|John Kerry History Page | home
Click Logo To Go To Registration
No Vote...No Win!
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?
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.
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.
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.
WARNING! IMMEDIATE THREAT! WMD FOUND THROUGHOUT THE USA!
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
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.
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://188.8.131.52/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"?
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.
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.
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.
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 email@example.com
John Kerry does it again
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 to support the insurgents currently battling U.S. troops in Iraq. "[M]ost 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 explained.
The Grand Deception: 'Kerry, War Hero,' Is a Myth
by Roy F. Hoffmann
The widely repeated myth of "John Kerry, the Vietnam Navy Hero" is one of the most dishonorable and dangerous deceptions ever perpetrated upon the American public.
John Kerry is not a hero. He built this facade with unabashed personal promotion, aided and abetted by a supportive liberal media ready and willing to repeat in print his gross exaggerations, distortions of fact, and outright lies about his abbreviated four-month, 12-day tour of duty in Vietnam.
Until the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth spoke up in press conferences, television ads, and with the now best-selling book, Unfit for Command, no one - not even the conservative media - seriously or effectively challenged the veracity of John Kerry's self-aggrandizement. Only now is his war-hero facade beginning to peel away.
Kerry arrived in Vietnam on November 17, 1968, with a strong anti-war bias and a self-serving determination to build a foundation for a future political career. Even a most casual review of his biography, Tour of Duty by Douglas Brinkley, will reveal that Kerry entered the Naval Reserve as a "vain intellectual" with contempt for military authority.
Stooped to Achieve Goal
In hindsight, his obvious objective was to emulate his idol, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, serve as short a time as possible, and escape Vietnam unscathed but with sufficient credentials and decorations to portray himself in heroic terms. To achieve his goal, Kerry stooped to scamming an after-combat reporting system that was based on trust, promoting himself for a handful of medals regardless of their dubious merits, so he could "bug out" of the war zone early.
His propensity for gross exaggeration and lying was legend to those who knew him, even early on at Cam Rahn Bay, his first duty station in Vietnam. In Tour of Duty, Kerry recounts the story of the seas being so rough during the monsoon season that sailors came in "pissing red and that several people have broken bones" - a ridiculous story that was totally unsubstantiated.
Or consider the story of how Kerry, according to Brinkley, stated, "A sampan navigating in the shroud of darkness was assumed to be Viet Cong and would be fired on" - a breach of the U.S. Navy's rules of engagement. That is an outright defamatory lie. The South Vietnamese National Government had established and promulgated well-defined coastal-control zones to facilitate surveillance, illegal activity, and infiltration of enemy arms from seaward. Although our Swift Boats and Coast Guard cutters did diligently enforce the restricted areas, a boat or ship violating a restricted zone would not be fired upon unless attempting to escape inspection, and only after proper warning in accordance with U.S. Navy strict rules of engagement.
Kerry repeatedly embellishes this lie by referring to "U.S. designated free-fire zones," implying that such zones authorized indiscriminate killing, in order to portray the U.S. military as unwanted, brutish conquerors in Vietnam. In truth, free-fire zones fell within the normal rules of engagement and authorized not an order to fire but discretion to fire first if threatened by, or when confronting, enemy forces.
Kerry's First Purple Heart
Another troubling sequence involves Kerry's first Purple Heart. Exactly two weeks after arrival in Vietnam, Kerry was involved in a scenario in which he was "wounded" by a small fragment, about the size of a rose thorn - a self-inflicted wound resulting from the careless use of his own M-79 grenade launcher. According to the testimony of the attending physician, Dr. Louis Letson, the fragment barely penetrated the skin of his right arm and was easily removed with tweezers and dressed with a Band-Aid. Despite the minor nature of the injury, Kerry still requested a Purple Heart from Division Commander Grant Hibbard. Commander Hibbard denied, noting that there was no hostile fire involved in the incident, no casualty report, and no after-action report - all requisites for a Purple Heart medal.
Still, somehow Kerry circumvented the system and somehow was awarded the Purple Heart some three months after Lt. Commander Hibbard denied the award. Who initiated the award remains a mystery and will remain so until Kerry authorizes the full release of his military and medical records, complete and unaltered. Although Kerry continues to imply that he was the officer in charge of this "Boston Whaler" operation, he fails to mention that he was under the training supervision of Lt. William Schachte, the actual officer in charge and aboard the small craft with Kerry.
