exaggerated his combat record, O'Neill told Malzberg, "This is just the first opening. They'll be many different people. But I'd prefer to let the people who were actually there speak directly."

O'Neill cited a Jan. 29, 1969 firefight that Kerry claims on his campaign web site that he and his boatmates were in.

"But according to the Boston Globe," said the swiftboat veteran, "Kerry was not even on the boat that night. The guy that was really on the boat was a fellow officer of ours named Ted Peck. He remembers well that fight because he was terribly wounded in three places."

"There was no Kerry anywhere around," O'Neill said. "And yet it appears on his web site as some pitched battle that Kerry was involved in."

Noting that the Democratic presidential candidate has made his Vietnam war experience the centerpiece of every campaign for office, O'Neill
complained: "It's [Kerry's] self promotion that infuriates most of the people from his unit who actually know what he did."

"He would be a terrible Commander-in-Chief of U.S. forces in the world at a time of crisis," the Kerry boatmate warned.

Pro-Life Women Forcibly Dragged From John Kerry Abortion Rally
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
April 27, 2004


Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Five pro-life college students were forcibly removed from a pro-abortion rally held by presumptive Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Friday. The students were literally dragged off after they began leading a pro-life chant and one woman suffered injuries to her feet as a result.

With leaders of NARAL and Planned Parenthood at his side, Kerry held a rally on Friday to tout his pro-abortion position and Planned Parenthood's endorsement prior to Sunday's march for abortion.

Supporters began chanting "What do we want? Choice! When do we want it? Now!"

The next time through the chant, the students, all women from George Washington University, screamed out "Life!"

Suanne Edmiston, a sophomore at George Washington University, was one of the pro-life students who attended. "We didn't plan on shouting them down," she told LifeNews.com in an exclusive interview.

According to Edmiston, after the chants, a group of young adults with NARAL t-shirts surrounded the women.

"All of a sudden these NARAL girls appeared out of nowhere," Edmiston. "You guys have to leave right now," the NARAL women told the students.
Edmiston said the students told the abortion advocates they would leave, but wanted a uniformed official to explain why they had to leave a public event and one for which they had obtained tickets from the Kerry campaign.

After seeing the students wouldn't leave, the NARAL women told each other to link arms and began to surround the pro-life students.
At the same time, older rally participants were screaming to leave the students alone. Edmiston told LifeNews.com that the older women told the younger abortion activists they could possibly hurt the students and that the students had a right to attend the rally.

But that didn't stop the young NARAL backers.

They became angry and began to push and shove the pro-life women. One woman told Suanne that her mother should have aborted her.

The NARAL women eventually enveloped three of the students, including Suanne, in a circle and began dragging them away.

Suanne was wearing flip-flops and one of her shoes fell off as she was taken away.

"My foot is dragging on the gravel and they wouldn't let me get it," Edmiston said.

The abortion advocates dragged her barefoot over a rough gravel surface that caused her foot to bleed so much that Edmiston required medical attention afterwards.
"I have never been manhandled like that before -- pushed around, shoved and tossed -- it was ridiculous," Edmiston said. "I really felt violated, they had no right to touch me like that. So much for 'my body, my choice.'"

Both Edmiston and Stan Dai, a GWU political science major and a friend of the women, said Priscilla, another pro-life student, was dragged by the strap of a backpack. The strap began to wrap itself around her neck and she began to choke.

Edmiston told LifeNews.com that neither Kerry campaign staff nor security officials stepped in to stop the activists from dragging the students away from the rally.
"Nobody stopped it, people from [Kerry's] campaign were just standing around," she said.

After receiving medial assistance from a policeman located outside the audience, Edmiston and her friends filed a report with the Washington police.
However, without the names of the abortion advocates who accosted them, there is nothing the police can do, she told LifeNews.com.

Neither Edmiston nor her friends know the women who assaulted them and it would be up to NARAL or Planned Parenthood, the rally sponsors, to volunteer the names to police, Edmiston said.

Representatives of NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and the Kerry campaign did not return requests for comment.
This is the second time pro-life people have been victimized at a Kerry campaign rally.

At a Kerry event in Tampa, Florida in March, Kerry campaign staffers destroyed the signs of two pro-life women.

In an exclusive LifeNews.com story, Rebecca Porter told LifeNews.com that she and a friend brought signs saying "My abortion hurt me" to the rally. After Kerry saw the signs, campaign staff stepped in moment later and tore them to shreds.

Porter said Kerry was "shocked and surprised" to read the sign.

The Kerry campaign has refused to comment on the matter.

"It was so disheartening," Edmiston said about the incident at the Kerry abortion rally Friday and the attitude of the abortion activists. "They didn't respect us, they had their agenda and that was it."

(Pictures of Suzanne courtesy of GWU student Rachel Jurado. Kerry abortion rally picture courtesy of Planned Parenthood.)


The Monsieur takes a ride in a tank

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Look, Charlie, who are you gonna believe, John Kerry or your own eyes?

The great white Democratic hope set out early yesterday to clear up the 33-year-old question of what did he do with his medals from Vietnam and when did he do it?

Monsieur Kerry has told several stories so many times no mere pol could remember them all. First, he said he threw away his medals. Or maybe the Silver Star and three Purple Hearts belonged to somebody else. Then it was no, they weren't combat medals, anyway, just combat ribbons. That's what he told the Los Angeles Times last week. But bad luck: ABC News discovered the tape of an interview in 1971 in which the young monsieur said no, it was medals after all, not ribbons.

So yesterday Charlie Gibson, the interlocutor of ABC-TV's "Good Morning, America" set out to get him to clear it up. Here's the partial transcript, as on the Drudge Report, of fudge-making bordering on incoherence:

"Senator, as recently as Friday with the Los Angeles Times, you said you did not throw away the Vietnam medals themselves. But now this interview from 1971 shows up in which you say that was the medals themselves that were thrown away."

"No, I don't," Monsieur Kerry replied.

"Can you explain?" Mr. Gibson asked.


"Absolutely. That's absolutely incorrect. Charlie, I stood up in front of the nation. There were dozens of cameras there, television cameras, there were — I don't know, 20, 30 still photographers. Thousands of people and I stood up in front of the country, reached into my shirt, visibly for the nation to see, and took the ribbons off my chest, said a few words and threw them over the fence. The file footage, the reporter there from the Boston Globe, everybody got it correctly. And I never asserted otherwise. What I said was, and back then, you know, ribbons, medals were absolutely interchangeable. [The late] Sen. [Stuart] Symington asking me questions in the committee hearing, looked at the ribbons and said, 'What are those medals?' The U.S. Navy calls them medals, we referred to them as symbols, representing medals, ribbons, countless veterans threw the ribbons — threw the ribbons back. Everybody did. Veterans threw back dog tags. They threw back photographs, they threw back their 14's. There are photographs of a pile of all of those things collected on the steps of the Capitol. So the fact is that I have — I have been accurate precisely about what took place. And I am the one who later made clear exactly what happened. I mean, this is a controversy that the Republicans are pushing, the Republicans have spent $60 million in the last few weeks trying to attack me ... I'm not going to stand for it."

But neither was Charlie.

"Senator," he said, "I was there 33 years ago, and I saw you throw medals over the fence and we didn't find out until later."

The senator was beginning to sweat. (Maybe it was the hot lights.) "No, you didn't see me throw them. Charlie, Charlie, you are wrong. That's not what happened. I threw my ribbons across. All you have to do ... "

And so it went. Monsieur Kerry and his handlers are frightened that the medals episode could be taking another Massachusetts pol for a ride in a tank. Most Americans, who regard combat medals awarded for valor as more than pieces of cast metal and strips of colorful cloth, as something, like the flag, to hold in awe and reverence because such objects have been endowed with blood spent on battlegrounds at Lexington and Concord, on hillsides from Manassas to Pea Ridge, on killing grounds in the Argonne Forest and at Guadalcanal and Pork Chop Hill and the Ia Drang Valley and a lot of other places besides. Americans will regard the distinction between a combat medal and a combat ribbon as the ultimate distinction without a difference. Both medal and ribbon are fraught with holy meaning, and the man who treats them as trash, throwing them back at the country that bestowed them as tokens of gratitude and thanksgiving, is a man whose soul has withered to a dried prune. (Would Monsieur Kerry disdain the Legion d'Honneur?)

Democrats disdain every question that John Kerry raises about his Vietnam War record as a slur at the senator's patriotism. Republicans have actually taken great care to give the senator credit for taking up arms when certain prominent Republicans went over the hill. Marc Racicot, the chairman of the Bush campaign, remarked Sunday that "from the very first [we] talked about the fact that John Kerry serviced this country honorably."

This was an odd slip, Freudian or otherwise, for a Montana man to make. Every rancher knows that "servicing" is what a bull does for a heifer. Or maybe it wasn't a slip at all.


Lead, Man!
John Kerry can’t even commit to a medal story.!

By Peter J. Wallison

The John Kerry medals story is a weird one. It does not, in the end, demonstrate beyond question that Kerry is untruthful, as some have suggested, but in a sense it is worse — it shows once again that Kerry tries to have it both ways, and thus lacks an essential element of leadership that is necessary to qualify him for the presidency
The basic story is relatively simple. In 1971, Kerry and a group of veterans — in a demonstration against the Vietnam War — said they threw their medals over a fence around the Capitol. Later, in a recently discovered television interview that day, Kerry said that he had thrown his medals over the fence as a protest against the war.
It turns out that Kerry still has his medals, and the story has been circulating that Kerry actually threw away someone else's medals. This is literally true, according to Kerry. That day in 1971, he did throw away the medals of two other veterans (one from World War II) who could not attend the ceremony and protest sponsored by Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

But the question the media have been following is whether Kerry lied when he said he threw away his own medals. Kerry first denied that he had ever said that he had thrown away his medals, contending instead that he had only thrown away the ribbons — which, he said, are the same as the medals, just another symbol of his Vietnam service that he was returning to the government as a protest against the war. So, by keeping his medals and throwing away his ribbons, Kerry accounts for the fact that news reports have said he threw away his medals, but he still has them.

If we give Kerry the benefit of the doubt, he could have been speaking loosely about throwing away his medals. If, in his mind, as he now suggests, medals and ribbons are the same thing, then it is a legitimate defense that he threw away his ribbons but responded to media questions by saying that he threw away his medals. After all, it was a symbolic act, and he was speaking in terms of symbols.

However, in 1984, according to ABC News, during Kerry's first campaign for the Senate, he took a labor leader to his home to show him the medals, because labor was uneasy backing a Democrat who had seemed to demean the service of those who had fought in Vietnam. This was the first time, according to ABC, that Kerry admitted that he still had the actual medals that he had implied he had thrown away in 1971. Apparently, the existence of the medals satisfied the labor groups in Massachusetts, and he received their endorsement.

