John Kerry History Page | home
page 4
Click Logo To Go To Registration
No Vote...No Win!
Sept 26
Terrorism solution: 1-way ticket to paradise
By Craig R. Smith
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
"If we stop fighting the terrorists in Iraq, they would be free to plot and plan attacks elsewhere, in America and other free nations."
–GeorgeW. Bush, Sept. 23, 2004
Today the U.S. is either a) witnessing one of the most brilliant military strategies in the war on terror, or b) experiencing yet another example of the "Law of Unintended Consequences."
Whether you're liberal or conservative, Democrat, Republican or Independent, we are all Americans. And as such, we have a common enemy worldwide that we are at war with: terrorism.
They struck hard on 9-11. Some suggest that our "insensitivity" to the plight of the Arab world caused such action. Others say this hatred has been brewing for years, as the Arab world has always hated the West for religious reasons. To me, it is inconsequential because, like it or not, we are now at war!
At first, we weren't clear who the enemy was. Then, as the smoke and debris was cleared from the Pentagon and World Trade Center, there emerged an unmistakable fingerprint of the enemy – al-Qaida and a group of other radical Islamic terrorists whose agenda is clear: the annihilation of Israel, the United States and all other "infidels" who would take a stand against their warped, murderous Islamic worldview.
Recently, Islamic terrorists have shown us there is no limit to their cannibalism. They fly planes into buildings, use women and children as suicide bombers, then hold children hostage – shooting them in the back if necessary – to complete their "mission," their "call" from Allah to rid the world of the "dogs" and "infidels," in violation of all bounds of human decency.
This enemy without any value of human life, including their own, is now all over the Middle East and the world. We know they are in the Philippines, Indonesia, Chechnya, the United States and Canada. Because they are spread all over the world it is very difficult to eliminate every single one of them.
As the nation of right and wrong, America decided to take on this evil monster called terrorism to preserve our future. We decided to attack Afghanistan and did so very effectively. We eliminated one of the very pillars of terrorism in the form of the Taliban. We sent thousands of terrorists scurrying for the nearest spider hole knowing the power and might of the U.S. military is coming and ain't going to stop until they eliminate every one of these subhumans or place them in jail so they can no longer "terrorize" the world.
Did we eliminate the threat completely? Of course not. Therefore, the battle in Afghanistan is simply one of many battles that must be fought on the road to defeating the enemy and their destructive violence against mankind.
If I were president, or an international leader, common sense would tell me that the next place you seek to destroy the enemy and those who support terrorism would be Iraq. Why? Forget about WMDs. Forget about biological, nuclear or chemical weapons. Even if Iraq had not one peashooter, I would have attacked, because Saddam was a human-rights maniac. Not because he raped women on the day of their weddings, or because of the torture rooms where unheard-of atrocities where committed. No, I would have gone in for one reason: Saddam was openly and proudly paying U.S. $25,000 to any "Palestinian" (read: Arab) terrorist that would strap on a bomb and kill innocent Jews in the streets of Haifa, Jerusalem or Tel Aviv.
Saddam loved to watch people suffer, and to think he didn't promote, encourage and subsequently pay the consequences for his evil deeds of terrorism is akin to believing Santa Claus is real.
So we attacked. And rightly so. We absolutely decimated his regime. We kicked butt, and the victory was laughably easy to us. But in doing so, we totally humiliated the world of the terrorists. They saw how Saddam – the tough warrior who said he would slay the Great Satan and have their blood run in the streets of Baghdad – was reduced to a rat hiding in a hole.
Military brilliance or unintended consequence?
Now comes the "Law of Unintended Consequences," or one of the most brilliant plans ever executed by any military planner in the history of war. You see, it now appears Saddam's defeat was so powerful that terrorists – from Jordan to Saudi Arabia – are rallying to the cries of the defeated radicals in Iraq because their honor is on the line.
Foreign terrorist "insurgents" had to go to protect their "holy shrines" in Iraq, right? Baloney. The holiest cities in the Muslim world are not Sadr City, Fallujah or Tikrit. They are Mecca, Medina and recently added Jerusalem. Nevertheless, thousand of insurgents have come to Iraq to fight the Great Satan. They're not unhappy Iraqis, they're Jordanian, Syrian, Iranian, etc. terrorists!
I say the more the merrier. Bring them all to Iraq. I hope every single terrorist in the world feels an absolute holy obligation, a call from Allah if you will, to come to Iraq and become car bombers, suicide bombers and rocket-wielding nut balls.
Why? Simple: You have an enemy that was once scattered throughout the Middle East and the world now coming together all in one place to fight in Iraq, and they therefore can be eliminated at one time, in one way, real simply.
I pray each night for every insane Muslim terrorist who will hear the "holy call" to go and fight in Iraq. Think about it for a moment. How many terrorists are we killing every day in Iraq? Tens, hundreds, thousands? That's one less terrorist that is somewhere else plotting or coordinating more attacks on freedom-loving people like you and me – which is exactly what G.W. Bush told Prime Minister Ayad Allawi this week.
Whether the military generals have planned it or not, the enemy is now in Iraq, and they can be defeated in large numbers if we just have the guts to let the troops do their job!
The U.S. military could easily do an airdrop of millions of leaflets over Fallujah warning civilians that they have exactly 48 hours to get out. If they have nowhere to go, we can help set up refugee camps, giving the innocent food and shelter. Then we allow the U.S. and coalition forces to go in and level the place, killing everything that moves after the deadline, leveling their mosques, buildings – everything!
The net result: annihilation of the enemy in Iraq, which in turn will likely incite even more outrage in the terrorist world, which will then draw even more of these nut ball terrorists to Iraq to help fight the jihad against the Great Satan, who will meet the same fate as their fellow terrorist we killed the day before.
Iraq could become the official terrorist launching pad to eternity, where they stop by, blow themselves up, pick up their 72 virgins and head for paradise. They should be grateful to the Great Satan. Think of how easy we're making it for these vermin to get their glory!
Let's stop kidding ourselves and playing political games on talk radio, TV and op-ed pages. We are at war. In war people die. Sometimes innocent people. That is terrible, but a reality.
I want to remind you while the troops have been fighting these "insurgent" terrorists in Iraq, Americans have been safe in Indiana.
While over 1,000 brave men and women have given their lives in this fight, 285 millions have remained safe and free from attack because the terrorists have their hands full in Iraq.
Everyone agrees: We have to win this war. If we are to do that we must have the courage and the heart to face the reality that people are going to die. We have to come to grips with the fact it is kill or be killed. The terrorists don't want to negotiate. They want America and Israel to cease to exist.
Are you willing to meet those demands? Me neither! That's why winning this terrorist war in Iraq is so crucial – it's a no-brainer!
In fact, I think Americans would be well served to establish a new nonprofit fund that would buy a one-way airline ticket for any Islamic fundamentalist who believes terrorism is a "reasonable choice of weapon" to fight the infidel in Iraq. A one-way ticket back to Iraq. There will be no need to go back home, for they will soon be headed to "paradise." They can join their brothers to fight and be killed in Iraq – not here in America.
I will be the first to buy a ticket. Any takers?
Nope... No Terrorists Here
The Great Pretender once again proves his ignorance of foreign affairs, the origins and the impact of terrorism and of course, the history of Iraq. It makes me wonder where The Great Pretender was during the years 1980 through March 2003.
"Iraq is now what it was not before the war, a haven for terrorists." John F. Kerry, September 24, 2004
Iraq and terrorism go back decades. Baghdad trained Palestine Liberation Front members in small arms and explosives. Saddam used the Arab Liberation Front to funnel money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers in order to prolong the Intifada. And it's no secret that Saddam's own intelligence service was involved in dozens of attacks or attempted assassinations in the 1990s.
"Iraq is now what it was not before the war, a haven for terrorists." John F. Kerry, September 24, 2004
Iraq was a haven for palestinian international terrorist Abu Abbas, who was captured in Baghdad in April of 2003. Palestinian terrorists under Abbas' command hijacked the Achille Lauro in October 1985. During the hijacking, Leon Klinghoffer -- a 69-year-old wheelchair-bound American Jew who was with his wife of 36 years on the cruise -- was killed and dumped into the sea. "He created troubles. He was handicapped but he was inciting and provoking the other passengers. So, the decision was made to kill him," Abbas told the Boston Globe in 1998.
Abu Abbas had been living in Baghdad since 1994, under the protection of Saddam Hussein.