Another example of Kerry's lies about his Vietnam "war hero" status involves the now infamous secret mission into Cambodia on Christmas Day, 1968, a fabrication now disclaimed by Kerry campaign spokesman Michael Meehan and Kerry's campaign biographer Douglas Brinkley.
On March 27, 1986, the then-Senator Kerry on the floor of the U.S. Senate claimed he was on Navy duty in Cambodia in Christmas, 1968, at a time when President Nixon was lying to the public, saying there were no U.S. forces in Cambodia at that time. The Congressional Record reports Kerry as saying, "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the President of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have the memory which is seared - seared - in me."
Not even a good lie. President Nixon did not take office until January 20, 1969. Moreover, how does one differentiate the ethnic and political distinctions of the unseen foes shooting at you? As one lie begets another, Kerry's own biographer, Douglas Brinkley, writes in Tour of Duty that Kerry's private Vietnam journal places him on the Bassac River near the city of Sa Dec, Vietnam, 50 miles from the Cambodian border.
Further, the U.S. Army had placed on 24-hour surveillance a manned landing craft blocking passage into Cambodian waters, along with a huge sign designed to prevent entrance, accidental or otherwise, into Cambodian waters. The U.S. Navy also had two river patrol boats patrolling the area for the same reason, making it almost impossible for a U.S. craft to enter Cambodian waters.
Lt. (jg.) Kerry's third Purple Heart is as questionable as the first. On March 13, 1969, Kerry's boat, PCF-94, with provincial troops embarked was engaged in an infantry sweep of a known Viet Cong sanctuary on the Dong Cong canal, in An Xuyen province. During this operation, the troops blew up some huge bins of rice. According to Kerry's biography, "I got a piece of small grenade in my [rear] from one of the rice bin explosions." Kerry would later the same day claim this accidental and minor injury was a result of a mine explosion near his boat that threw him into a bulkhead, smashing his arm.
The truth is that there was only one explosion, and that this single explosion severely damaged PCF-3 near the opposite bank of the Bay Hop River. There was no damage to any other of the five Swift Boats in that formation.
Claims of Making Rescue
Based on the after-action report filed by Lt. (jg.) Kerry, he was awarded a Purple Heart for wounds resulting from a mine explosion and a Bronze Star with a "V" for rescuing Lt. Rassmann, U.S. Army, who fell overboard when Kerry's PCF-94 abruptly fled the scene of action.
Contrary to the false after-action report citing automatic weapons and rifle fire from both banks for 3.1 miles, there were six on-scene witnesses who have stated that there was no enemy fire from either bank. Kerry did return to the scene and pick up Rassmann after it was evident that there was no hostile fire. There was nothing heroic about rescuing Rassmann, who was about to be picked up by another PCF. Had the truth been known, Kerry would have been disqualified from being awarded the Bronze Star.
Medical records also report Kerry's injuries from the March 13, 1968, incident involved only a minor bruise on his right arm and minor shrapnel wounds on his buttocks. Since there was no hostile fire, and only one mine explosion, with no structural effect on PCF-94, there was no justification for the Purple Heart award.
John Kerry was the only man in the entire Task Force of 3,600 men - officers and enlisted - to request transfer out of country based on three Purple Hearts. Particularly galling to his shipmates was the fact that not one of his minor nicks was debilitating nor resulted in one lost day of duty.
Nevertheless, with his three specious Purple Hearts, John Kerry shamelessly invoked an obscure Navy directive allowing him to "jump ship" and return home, there to begin his infamous betrayal of all those U.S. soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen, and POWs who served honorably in the Vietnam War - more than 2 million Americans who deserved Kerry's respect.
Kerry's leadership within the fraudulent and contemptible Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and his testimony before Senator William Fulbright's Committee in 1971 charging us with unspeakable atrocities remain even today an unspecified and undocumented dishonor to the men and women who dutifully and courageously stayed the course.
Meeting With Madame Binh
Kerry's meeting with Madame Binh representing the Viet Cong and with other members of the Vietnamese Communist delegations to the Paris Peace Conference in 1970, while he was yet a Naval Reserve officer, constitute meeting with the enemy during time of war. His subsequent press conference in July, 1971, urging President Nixon to accept Madame Binh's proposal for the return of our POWs , was a major propaganda victory for the Communist regime. His illegal and traitorous activities with the VVAW and the ilk of Jane Fonda unquestionably had a seriously demoralizing impact on our POWs and probably extended their imprisonment by at least two years.