But what do we have at the end? Once again, Kerry is trying to have it both ways. In 1971, he threw away his ribbons to protest the war in Vietnam, implying that he had actually thrown away the medals. But in 1984, he uses the medals to demonstrate to labor that he did not really do the symbolic act that he performed in 1971. In other words, that throwing away his ribbons was not the same thing as throwing away his medals. If this sounds a lot like "I voted for it before I voted against it," you're getting warm.

As Long As It Isn't John Kerry

Posted by Frank Salvato
Monday, April 26, 2004
~~o~~
I cannot tell you how many e-mail messages I have gotten from Vietnam veterans who are disgusted with John Kerry. Some are disgusted because of the anti-war stance he took after his service in the Navy and others are disgusted by his shameless promotion of his exploits while ''in-country'' during his abbreviated tour of duty.

But what I am hearing from most of them was summed up quite succinctly by a Marine from Palm Bay, Florida by the name of Richard Montgomery. I dare not say that he is an ex-Marine because as I have been told in no uncertain terms, once a Marine--always a Marine. He served two full tours of duty in Vietnam in the 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines, 1st Marine Division (RVN ’67, ’68, ’68). His disgust with John Kerry stems from his ''highly decorated hero'' status, the status that Kerry’s campaign and the media have bestowed upon him.

I would go on to explain. but I feel Mr. Montgomery does it better. I would like to share his letter with you:

Sir,
From the very beginning of Kerry's campaign, the media has taken every opportunity to portray the senator as a ''highly decorated war hero.'' Hardly an article is published without the seemingly, obligatory reference to Kerry's ''chest full of medals.'' As for the man himself, he clearly relishes his ''hero'' image and makes every effort to propagate the myth of his heroic duty at every opportunity.

However, long before the senator started to campaign for the presidency, there were questions regarding both the quantity and quality of the decorations Kerry supposedly earned during his extraordinarily short tour of duty in Vietnam. It seems that these questions persist and are now growing louder.

According to a recently published article, the senator's first in-country commanding officer has stated that at least one of the senator's Purple Hearts (his first) was wholly unjustified. It seems that after being rebuffed by this officer, Kerry committed the cardinal sin of going over his CO's head, an incredibly dishonorable course of action that eventually resulted in a completely undeserved award.

Other questions have been raised regarding the unprecedented speed with which the young Kerry picked up his much ballyhooed combat decorations. Anyone who served in Vietnam knows full well that--contrary to popular belief--medals where not simply handed out. They had to be earned. Every decoration has it's own criteria. Take for example, the Silver Star. The Silver Star is our nation's third highest decoration for valor. The established criterion necessitates extraordinary heroism under the most dangerous circumstances. When reviewing the circumstances surrounding the senator's Silver Star, one cannot help but get the impression that the incident falls far short of the criteria requirements. In fact, one would be wholly justified in wondering why a decoration of any kind was awarded.

While Kerry's actions occurred more than thirty years ago, they speak directly of the senator's credibility, his honesty, and--most importantly--his character. The very fact that Mr. Kerry has the unmitigated gall to try and curry favor with the veterans of Vietnam illustrates how totally insensitive he is to the disgraceful statements he made during his stint as an anti-war activist.

I believe the senator is a man without honor. I believe he is a make-believe hero. I think his wartime heroics are a myth he created, one supported by home movies, not by his actions.
I think it is interesting to note that the major news organizations, which constantly harp on the senator's war record, have made no effort whatever, until just recently, to investigate the many questions surrounding the unprecedented number of awards that Kerry received during his very abbreviated tour in-country.

These are the same news organizations that slandered President Bush while they printed unfounded accusations and demanded that the president release his service records. Why have they been so silent when it comes to the senator's records? Obviously there is a double standard at work here.

Kerry has somehow prevented anyone from gaining [unfettered] access to his service records despite countless Freedom of Information requests by researchers and investigators. The Kerry camps most recent ploy was to suggest that it was somehow unseemly for ''anyone who hadn't been there'' to be reviewing the senator's service record book. Now, it seems, we are supposed to be satisfied with the documentation his campaign staff decides to feed us.

In closing, I would like to point out that I am not a Republican. I am not part of the Bush campaign. In fact, I couldn't care less who becomes president--so long as it isn't John Kerry.

Unlike Kerry, I actually served two tours in Vietnam, my first as a grunt with the 5th Marines. I am not a baby-killer. I never raped anyone in Vietnam. I never dismembered a body. I didn't shoot civilians. I did not commit atrocities and I did not serve with anyone who did.

John Kerry for president? Not on your life!

Richard Montgomery
3rd Battalion, 5th Marines
1st MARDIV.
RVN ‘67, ‘68,'68

I think I would be out of line to add to Mr. Montgomery’s words. But I do say that I thank him for his service to our country and for his stewardship of freedom and liberty--even though his struggle occurred halfway around the world. God bless!

Kerry Reneges on Promise to Release Military Records
Dave Eberhart and Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
WASHINGTON – Sen. John Kerry has quickly reneged on his promise to release his full military and medical records to public scrutiny.
Kerry emphatically told Tim Russert on NBC's “Meet the Press” last weekend that “people” could come on down to his campaign headquarters to eyeball his full file of military records.

“They’re available to you to come and look at. People can come and see them at headquarters and take a look at them,” Kerry told Russert.
Russert had asked Kerry if he would release his complete file, as President Bush did after Democrats raised questions about his service in the Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

Kerry shot back to Russert’s request, “They are” – indicating the records were already released.

But Kerry has not realeased all his military records, only a small portion, and placed strict limitations on their examination.

This week several individuals and organizations, including NewsMax, followed up on Kerry’s open invitation.

When the media asked to take advantage of Kerry’s offer, however, Kerry's press spokesman Michael Meehan announced that the only records available would be those already released to the Boston Globe.

But the famously pro-Kerry Globe has pointed out that Kerry has never disclosed his full military and medical file to it.
The newspaper reported Tuesday that “the day after John F. Kerry said he would make all of his military records available for inspection at his campaign headquarters, a spokesman said the senator would not release any new documents, leaving undisclosed many of Kerry's evaluations by his Navy commanding officers, some medical records, and possibly other material.”

Thorny Issue

The issue of Kerry’s military records got a fresh infusion of interest and speculation recently when Kerry’s former commanding officer in Vietnam, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, questioned a Purple Heart that Kerry received.
A Purple Heart is awarded to a serviceman wounded by enemy fire in combat and who receives medical treatment for his wound.
Hibbard explained that he at first turned down the initial Purple Heart for the young Lt. j.g. Kerry because he had questions as to whether Kerry and his boat crew took enemy fire, and he noted that Kerry’s wound was minor - resembling a fingernail scrape.

"I've had thorns from a rose that were worse," according to Hibbard.

Kerry’s first Purple Heart adventure occurred just 24 hours into his tour of duty.

Kerry was later transferred to Coastal Division 11 at An Thoi in South Vietnam, where apparently Kerry successfully petitioned to have his Purple Heart request reconsidered.
Hibbard recalls getting paperwork from Kerry’s new outfit, asking for his approval, also recalling that he might have signed off on the award in a harried moment.
If so, “it was to my chagrin,” he recollected.

Kerry subsequently got two more Purple Heart awards, qualifying him for an early trip home under informal regulations then in place. He spent four months in the combat zone.

According to the Globe, the Kerry campaign earlier this year showed that publication a document verifying that Kerry was indeed treated for the wound that resulted in the first Purple Heart and that shrapnel was removed.

Meehan has announced that this previously released treatment document would be shown to news organizations, as well as other records previously shared with the Globe, including documents describing Kerry’s actions when he was awarded the Silver Star and two Bronze Stars.

Notably, Kerry's campaign has not released to the Globe, or to anyone else, the formal evaluations from superior officers or his complete, uncensored military file, as President Bush has.

Bush earlier this year released 300 pages of documents after media outlets raised questions about his National Guard service. Those records, which Bush ironically promised to make available during his own appearance in February on “Meet the Press,” included all of the young pilot’s military evaluations and medical records.

Burkett Speaks Out

“Kerry can remove all doubt about his service by signing a U.S. government document referred to as Standard Form 180 -- this in effect is a limited power attorney that grants to third parties, including news organizations and individuals, the right to receive 100 percent of his military and medical records that are available to Mr. Kerry himself,” B.G. Burkett explained to NewsMax.com.

Burkett is a Vietnam historian and author of the best-selling book “Stolen Valor.” Burkett won the Army’s highest civilian award for his research on U.S. involvement in Vietnam.

“This is the only way Senator Kerry can remove doubt and suspicion as to the content of his military and medical file,” Burkett said. “I wouldn’t certainly hope that Sen. Kerry would take this action because there are concerns about the true nature of his short service in Vietnam.”

Kerry was assigned to Swiftboat 44 on Dec. 1, 1968 and within 24 hours he had his first Purple Heart. Accumulating three Purple Hearts in just four months, the young officer never lost appreciable time from duty owing to wounds, according to reports.

According to published reports, the Naval Historical Center maintains all documents connected to such awards to U.S. Navy and Marine personnel.
“Casualty cards” list the date, location and prognosis of the wound for which the Purple Heart is given.

The record is produced by the medical facility that provided treatment for the combat wound. Reportedly, there are two such cards for Kerry - for his slight wounds on Feb. 20 and March 13, 1969 - but none for his December 1968 claim.

Pundits continue to ponder why Kerry’s Purple Heart full military file and medical treatment reports have been withheld from the public. Kerry holds the key.

Gillespie: What Is Kerry Hiding?

Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie stepped up the pressure Tuesday by urging Kerry to keep the promise he made on "Meet the Press" and release the information.

"When President Bush committed to release all his military records on the same program, he kept his word. John Kerry should do the same," Gillespie said in remarks prepared for a Lincoln Day dinner in Lucas County, Ohio.

"Voters aren't stupid, and he shouldn't treat us as if we are."

Kerry Now Says 'Atrocities' Is a 'Bad Word'

Meanwhile, most media continue to ignore another controversy that Russert raised Sunday with the presidential candidate: Kerry's description of himself in 1971 as a war criminal.
The host showed a videotape from the same program 33 years ago in which Kerry said that he and other U.S. troops committed "atrocities" in Vietnam.

A similar but more detailed admission has ended the political career of one-time White House hopeful Bob Kerrey, former Democrat U.S. senator from Nebraska.

"I think the word is a bad word," Kerry said Sunday. "I think it's an inappropriate word. The words were honest, but on the other hand they were a little bit over the top. I don't like it when I hear it today."

Here's what he said in on April 18, 1971:
"There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed."

John Kerry's Foreign Friends

By Mark Landsbaum
FrontPageMagazine.com | April 21, 2004
Foreign leaders’ apparent infatuation with John Kerry raises two disturbing questions voters need to consider before November: Why do these leaders prefer Kerry to President Bush, and what does their endorsement say about Kerry?