"Iraq is now what it was not before the war, a haven for terrorists." John F. Kerry, September 24, 2004
Iraq was a haven for palestinian international terrorist Abu Nidal, and The Abu Nidal Organization ("ANO"), in fact, Saddam participated in forming the ANO, sheltered the ANO, and sponsored ANO. The ANO is responsible for terrorist attacks in 20 different countries, which killed more than 300 people, as well as wounding hundreds more. In the mid-1980s, the group was seen as the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization. Experts say that Abu Nidal worked with Iraqi intelligence while representing Fatah in Baghdad. Although Saddam Hussein expelled Abu Nidal and the ANO in an attempt to win American military support for Iraq’s 1980s war with Iran, once the war ended, Iraq resumed its support of Abu Nidal. The ANO now believed to be based in Iraq, with cells in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon.
"Iraq is now what it was not before the war, a haven for terrorists." John F. Kerry, September 24, 2004
Iraq was a haven for the radical Kurdish Islamic terrorist group Ansar al-Islam. This terrorist group has ties with both the Taliban and with al-Qaeda. It is the most radical group operating in the Iraqi Kurdistan region. Ansar al-Islam activities include: razing of beauty salons, burning a school for girls, and the murder of women for refusing to wear the burqa. It has seized a Taliban-style enclave of 4,000 civilians and several villages near the Iranian border. It is also responsible for ambushing and killing of 42 Kurdish soldiers. Ansar al-Islam is in a state of war with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK). It was responsible for the assassination in 2001 of a senior official of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), Franso Hariri, and for the attempted killing of Burhan Salih, head of the PUK-led Iraqi Kurdistan regional government.
"Iraq is now what it was not before the war, a haven for terrorists." John F. Kerry, September 24, 2004
Iraq was a haven for the deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida lieutenants. In 2002, Zarqawi was in Baghdad for medical treatment, staying in the capital of Iraq for two months. Also in 2002, an al-Qaida associate bragged that the situation in Iraq was "good," that Baghdad could be transited quickly. Also in 2002, two suspected al-Qaida operatives were arrested crossing from Iraq into Saudi Arabia. They were linked to Zarqawi's Baghdad cell and one of them received training in Afghanistan on how to use cyanide.
Zarqawi's terrorism is not confined to the Middle East. Zarqawi and his network have plotted terrorist actions against countries including France, Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany and Russia.
"Iraq is now what it was not before the war, a haven for terrorists." John F. Kerry, September 24, 2004
Jeepers. I guess The Great Pretender was out windsurfing during those intelligence briefings. Or maybe he just shredded those memos too.
How can The Great Pretender keep America safe from terrorism when he is completely ignorant of who the terrorists are, and where they are? If I know, why doesn't the man who aspires to be President of the United States of America and Commander in Chief of our Military know?
|
Sept 25
Kerry's Yom Kippur opportunity
Time to ask forgiveness for having slandered US vets
By SHMULEY BOTEACH
It is becoming increasingly clear that John Kerry will lose this presidential election, principally because he violated one of the most important religious laws, inculcated within nearly every Jewish child from the youngest age, namely, the commandment not to slander innocent parties and not to engage in malicious gossip.
What led to Kerry's drop in the polls starting in August was the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth pummeling Kerry with negative advertisements on three issues: his wartime record in Vietnam, his indictment of US troops as war criminals upon his return, and his public discarding of the medals he won for his service.
What motivates the Swiftees? The Democrats have consistently maintained that George W. Bush is behind them. But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand why these Vietnam veterans so loathe John Kerry.
Kerry robbed them of honor and condemned them to infamy when he came back from the war and called them baby-killers and rapists. We Jews call this lashon hara - the sin of the evil tongue - and it is a sin equated with murder.
Killing a man's reputation is the metaphorical equivalent of killing the man himself. The victim's head sinks in public; he wishes he were dead.
The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth despise Kerry for spreading the lie that American soldiers in Vietnam were for the most part dishonorable marauders, running around the countryside "in a manner reminiscent of Ghengis Khan."
These statements, coming from a charismatic, Yale-educated and decorated officer, were eminently believable and made a tremendous impact on the nation, ensuring that millions of heroic lives would be destroyed.
A woman in Rhode Island told me that when her husband came home from Vietnam wearing his uniform, he was set upon by hooligans and beaten up in the streets. Thousands of other Vietnam veterans came back and were repeatedly rejected for jobs.
After all, would you hire an accused murderer?
We Jews know what it's like to be slandered. In our case we faced "blood libel" - a phenomenon whose history goes back more than 1,000 years to when Jews were first accused of slaughtering innocent Christian children for ritual purposes.
One can only imagine the horror of Jews striving to lead outstanding moral lives, devoted to a strict ethical regimen, suddenly being accused of the most unspeakable atrocities. They wondered what they could possibly have done to deserve such malicious accusations.
But living under tyrannical regimes, they were powerless to stop it and they had no choice but to suffer the terrible consequences of being branded baby-killers.
But Swift Boat vet John O'Neill and his fellow former soldiers live in a free and open society, and they are anything but powerless.
Put yourself into the shoes of the Swift Boat Veterans, whose only crime was to go to a foreign nation and fight for its liberty so that its citizens would not be subjected to communist cruelty. Yet they were called barbarous brutes by Kerry and his colleagues, who accused them of genocide.
If you were them, wouldn't you be enraged? So the Swiftees decided that their reputations were too precious to be silent. They struck back. They would not allow a man who had slandered them to become the commander-in-chief.
All they had wanted was to fight for the freedom and justice of the Vietnamese people, and they were punished for their sacrifices by being called cold-blooded killers. Kerry maligned their credibility, so they went after his in return. Kerry called them war criminals, so they tried to show that he was the real war criminal, accusing him of killing a fleeing teenage Vietcong.
On the street they say, "What goes around comes around."
BUT WE Jews understand that this is simply the inevitable and tragic outcome of all malicious gossip, which is why Judaism is so passionate about outlawing slander and gossip.
Gossip creates a spiteful cycle that has no end. Because the moment someone steps forward to ruin your reputation, the only way you can save yourself is by ruining theirs in turn.
Kerry's supporters argue that in his now-infamous 1971 Senate testimony he was only repeating what he had heard from other Vietnam Vets at the Winter Soldier meetings in Detroit.
This is not convincing. The sin of malicious gossip prohibits not only inventing harmful fiction but repeating it as well.
Yom Kippur is upon us. Jewish tradition demands that we go to each other and beg forgiveness for any harmful things we may have said about one another. It is a particularly awkward moment when you have to go to a colleague and reveal that you slandered him or her when they weren't around.
John Kerry doesn't have to have that awkward moment. The veterans already know what he said about them because Kerry did it front of the whole world.
But Kerry can end all the attacks against him by the Swiftees by simply offering a heartfelt and sincere apology. He can simply say that he is sorry for transmitting such malicious gossip - and hope the veterans will rise to the difficult but rewarding challenge of bestowing complete forgiveness.
The writer is a syndicated radio host on the US Liberty Broadcasting Network.
www.shmuley.com
Ayad, Kofi and John
The Iraqi leader rebuts the pessimists on elections.
Pessimism about Iraq seems to be in fashion, with leaders such as John Kerry and Kofi Annan implying that the world would be better off if Saddam Hussein had never been toppled. So it's been more than a little refreshing to hear the message of hope, resolve and gratitude delivered by Ayad Allawi during his U.S. visit this week.
Yesterday it was Congress's turn to hear from the interim Iraqi Prime Minister, and he began by thanking them for their "brave vote" in 2002 to authorize American men and women to liberate Iraq: "Your decision to go to war in Iraq was not an easy one but it was the right one."
Mr. Allawi then offered a convincing list of reasons that there is every chance his country will make a successful transition to democracy early next year. True, violence has been rising ahead of the U.S. election this November and the Iraqi poll scheduled for January, and there will be hard fighting ahead. But the Prime Minister pointed out that at this very moment 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces would be calm enough to organize a vote. He noted the recent success of Iraqi forces in re-establishing control of the troublesome Sunni town of Samarra, as well as the Shiite holy city of Najaf. He added a well-deserved jab at our friends in the media, who reported the fighting there but have since "lost interest and left."
As for the political process, Mr. Allawi pointed out that Iraqis have already defied the skeptics several times. They've met their January deadline for writing an interim constitution, the scheduled June sovereignty handover, and the August date for a National Conference: "And I pledge to you today, we'll prove them wrong again over the elections."