Kerry is not a hero. He betrayed his comrades-in-arms in time of war. He is a chronic liar and a fraud. This is not about politics; it's about truthfulness, reliability, loyalty, and trust - all absolute tenets of command. John Forbes Kerry is not fit to be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of America.
Roy Hoffmann, a retired Navy Rear Admiral and the founder of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is a resident of Chesterfield. As the commander of the Coastal Surveillance Force Vietnam in 1968-1969, Admiral Hoffman was the overall commander of U.S. Swift Boats during the period of Kerry's Vietnam coastal service.
This article was published by The Richmond Times-Dispatch
Reclaiming stolen honor this election year.
The Mysteries of John Kerry's War Record
by John Hinderaker, Scott Johnson & Edward Morrissey
WHEN John Kerry "reported for duty" at the Democratic National Convention and presented himself as qualified to lead by virtue of his service in Vietnam, he opened up for public scrutiny his actions in Vietnam and, later, as an antiwar activist. Kerry's critics, including the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, promptly responded with a critique of Kerry's record. The charges and counter-charges have left many confused, especially as some issues seem to turn on obscure, if not arcane, facts.
What follows is a primer on the main issues, the evidence and open questions.
Christmas in Cambodia
On March 27, 1986, Kerry took the floor of the U.S. Senate to deliver a dramatic indictment of Reagan administration foreign policy. As is his habit, he drew on his Vietnam experience: "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and having the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there."
He continued: "I have that memory which is seared — seared — in me, that says to me, before we send another generation into harm's way we have a responsibility in the U.S. Senate to go the last step, to make the best effort possible to avoid that kind of conflict."
Kerry has told of this Cambodia trip many times, from a 1979 Boston Herald review of "Apocalypse Now" to a June 1, 2003, Washington Post profile. The Post's Laura Blumenfeld reported that Kerry pulled a mildewed hat out of his briefcase and described it as "my good luck hat, given to me by a CIA man as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia."
Yet parts of Kerry's story are incredible on their face — such as saying Richard Nixon was responsible for the illegal mission, when Lyndon Johnson was president in 1968.
And there is no record that Swift boats were ever used for secret missions in Cambodia. (Their size and noisy engines make them ill-suited for the job.) Kerry's authorized biography, "Tour of Duty" by Douglas Brinkley, makes no mention of any such mission during Kerry's service.
Not a single crewman who served with Kerry has supported his claim to have entered Cambodia, and three have expressly denied it. Kerry's commanding officers have denied he was ever sent there. And Kerry's own Vietnam journal (excerpted in the Boston Globe) shows that on Christmas 1968 he was docked at Sa Dec, 50 miles from Cambodia.
In mid-August, these facts promped the Kerry campaign to "correct" the story, saying the mission took place in January 1969 when Kerry "inadvertently or responsibly" crossed the border.
Yet "inadvertently" straying into Cambodia — were that even possible — belies the basic point of Kerry's original story: that he lost his faith in government because the president lied about having sent U.S. troops into Cambodia. It also contradicts his story about ferrying a CIA man.
And the "correction" plainly hasn't sunk in: The Democratic Party chairman, Terry McAuliffe, told us in an interview earlier this month that Kerry had made two missions to Cambodia to drop off CIA men.
Some questions that Kerry himself has yet to answer: When exactly did he enter Cambodia? Accidentally, or intentionally? If by accident, how did that lead him to lose faith in the government? If on a secret mission, what was its purpose? What is the name of the CIA man? Why is there no record of any Cambodia mission, even in Kerry's journals? And why do Kerry's crewmates and fellow officers unanimously deny that any such mission ever occurred?
First Combat . . . Maybe
Kerry won his first Purple Heart for a combat engagement on Dec. 2, 1968, while training on a skimmer, or Boston whaler. On his campaign Web site, Kerry claims that on that day, he "experiences his first intense combat; receives combat-related injury" — for which he would eventually receive a Purple Heart.
But in "Tour of Duty," Brinkley writes:
"They pulled away from the pier at Cat Lo with spirits high, feeling satisfied with the way things were going for them. They had no lust for battle, but they also were not afraid. Kerry wrote in his notebook, 'A cocky feeling of invincibility accompanied us up the Long Tau shipping channel because we hadn't been shot at yet, and Americans at war who haven't been shot at are allowed to be cocky.' "
According to Kerry's journal, the date on which he "hadn't been shot at yet" was Dec. 9. Which means he hadn't been in combat on Dec. 2.