These questions are quite apart from the flap over whether Kerry actually had private endorsements from other foreign leaders, whom he still refuses to identify. Those anonymous endorsers, Kerry says, told him they, “can’t go out and say this publicly but, boy, they look at you and say, ‘You gotta win this, you gotta beat this guy, we need a new policy.’”



Far more important than whether Kerry has secretive supporters, are the questions raised by the public endorsements of other foreign notables, who have no qualms about being identified. For an assortment of reasons, they are a dangerous lot. None will be mistaken for supporters of American interests abroad.

Begin with appeasenik Spanish socialist Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero of Spain, who said, “I want Kerry to win…We’re aligning ourselves with Kerry. Our alliance will be for peace, against war, no more deaths for oil.” Zapatero has recently begun withdrawing Spanish troops who had been serving alongside U.S. forces in Iraq. Like Kerry, who 30 years ago argued that it is better to withdraw than to combat the Communist threat in Vietnam, Zapatero prefers to withdraw from combating the threat of terrorism spawned in Iraq. Both men have viewed retreat in the face of evil as virtuous.

Then there’s the world’s most die-hard Stalinist, North Korean Communist dictator Kim Jong Il, whom European newspapers reported to prefer Kerry over President Bush. “Rather than dealing with President George W. Bush and hawkish officials in his administration, Pyongyang seems to hope victory for the Democratic candidate on November 2 would lead to a softening in U.S. policy towards the country’s nuclear-weapons program,” according to London’s Financial Times, which also reported Kerry being broadcast in “glowing” terms on Korea’s state-operated radio.

It does not take an advanced degree in international relations to figure out that a Communist dictator building and selling nuclear weapons and developing missiles that can reach California probably doesn’t share a common view with most Americans of what is in their best interest.

And, of course, there’s avowed anti-Semitic former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed, who endorsed Kerry’s presidential bid, proclaiming, “I think Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of people and of the rest of the world.” Mohamed last year urged fellow Muslim leaders to achieve a “final victory” over Jews who he said, “rule the world by proxy.” One wonders how this stance squares with Kerry’s recent revelation that he is of Jewish heritage.

There’s little nuance here. These international endorsements come from the cowardly, the evil and the vile. A socialist retreating in the face of terrorists, a Communist dictator insinuating nuclear showdown and an anti-Semitic hatemonger aren’t likely to have Americans’ best interest at heart when picking sides in the U.S. presidential election.

To Kerry’s credit he had the presence of mind to recognize venomous anti-Semitism when it reared it ugly self with Malaysia’s Mohamed’s endorsement. “John Kerry rejects any association with former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed, an avowed anti-Semite whose views are totally deplorable,” said Kerry foreign policy adviser Rand Beers.

Nevertheless, if these are the stripe of foreigners attracted to John Kerry, who then is repulsed by him? In Kerry’s 1997 book The New War, he even referred to Yasser Arafat as a “statesman.”



All this calls into question Kerry’s moral authority, and how others would perceive it. In short, if Kerry is admired by those who retreat from evil, those who threaten the U.S. with nuclear weapons and those who hate Jews, can Kerry be right for America? As columnist Joel Mowbray has noted, “Kerry expresses a sincere belief that terrorists can change their stripes, if only they have a positive role model.”



Kerry’s view of reality is consistent with that which has steered the Democratic Party since at least the presidency of Jimmy Carter. It is a worldview that refuses to acknowledge the existence of evil in the world, preferring instead to imagine there are only people and nations with differing interests. Consequently, Kerry and his ilk opt for the Rodney King approach to international relations: “Can’t we all just get along?”



The danger in this is that evildoers recognize it for what it is: appeasement. The even greater danger is that terrorists will interpret it for what it often signals: weakness. Enemies of the United States always will be attracted to Americans who make their job easier. Terrorists, Communists and anti-Semites are never won over by negotiation or by feeling their pain. They correctly interpret such naïve olive branches as signs of weakness, and can be counted on to press for more of what they want. As Chamberlain learned the hard way with Nazi Germany, going wobbly in the face of evil is no solution.

It is no surprise to find that Kerry prefers an expanded United Nations role, rather than the U.S. “going it alone,” on matters of terrorism and international threats. The UN is nothing if not institutionalized appeasement.

Kerry, who is becoming well known for his opportunistic flip-flops, at least has been consistent on this score. He sided against American interests in the Vietnam War when he unashamedly accused American GIs of committing murder and torture. He opposed American interests in his numerous votes against military procurement bills, and by refusing to fund the war effort in Iraq.

“Senator Kerry speaks with open contempt” of those nations that have sided with the Bush administration in the Iraqi war effort, according to Vice President Dick Cheney. “If such dismissive terms are the vernacular of the golden age of diplomacy Senator Kerry promises, we are left to wonder which nations would care to join any future coalition.”



If Kerry has such a dour view of those countries supporting U.S. efforts, and Kerry is so favorably viewed by foreign leaders whose interests certainly don’t jibe with U.S. interests, can Kerry be right for America?

Kerry has complained that the Bush “administration’s foreign policy is not making us as safe as we can be in the world.”


Will friends like Zapatero, Jong Il and Mohamed make us safer?

Think Tank Blasts John Kerry's Economic Plan
By Bobby Eberle
Talon News
April 20, 2004
A conservative think tank report concludes that the economic plan proposed by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (D-MA) would result in a "slower economy and job creation significantly below potential." The report adds that "the negative effects of an increase in taxes for high-income taxpayers overwhelm the positive effects of making key elements of the Bush tax plan permanent for taxpayers with incomes under $200,000."

The report by William W. Beach of the Heritage Foundation shows that economic growth recedes under the Kerry plan.

"The annual rate of non-farm employment growth will be consistently below-forecast each quarter for the 10 years following January of 2005," Beach says in his report. "By 2006 there will be 225,000 fewer jobs created per year due to the Kerry tax plan than in the baseline scenario, and by 2013 there will be 404,000 fewer jobs created per quarter. The unemployment rate also is consistently higher than in the baseline scenario through the forecast period."

Beach also states that GDP growth will slow if Kerry's plan were to be enacted.

"The nation’s output of goods and services quickly drops below current forecasts, and growth remains slower throughout the next 10 years," Beach says. "Gross Domestic Product, after adjustments for inflation, drops an average of nearly $20 billion below baseline for each of the first five years and $30 billion below baseline for each of the last five years."

According to the report, after-tax income would shrink under the Kerry plan, and savings would "plummet."

"Income after taxes, or inflation-adjusted disposable personal income, is below baseline in each year of the forecast," Beach says. "It begins $43 billion lower than baseline in 2005 and continues to drop to $240 billion below forecast in 2014."

The author adds, "Lower disposable personal income means lower personal savings. The personal savings rate averages 17 percent less during the first year of the Kerry plan (2005) and is 43 percent below baseline by 2014. By 2014, personal savings are $193 billion below baseline."

Beach admits that certain elements of Kerry's economic plan are as yet unannounced, but he concludes that the Democrat's plan would lead to "a net tax increase of $609 billion over the ten-year period beginning January 1, 2005."

"While these economic estimates are likely to change as Senator Kerry announces more details about his tax plan, they strongly indicate the weakness of his current approach," Beach concludes. "Raising taxes on high-income taxpayers to cover budget shortfalls may make political sense, but it is not the right move to encourage economic growth. Senator Kerry’s new tax revenues divert capital from better economic uses, which slows the growth in productivity that usually stems from new investment. Job and income growth suffer as a consequence."


John Kerry Runs New Pro-Abortion TV Ad Blasting President Bush
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
April 19, 2004


Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Likely Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has started running television ads blasting President Bush for his pro-life position -- specifically his nomination of pro-life judges to various federal courts. The ads are timed to coincide with the national pro-abortion march on Saturday.

"The Supreme Court is just one vote away from outlawing a woman's right to choose. George Bush will appoint anti-choice, anti-privacy justices. But you can stop him. Help elect John Kerry and join the fight to protect our right to choose," the ad says.

"I promise to take the fight to George Bush every single day," Kerry says, closing the ad.

Pro-life advocates say the ad doesn't get past the first sentence before it gives viewers wrong information.

Kerry's ad mimics the claims of doomsayers at national abortion advocacy groups, namely that the Supreme Court is one vote away from overturning abortion.

However, the current Supreme Court favors the central tenants of the landmark Roe v. Wade decision by a 6-3 margin, with a change of two members needed to give it a pro-life majority.

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life, says his group, "believes that Roe v. Wade was an act of judicial legislation and should be overturned. Therefore, it would be welcome news if in fact 'only' five justices supported Roe."

"Regrettably, however, it is not true," Johnson explains. "Six current justices have voted to affirm Roe v. Wade: Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, Kennedy, O'Connor, Souter, and Stevens. Only three of the current justices have ever voted to overturn or substantially scale back Roe: Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas."
Calls to the Kerry campaign from LifeNews.com were not returned by press time.

Kerry has twice voted in favor of an amendment to the ban on partial-birth abortions urging the Supreme Court not to overturn the Roe decision.
The Kerry campaign is targeting the ads at strong Kerry supporters in an attempt to bring in donations.

According to an Associated Press report, the 30-second ad will run for two weeks on cable channels such as CNN, MSNBC, Lifetime and Bravo in heavily Democratic states such as New York, California, New Jersey, Washington state, and Wisconsin.