That promise was the most important thing we heard the Prime Minister say, since frankly we've been having our own doubts. It's not that we've worried about progress on the Iraqi end. As Mr. Allawi stressed, "Iraqis want elections on time." Rather, it's that the vaunted "international community" has been hinting it may not live up to its promise to organize the vote. Just last week Secretary General Annan--who pulled out of Iraq entirely after the 2003 bombing on U.N. headquarters in Baghdad--suggested that security conditions may not be sufficient to send enough employees to do the job.
At an editorial board meeting with us on Wednesday, Mr. Allawi politely suggested that the Secretary General "probably is misinformed" about the real situation on the ground. He added that he hoped the U.N. would respect its own Resolution 1546 and "do whatever it takes to ensure the elections" are held on time. Mr. Allawi also welcomed NATO's recent decision to step up its training of Iraqi security forces. "The resolve and will of the coalition in supporting a free Iraq is vital to our success," he said. "But these doubters risk underestimating our country and they risk fueling the hopes of the terrorists."
Mr. Kerry, for one, must not have been listening too carefully to those remarks, given his ungracious reaction to Mr. Allawi's speech. The Senator accused the Prime Minister of "contradicting his own statement[s]" and of putting the "best face" on the situation.
While Mr. Kerry has every right to criticize U.S. conduct of the war, one would think he'd be wiser than to attack Mr. Allawi for saying it will be possible to hold the same elections that Mr. Kerry said just this Monday were his own exit strategy from Iraq. Or to accuse Iraq's Prime Minister of painting an unrealistic picture about a country the Senator has never visited. Having described the U.S. allies who liberated Iraq as a "coalition of the bribed," Mr. Kerry now insults the Iraqis he'd be working with if he becomes President.
Our one big disagreement with what Mr. Allawi had to say concerns the trials of Saddam and his henchmen. The Prime Minister told us that the trials would start soon, which is good. But he also hinted that they would be rapid and said flat out that they wouldn't be televised. We think this would be a grave mistake. Iraqis and Arabs generally need to see justice done, and a historical record of Saddam's crimes should be produced like that of the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials. If, as we suspect, the quick and quiet approach is part of an Allawi-CIA political strategy not to further upset the Baathists who remain on the loose, it is very shortsighted.
But overall the Prime Minister had the right message, and his reception by Congress suggests that President Bush would have done better by heeding those of his advisers who urged the naming of an interim Iraqi government in the immediate aftermath of the 2003 liberation. We'd add from firsthand experience that Mr. Allawi's positive attitude is shared by the vast majority of Iraqis themselves. With American resolve and a little luck--inshallah, as Iraqis would say--there is every reason to believe the country will have a democratically legitimate government come January.
|
Sept 24
Subject: Fw: Sealed military record?
Lets see if Dan Rather is hot for this............
Subject: Sealed military record?
This is more than an eye opener.........
Unlike McCain, Bush, and Gore,,,,Kerry has adamantly refused to authorize the release of his military records. Most think it's because of his phony battle medals. I think the real reason is below. He was not granted an Honorable Discharge until March 2001, almost 30 years after his ostensible service term had ended!
This is very much out of the ordinary, and highly suspect.
There are 5 classes of Discharge:
Honorable, General, Other Than Honorable, Bad Conduct, and Dishonorable.
My guess is that he was Discharged in the '70s, but not Honorably. He appealed this sometime while Clinton was doing trouser-tricks in the Oval Office. Political pressure was applied, and the Honorable Discharge was then granted.
His file is probably rife with reports of this, submissions and hearings on the appeal, reports of his "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy, along with protests that were filed with respect to his alleged valor under fire. This will blow up in his face before October 15th.
On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry signed a 6 year enlistment contract with the Navy (plus a 6-month extension during wartime).
On 18 Feb. 1966 John Kerry also signed an Officer Candidate contract for 6 years --
5 years of ACTIVE duty & ACTIVE Naval Reserves, and 1 year of inactive standby reserves (See items #4 & 5).
Because John Kerry was discharged from TOTAL ACTIVE DUTY of only 3 years and 18 days on 3 Jan. 1970, he was then required to attend 48 drills per year, and not more than 17 days active duty for training. Kerry was also subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Additionally, Kerry, as a commissioned officer, was prohibited from making adverse statements against his chain ! of command or statements against his country, especially during time of war.
It is also interesting to note that Kerry did not obtain an honorable discharge until Mar. 12, 2001 even though his service obligation should have ended July 1, 1972.
Lt. John Kerry's letter of 21 Nov. 1969 asking for an early release from active US Navy duty falsely states "My current regular period of obligated service would be completed in December of this year."
On Jan. 3, 1970 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to the Naval Reserve Manpower Center in Bainridge, Maryland.
Where are Kerry's Performance Records for 2 years of obligated Ready Reserve, the 48 drills per year required and his 17 days of active duty per year training while Kerry was in the Ready Reserves? Have these records been released?
Has anyone ever talked to Kerry's Commanding Officer at the Naval Reserve Center where Kerry drilled?
On 1 July 1972 Lt. John Kerry was transferred to Standby Reserve -Inactive.
On 16 February 1978 Lt. John Kerry was discharged from US Naval Reserve.
Below are some of the crimes Lt. Kerry USNR committed as a Ready Reservist, while he was acting as a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War:
1. Lt. Kerry attended many rallies where the Vietcong flag was displayed while our flag was desecrated, defiled, and mocked, thereby giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
2. Lt. Kerry was involved in a meeting that voted on assassinating members of the US Senate.
3. Lt. Kerry lied under oath against fellow soldiers before the US Senate about crimes committed in Vietnam.
4. Lt. Kerry professed to being a war criminal on national television, and condemned the military and the USA.
5. Lt. Kerry met with NVA and Vietcong communist leaders in Paris, in direct violation of the UCMJ and the U.S. Constitution.
Lt. Kerry by his own words &actions violated the UCMJ and the US Code while serving as a Navy officer. Lt. Kerry stands in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution. Lt. Kerry's 1970 meeting with NVA Communists in Paris is in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and US Code 18 U. S. C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent support of the communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's Article 3, Section 3, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.
The Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3, states, "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-president, having previously taken an oath . to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to
the enemies thereof."
A. L. "Steve" Nash, MAC Ret, UDT/SEAL SEAL Authentication Team -Director AuthentiSEAL Phone 707 438 0120 "The only service where all investigators are US Navy SEALs" www.authentiseal.org
Remember to vote for the candidate of your choice in November. Early voting is in October. Keep our country strong by taking the fight to the terrorists. Support our troops - they are the best.
God Bless America
|
Hatfield For Bush!!!
Former Republican Sen. from Oregon and longtime pacifist Mark Hatfield spent 30 years in the Senate and never once voted for a military appropriations bill. He wrote a column today explaining why he is supporting President Bush.
Please take a moment to read his column below.
IN MY OPINION
Mark O. Hatfield
Thursday, September 23, 2004
For me, choice for president is clear: Bush
As a young Navy officer in World War II, I was one of the first Americans to see Hiroshima after the atomic bomb was dropped in 1945. That experience lives with me today, and it helped to shape the view I held during my public service career: A view that war is wrong in nearly every circumstance.
As Oregon's governor, I was the only governor in the nation who refused to sign a statement supporting President Johnson's Vietnam War policy.
As a senator, I joined with Sen. George McGovern in an unsuccessful effort to end that war. I was the only senator who voted against both the Democrat and Republican resolutions authorizing the use of force in the 1991 Gulf War.
In my final years in the Senate, I opposed President Clinton's decision to send American troops to Bosnia.
During my 30 years in the Senate, I never once voted in favor of a military appropriations bill.
I know that this record will cause many to wonder why I am such a strong supporter of President Bush
and his policy in Iraq. My support is based on the fact that our world changed on Sept. 11, 2001, a day on which we lost more American lives than we did in the attack on Pearl Harbor.
I know from my service in the Senate that Saddam Hussein was an active supporter of terrorism. He
used weapons of mass destruction on innocent people and left no doubt that he would do so again. It was crucial to the cause of world peace that he be removed from power.
Having seen atrocious loss in World War II, I understand the devastation of armed conflict. We have paid dearly with American and Iraqi lives for our commitment, but we cannot afford the alternative. Nor can we afford a president who puts a wet finger in the air and turns over his decisions to pollsters.
President Bush has indeed taken heat for his resolve in pursuing the war on terrorism and efforts in Iraq. His steadfastness and resolve in the face of his critics are deserving of praise.
As terrorists continue to plot against our country and our interests, the American people must choose
between action and inaction, between security and insecurity.
I believe the choice is clear. I will proudly cast my vote for President George W. Bush.
Mark O. Hatfield served as a Republican U.S. senator from Oregon from 1967 to 1997.