This fits in with the Swift vets' contention that Kerry's initial request for a Purple Heart had been denied by the chain of command. In fact, he didn't get a Purple Heart commendation for his Dec. 2 injury until months later, after transferring to a different command — which took Kerry at his word on being under enemy fire in the earlier engagement.
Kerry's campaign has now admitted that his first Purple Heart wound may have been unintentionally self-inflicted, sustained when he exploded a hand grenade too close to shore. The Kerry camp has not responded substantively to questions on the discrepancies between his citation and his journal entries as published by his biographer.
False Memories Of Fighting Together
David Alston has accompanied Kerry on campaign appearances, giving powerful testimony about Kerry's leadership under fire (including perhaps the most effective speech on Kerry's behalf at the Democratic Convention).
Alston and Kerry have both spoken of two engagements in which they took fire together on PCF-94, one on Jan. 29, 1969, the other on Feb. 28, 1969, when Kerry won his Silver Star.
Problems with these stories arose this April, when Lt. Tedd Peck complained that Kerry had appropriated one of Peck's actions as his own. It turned out that Peck, not Kerry, commanded PCF-94 on Jan. 29.
Both Peck and Alston were seriously wounded in that battle. We know that no other officer was aboard PCF-94, because enlisted man Del Sandusky took command after Peck was disabled. So Kerry's claim to have commanded the boat in that engagement is clearly false.
Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan created a timeline that credited all of PCF-94's January engagements to Kerry. Only after Peck complained publicly did Kerry stop trying to take credit for engagements that occurred before he was assigned to PCF-94. The campaign Website now notes only that he took command of PCF-94 in "late January."
According to records formerly available on the site, Alston was Medevaced to an Army hospital in Binh Thuy after being injured in the Jan. 29 fight, and did not return quickly. Kerry took command of PCF-94, the next day, replacing the injured Lt. Peck. The boat also got at least one and probably two new gunners to replace Alston. Fred Short arrived as the new gunner on Feb. 13.
On Feb. 28, PCF-94 took part in the engagement that won Kerry a Silver Star, and a commendation for every member of his crew. Alston has repeatedly asserted, since at least May 2002, that he participated in that action. In an interview with ABC News on June 24, Alston said: "I know when John Kerry told Del to beach that damn boat, this was a brand-new ball game. We wasn't running. We took it to Charlie."
"We?" All of Kerry's crew received commendations for this action. Absent from the list is the name David Alston. But Short's name is listed, and he was photographed at the award ceremony along with Kerry and his five enlisted men (a full PCF crew). Not in the photo: David Alston.
In an interview with Byron York of National Review, Short said that Alston didn't return to PCF-94 until after March 4, 1969, well after the Feb. 28 engagement. The exact date of Alston's return remains a mystery because (like Kerry) Alston has refused to release his military records. What is clear is that both Alston and Kerry have lied since at least May 2002 about Alston's service under Kerry.
Why did Kerry claim to have been in command of PCF-94 on Jan. 29, 1969? Why did Kerry try to replace Fred Short with David Alston as gunner in the Feb. 28 engagement? Only Kerry and Alston can explain. But since the controversy arose, Alston has disappeared from the campaign trail.
One Medal, Three Citations
In that Feb. 28 engagement, Kerry beached his PCF to frontally assault a Viet Cong ambush. He then leapt off the boat and chased an armed VC from the beach, killing him and capturing his rocket launcher. On that much, everyone agrees. The mystery surrounds the three differing citations Kerry has for the Silver Star he earned that day.
Adm. Elmo Zumwalt personally awarded the medal to Kerry. The citation (No. 1) notes that "an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft Fast 94 and fled. Without hesitation, Lieutenant (junior grade) KERRY leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hootch and killed him . . . " The citations says the operation resulted in 10 Viet Cong killed.
For most people, one citation per award is sufficient. However, Kerry has another (No. 2) for this incident, this one signed by Adm. John Hyland, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet.
This citation fails to mention the VC that Kerry killed, but has added praise: Kerry now acted "with utter disregard for his own safety and the enemy rockets" and has now faced a "numerically superior force."
Citation No. 3 was signed by John Lehman as secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan, more than 10 years after the action. It's nearly identical to No. 2, except it adds, "By his brave actions, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to duty, Lieutenant (jg) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself."