John Kerry's Sound and Fury
April 18, 2004

by Geoff Metcalf

"I don't make jokes -- I just watch the government and report the facts." --Will Rogers
I have often noted that “some people don’t want to be confused with FACTS which contradict their preconceived opinions or prejudices.’ John Kerry has expanded on that axiom in a fool’s errand that ignores facts in evidence about his own political identity and apparently hopes to manufacture a new “reality”.
In addition to his growing problems with the veteran community and Catholic Church hierarchy, the New York Times reports “The Most Liberal member of the Senate” intends to define/redefine himself as a centrist?
Say what? If John Kerry is a centrist, then Newt Gingrich is a gay black female liberal Muslim cleric…..
This counterintuitive Kerry dream quest to redefine himself as centrist is supposed to be based on some vain hope of attracting moderate Republicans.
In a classic case of ‘tell them what they want to hear’, Kerry told a group of $25,000-a-plate deep pocket Dems at the “21” Club in the Big Apple, he wanted their help to paint his own portrait (or to paint over his 18 year liberal record in congress).
Despite his aides acknowledging there are no specific plans or timetables, Jonesing John promised he was about to launch “a positive affirmative advertising campaign” (right after he finished with the heavy lifting of raising money).
Absurdly, Kerry told his marks, "A lot of people still don't really know who I am…” Huh? Not really?!?! The problem for the four term Democrat is that a lot people DO really know who and what he is.
So how does “the most liberal US Senator” defend the indefensible?
· He says, his bipartisan credentials?
· And he intends to position himself as a fiscal conservative “to counter the Bush campaign's portrait of him as a waffling tax-and-spend liberal.”
Duplicity notwithstanding, Kerry has a tough row to hoe. Maybe he can ‘try’ to suggest his ubiquitous flip flopping on issues is a mathematical ‘mean’ where if you ‘average’ diametrically opposite positions you are ‘statistically’ in the middle? You think? I don’t think so…His Ionesscoish statement that “I actually voted FOR it before I voted AGAINST it…” is destined to become a GOP ad refrain.
· Former Senator Fred Thompson wrote, “Every time there is a call to abandon Iraq to the United Nations or unnamed "international allies," our enemies know this is a call to cut and run…” Kerry’s standard solution to anything geopolitical is to give it that dysfunctional collection of pampered UN incompetents.
· Kerry said, '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.” Then one Month later, Kerry voted against Afghanistan/Iran Supplemental.
· Kerry said, "I believe that as long as you have what is almost solely an American occupation, 135,000 American troops, and no other country there with the exception of Great Britain exceeds a thousand, I believe.” WRONG! The Coalition includes 33 countries in three zones. Poland, Ukraine, Spain, Italy and the Netherlands all have over a thousand troops.
· His claim Bush has not Internationalized the Iraq Mission is not supported with facts. “We need to internationalize the effort and put an end to the American occupation." Hell-o? DOZENS of countries ARE in the coalition. Kerry apparently equates a UN imprimatur as the only legitimate form of internationalization.
· Kerry wants to transfer political power to United Nations. "We need a real transfer of political power to the UN."
· President Bush wants to transfer political power back to the people of Iraq. "One central commitment of that mission is the transfer of the sovereignty back to the Iraqi people.”
Kerry can (and will) try to sell ‘form’ without ‘substance’ but even wannabe supporters like the Brookings Institution question his inability (or unwillingness) to offer an alternative to “Bush bad…me good.”
Helmut Sonnenfeldt at Brookings said, "I haven't the faintest idea what his prescriptions in Iraq would be…At some point, he is going to have to get serious if he is going to be taken seriously about how he would actually deal with the issue in a way that he as a patriotic American can support it. But he hasn't done that,"
Kerry says, "We have to convince America of my ability to be able to manage that as effectively, or more effectively, if possible." Since there are no facts in evidence to support that objective he offers ‘Kerry as Centrist’/a new ‘reality’?
THAT dog ain’t gonna hunt!

Purple Hearts: Three and Out
Posted April 12, 2004
By Stephen Crump



.
 Kerry glows with pride while wearing one of the Purple Hearts he desperately sought
Democratic presidential nominee in waiting Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) frequently speaks of courage, brotherhood and responsibility when he mentions his brief service in Vietnam. He took Super-8 home movies there in which he staged heroics in full-battle dress, so that later he might use them for campaign ads. Kerry has made so much of his Vietnam medals which he once pretended to throw away that critics have begun to wonder why he has been so cagey about the dubious circumstances surrounding the Purple Hearts that got him out of Vietnam after only four months of combat service. Under the rules, a serviceman had to be awarded three Purple Hearts to apply to go home. Not one or two, but three. And, say critics, there's the rub.

Kerry, who piloted Patrol Crafts Fast (PCFs) as a young Lt.(jg) in the Vietnam War, has always made much of those Purple Hearts. An award often pinned on the pillow of a combat warrior so badly wounded that he cannot sit up to receive it, the Purple Heart recognizes the sacrifices of combat when a soldier or officer has sustained a wound "from an outside force or agent" and received treatment from a medical officer. The records for such treatment "must have been made a matter of official record," according to the military definition of the award.

According to Kerry's own description in Douglas Brinkley's Tour of Duty, the Dec. 2, 1968, mission behind what he has claimed to be his first Purple Heart was "a half-assed action that hardly qualified as combat." Indeed. Kerry was stationed with Coastal Division 14 at Cam Ranh Bay. At that time he piloted a small foam-filled boat, known as a Boston Whaler, with two enlisted men in the darkness of early morning. The intent, apparently, was to patrol an area that was known for contraband trafficking, but it was an undocumented mission. Upon approaching the objective point, the crew noticed a sampan crossing the river. As it pulled to shore, Kerry and his little team opened fire, destroying the boat and whatever its cargo might have been.

In the confusion, Kerry claims to have received a "stinging piece of heat" in the arm, the result of a tiny piece of shrapnel. He was not incapacitated and continued with regular swiftboat-patrol duty. William Shachte, who oversaw this ad hoc mission, was quoted by the Boston Globe as saying Kerry's injury, from whatever source, "was not a serious wound at all."

But Kerry met with his immediate superior officer, Lt.Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, the next morning and requested a Purple Heart for his wound. Hibbard recalls that Kerry had a "minor scratch" on his arm and was holding in his hand what appeared to be a fragment of a U.S. M-79 grenade, the shrapnel that had caused the wound. "They didn't receive enemy fire," Hibbard tells Insight. Since this was an essential requirement for the award, the commander rejected Kerry's request. Hibbard does not remember that Kerry received medical attention of any kind and confirms that no one else on the mission suffered any injuries.

Shortly thereafter, Kerry was transferred to Coastal Division 11 at An Thoi. Apparently, Kerry petitioned to have his Purple Heart request reconsidered. Hibbard remembers getting correspondence from Kerry's new division, asking for his approval. In the hurried process of moving to a new command himself, Hibbard thinks he might have signed off on the award. If so, "it was to my chagrin," Hibbard remembers. Kerry's second commander, Lt.Cmdr. G.M. Elliott, says he has no recollection of such an event ever occurring.

There are no written records of Kerry's magical first Purple Heart on file at the Naval Historical Center in Washington, the nation's primary repository for such documentation. A Purple Heart normally is not requested but is awarded de facto for a wound inflicted by the enemy - a wound serious enough to require medical attention. The Naval Historical Center keeps all documents connected to such awards to U.S. Navy and Marine personnel. These typewritten "casualty cards" list the date, location and prognosis of the wound for which the Purple Heart is given, and they are produced by the medical facility that provides treatment for the combat wound at the hands of the enemy. There are two such cards for Kerry - for his slight wounds on Feb. 20 and March 13, 1969, but none for his December 1968 claim.

After receiving a Purple Heart for the March 13 scratch and bruise, Kerry sought an early pass out of combat duty, invoking the informal Navy "instruction" known as 1300.39. According to the Boston Globe, 1300.39 meant an officer could request a reassignment from his superior officer after receiving three Purple Hearts. The instruction states that, rather than being automatic, the reassignment would "be determined after consideration of his physical classification for duty and on an individual basis." Of the 138 servicemen and officers in Kerry's unit who received Purple Hearts during the time he was there, records indicate only two received more than two. These were Lt.(jg) Jim Galvin and a boatswain's mate named Stevens. When Insight reached Galvin he said all three of his Purple Hearts were the result of shrapnel or glass shards. Such minor injuries were common on PCF boats with their glass windows and thin metal hulls, and, like Kerry's, Galvin's injuries were not serious enough to take him out of combat for more than a few days.

Unlike Kerry, Galvin elected to stay with his men. Indeed, though a professional Navy officer, he never had heard of instruction 1300.39. It was not until early April of 1969, when Galvin noticed that Kerry was preparing to leave the officers' barracks at An Thoi that he learned about "three Purple Hearts and you're out." According to Galvin, it was Kerry who told him, "There's a rule that gets you out of here and I'm getting out. You ought to do the same." Galvin remembers, "He seemed to take care of everything pretty quickly," because that was the last time Galvin saw Kerry in Vietnam.

The three-times wounded Galvin stayed with his men, transferred to Cam Ranh Bay to get them a respite from the dicey Mekong Delta, and eventually left the swiftboats for destroyer school.

Insight: contacted many men who served in Coastal Division at the same time Kerry did to ask if any of them had heard of anyone leaving the combat zone by invoking three minor wounds. Of the 12 who replied, none had heard of anyone doing so but John Kerry."

Less than a month after having claimed three wounds for which he lost no more than a total of two days of duty, Kerry reported as an aide to a navy yard admiral in Brooklyn, New York, leaving his crew in Vietnam. Two years later, preparing for a congressional race in a left-wing Massachusetts district - where the seat eventually was won by the even more radical Rev. Robert Drinan - Kerry was working with Maoists and other radicals in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, saying of those he left behind who were being killed and wounded for real that they were committing crimes "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels."

Indeed, Kerry said, he knew men who in Vietnam "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside." Addressing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, about these and other alleged war crimes, he called on the United States to pay "extensive reparations

How Bush Could Have Prevented the 9/11 Attacks
NewsMax.com: Inside Cover StoryReprinted from NewsMax.com
Sunday, April 11, 2004 3:03 p.m. EDT

A handful of Sept. 11 widows are outraged that President Bush didn't act on the Aug. 6, 2001, briefing he got from the CIA.

"Everything is in [the President's Daily Brief, or PDB] but the date 9/11," complained Lori Van Auken, whose husband died in the Twin Towers, in comments to the New York Daily News. "You have the who, what, where, why and how. The only thing you don't have is the when."

Actually, as far as the "who" goes, none of the hijackers' names appear in the Bush CIA briefing memo.

And the "what"? Nowhere does the memo warn that hijackers would use airplanes as kamikaze missiles.

"Where"? The memo mentions "federal buildings in New York." But Bush could have closed every one of them and the World Trade Center, which is not a federal building, would have still been packed with 50,000 workers on the morning of 9/11.

How about the "why" cited by Mrs. Van Auken? The CIA briefing says that "after US missile strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Ladin told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington." But those attacks were launched by President Clinton, not Bush.

And the "how"? The memo makes no mention of hijackers overtaking U.S. flight crews with small knives.

Of course, if President Bush had treated the Aug. 6 PDB as actionable intelligence, there are indeed several measures he could have taken that would have guaranteed that a Sept. 11-style attack on America would never have happened.

* Because the CIA memo mentions only Osama bin Laden by name, Bush would have had to round up any and all of bin Laden's potential followers inside the U.S., i.e., every Muslim in America, and throw them into internment camps - just as FDR did with Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor.

* Since reporters have been able to sneak any number of weapons past airport screeners even with post-9/11 security measures in place, President Bush would have had to close all of America's airports to completely eliminate the possibility of hijackings.

* In order to protect against another Millennium Plot bombing attack -which the memo explicitly refers to - Bush would have had to order that all shopping malls, schools, museums, movie theaters, train stations, large office buildings and other potential high-value targets be closed till further notice.

* Because Millennium Plot potential bomber Ahmed Ressam tried to sneak across the Canadian border, Bush would have had to seal both the Canadian and Mexican borders until the war on terrorism was won.