Ask the 'Dominoes' about Kerry's Atrocities Charge
Former Vietnamese Refugees Defend the Honor of American Vietnam Veterans
-- by Michael P. Tremoglie
During the Vietnam War, veteran John Kerry testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing that an investigation, conducted by Kerry and his group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), revealed that American soldiers committed war crimes and atrocities in Vietnam. The investigation was called Winter Soldier.
Now that Kerry wants to be President, some of his former colleagues, quite understandably, resent his allegations and his consorting with the North Vietnamese--as he did in Paris. Although this may be a shock to many liberals, American military policy in Vietnam was not to commit war crimes and atrocities.
Some try to defend Kerry's Senate testimony (for text, see humaneventsonline.com) by claiming he was not trying to indict all Vietnam veterans as war criminals. Yet, only a couple of weeks prior to Kerry's appearance, Oregon Sen. Mark Hatfield (R.) made a speech during a Senate session in which he referred to Kerry's investigation. Hatfield said, "There has recently been brought to my attention testimony relating to the policy and conduct of American forces in Indochina which has grave and very serious implications."
This was a direct reference to Kerry's auto-da-fé. One can only wonder if there were some coordination between Hatfield, Kerry, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Vietnam Veterans Against the War.
The statement by Hatfield refutes the idea that Kerry was not referring to all the soldiers. Indeed, the very purpose of Winter Soldier was to impugn the integrity of, and to demoralize, American soldiers. It is a standard ploy to demonize enemy soldiers. This is routine propaganda--which is exactly what the Winter Soldier confab was.
Our soldiers were not the baby-killers that the anti-war protesters said they were. Our military did not kill three million Vietnamese as MSNBC's Chris Matthews recently claimed.
Kerry wants to be President, the elected official primarily responsible for conducting the foreign policy of the United States. However, he allies himself with those who still believe--as Kerry did then--the same Vietnamese Communist cant designed to influence American public opinion against American soldiers.
Kerry slandered his colleagues as war criminals merely as a pretext for withdrawing troops from Vietnam. He was pandering to the people who said the "domino theory" was not valid. These are the same people who said the Viet Cong and the North Vietnamese were nationalists--not murderous Communist tyrants.
What they said was false then and it is false now.
If anyone would like to know if the Vietnam War was a noble cause, if anyone wants to know if Americans committed war crimes, then ask those affected most by the war--Vietnamese civilians.
Simply put, if you want to learn if the domino theory was true--ask the dominoes.
A few weeks ago, I did just that. I met with a group of Vietnamese refugees--past and present. Some were among the 1980s "Boat People," who fled the horror of Communist Vietnam on rafts, boats, and pieces of driftwood, risking their lives in the process. Others were more recent arrivals. All fled the purported utopia Vietnam was supposed to become according to Kerry and his anti-war colleagues.
These people can attest to who is telling the truth--John Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, or John O'Neill, B.G. Burkett, author of Stolen Valor, Carlton Sherwood, former Pulitzer journalist and producer of the documentary Stolen Honor, and the Vietnam Veterans for Truth. These people will tell you who was telling the truth.
Quyen V. Ngo currently works for a local college. He was a boat person rescued by an American merchant ship after three nights at sea. Fifty-nine years old, Quyen was a schoolteacher in Vietnam and a Captain in the South Vietnamese army (ARVN).
He was born in Nam Dimh near Haiphong before the country was partitioned. Before the partitioning, his parents emigrated in 1953 to South Vietnam to escape the Communists.
When I asked him if he thought the war was worth it, Ngo said that American troops did not have to stay as long as they did. The Vietnamese people just wanted to be trained and supplied. They would do the rest. However, the Americans were trying to protect the people from the Communists and that was a good thing.
I asked him if the Communists committed genocide after they obtained power. He said the Communists killed many people. Those who were not killed were placed in re-education camps. There they worked 12 hours a day and had little food.
Ngo never witnessed any atrocities by American soldiers, neither did he hear of any American atrocities. He said he did not believe a thing Kerry said about American troops, systematically committing war crimes. He thinks Kerry fabricated this.
He felt sorry for those who opposed the war because they did not see the truth about the war and the Communists. As far as he is concerned, they betrayed the American and Vietnamese soldiers. Testimony like Kerry's, Ngo believes, resulted in encouraging the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong Communists to kill more Vietnamese and American soldiers.
Hoang-Phuong Vo is a 20-year-old immigrant from Vietnam. She is a student majoring in Pharmaceutical Science.
Vo said she came to America 10 years ago. She said that during her youth in Vietnam, she was shown propaganda movies of American soldiers, murdering, raping, and mutilating Vietnamese. They were also portrayed burning and pillaging villages.
Her father, also a teacher, had been in the Vietnamese Army and spent seven years in prison. Her parents met while fleeing Vietnam.
Thuoc Nguyen, 68, was also an ARVN soldier. Captured in June 1975 by the Communists he was imprisoned until October 1984. His crime was that he was an ARVN soldier.
Currently, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has cited several examples of atrocities by Vietnam's Communist rulers. One such was the Easter week massacre. Montagnards, protesting the lack of religious freedom, were killed. According to HRW ". . . sources in the Central Highlands confirm . . . hundreds of demonstrators were wounded and many were killed by security forces . . . ."
Can you imagine if Kerry and the other Vietnam Veterans Against the War would have received such treatment during their famed Operation Dewey Canyon? Would Kerry have been able to conduct an "investigation" in North Vietnam?
Of course not, yet Kerry stated during his testimony that all political groups would be represented in a Communist Vietnam.
Kerry proved that he was incapable of guiding American foreign policy then, he has been incapable during his tenure in the Senate--and he is incapable now.
Comment: As of Today, a bill that passed the House 410-1 to Key foreign aid to Vietnam to their human rights treatment to Vietnam citizens has been in John Kerry's desk for over a year. He REFUSES to let the Senate Vote On it. Voice your oppinion on this to your Senators.
Ron
WARNING! IMMEDIATE THREAT! WMD FOUND THROUGHOUT THE USA!
Don Bendell
WMD, Weapons of Mass Destruction, have been found throughout the United States of America, posing a clear and present danger to our national security here-at-home, and to the safety of the American fighting men and women in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other terrorism hot-spots abroad. Most of the weapons are concentrated in and near the cities of New York, Washington, and Boston, but many more are scattered throughout the entire United States and even around the world.
Most of these devices are set to attack our infrastructure slowly and methodically, and they are almost all referred to by acronyms. The most notable of these deadly weapons are called NBC, CBS, ABC, and DNC.
These weapons were developed during the Viet Nam War, decades ago, but have since been honed to a razor-like quality, able to cut right through the morale of our troops risking their lives in foreign theaters.
One of the greatest catastrophes brought about by these WMD's was the 1968 Tet Offensive in Viet Nam. Although American soldiers and Marines were victorious in repelling human wave attacks and literally decimating the North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong, who launched a countrywide coordinated offensive all over the nation of Viet Nam, the American media, a collective name of this destructive force, presented the Tet Offensive to the unknowing American public as a major military coup for the communists. The commander of all communist forces, General Vo Nguyen Giap, wrote in his autobiography that the North Vietnamese were going to ask the United States if Hanoi could make a conditional surrender after the 1968 Tet Offensive, but the media changed their minds. The declarations that we were devastated by the Tet Offensive, fed the anti-war forces in the USA, which in turn, empowered the communist government in Hanoi to persist. Hanoi was boosted by the more enthusiastic rantings of the anti-war protestors and chose to wait out the US, which in time, proved successful. The earliest of these WMD's had proven effective in bringing our mighty nation to our knees when no other country in the world could even come close to defeating us.
Although large and cumbersome weaponry, the Media WMD proved that it can self-generate and run on a simple principle, "If you tell someone they are a loser long enough, they will believe you."
Although fundamentalist Muslims declared "Jihad" (Holy War) on us a couple decades ago, the Media WMD has also provided excellent camouflage for the enemy elements, so in fact, until September 11, 2001, most of us did not realize we were actually at war, in what the extreme fundamentalist Muslims call the "Third Great Jihad." Despite our obvious losses on that day in September 2001, many have now figured we are supposed to be back at peacetime, because of the great attacking and camouflaging capabilities of the weapon, which also systematically goes after the commander-in-chief and upper echelon personnel in the deadly War on Terrorism.