What really happened on the Dong Cung River that day? Kerry's own crew (most of whom support his candidacy) insisted that Kerry chased the injured VC behind the hootch, out of sight of the crew, before killing him. Kerry denies leaving his crew's sight — which would be a brave but foolish tactical mistake for the commander of a beached boat under fire. And both later citations fail to mention Kerry personally killing the VC.
Last week, The Post's Deborah Orin confirmed from Navy sources that the original teletype of the after-action report had been found in the Naval Archives. It confirms the statements of Kerry's crew: "OinC [Officer in Command] of PCF 94 chased VC inland behind hootch and shot him while he fled capturing one B-40 rocket launcher with round in chamber."
The report also makes clear that the three PCFs carried a contingent of 90 Vietnamese RFPF troops, which would have hardly made their patrol numerically inferior to the snipers that ambushed them. And the final calculation of KIA from that mission, according to the immediately-filed after-action report, was 4 KIA, not 10 or a score as the citations state.
Kerry performed well under fire. But his changing stories regarding the action have mysteriously found their way into the extraordinary series of citations that stretch out over a decade for this single action and award.
Lehman, moreover, insists that he never signed the third citation nor wrote the additional language. On Friday, the Navy inspector general concluded, following an investigation prompted by a Judicial Watch request, that the proper procedure had been followed in the processes initially used to approve Kerry's medals and the officers involved had proper authority to approve the awards. But Adm. R. A. Route's probe didn't address any qualitative review of Kerry's awards, and Lehman's disavowal of citation No. 3 has prompted a separate investigation.
Much more could be said about John Kerry and the Vietnam years, but this primer may suggest why Kerry has been keeping his distance from the press these last six weeks. Kerry can put some of these questions to rest — by signing the standard military form to allow his records to be made public. Until those records are released, many questions will remain unanswered.
Minneapolis attorneys John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson are proprietors of the Web log powerlineblog.com. Minneapolis-based freelance writer Edward Morrissey is proprietor of the Web log captainsquartersblog.com.
This article was published by The New York Post
“Seared in My Memory”
-- by Mackubin Thomas Owens
John Kerry's decision to run for president on his record in Vietnam has ripped the scab off of the wounds that war inflicted on the American body politic. Some of Kerry's defenders have laid this charge at the feet of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, but the fact is that they were responding to what they perceived as an affront to their honor. This is why all the attempts to paint them as Republican stooges are so far off of the mark.
I believe my own motivation in publicizing Kerry's actions after the war is typical of most anti-Kerry veterans, including the Swifties. I would never have written my first NRO piece back in January had Kerry chosen to run on his Senate record. But to coin a phrase, his April 1971 testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is "seared in my memory" and I believe his attempt now to surround himself with people he had once described as war criminals represents the height of cynicism and hypocrisy.
BEFORE AND AFTER
Of course, the Kerry campaign and most of the press blew off the pieces I wrote for NRO in January and for National Review in February as an attempt to question his service in Vietnam. The volume of e-mails and phone calls I received from Vietnam veterans agreeing with me demonstrated that I was far from alone. But owing to a lack of media interest, the issue dropped off the scope, permitting Kerry and his apologists to avoid addressing it.
Enter the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. They were motivated not only by Kerry's actions after the war but by the hagiographic portrayal of his Vietnam service in Douglas Brinkley's Tour of Duty. Despite a desperate attempt to dismiss the Swifties as Republican goons, Kerry and his defenders in the media were forced to deal with the substance of the Swifties' charges. This they did with varying degrees of success, owing to the fact that men in battle often perceive the same event differently. It does seem clear that Kerry did not spend Christmas of 1968 in Cambodia as he claimed on numerous occasions. There are also legitimate questions about the circumstances surrounding his first Purple Heart and his rescue of Jim Rassmann.
But there would seem to be no argument about Kerry's actions after the war. He did leave the Navy early to pursue a political career; he did join the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW); he did claim during his 1971 Senate testimony that American soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam on a regular basis; he did participate in numerous instances of "political theater" put on by the VVAW, including Dewey Canyon III; and he did meet with representatives of the North Vietnamese Communist government. These events may have brought him to political prominence in the United States, but at the cost of alienating a substantial number of Vietnam veterans who believed he besmirched their honor and whose resulting anger has simmered for three decades.
The first attempt to defend Kerry on the substance of the charge that he had dishonored all of those who fought in Vietnam with his 1971 Senate testimony was a series of arguments claiming that he really didn't mean to include everyone in Vietnam when he made his claim of widespread atrocities. He was, so the argument went, merely relating stories told by others. But if so, he should have chosen his words more carefully. The commonsense meaning of the statement that "over 150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans testified to war crimes committed in southeast Asia, not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command" seems to be that these accounts represent only the tip of the iceberg and, more important, that such actions represented U.S. policy against the Vietnamese.