* In order to assure the elimination of the bin Laden threat, Bush would have had to launch a pre-9/11 invasion of Afghanistan. If the master terrorist
ran to Pakistan, the U.S. would have needed to invade that country as well. Had Bush taken the above steps, the economy would have been in shambles, the airline industry destroyed, most of the nation unemployed, the U.S. at war, and 6 million Muslims - nearly all of them innocent - would be behind bars.

But the Sept. 11 attacks would have been prevented - at least for the few months that it would have taken for the Congress to impeach and remove President Bush from office for massive abuses of power.


JOHN KERRY, WAR HERO?
Thu Apr 15, 3:32 AM ET  Add Op/Ed - New York Post to My Yahoo!
Presumptive Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry has never been forthcoming about how he earned three Purple Heart medals in Vietnam - and the reason for his reticence appears now to be coming clear.
At least the first of the decorations - awarded for wounds suffered in combat - was received in circumstances that can best be described as dubious.
Kerry's commanding officer at the time, retired Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, told The Boston Globe that Kerry basically awarded himself a Purple Heart after receiving a superficial scratch in what Hibbard said was not even a firefight.
Kerry had volunteered for river patrol duty late in 1968.
He and his crew saw some Vietnamese running from a boat onto the beach, opened fire on them and then pulled out - apparently without taking return fire.
When the boat was safely back at base, Kerry "had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," Hibbard said Tuesday.
Though Hibbard says he did not want to give in to Kerry's insistence that he be considered for a Purple Heart - "I don't think he deserved one," Hibbard told The Post yesterday - he eventually did so.
It's not hard to imagine why.
Even then, Kerry had strong ties to the Kennedy machine in Massachusetts (Bobby Kennedy speechwriter Adam Walinsky wrote Kerry's famous 1971 anti-war Washington speech).
And the future commander-in-chief-wannabe certainly would have known that - under Pentagon (news - web sites) rules then in effect - three Purple Hearts guaranteed him an early exit from the war.
One down, two to go? Seems so.
Kerry did leave Vietnam six months ahead of schedule - thanks to those Purple Hearts.
And he refuses to make public the detailed medical-treatment records relating to his wound - none of which, significantly, took him out of service for more than a day or two.
As noted, they did get him out of Vietnam - he won a cushy billet as an aide to an admiral. Presently he was out of the Navy altogether - also ahead of schedule - and free to begin his political career as an anti-war activist.
Yesterday, in response to questions about Kerry's Purple Heart, campaign aides released a document stating that Kerry received treatment for a wound suffered on Dec. 2, 1968.
Whether he required surgery or stitches - or even a Band-Aid - isn't specified.
And Hibbard told a reporter that the supposed wound resembled a scrape from a fingernail: "I've had thorns from a rose that were worse," he said.

Kerry wouldn't be the first to fabricate a combat decoration - if, in fact, that's what happened a long time ago.
But Kerry has forged a war-hero persona of particular relevance as he seeks to become a war-time president - in the here and now.
While other young Americans are earning Purple Hearts of their own, in Iraq (news - web sites) and elsewhere around the world.
So it is time for Kerry to come clean.
He needs to authorize the release of all relevant medical records for each of his three Purple Hearts.
If Kerry's medals were deserved, he has nothing to fear.
If not - well, it's time to find that out.


Purple Hearts: Three and Out
By Stephen Crump

Democratic presidential nominee in waiting Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) frequently speaks of courage, brotherhood and responsibility when he mentions his brief service in Vietnam. He took Super-8 home movies there in which he staged heroics in full-battle dress, so that later he might use them for campaign ads. Kerry has made so much of his Vietnam medals which he once pretended to throw away that critics have begun to wonder why he has been so cagey about the dubious circumstances surrounding the Purple Hearts that got him out of Vietnam after only four months of combat service. Under the rules, a serviceman had to be awarded three Purple Hearts to apply to go home. Not one or two, but three. And, say critics, there's the rub.

Kerry, who piloted Patrol Crafts Fast (PCFs) as a young Lt.(jg) in the Vietnam War, has always made much of those Purple Hearts. An award often pinned on the pillow of a combat warrior so badly wounded that he cannot sit up to receive it, the Purple Heart recognizes the sacrifices of combat when a soldier or officer has sustained a wound "from an outside force or agent" and received treatment from a medical officer. The records for such treatment "must have been made a matter of official record," according to the military definition of the award.

According to Kerry's own description in Douglas Brinkley's Tour of Duty, the Dec. 2, 1968, mission behind what he has claimed to be his first Purple Heart was "a half-assed action that hardly qualified as combat." Indeed. Kerry was stationed with Coastal Division 14 at Cam Ranh Bay. At that time he piloted a small foam-filled boat, known as a Boston Whaler, with two enlisted men in the darkness of early morning. The intent, apparently, was to patrol an area that was known for contraband trafficking, but it was an undocumented mission. Upon approaching the objective point, the crew noticed a sampan crossing the river. As it pulled to shore, Kerry and his little team opened fire, destroying the boat and whatever its cargo might have been.

In the confusion, Kerry claims to have received a "stinging piece of heat" in the arm, the result of a tiny piece of shrapnel. He was not incapacitated and continued with regular swiftboat-patrol duty. William Shachte, who oversaw this ad hoc mission, was quoted by the Boston Globe as saying Kerry's injury, from whatever source, "was not a serious wound at all."

But Kerry met with his immediate superior officer, Lt.Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, the next morning and requested a Purple Heart for his wound. Hibbard recalls that Kerry had a "minor scratch" on his arm and was holding in his hand what appeared to be a fragment of a U.S. M-79 grenade, the shrapnel that had caused the wound. "They didn't receive enemy fire," Hibbard tells Insight. Since this was an essential requirement for the award, the commander rejected Kerry's request. Hibbard does not remember that Kerry received medical attention of any kind and confirms that no one else on the mission suffered any injuries.

Shortly thereafter, Kerry was transferred to Coastal Division 11 at An Thoi. Apparently, Kerry petitioned to have his Purple Heart request reconsidered. Hibbard remembers getting correspondence from Kerry's new division, asking for his approval. In the hurried process of moving to a new command himself, Hibbard thinks he might have signed off on the award. If so, "it was to my chagrin," Hibbard remembers. Kerry's second commander, Lt.Cmdr. G.M. Elliott, says he has no recollection of such an event ever occurring.

There are no written records of Kerry's magical first Purple Heart on file at the Naval Historical Center in Washington, the nation's primary repository for such documentation. A Purple Heart normally is not requested but is awarded de facto for a wound inflicted by the enemy - a wound serious enough to require medical attention. The Naval Historical Center keeps all documents connected to such awards to U.S. Navy and Marine personnel. These typewritten "casualty cards" list the date, location and prognosis of the wound for which the Purple Heart is given, and they are produced by the medical facility that provides treatment for the combat wound at the hands of the enemy. There are two such cards for Kerry - for his slight wounds on Feb. 20 and March 13, 1969, but none for his December 1968 claim.

After receiving a Purple Heart for the March 13 scratch and bruise, Kerry sought an early pass out of combat duty, invoking the informal Navy "instruction" known as 1300.39. According to the Boston Globe, 1300.39 meant an officer could request a reassignment from his superior officer after receiving three Purple Hearts. The instruction states that, rather than being automatic, the reassignment would "be determined after consideration of his physical classification for duty and on an individual basis." Of the 138 servicemen and officers in Kerry's unit who received Purple Hearts during the time he was there, records indicate only two received more than two. These were Lt.(jg) Jim Galvin and a boatswain's mate named Stevens. When Insight reached Galvin he said all three of his Purple Hearts were the result of shrapnel or glass shards. Such minor injuries were common on PCF boats with their glass windows and thin metal hulls, and, like Kerry's, Galvin's injuries were not serious enough to take him out of combat for more than a few days.

Unlike Kerry, Galvin elected to stay with his men. Indeed, though a professional Navy officer, he never had heard of instruction 1300.39. It was not until early April of 1969, when Galvin noticed that Kerry was preparing to leave the officers' barracks at An Thoi that he learned about "three Purple Hearts and you're out." According to Galvin, it was Kerry who told him, "There's a rule that gets you out of here and I'm getting out. You ought to do the same." Galvin remembers, "He seemed to take care of everything pretty quickly," because that was the last time Galvin saw Kerry in Vietnam.

The three-times wounded Galvin stayed with his men, transferred to Cam Ranh Bay to get them a respite from the dicey Mekong Delta, and eventually left the swiftboats for destroyer school.

Insight: contacted many men who served in Coastal Division at the same time Kerry did to ask if any of them had heard of anyone leaving the combat zone by invoking three minor wounds. Of the 12 who replied, none had heard of anyone doing so but John Kerry."

Less than a month after having claimed three wounds for which he lost no more than a total of two days of duty, Kerry reported as an aide to a navy yard admiral in Brooklyn, New York, leaving his crew in Vietnam. Two years later, preparing for a congressional race in a left-wing Massachusetts district - where the seat eventually was won by the even more radical Rev. Robert Drinan - Kerry was working with Maoists and other radicals in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, saying of those he left behind who were being killed and wounded for real that they were committing crimes "on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels."

Indeed, Kerry said, he knew men who in Vietnam "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside." Addressing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, about these and other alleged war crimes, he called on the United States to pay "extensive reparations."




Wednesday, April 14, 2004 10:31 a.m. EDT
Kerry's War Wound Called 'Fingernail Scrape'
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry insisted on being awarded his first Purple Heart in Vietnam even though his injury amounted to no more than a "fingernail scrape," his commanding officer at the time now says.
Retired Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard tells the Boston Globe that he can still recall Kerry's wound, and that "it resembled a scrape from a fingernail," the paper said.
"I've had thorns from a rose that were worse," Hibbard insists.
Still, the former Navy man remembered that Kerry insisted on receiving a Purple Heart for the wound he said was incurred during a Dec. 3, 1968 skirmish with Viet Cong near Cam Ranh Bay.
"He had a little scratch on his forearm, and he was holding a piece of shrapnel," Hibbard told the Globe. "People in the office were saying, 'I don't think we got any fire,' and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm."
Much to Hibbard's chagrin, Kerry persisted in his quest for a war decoration for the scratch.
"I finally said, 'OK, if that's what happened ... do whatever you want,'" Hibbard said. "After that, I don't know what happened. Obviously, he got it, I don't know how."
Kerry's campaign refused to say whether he remains certain that his skimmer boat had come under fire or whether he recalls his superior officer raising doubts about whether he was entitled to the Purple Heart.
While a Kerry aide provided a copy of a medical report showing treatment for the wound in question, The Naval Historical Center "could not locate a copy of the original card for the incident," the Globe said.
Kerry was awarded two additional Purple Hearts for subsequent wounds that have also been described as minor. He then invoked a little-used regulation that entitled a triple Purple Heart winner to return to the United States.
Former Sen. Max Cleland, a Kerry supporter who lost three limbs in Vietnam, was never awarded a Purple Heart.