Two other very lethal WMD's known as the JFK and E"T"K Systems have been attacking our command elements with frontal assaults, sniping, and back-stabbing, in an effort to infiltrate the highest offices of our government. The acronyms JFK and E'T"K, of course, mean John Forbes Kerry and Edward "Ted" Kennedy, the former being an expert at subterfuge, disinformation, and a chameleon-like ability of camouflaging itself. The latter is known as an absolute deadly master at night-time waterborne assault operations, as well as escape and evasion tactics.
How can this WMD menace be destroyed?
It cannot. It is, sadly, powered by one of our strongest forces, the "freedom of the press," so cannot be destroyed, but can only be self-reprogrammed into a force to benefit our side in the War on Terrorism, but this can only be achieved though self-monitoring and self-actualization. In the meantime, we all must help fight against this intended infiltration into our highest offices. Our nation's fighting men and women overseas and families and friends here, must stay focused on eventual victory and despite the vast Media WMD propaganda efforts, keep realizing they are part of the greatest fighting force in the world and are supported by a vast majority of our citizenry and will be victorious by simply persisting. Many have preached gun control, but have failed to ask for control of a much more deadly weapon and larger and more powerful weapon, a weapon of mass destruction, the American news media.
Don Bendell served as an officer in four Special Forces Groups, including a tour on a green beret A-team(Dak Pek) in Vietnam in 1968-1969, and was in the Top Secret Phoenix Program, is a top-selling author of 21 westerns, science fiction, and non-fiction Vietnam books, with over 1,500,000 copies of his books in print worldwide, a 1995 inductee into the International Karate Hall of Fame, a 7th degree black belt master in four martial arts, and owns karate schools in southern Colorado.
URGENT OPEN LETTER TO MY FELLOW AMERICANS
Don Bendell
As a former green beret, who is still involved in that tight-knit community, I was "shocked and awed" when I saw Michael Moore during an interview at the DNC actually say that "Bush did not have Special Forces on the ground in Afghanistan for more than two months after 9-11."
That was laughable; it was such a stupid, bold-faced lie. Many, many green berets and ex-green berets know that two A-detachments were on the ground in Afghanistan within forty-eight hours of the 9-11 attacks.
Robin Moore, a friend and the author of the number one best seller THE GREEN BERETS, wrote of those detachments in THE SEARCH FOR BIN LADEN. Just about everybody in SF, also knew that MG Geoff Lambert, then commanding US Special Forces Command, had those Special Forces team members on alert within two hours of the first jet hitting the World Trade Center tower one.
One of those brave Green Beret sergeants who served on those two teams and who lost his leg was probably sitting at home gnashing his teeth while hearing such trash. It is a feeling many of us have each time we hear those well-meaning apologists, "doves," and Michael Moore-followers, do to the brave young men and women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan what was done to our men and women serving in Vietnam. It must stop now!
If you are a fellow Vietnam veteran reading this, "welcome home" and thank you for your service. Whether you are a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or apolitical, I am an American first, before any political party, and I am sure most reading this are, too. We must not allow anybody to belittle or disrespect any military service, in war, or at home, National Guard, reserves, coast guard, or any service. It is all honorable and all part of one big machine, needing each part to function properly.
This goes far beyond politics. Victimizing our military is one of the most selfish and self-destructive things we can do. Protesting in a free country, is "chump change" when compared to a willingness to lay your very life on the line for what you believe in, like our fighting men and women do. With a broken-heart, I survived the aftermath of Vietnam's "anti-war movement." Those young brave American men and women in today's military will NOT go through the same treatment as long as my fellow veterans and I have a breath in our bodies.
Michael Moore, in a German press conference, referred to Americans as the "dumbest people on the planet." Now, many well-meaning Americans, are making him look correct, and are making him even richer by buying tickets and believing his hype. One of my four sons even told me that I should not knock it until I watch it. I said, "Son, I won't put a dime in Michael Moore's pocket!" Dave Kopel did a lot of careful research on Michael Moore's FARENHEIT 9/11 and points out "56" outright lies. I ask you, please take the time to read it carefully.
http://davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
For example, the 9-11 Commission already stated that the bin Laden's did not leave the US until the air travel ban was lifted, but in Moore's film, he makes it seem as if there was a big conspiracy, and President Bush let them leave the country when nobody else could travel.
Michael Niewodowski, a chef at Windows on the World at the top of the World Trade Center was supposed to report for work shortly after the jets slammed into the twin towers, and he has also written a scathing piece about Moore's mockumentary. Please read it, too. http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1163058/posts.
Mr. Niewodowski, who is a chef not a professional writer, in his Sarasota Herald-Tribune article, points out that there are over 20 motion pictures about Pearl Harbor and its aftermath, and they espouse "patriotism, courage, and nationalism." What films do we have about the 9-11 disaster? FARENHEIT 9/11, a complete sham.
I received 2 significant e-mails from Iraq recently; 1 from an army master sergeant and 1 from a sergeant first class, serving in different units, but both men asked if I could help them, explaining that young soldiers are seeing bootleg copies of FARENHEIT 9/11 and are becoming disheartened and demotivated, as they have had no experience with the political process, and they think that if the movie has been made and distributed, it must be true. Shortly after receiving those e-mails, I also received other forwarded e-mails with very similar words from Iraq.
Even if you are totally against the war, we must do all we can to keep our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan motivated, which in turn, helps keep them safe and alive. How can you say you support our troops, without also supporting their commander in chief? No President, Democrat or Republican, in US history, during a time of war, has been so publicly chastised and disrespected as President George W. Bush. This plays right into the enemy's hands and propaganda machine.
John Kerry betrayed his fellow Vietnam veterans making us his "Abandoned Brothers," which is exactly what he is doing now to our current troops. He knows, full well, the many lies contained in FARENHEIT 9/11, but it helps him get votes, so he is silent. That is the same as embracing Michael Moore, which; in itself, would take very, very long arms at best. During the DNC, the Spielberg-backed video about Kerry, briefly showed a photograph of Kerry and 20 fellow sailors, even after John Kerry and Kerry's campaign were issued a "cease and desist" letter from an attorney representing 11 of the men in the photograph who detest Kerry. In fact, only 1 man in that photograph of 20 supports Kerry for President www.swiftvets.com.
By the way, Senator Kerry, you were a "sailor" in Vietnam. Be proud of that and stop referring to yourself as a "soldier" in Vietnam. The liberal members of the news media, who also are helping destroy our troop's morale, are just as bad.
I have received hundreds of thousands of e-mails, calls, letters, and other communiqués since February 11th, mostly from veterans, and many from active duty military personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan, or their family members, and those items are over 100 to 1 against Kerry and for Bush.
And, if you insist on the tired political line that Bush was a "draft-dodger," go strap yourself in the seat of an F-102 jet, pilot it down the runway at several hundred miles per hour, and then up into the air and bypass the speed of sound, then afterwards, go seek out the 140 Medal of Honor recipients who were in the National Guard, and tell them their service is akin to "draft-dodging."
Or, if you want to insist on the other politically-spun myth that President Bush lied about going to war in Iraq, then simply look on the internet at the numerous quotes about WMD in Iraq, the need for US military action, and Hussein needing to be toppled; with those many quotes from John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Madeleine Albright, and other democratic leaders. In the Aug 1 issue of PARADE, GEN Tommy Franks (retired) a man of honor, stated that in January, 2003, (2 months before the start of the War in Iraq) Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah both told Franks that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction, or WMD. According to GEN Frank's, President Mubarak told him point blank: 'Saddam has WMD--biologicals actually--and he will use them on your troops."
Within an hour, Tommy Franks relayed that message to Washington, and the president of Russia, and other countries, trading with Iraq also reported that Hussein had WMD's and was ready to use them.
Now, for political expediency, they have turned it all around and say President Bush lied. Sorry, but President Bush led, not lied.
Before politics, before our own agendas; if you want a cause, please use the cost of a movie ticket to FARENHEIT 9/11 and instead send a "care package" to one of our troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, send money or toys to help Iraqi children through www.operationiraqichildren.org , or similar groups, or just write our military men and women, and show them our full support, love, and appreciation.
Please join me and circulate this to everybody you know, and send it to the media, over and over.
Senator Tom Harkin-Vietnam Vet Wannabee
Capital Briefs: Harkin's Hatchet Even though CBS's forged memos were the only documentary proof ever offered to back up the theory that President Bush disobeyed a direct order to take an Air National Guard flight physical in 1972, that has not stopped left-wing Sen. Tom Harkin (D.-Iowa) from continuing to make the claim. "Those documents--whether they're true or not--there's irrefutable facts," Harkin told HUMAN EVENTS Assistant Editor David Freddoso. "He disobeyed a direct order to take the fight physical. Why did he disobey?" The White House has maintained Bush did not renew his flight status because he was transferring to another unit. Harkin, who called Bush a liar in a September 9 appearance, may not be the right person to serve as the Democratic hatchet man here: He used to claim (falsely, it turned out) that he flew combat missions in Vietnam.
My Two Cents Worth :
Excuse Me, Mr. Kerry?
As I was listening to the news on my way in to work this morning, a few questions I would like to ask John Kerry concerning recent events popped into my brain. Here are some of them, in no particular order:
--The Washington Times reported today that on CNN's "Crossfire" in 1997, you stated the following: "We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians. We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest." Do you still stand by any portion of that statement? --Why did you skip Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's speech to the joint meeting of Congress?
Seemed like it might have been a pretty significant speech for a man who wants to be President to attend, especially considering the recent liberation of Iraq and the fact that he was the first Iraqi leader to visit D.C. since 1952, didn't it?
--Why would you allow your underlings to even hint, much less declare, that the leader of a newly freed country is merely a puppet of President Bush? --You claim you would be able to get more allies to come to our side in future conflicts. Do you still believe that, considering your remarks demeaning the support given by our allies for "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and your campaign's treatment of Allawi?
--If you can question President Bush's military service, why can't he question yours (even though he hasn't)?
--You Democrats get really offended when anyone even appears to question your patriotism. Are you prepared to denounce the declaration by one of your fellow Democratic Senators, Fritz Hollings, this week that President Bush is a "damned draft dodger"? (And did you find it as strange as I did that any Clinton supporter would use such a phrase to try to demean a Republican President?)
--Another Democratic Senator, Tom Harkin, has made public statements calling Bush a liar concerning his military service, but the problem is that his claims were based on those fake CBS documents. Are you going to ask him to apologize -- or, at the very least, to zip it?
--In several newspapers today, your talkative wife, Teresa, was reported to have said that she thinks the Bush Administration will announce the capture of Osama bin Laden before Election Day. Apparently, she believes the White House has an October Surprise in mind. Did you tell her to say that, or did she just get it from Michael Moore?
--On the "Regis and Kelly" TV show, you told a story of a couple kids contributing to your campaign. Did you return that money, since there was a fair chance they were illegal contributions? Even if they were legal, your campaign isn't in such dire straits that you would take money from children, right?
--Your campaign recently responded to a Bush/Cheney ad accusing you flip-flopping on top of a video of you wind-surfing. Your response ad ripped the Bush team for running a "juvenile" ad during the "Iraq quagmire." Do you see the irony that your campaign offered such a criticism, yet you were the one having photo-ops on your wind-surfing board and while walking around wearing spandex -- all of this done during the "Iraq quagmire"?
|
Sept 23
What a bunch of garbage!!!!
This was passed to me, but I can't understand it. Maybe you can. I'm trying to get all this political stuff straightened out in my head so I'll know how to vote come November. Right now, we have one guy saying one thing. Then the other guy says something else. Who to believe.
Lemme see; have I got this straight?
Clinton awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Yugoslavia - good...
Bush awards Halliburton no-bid contract in Iraq - bad...
Clinton spends 77 billion on war in Serbia - good..
Bush spends 87 billion in Iraq - bad...
Clinton imposes regime change in Serbia - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Clinton bombs Christian Serbs on behalf of Muslim Albanian terrorists-good...
Bush liberates 25 million from a genocidal dictator - bad...
Clinton bombs Chinese embassy - good...
Bush bombs terrorist camps - bad...
Clinton commits felonies while in office - good...
Bush lands on aircraft carrier in jumpsuit - bad...
No mass graves found in Serbia - good...
No WMD found Iraq - bad...
Stock market crashes in 2000 under Clinton - good...
Economy on upswing under Bush - bad...
Clinton refuses to take custody of Bin Laden - good...
World Trade Centers fall under Bush - bad...
Clinton says Saddam has nukes - good...
Bush says Saddam has nukes - bad...
Clinton calls for regime change in Iraq - good...
Bush imposes regime change in Iraq - bad...
Terrorist training in Afghanistan under Clinton - good...
Bush destroys training camps in Afghanistan - bad...
Milosevic not yet convicted - good...
Saddam turned over for trial - bad...
Ahh, it's so confusing!
Every year an independent tax watchdog group analyzes the average tax
burden on Americans, and then calculates the "Tax Freedom Day". This is
the day after which the money you earn goes to you, not the government.
This ye ar, tax freedom day was April 11th. That's the earliest it has
been since 1991. Its latest day ever was May 2nd, which occurred in 2000. Notice anything
special about those dates?
Recently, John Kerry gave a speech in which he claimed Americans are actually paying more taxes under Bush, despite the tax cuts. He gave no explanation and provided no data for this claim.
Another interesting fact: Both George Bush and John Kerry are wealthy men. Bush owns only one home, his ranch in Texas. Kerry owns 4 mansions, all worth several million dollars. (His ski resort home in Idaho is an old barn brought over from Europe in pieces. Not your average A-frame).
Bush paid $250,000 in taxes this year; Kerry paid $90,000. Does thatsound right? The man who wants to raise your taxes obviously has figured out a way to avoid paying his own.
September 23, 2004, 8:20 a.m.
Kerry: Fiscally Disciplined?
Not even close.!
By J. Edward Carter
We’ve all heard politicians say they want to “return fiscal discipline to Washington.” It is almost as fashionable these days as being for mom and apple pie. But what exactly does it mean? In a town whose occupants are at times baffled by the definition of “is,” fiscal discipline is an exceptionally elusive concept. How can voters distinguish the doers from the talkers?
The talkers would have you believe that fiscal discipline is defined by a courageous politician’s unrepentant willingness to raise taxes. In truth, raising taxes is the antithesis of fiscal discipline. Raising taxes is akin to buying larger pants in lieu of exercise and a low-calorie diet. On the other hand, true fiscal discipline — being frugal and watching what you spend — entails keeping government spending under control to minimize the drain of resources from the private sector to the public sector.
John Kerry, despite an unwavering twenty-year record of support for high-calorie federal-spending binges, now promises to keep spending in check should he win the presidency. Is he to be believed?
According to the non-partisan National Taxpayers Union, Kerry’s 65 campaign proposals for new and expanded government programs would balloon federal spending by $256 billion a year. Taking into account the handful of spending cuts Kerry has proposed, the net increase amounts to $226 billion a year.
Just how much is $226 billion? It is more than twice what the United States spent last year on crude oil imports; nearly four-times the value of the all the gold stored in Fort Knox; more than the federal government will spend in fiscal year 2004 on education, social services, community and regional development, veterans’ benefits, international affairs, and agriculture combined; more than the fiscal year 2004 state budgets (general-fund outlays only) for Wyoming, North Dakota, Vermont, South Dakota, Montana, New Hampshire, Idaho, Alaska, Nevada, Maine, Nebraska, Delaware, Rhode Island, West Virginia, Arkansas, Mississippi, Utah, Hawaii, Kansas, Iowa, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Oregon, Alabama, Colorado, Louisiana, Arizona, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Michigan, Maryland, Wisconsin, Washington, Indiana, Virginia, Connecticut, Minnesota, and North Carolina combined; and roughly equivalent to the gross domestic product of Sweden, the 35th largest economy in the world.
Given the sheer immensity of Kerry’s proposed spending increases, one cannot help but recall Will Rogers’ candid observation: “Thank God we don’t get all the government we pay for.”
But surely, having served in Washington, D.C., for nearly two decades, John Kerry must know by now where the federal budget can be trimmed. In fact, the senator has spelled out where he believes concrete savings are possible. A careful study of his speeches and campaign materials reveals that he will attempt to:
“cut electricity use by the Federal government by 20 percent in 10 years”;
“freeze the Federal travel budget”;
“reduce the number of contractors employed by the Federal government by 100,000”;
“implement GAO recommendations on wasteful management of government car fleet”;
“reform the student loan program”;
“reduce Medicare overpayments to HMOs”;
“cut subsidies for high-income corporate farmers”;
“eliminate the Office of Thrift Supervision”;
“eliminate major statistical agencies and establish a single Statistics USA”;
“eliminate trade promotion agencies and consolidate activities”;
“merge the Commerce Department’s NTIA and TA”;
“cut top-heavy bureaucracy at Federal agencies”;
“use competitive bidding for medical equipment”;
“reduce out-of-control administrative costs by five percent.”