April 14, 2004, 8:41 a.m.
OFFICIAL 2004 DNC CONVENTION PROGRAM
 6:00pm - Opening flag burning ceremony.
 6:30pm - Anti-war rally no. 1.
 6:40pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
 7:00pm - Tribute theme to France.
 7:10pm - Collect offerings for al-Zawahri defense fund.
 7:20pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast
 7:25pm - Tribute theme to Spain.
 7:45pm - Anti-war rally no. 2. (Moderated by Michael Moore)
 8:00pm - John Kerry presents one side of the issues
 8:25pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
 8:30pm - Terrorist appeasement workshop.
 9:00pm - Gay marriage ceremony.
 9:30pm - * Intermission *
 10:00pm - Flag burning ceremony no. 2.
 10:15pm - Re-enactment of Kerry's fake medal toss.
 10:30pm - Cameo by Dean 'Yeeearrrrrrrg!'
 10:40pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
 10:50pm - Pledge of allegiance to the UN.
 11:00pm - Double gay marriage ceremony.
 11:15pm - Maximizing Welfare workshop.
 11:20pm - John Kerry presents the other side of the issues
 11:30pm - 'Free Saddam' pep rally.
 11:59pm - Ted Kennedy proposes a toast.
 12:00am - Nomination of Democrat candidate

John Kerry And The Jews: The Problem Is His Party
Posted 4/14/2004
By Alan Skorski
There have been numerous articles written about John Kerry and the Jews.
The problem is, it’s not about just one person — John Kerry or anybody else. It’s about John Kerry, the Democratic party, Europe, and the Jews.

For many Jews, or at least those Jews for whom Israel’s security is paramount, the alarm bells rang and the red flags went up when they heard presidential candidate Howard Dean take the position, during the Democratic primaries, that the U.S. should play a more even-handed role in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Of course, the reason supporters of Israel reacted as strongly as they did was that at the time he made those comments, Dean was well ahead of the pack of
Democrats seeking the nomination. There was hardly a peep from anyone when Al Sharpton called for negotiations with Hamas.

The greater cause for alarm among Jews should have been the reckless attacks on President Bush from the mainstream Democratic candidates, who lambasted the president for being “miserable failure” who’s “alienated our friends.”

What was the “miserable failure?” What “friends” did we alienate?

In the recent Spanish election, voters sent a clear message to Al Qaeda, Bin Laden, Hamas, and the rest of the international evil-doers: “Don’t attack us, and we
won’t tell you whom you can or can’t terrorize.”

For many of us, the victory in Spain of a socialist — a socialist who vowed to remove Spanish troops from Iraq — was a blow to our morale. For those of us who are fully behind our president in fighting the war on terror, it is not easy watching our allies pull back or have second thoughts about their commitment to unite behind us as we fight one of the most evil enemies civilization has ever faced.

Late last month, yet another message to the terrorists was sent by those allies whose “good will we squandered,” at least according to the Democrats. After Israel sent Hamas founder and leader Sheikh Yassin to his paradise of 72 virgins, the European Union and other countries condemned Israel for “violating international law,” among other things.

When America was attacked on 9/11, we seemed to have the support and “good will” of the world. But our “friends” supported our right to hunt down Bin Laden only as long as we limited our hunt to Afghanistan.

Israel is victimized on a regular basis: Homicide bombers kill Jews on buses, cafes, hotels, discos, et al. Despite enduring relentless attacks, Israel still can’t engender any of the “good will” that Democrats love to talk about. Israel and Jews worldwide know this and have, to some extent, come to accept it.

What Jews and supporters of Israel do not have to come to grips with or accept is the worldview of the Democratic party, particularly as it relates to Israel. John Kerry’s flip-flops on Israel should come as no surprise to anyone. He appeases Arab voters in Detroit because he needs the support of an ever-growing population in a state that can go either way. In New York, meanwhile, because he needs Jewish money, he tells Jewish leaders what they want to hear about Israel’s right to defend itself.

As to which John Kerry we should believe on Israel, just look at whom he wants to deal with when it comes to defending his own country. If Kerry truly believes that America would be safer entrusting its security needs to a corrupt and inept United Nations — an institution dominated by Third World and rogue nations, then what hope is there for Israel, which is reviled and the constant subject of condemnation in that very world body?

If John Kerry and the Democratic party believe that the United States under President Bush “squandered” our good will with France and other European nations (and that only they — the Democrats — are in a position to mend old wounds), what will happen to Israel when there is no “good will” emanating from the EU?

The threat to Israel comes not from John Kerry alone, but from those in his party like Ted Kennedy, who led the fight against President Bush’s nomination of Daniel Pipes to the Institute for Peace, and from those countries that believe Israel’s acts of self-defense violate international law but barely raise a peep when Israelis are blown up.

John Kerry’s Bright Financial Picture
The candidate profits from the sale of a 17th-century artwork.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's largest single source of income in 2003 came from the sale of his half-interest in a painting by a 17th-century Dutch artist, according to tax returns released Tuesday by the Kerry campaign.

Kerry's 2003 return shows that he received $175,000 as his part from the sale of a work by the 17th-century Dutch seascape painter Adam Willaerts.

Kerry's Senate salary for 2003 was $147,818.

The return says Kerry acquired his half of the painting for $500,000 in May 1996 and sold his portion in March 2003 for $675,000.

In 1996, the year he acquired his half of the $1,000,000 picture, Kerry reported a total income of $143,795.

The return does not say who owned the other half of the painting, which sold in 2003 for a total of $1,350,000, but it was presumably Kerry's multimillionaire heiress wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry. The two file separate tax returns, and the campaign did not release any information about Mrs. Kerry's income or taxes.

Kerry also reported $89,220 in royalties from his campaign autobiography, A Call to Service: My Vision for a Better America, published last October by Viking Press.

In all, taking into account losses from investments, Kerry reported a total 2003 income of $395,338. His total federal tax bill was $90,575. He had $27,277 of that withheld from his paychecks and paid the rest, $63,298, with his tax return.

Kerry reported giving $43,735, or about 11 percent of his total income, to charity. That significant level of giving stands in contrast to his record in the 1990s, in which the issue of the senator's charitable contributions was a source of controversy. In 1995, Kerry reportedly had a taxable income of $126,179, and made charitable contributions of $0. In 1994, he gave $2,039 to charity. In 1993, the figure was $175. In 1992, it was $820, and in 1991, it was $0.

Kerry's 2003 return illustrates the extent to which Kerry's lifestyle is subsidized by his wife. Apart from the income from the painting, Kerry's Senate salary would not be enough to pay the property taxes on the several residences they own.

In addition to his 2003 returns, Kerry also released federal tax returns from the years 1999 to 2002 yesterday. There has been some dispute about returns for those years. Kerry has claimed that he had already released the returns — in January of this year, he said, " I released all my tax returns for 20 years. I have never not released my tax returns throughout my political career." But aside from releasing details from his 2002 taxes — which showed a total income of $144,091 — it is not clear that Kerry has ever made public his returns from 1999 or 2000 or 2001 before now.


The Other Rich Mrs. Kerry

BY JOSEPH CURL

Everyone's had a little time to catch up with Teresa Heinz, but few know much about the first Mrs. John F. Kerry or the campaign issue that could reprise last election's undercurrent of marital fidelity and spousal adoration (think Al and Tipper Gore in that lengthy lascivious liplock).

While President Bush coos over Laura, the first lady and constant wife, in every speech, his opponent traded in one multimillionaire wife-in the throes of a dark clinical depression-for another deep-pocketed woman, and then had the Roman Catholic Church annul his 18-year first marriage, throwing the couple's two children into a murky realm of illegitimacy.

The top echelon of the Bush-Cheney '04 campaign likely will not play the annulment card, but less scrupulous surrogates almost certainly will sneak out the information, especially as the GOP ticket struggles to lock down social conservatives, including the 4 million evangelical Christians who skipped a trip to their polling precincts in 2000.

Don't look for info about wife No. 1 on johnkerry.com-it isn't there (although Kerry in the first paragraph mentions his strong Catholic faith). But there's the skinny: Kerry proposed to Julia Stimson Thorne just days before he shipped out to Vietnam, and they wed in a Catholic church upon his return in 1970. Both were 26.

Thorne, like nearly all of the woman who have been courted or married by Kerry, comes from big, old money. Her grandfather bought the island of Hilton Head off the coast of South Carolina during the Depression for use as a personal game preserve.

Along with a hefty pocketbook (one estimate put the Thorne family's fortune at $300 million), Kerry also brought more pedigree-Thorne is a direct descendent of George Washington, with relatives that include Henry Stimson, the secretary of state under President Hoover and secretary of war under Presidents Roosevelt and Truman. (Kerry's mother's ancestors include the first governor of Colonial Massachusetts. And Kerry had rich relatives, the Forbeses, who put him through top boarding schools and Yale, giving him his taste of high living, which he has since found unquenchable.)

The couple had two daughters, Alexandra in 1973 and Vanessa in 1976, but all was not bliss in the Kerry mansions. They separated in 1982 (when Kerry was Massachusetts lieutenant governor), with Thorne in the depths of a severe depression and on the brink of suicide, which she blamed on her husband's cold and distant nature, his long absences, and his fierce ambition (which she was bankrolling). The separation came as Kerry was mulling a bid to run for the Senate seat vacated by Paul Tsongas in 1984; Thorne said she still associates politics "only with anger, fear, and loneliness." In 1988, the final divorce went through (she later wrote a self-help manual, "A Change Of Heart," designed to help other unhappily married couples; in the book, she called her relationship with Kerry a "suffocating marriage.")

For the next few years, Kerry sowed his newly freed oats with Emma Gilbey of gin fame and money and now married to Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times. He also dallied with Catherine Oxenberg, an actress and member of the Yugoslav Royal Family; actress Morgan Fairchild, who now stars in those annoying "Old Navy" commercials; Patti Davis, Ronald Reagan's daughter; sizzling redhead Dana Delaney of "China Beach" fame; and Michelle Phillips of The Mamas and The Papas.

"Finally, a Democratic presidential candidate with good taste in women," Jay Leno said last month, goofing on former President Clinton's proclivity for affairs with showy, big-haired and mostly unattractive consorts.

When advisers told Kerry to cool it with the hotties, he set his sights on the Mozambique-born Teresa Heinz, whose first husband, John, a Republican, died in a plane crash in 1991. Kerry and Heinz had met at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janiero and he escorted Heinz, a devout Catholic, to Mass. He found her "very earthy, sexy"-and very rich, with estimates topping $500 million. They married in 1995.

The first Mrs. Kerry filed papers the following year seeking more child support. Kerry interpreted the move as vindictive and fired back: he asked the Catholic Church to formally annul his failed marriage. He didn't even tell her; the church sent her a letter in November 1996 (some say Kerry filed for the annulment because Heinz is a devout Catholic who wanted to participate fully in church ceremonies; others say it was retaliatory).