In other words, out of the $2.3 trillion federal budget, John Kerry believes substantial savings are to be had from reminding federal employees to turn off their office lights at the end of workday. Under Kerry, federal employees will also attend fewer conferences and those who do travel must stay in the equivalent of a Motel 6. And Kerry’s “bold” proposal to reduce the number of federal contractors by 1.78 percent (which is what you get by cutting 100,000 jobs out of 5.6 million) will save even more!
All in all, while some of John Kerry’s proposed spending cuts have merit, the savings they would produce amount to little more than a rounding error in the federal budget. Although Kerry claims significant budgetary savings by calling for the creation of a commission to recommend cuts in corporate welfare, it is hardly a concrete savings proposal. It is notable, however, because Kerry also proposes hefty spending increases for his favorite corporate welfare programs and the creation of new “tax credits and subsidies” for manufacturers that meet certain criteria.
Even John Kerry’s spending cuts contain spending increases.
Oscar Wilde once remarked that a politician is “an animal who can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground.” Perhaps no other statement better explains John Kerry and his dalliance with fiscal discipline.
— J. Edward Carter is an economist in Washington, D.C.
|
Sept 22
Letter From Bud Day-MOH Winner/POW
Col. George E. "Bud" Day is the most decorated officer since Gen. Douglas MacArthur, and was Senator John McCain's cellmate in the Hanoi Hilton. The following is a letter to Joe Scarborough and John O'Neil from Medal of Honor Recipient and former POW Colonel Bud Day.
Dear Joe:
The major issue in the Swiftboat stories is, and always has been, what John Kerry did in 1971 after he returned from Vietnam. Kerry cast a long dark shadow over all Vietnam Veterans with his outright perjury before the Senate concerning atrocities in Vietnam. His stories to the Senate committee were absolute lies..fabrications..perjury..fantasies, with NO substance. That dark shadow has defamed the entire Vietnam War veteran population, and gave "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies..the Vietnamese
Communists. Kerry's stories were outright fabrications, and were intended for political gain with the radical left..McGovern, Teddy and Bobby Kennedy followers, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, and the radical left who fantasized that George McGovern was going to be elected in 1972. Little wonder that
returning soldiers from Vietnam were spit upon and castigated as "baby killers".
A returned war hero said so. Kerry cut a dashing figure as a war hero, lots of medals, and returned home because of multiple war wounds..even a silver star. His Senate testimony confirmed what every hippie had been chanting on the streets.."Hey hey LBJ..How many kids did you kill today"????? He
obviously was running for political office in 1971.
Until Lt. John O' Neil, himself a Swifboat commander, spoke out before the 1972 elections against Kerry's outright deceptions, there was no one from the Swiftboat scene that could contradict Kerry's self serving lies.
I was a POW of the Vietnamese in Hanoi in 1971, and I am aware that the testimony of John Kerry, the actions of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, and the radical left; all caused the commies to conclude that if they hung on, they would win. North Vietnamese General Bui Tin commented that every day the
Communist leadership listened to world news over the radio to follow the growth of the anti-war movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark gave them confidence to hold in the face of battlefield reverses. The guts of it was that propaganda from the anti-war group was
part of their combat strategy.
While the Commies were hanging on, innumerable U.S. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Air Force members were being killed in combat. Every battle wound to Americans after Kerry's misdirected testimony is related to Kerry's untruthfulness. John Kerry contributed to every one of these deaths with his lies about U.S. atrocities in Vietnam He likewise defamed the U.S. with our allies and supporters. His conduct also extended the imprisonment of the Vietnam Prisoners of War, of which I was one. I am
certain of at least one POW death after his testimony, which might have been prevented with an earlier release of the POWs.
My friend and room mate Senator John S. McCain denounced the Swiftboat video by John O'Neil. I have a different take on the Swiftboat tape and disagree with my good friend John.
John Kerry opened up his character as a war hero reporting for duty to the country with a hand salute...and his band of brothers..of which he was the chief hero. Most of his convention speech was about John Kerry..Vietnam hero, and his band of brothers. John Kerry's character is not only fair
game, it is the primary issue. He wants to use Bill Clinton's "is", as an answer to his lack of character.
The issue is trust. Can anyone trust John Kerry?? "Never lie, cheat or steal" is the West Point motto. When a witness perjures himself at trial, the judge notes that his testimony lacks credibility. Should we elect a known proven liar to lead us in wartime??
I draw a direct comparison of General Benedict Arnold of the Revolutionary War, to Lieutenant John Kerry. Both went off to war, fought, and then turned against their country. General Arnold crossed over to
the British for money and position. John Kerry crossed over to the Vietnamese with his assistance to the anti-war movement, and his direct liaison with the Vietnamese diplomats in Paris. His reward.
Political gain. Senator..United States. His record as a Senator for twenty years has been pitiful. Conjure up, if you will, one major bill that he has sponsored.
John Kerry for President? Ridiculous. Unthinkable. Unbelievable. Outrageous.
Col. Geo. "Bud" Day,
Medal of Honor,
Vietnam POW 1967- 1973,
USMC- USA- USAF- Attorney 1949-2004
Swift-vet ad flays 'Hanoi John'
Recalls Kerry's meeting with enemy leaders in Paris
Posted: September 22, 2004
11:13 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
In the latest ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Sen. John Kerry is linked to "Hanoi" Jane Fonda as a man America cannot trust because he betrayed his country by consorting with Vietnamese communists.
The sixth television ad by the group of 254 veterans challenging the presidential candidate's Vietnam war record and activism targets the swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada and West Virginia with a $1.3 million buy. It also will be shown nationally on cable TV.
It can be viewed on the group's website.
The text reads:
Even before Jane Fonda went to Hanoi to meet with the enemy and mock America, John Kerry secretly met with enemy leaders in Paris. Though we were still at war and Americans were being held in North Vietnamese prison camps. Then he returned and accused American troops of committing war crimes on a daily basis.
Eventually Jane Fonda apologized for her activities, but John Kerry refuses to. In a time of war, can America trust a man who betrayed his country?
Jerome Corsi, co-author of the 527 group's best-selling book, "Unfit for Command," has charged Kerry's 1970 meeting with North Vietnamese communists violated U.S. law.
Corsi, who has studied the anti-war movement since the 1970s, notes U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953 prohibits a U.S. citizen from going abroad to negotiate with a foreign power.
Campaign spokesman Michael Meehan has insisted Kerry was in Paris on his honeymoon and did not go with the intention of meeting with the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong leaders. Kerry did not engage in the negotiations and was there only for "fact-finding purposes," Meehan has contended.
But in 1971, Kerry called a press conference in Washington and urged President Nixon to accept the seven-point surrender plan of Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, the foreign minister of the Viet Cong's political entity.
Corsi and co-author John O'Neill write in "Unfit for Command," "Had Madame Binh herself been permitted to appear at the July 22, 1971, press conference instead of John Kerry, the most noticeable difference in the argument presented might have been the absence of a Boston accent."
Kerry was still a member of the Naval reserves when he met with the communist leaders in Paris.
The swiftboat vets fifth ad, launched last week, titled "Dazed and Confused," charges Kerry's contradictory explanations of a 1971 protest in which he threw away war decorations is another reason not to trust him.
The previous spot has a similar theme, asking, "How can the man who renounced his country's symbols now be trusted?"
The first TV commercial quoted Kerry's Vietnam comrades calling him a liar, questioning his honor, accusing him of misrepresenting his actions for medals and attacking his character.
The group's second ad, featuring POWs recounting the demoralizing impact of Kerry's claim that U.S. soldiers systematically committed atrocities.
In the swiftboat vets' third ad, one of Kerry's crew members accuses the presidential candidate of lying, charging he falsely claimed to have spent Christmas in Cambodia in 1968.
|
Sept 21
John Kerry,Less than Honorably Discharged?
By Michael Ashbury
What a young man did more than 30 years ago shouldn't be a primary criteria in determining his qualifications to be President of the United States. George Bush has had almost 4 years now as Commander and Chief of the World's largest military force and he should be judged on how well he has done. Yet John Kerry and the Democratic left won't give it up. On almost a daily basis he says I served this country honorably as a young man in Vietnam ( 4 months/12 days) and I will serve this country honorably as Commander and Chief. Then the Left yells that George Bush got preferential treatment in getting into the National Guard and even failed to complete his guard obligations; even forging documents to prove their point.
The facts are that George Bush served honorably in the National Guard obtaining service points far in excess of the 50 annual service points required to meet his obligation. Records show that in 1968/69 he accumulated 253 points, 340 in 1969/70, 137 in 1970/71, 112 in 1971/72, 56 in 1972/73 and 56 in 1973/74. Points far in excess of the service agreed to and that required to meets his obligation and be Honorably Discharged. George Bush has never made his National Guard service a qualification to lead this country, nor has he ever questioned the service of John Kerry.