Thorne, who had emerged from her depression, shot a letter to the church-along with a copy to a Boston newspaper. In vivid language, she said that, as the mother of Kerry's two children, she would not cooperate with a policy that was "hypocritical, antifamily and dishonest."

Kerry, who says on his Web page that he "was raised in the Catholic faith and continues to be an active member of the Catholic Church," joked about the annulment in 1997 on a radio show, saying "75 percent of all the annulments in the world take place in the United States, and I guess the figure drops to 50 percent if you take out all Massachusetts politicians." At the time, Rep. Joseph P. Kennedy II and his former wife, Sheila Rauch Kennedy were in the throes of a very messy and very public annulment. The scandal ruined Kennedy's political career. He had planned to seek the Massachusetts governorship, but bailed after his ex-wife detailed his bid for an annulment. Months later, he announced he would not seek a seventh term in Congress. At the same time, his brother, Michael, who had served as his campaign manager, was mired in his own scandal over an affair with an underage babysitter.

While Mrs. Kennedy vehemently fought the annulment, Thorne, after expressing her displeasure with the church, acquiesced to her ex-husband's wishes. Still, she was not too happy, telling The Boston Globe in 1997 that the church's approach to her annulment was "disrespectful to me ... aloof to any emotional issues and devoid of any sense of the humanity of what this means to me and my children."

In that letter to The Globe, she wrote that she supports Kerry, his Senate career and his new marriage. Thorne, who now lives with her new husband, architect Richard Charlesworth, in Bozeman, Mont., also reportedly supports his presidential bid this year, but she has so far refused to speak with reporters.

And don't look for her to appear any time soon. Like the last woman connected to Kerry-a former staffer who wound up in Kenya denying an affair with the senator-Thorne plans to move to Italy, where she spent much of her childhood, if the press gets too close.


Outsourcing Woes: John Kerry's Benedict Arnold Myth

April 11, 2004

by Joe Mariani
According to the Liberal school of economic thought, a free market economy is the worst thing for this country. They point to outsourcing of jobs as "proof" that President Bush is somehow a bad President, though it's been happening steadily since the signing of NAFTA by then-President Clinton in 1993. What they refuse to see is that free trade moves jobs both ways, and that the US is actually insourcing" more jobs from other countries than we send overseas... especially those manufacturing jobs that seem to be at the forefront of Democrat hand-wringing during the election campaign.
Even though the US economy is roaring like a river in full spate, the Democrats need to make it seem as though the economy is failing in some way in order to win the 2004 election. All gauges by which the economy can be measured have been indicating for months that everything was moving in the right direction, and that job growth (always the last thing to happen in a recovery) was on the way. The media complained about the "jobless recovery," as though the recovery was somehow over, not in progress. Now jobs have been created at a rate even the Left can't ignore -- 308,000 new jobs in March 2004 alone, and 205,000 during January and February (nearly double the original estimates). The Democrats have switched their arguments from "no jobs have been created" to "jobs are being sent overseas" and "the only jobs in America are burger-flipping." Read On


John Kerry's 'Tax the Rich' Mantra Won't Get the Jobs Done

By Amity Shlaes, New York-based Amity Shlaes is a senior columnist for the Financial Times.

George W. Bush has a war, and now John F. Kerry has one too — a class war. At Georgetown University this month, Kerry opened fire when he vowed to raise taxes on the top 2% of earners while cutting taxes on the other 98%. The idea is not only to create jobs — Kerry says he can get 10 million — but to create economic opportunity. Kerry wants to plow through class barriers like an Abrams tank. Or, as he put it, to reclaim America on behalf of those who seek "paths to a better life."

Will it work? A short review of the program suggests otherwise.

Start with the Kerry plan for corporations. He says he wants to give advantages to firms that keep jobs at home. His critics have called Kerry inconsistent for bashing outsourcing even though his wife, Teresa, holds a great deal of stock in an international company, H.J. Heinz Co. But what is really important about the corporate tax plan is the way it shows that Kerry believes tax protectionism, rather than a free market, yields growth. (This position is so strange that the only other recent candidate to espouse it was Pat Buchanan — not someone, one suspects, whom Kerry wants to be compared with.)

On the personal side, Kerry would increase the top marginal tax rate on the highest earners, moving it from 35% up to the 39.6% rate set by President Clinton. This is where class war comes in. It's about reversing the work of President Bush, of course. But there is another factor driving Kerry here: The top-bracket crowd is an easy mark.

Back in, say, the late 1970s, raising taxes on high earners would have been a challenge. In those days, inflation blew millions of households, many of them firmly middle class, into the 30% tax range or higher. These people were so disgruntled that they launched that decade's tax revolts. And they voted. Most politicians understood that antagonizing a million Howard Jarvises was not a good idea.

Today, however, it is a different story. There is little inflation. Brackets are indexed. To get to the top bracket, if you are a married couple, you have to have taxable income of $311,000. Even in the U.S., there are very few households that actually pay the statutory top marginal rate. So few that they probably couldn't turn any state but Florida. Attacking them is a no-brainer.

Kerry tends to portray high earners as bad guys, the unproductive leisure class. Coming from a man as wealthy as he is, this is a little weird, but never mind.

Sure, there are year-round snowboarders among the high earners. But a typical "top 2%" household could be two immigrants, an oral surgeon and a dentist, say, with three children. They live in San Francisco, or Chicago — someplace where costs are so high that dollars are worth less. They don't feel rich.

What's more, they are incredibly hard workers. They have high incomes because they structure their businesses — sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc. — so that profits flow directly to them. They are part of the famous small-business crowd that creates three-quarters of the new jobs in this country. Imposing new taxes on them is counterproductive, if one of your goals is job creation.

It is also cruel because, as a group, high earners already shoulder one of the heaviest tax burdens in history. The latest Congressional Budget Office study shows that the top 5% of earners pay more than half the income tax.

Kerry would counter that the tax-distribution table changes when you include Social Security payments as taxes. But even so, the top 10% of earners pay half the taxes.

His defense overall would be that "this worked for Bill Clinton." But that assumes that the 1990s can return. Yet as Kerry has noted, the U.S. now outsources, among other differences. Higher taxes at home will discourage start-ups here and create them in Shanghai. So much for 10 million new American jobs.

Pundits tend to talk about Kerry's tax plan in terms of the politics, and what it means to Bush. But the substance matters as well. The Kerry plan holds back the strivers — the people who inspire the rest of us by showing that class matters less than merit.

So even as he talks of breaking down class walls, Kerry is reinforcing those walls. Even as he talks of growth, he is laying plans that would slow it. It doesn't get more inconsistent than that.



U.S. Senator Tells al-Qaeda/Iraq Link
A U.S. senator this week told NewsMax.com's Washington correspondent Wes Vernon of previously overlooked evidence linking al-Qaeda and Iraq.
Testimony going back to months before the war in Iraq shows that the Bush administration had reliable intelligence of the link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden's terrorist network.
That would tend to throw cold water on some of the news reports on the stormy hearings of the 9/11 commission that suggest there was no link between the bloody dictator and the terrorists who later plotted the 9/11 attacks.
Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith told senators in October 2002 that the administration had "solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade."
Under questioning by Sens. Evan Bayh, D-Ind. and Carl Levin, D-Mich., Feith added that credible information indicated that Iraq and al-Qaeda had discussed havens and reciprocal non-aggression.
It was also brought out at the Senate hearing that since the War on Terror began following 9/11, solid evidence had emerged of the presence in Iraq of al-Qaeda members, including some who have been in Baghdad.
It was learned too that al-Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire capabilities for weapons of mass destruction.
The reporting also stated that Iraq had provided training to al-Qaeda members in poisons, gases and the making conventional bombs.
The testimony takes on added significance now in light of election-year carping against the wartime president, especially with the implications or outright claims that there was no link between Saddam and al-Qaeda.

Cavuto Nails Kerry
Three cheers for Fox News Channel's business ace Neil Cavuto.
He's one of the few business journalists this year that has had the brains and backbone to expose the Democrats' hysterical distortions about the U.S. economy.
If you missed Kerry's appearance on Cavuto's program this past week, the Massachusetts Democrat will no doubt be happy.
Kerry tried to turn the show into one of his smug lectures, but Cavuto kept asking those pesky questions.
Peskiest question of all: Why does Kerry keep attacking the 5.7 percent unemployment rate when Bill Clinton was bragging about a similar rate when he began running for re-election in 1994?
The long-faced candidate looked like a moose caught in the headlights. He muttered something about that mean ol' Republicans and the Bush administration's "lack of response" to those unemployed.
Poor Kerry. Despite all his attempts to talk down America's economy, jobless claims this week hit their lowest level in more than three years.
If the good news keeps continuing, so will the demand for Botox in certain Democrat circles.

Vietnam Veteran's Wife Gives John Kerry a Piece of Her Mind

Posted by Jean Shaw
Monday, April 12, 2004
Vietnam veteran's wife Annette Hall sent the following letter to Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry, defending her husband's honor and questioning Kerry's own record in Vietnam.

Dear Mr. Kerry,
I first sent this letter to you on April 1, 2004, in an e-mail message to: info@johnkerry.com. I have received no reply or acknowledgement. I believe I deserve a response.

I am the wife of a Vietnam veteran who fought honorably in Vietnam in 1967-68, first in the 173rd Airborne Brigade, then as a combat team leader in Company F, 51st Long Range Patrol (Airborne) Infantry. My husband did not murder any innocents or commit any of the atrocities that you accused him of with your broad-brush defamation and vilification of all Vietnam veterans, during in the communist-inspired propaganda testimony you gave before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971.
I am horrified at the thought of you being this country's next president, which would be the ultimate slap in the face to millions of honorable Vietnam veterans and their families. Therefore, I am doing everything in my power to voice my opinion about your misguided and totally self-serving activities as an anti-war protestor and a political operative. You couldn't have done more damage to my husband, his fellow Vietnam vets, and the country as a whole--let alone the millions of Southeast Asians who died as a result of the success of you and your colleagues' ''anti-war'' activities--than if you had been working directly for the KGB itself!

You were wrong then, and you're wrong now. Your actions over the past thirty plus years, and to this day, tell us that your belief system and ideology haven't changed. You used and abused Vietnam veterans as a tool in the early 1970's to get political power, and you're still doing it. Only, the prize is much, much higher this time.

Can you deny the truth of the following quotes, Mr. Kerry?