While the Left and the Main Stream Media have never questioned the Vietnam era service of John Kerry, they seem to feel that the record of George Bush 30 years ago should be of concern to voters in November. But what about John Kerry's record? We are told that he was a decorated veteran. We are also told that he was deeply involved in anti-war activities on his return from Vietnam in violation of his oath as an officer in the US Navy. Kerry has a long and well-documented history of providing "aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of war. By his own account of his actions and protests, he violated the UCMJ, the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Code while serving as a Navy officer. Further he met, on two occasions, with North Vietnamese negotiators in 1970 and 1971, while a Reserve Officer, willingly placing himself in violation of Article three, Section three of the U.S. Constitution, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare.
From here the record of John Kerry becomes unclear and the Main Stream Press won't demand that John Kerry sign a Department of Defense (DOD) form 180 that would release all of his military records. Records released by his campaign are confusing. There are indications that he was Honorably Discharged on Jan. 3, 1970, Feb 16, 1978, July 13, 1978 and even lately Mar. 12, 2001. Why the confusion on a relatively simple service event. Could it be that John Kerry received a less than honorable discharge in the early 70's because of his anti-war activities? And then was pardoned for those activities when then President Jimmy Carter on January 21, 1978 ( Proclamation 4483) granted a full, complete and unconditional pardon to all persons who may have committed any offense between August 4, 1964 and March 28, 1973 in violation of the Military Selective Service Act or any rule or regulation promulgated there under.
Did John Kerry request that his service be granted an Honorable Discharge and it was finally granted in 1978? Only a complete release of his military records will show what actually happened during this period. And, to date John Kerry has refused to sign the necessary DOD form 180 which would allow for this release. If the Democratic Party, the Main Stream Press, and the Bush critics are going to demand, as they do on almost a daily basis, that George Bush release all of his records, shouldn't they do the same for John Kerry?
About the Writer: Michael Ashbury, a noted researcher and author, is the author of ''Who is the REAL John Kerry?'' (Booksurge.com 2004). His website is at www.whoistherealjohnkerry.com. Michael receives e-mail at michaelashbury@aol.com
John Kerry does it again
Cal Thomas
September 20, 2004
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has achieved something that may be unique in the history of our country. He has managed to oppose two wars while they are being fought, undermine the objective of the nation and give aid and comfort to those who are killing American soldiers and kidnapping American civilians.
In a speech at New York University on Monday, Kerry questioned President Bush's judgment in ordering American troops to topple Saddam Hussein, saying the president had exchanged a brutal dictator for "chaos."
While acknowledging "there has been some progress, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of our soldiers and civilians in Iraq, (and) schools, shops and hospitals have been opened, (and) in parts of Iraq, normalcy actually prevails," Kerry claimed that "most Iraqis have lost faith in our ability to deliver meaningful improvements to their lives. So they're sitting on the fence . . . instead of siding with us against the insurgents."
Kerry is an expert at fence-sitting, having sat on one most of his life. He has taken both sides in the war and tried even in this speech to distinguish between granting George W. Bush authority to wage war and reserving his right to micromanage the war the president wages if it doesn't immediately produce victory.
It wasn't long after Kerry returned from Vietnam that he joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He slandered his fellow soldiers, calling them indiscriminate killers and comparing them to Genghis Kahn.
Returning prisoners of war said their North Vietnamese captors played excerpts from Kerry's congressional testimony in an attempt to break their morale and convince the POWs their country had abandoned them. Sound bites from Kerry's NYU speech could be played in certain mosques to persuade the insurgents and other Muslim extremists that all they have to do is step up the killing between now and the U.S. election and victory for them is assured. They have seen America cut and run before. Kerry's address may again provide aid and comfort to America's latest enemy.
Kerry claimed President Bush has offered "23 different rationales for this war." Even if that were true, he is still far behind the number of flip-flops committed by Kerry on the war and a long list of other issues.
Kerry once again returned to his pledge to seek help in Iraq and against terrorism (as if the two can be separated) from America's "allies," despite statements from many European leaders indicating that they will not become involved in Iraq no matter who wins the November election.
Kerry criticized the president for "colossal failures of judgment - and judgment is what we look for in a president." So is decisiveness, and Kerry fails on both counts. There is nothing in his Senate record, in his pronouncements during this campaign, or in much of his life story that gives voters confidence that this is a man with strong principles whose judgment and vision can be trusted. Instead, Kerry's life has been one of self-promotion and self-indulgence. As with the Vietnam War, he doesn't talk about victory, or America's unique place in the world to which free people, and those yearning for freedom, can look.
Terrorism didn't begin on September 11, 2001. It started earlier than the Beirut barracks attacks in 1983. It began in the hearts of evil men who preached about an angry god intent on wiping out his enemies through violent acts. That disease spread, and whether it found a host in Saddam Hussein or Osama bin Laden, the virus exploded into a worldwide plague. Sen. Kerry's remarks were not about finding a cure to the plague but about surrendering to it, or taking diplomatic placebos hoping the disease will go away.
It won't go away, even if America withdraws from Iraq tomorrow. Had we not gone there in the first place, terrorism would still be around.
The objective should be victory. It was a word absent from Kerry's speech, because it is a concept foreign to a man who has demonstrated his preference - first with Vietnam and now with Iraq - to help America's enemies in times of crisis far more than helping his own country.
©2004 Tribune Media Services
Kerry's Views on Iraq, Vietnam 'Virtually Identical,' Critic Charges
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
September 21, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - A leading critic of Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry Monday asserted that Kerry's latest speech denouncing the Bush administration's handling of the war in Iraq was "virtually identical" to the speech he delivered as an anti-war protester before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee 33 years ago.
Kerry on April 22, 1971 voiced his opposition to the Vietnam War in a speech before the committee chaired by Democratic Sen. William Fulbright of Arkansas. Fulbright also opposed the war. Monday, Kerry addressed the present day war in Iraq in a speech at New York University.
"It's basically the same throw your hands up, ask the international community to come in and surrender speech that [Kerry] gave before in 1971," said Jerome Corsi, co-author of the best-selling book "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry."
"On Monday, Kerry said it was basically a civil war in Iraq, just like he said about Vietnam in 1971," Corsi told CNSNews.com . "Kerry said we need an international solution in Vietnam (in 1971), and he said we need an international solution in Iraq."
"Kerry said we didn't have a strategy for getting out of Vietnam. Today he said we don't have a strategy for getting out of Iraq," Corsi added.
But the similarities do not end there, he insisted. "When he talked to the Fulbright committee, the only thing he basically suggested regarding the Vietnam War is, we get out of there and hand it over to someone else. He wouldn't acknowledge it was a war against communism, just like he is not acknowledging that the [Iraq War] is a war against terrorism," Corsi said.
Kerry's speech Monday differed from the 1971 speech in one key area, Corsi added.
"The only thing that was missing from the speech is [Kerry] didn't blame American troops in Iraq of war crimes and atrocities and I guess that is because his advisors told him it would be impolitic to go after Abu Ghraib," Corsi said. "You add that element in and you got the identical speech that he gave before the Senate in 1971."
Kerry's speech to New York University was a wholesale denunciation of President Bush's polices surrounding the Iraq War.
"Invading Iraq has created a crisis of historic proportions and, if we do not change course, there is the prospect of a war with no end in sight," Kerry said. The Massachusetts Democrat called for more United Nations involvement in Iraq and said the Iraqi people were much worse off because of the war.
"The administration told us we'd be greeted as liberators. They were wrong," Kerry said. "Security is deteriorating, for us and for the Iraqis. Basic living conditions are also deteriorating.
"Unemployment is over 50 percent. Insurgents are able to find plenty of people willing to take $150 for tossing grenades at passing U.S. convoys," Kerry added.
Bush has "made a series of catastrophic decisions" regarding the Iraq war, Kerry charged. "At every fork in the road, [Bush] has taken the wrong turn and led us in the wrong direction," he said.
Kerry also made his own reference to his 1971 anti-war activism. "After serving in war, I returned home to offer my own personal voice of dissent. I did so because I believed strongly that we owed it those risking their lives to speak truth to power. We still do," he said.
"It is never easy to discuss what has gone wrong while our troops are in constant danger. But it's essential if we want to correct our course and do what's right for our troops instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again," Kerry said.
Kerry also claimed that the Iraqi people are undecided about whether |