Former Romanian general and spy chief Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to defect from the Soviet bloc, described Kerry's testimony as sounding ''exactly like the disinformation line that the Soviets were sowing worldwide throughout the Vietnam era. KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility. One of its favorite tools was the fabrication of such evidence as photographs and 'news reports' about invented American war atrocities.'' As the leader of this effort, General Pacepa ''produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements throughout Europe.'' KGB chairman Yuri Andropov, who managed the anti-Vietnam War operation, described the Vietnam disinformation campaign to Pacepa as ''our most significant success.''
I request that you release the medical records and award citations pertaining to the wounds you suffered in Vietnam that earned you three Purple Hearts, so that I, and the rest of the American people, can read the details ourselves. We would also like to see copies of your Officer's Fitness Reports and the rest of the personal military records that document your specific service in the Navy. Those records exist and will give evidence as to your fitness for any type of high-level leadership role, especially that of Commander-in-Chief. If you refuse to release these records to the public, it says to me that you have something to hide, plain and simple. Any valorous combat soldier would have no problem releasing such records, especially one who desired to be the next President of the United States of America.
I implore you, release those records, Mr. Kerry. I would very much like to read them, and so would every other voter in this country, including your supporters. Don't just talk about your service in Vietnam, Mr. Kerry, show us the written records! Prove to us that you are truly qualified to be the next Commander-in-Chief, especially at a time when the very survival of our country as a free, autonomous, sovereign nation is at stake.

Sincerely,
A concerned voter, and the wife of a Vietnam veteran
Annette R. Hall, Redmond, WA


Is Kerry Inept or ignorant?
(Note: I'd say he's both, has been for the past 30+years-RLNoe)
From: FOODOGU
The Washington Times
April 7, 2004

The Democratic Party, which gave America the proud legacies of men like Harry Truman and Henry "Scoop" Jackson, is poised to nominate for president a man who either doesn't understand the struggle against radical Islam or blindly went trolling for votes from a radical Islamic organization.

In December, when John Kerry was badly trailing Howard Dean, the Massachusetts senator spoke at the annual convention of the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), an anti-Semitic organization that has defended infamous terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah. Addressing the Long Beach, Calif., audience by phone, Mr. Kerry told the crowd that he "really want to earn support of Muslim leaders across the United States." Mr. Kerry appealed to the crowd by strongly implying that the Bush administration is not protecting the First Amendment rights of Muslims. "I believe this administration is moving our country in a radically wrong direction and is cynically exploiting people in the country and has forgotten some of the heart of the Constitution of the United States of America," he said during his speech.

Mr. Kerry's words, though not justified by facts or any reasonable interpretation of reality, are not the primary problem. His willingness to address the group in the first place is. No presidential candidate should lend legitimacy to a group with MPAC's track record.

On the day of the September 11 attacks, MPAC's executive director and co-founder, Salam Al-Marayati, wasted no time launching into an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory, saying on KCRW-FM's "Which Way, L.A.?" program that "we should put the state of Israel on the suspect list." MPAC has also defended the actions of terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. Mr. Al-Marayati, at a speech at the University of Pennsylvania in 1997, lauded Hamas' "social and educational operations" and downplayed what he called "its quote unquote military operations." In a 1998 speech at the National Press Club, MPAC Senior Adviser Maher Hathout claimed that Hezbollah merely fights for the "American values" of "freedom and liberty."

It's possible, of course, that Mr. Kerry's campaign had no idea about the true nature of MPAC. But given the group's notoriety, particularly among many in Los Angeles, how could the Kerry staff have been so careless?

The other alternative is far worse. We don't suspect that Mr. Kerry shares any of MPAC's repugnant views. But knowing the ugly truth about MPAC and speaking there anyway would not be much better. We hope for Mr. Kerry's sake that his campaign staff were simply completely inept.

John Kerry's Trail of Treachery

By WinterSoldier.com
WinterSoldier.com | April 8, 2004
March 8, 1965 -- The first Stockholm Conference on Vietnam is held in Stockholm, Sweden. The conference is the creation of Romesh Chandra, chairman of the KGB-funded World Peace Council. Former Soviet bloc spy chief Ion Mihai Pacepa will later describe it as "a permanent international organization to aid or to conduct operations to help Americans dodge the draft or defect, to demoralize its army with anti-American propaganda, to conduct protests, demonstrations, and boycotts, and to sanction anyone connected with the war." The operation is staffed by undercover intelligence officers and funded to the tune of about $15 million per year by the Communist Party. Between 1966 and 1972 it will generate what Pacepa describes as "thousands of 'documentary' materials printed in all the major Western languages describing the 'abominable crimes' committed by American soldiers against civilians in Vietnam, along with counterfeited pictures."  Read On

Kerry: Terrorist Shiite Al-Sadr 'A Legitimate Voice'
In an interview broadcast Wednesday morning, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry defended terrorist Shiite imam Muqtada al-Sadr as a "legitimate voice" in Iraq, despite that fact that he's led an uprising that has killed nearly 20 American GIs in the last two days.

Speaking of al-Sadr's newspaper, which was shut down by coalition forces last week after it urged violence against U.S. troops, Kerry complained to National Public Radio, "They shut a newspaper that belongs to a legitimate voice in Iraq."

In the next breath, however, the White House hopeful caught himself and quickly changed direction, adding, "Well, let me . . . change the term legitimate. It belongs to a voice - because he has clearly taken on a far more radical tone in recent days and aligned himself with both Hamas and Hezbollah, which is a sort of terrorist alignment."
But Kerry again seemed to voice sympathy for the Shiite terrorist when asked whether he supported al Sadr's arrest. "Not if it’s an isolated act without the other kinds of steps necessary to change the dynamics on the ground in Iraq," Kerry told NPR, in quotes first reported by the New York Sun.

"If all we do is make war against the Iraqi people and continue an American occupation, fundamentally, without a clarity as to who and how sovereignty is being turned over, we have a very serious problem for the long run here," Kerry added. "And I think this administration is just walking dead center down into that trap."

On March 28, the U.S.-led coalition authorities closed al-Sadr's newspaper, al-Hawza, for 60 days, the Sun reported. L. Paul Bremer, the chief U.S. administrator in Iraq, charged that said the newspaper had published false stories blaming the coalition forces for local acts of terrorism.

John Kerry’s Propellers
April 8, 2004

by Gary W. Aldrich

Nothing looks sillier than a man wearing a multi-colored beanie with a propeller on top.
Unless, of course, that man stands in a former cornfield surrounded by large propellers on long, metallic stalks. Those noisy, bird-slaying, eye-polluting spinners provide mute evidence to the foolish pseudo-scientific breakthroughs and earth-friendly policy demands the whacko environmentalists force us to accept in the name of their religious cause – worshipping Mother Earth.  Read On

Burkett: Navy Commanders to Cast Doubt on
Kerry's War Record
Several Navy officers who supervised Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry when he commanded a swift boat in Vietnam are preparing to publicly question his war record - including the circumstances under which he was awarded three Purple Hearts - a noted Vietnam War historian revealed this past weekend.

Burkett, whose book, "Stolen Valor," is considered to be the definitive history of of falsified Vietnam War claims, told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg that Kerry's former commanders would allege that the top Democrat's Purple Hearts were awarded for "self-reported injuries that were virtually nonexistent."

Burkett's book was among the first to expose many of the phony claims made by John Kerry about U.S. war atrocities. In "Stolen Valor" Burkett also revealed that Kerry did not discard his war medals, as he claimed in the 1970s.

"He never got a day of treatment, he never spent a day in a medical facility," Burkett said, commenting on Kerry's "wounds."  

"These were all self-reported wounds, which you're going to hear from some swift boat guys in the future as to the nature of those wounds."
Burkett said he had personally spoken to the Navy commanders who were preparing to go public about Kerry's decorations.

"You're going to get quite a showing [of those speaking out]," Burkett told Malzberg. "I don't know [the number] yet. They're trying to get it to be unanimous of every swift boat guy who ever served."
As to the timetable for the upcoming revelations, Burkett said that Kerry's superior officers "were still discussing that."

"You've got some major rallys being planned against John Kerry by Vietnam veterans on the mall, at the convention - this type of thing," he said. "And we're going to make America aware of John Kerry's military record."

Why do you want to be president, John Kerry?
Monday, April 5, 2004 Posted: 2:42 PM EDT (1842 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- You're John Kerry, and you've already pulled off a political semi-miracle. First, you came back from whatever the zip code for oblivion is -- where the polls and wise guys had consigned you and your prospects last December.

Then, defying history, you defeat an opponent who outspent you by millions and win the presidential nomination in a quick, six-week campaign that was anything but the civil war in the leper colony your party's primaries have been notorious for. The results: Your fellow Democrats are overwhelmingly united behind you in your run for the White House.

Now forget all that!

You won the nomination impressively based on two distinctive and closely related strengths that were relevant to Democratic primary voters whose highest priority in 2004 was the defeat of President George W. Bush. Based on your personal biography of heroism in combat in Vietnam, you both met the threshold test for commander in chief and qualified as the "most electable" challenger to Bush in the November general election. All that and three and a half bucks will get you a mocha-something at Starbucks.

You're John Kerry, and you already have locked up the support of everybody who believes that George W. Bush's re-election constitutes a grave threat to the Western and the non-Western World. Forget that.

Where your primary victories misled you and your supporters is that, according to the respected Los Angeles Times poll, when asked whether "I like George W. Bush as a person" or "I don't like George W. Bush as a person," better than two out of three 2004 voters like Bush. Because their choice for president is the most personal vote Americans cast, likeability does matter.

Among the questions only the candidate, himself, can answer are:

1) Why does John Kerry want to be president? Who are the victims of official indifference and injustice President John Kerry will aid? Who are the villains a President Kerry will bring to the bar of justice?

2) What are the three real differences in the lives of real people that John Kerry as president would make ?

3) What is the vision of John Kerry that is grander and larger than our own narrow or parochial perspectives -- the vision that will appeal to the best in all Americans?

In answering these questions, John Kerry must do so without any reference to George W. Bush. Voters want to know who John Kerry is, what makes him go and what John Kerry, if he wins, will do.

The electorate probably already suspects that Kerry thinks Bush is a lousy president, and yes, the 2004 election should be a referendum on the incumbent chief executive.

But Kerry would do well to study the "game films" of the 1980 campaign, when Republican challenger Ronald Reagan refused to simply run against the unpopular incumbent, President Jimmy Carter. Instead, Reagan laid out his plans repeatedly, in specific detail -- double the defense budget, cut taxes by one third and, that's right, balance the federal budget -- so that when the Republican did win, that November, he could legitimately lay claim to a mandate for his program.

What sacrifices would a President Kerry ask of all Americans? The profound lesson from the national tragedy of Vietnam, which George W. Bush either never learned or has chosen to forget, is: An army does not fight a war; a country fights a war. If the country is unwilling to make the collective sacrifices required to wage that war, then it must never send an army into battle.

The message from George W. Bush, War President, to the most fortunate and most privileged of his fellow countrymen -- you will pay no price, you will bear no burden -- is an indictment of failed leadership. But what would John Kerry ask? Does he agree with the conservative writer Michael Barone that, "War demands equality of sacrifice"? The voters need those questions answered, soon.




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,