So indeed, the second attempt to defend Kerry is now in play. His defenders claim that he was telling the truth — that atrocities did take place in Vietnam. Of course, as anyone who has read my articles knows, there is no controversy about this point. But the trick here, most on display in Peter Beinart's "Apocalypse Redux" in the September 6 issue of The New Republic, is to suggest that those who criticize Kerry are somehow denying that atrocities occurred in Vietnam at all. Beinart argues that the second Swift Boat ad (recounting Kerry's Senate testimony) doesn't claim that Kerry's charges were false, but "merely suggests he was unpatriotic for leveling them." Beinart then goes on to cite a number of historians who, sure enough, assure us that atrocities did occur in Vietnam.
But this is missing the point — whether intentionally or not I cannot say. This is now my eighth piece on this topic since January for National Review, NRO, The Weekly Standard, and the Jerusalem Post. In every one of those pieces as well as many others I have written over the years about the Vietnam War, I have stated unequivocally that Americans committed atrocities in Vietnam. I have never tried to whitewash the record, as one of my correspondents claimed.
As is often the case, Jim Webb — a Marine hero of the Vietnam War (Navy Cross) and best-selling author whose novel Fields of Fire is the best book about Vietnam — got to the crux of the matter in a recent NPR commentary when he said that the "stories of atrocious conduct, repeated in lurid detail by Kerry before the Congress, represented not the typical experience of the American soldier, but its ugly extreme" (emphasis added).
THE WINTER SOLDIER DISCONTENT
Some of us who believe that the American soldier did not typically commit atrocities have called into question the credibility of many of the accounts upon which Kerry based his testimony — the "Winter Soldier Investigation" (WSI), an early 1971 event in Detroit organized by the VVAW and sponsored by Jane Fonda, Dick Gregory, and conspiracy theorist Mark Lane. I had read Lane's 1970 book, Conversations with Americans, and was struck by how implausible most of the atrocity claims were. I was not alone. Lane's book was panned by James Reston Jr. and Neil Sheehan, not exactly known as supporters of the Vietnam War. Sheehan in particular demonstrated that many of Lane's "eyewitnesses" either had never served in Vietnam or had not done so in the capacity they claimed.
The transcripts of the WSI struck me the same way. My own beliefs were reinforced several years later by the publication of Guenter Lewy's America in Vietnam, in which he related the difficulty that military investigators faced trying to get particulars. As I wrote in the February 23 issue of National Review, paraphrasing Lewy, when the Naval Investigative Service (NIS) attempted to interview those who allegedly had witnessed atrocities, most refused to cooperate, even after assurances that they would not be questioned about atrocities they might have committed personally. Those that did cooperate never provided details of actual crimes to investigators. The NIS also discovered that some of the most grisly testimony was given by fake witnesses who had appropriated the names of real Vietnam veterans.
The same thing happened with Army investigators. As Lewy wrote, the refusal of [those who claimed to have witnessed atrocities] to give substantiating factual information in support of their atrocity allegations created a situation in which the accusers continued to reap generous publicity for their sensational charges while the Army in most cases could neither investigate nor refute them...As of April 1971, the CID (the Army's Criminal Investigative Division) had determined that [in one case] 7 of 16 allegations...which could be investigated were unfounded or unsubstantiated. Most of the allegations were so general as to defy investigation.
My skepticism about the WSI was further strengthened by the publication of Stolen Valor by B. G. Burkett and Genna Whitley. In the course of trying to raise money for a Texas Vietnam Veterans Memorial, Burkett discovered that reporters were only interested in homeless veterans and drug abuse and that the corporate leaders he approached had bought into the popular image of Vietnam veterans: They were not honorable men who took pride in their service, but whining welfare cases, bellyaching about what an immoral government did to them.
Fed up, Burkett did something that any reporter worth his or her salt could have done: He used the Freedom of Information Act to check the actual records of the "image makers" used by reporters to flesh out their stories on homelessness, Agent Orange, suicide, drug abuse, criminality, or alcoholism. What he found was astounding. More often than not, the showcase "veteran" who cried on camera — about his dead buddies, about committing or witnessing atrocities, or about some heroic action in combat that led him to the current dead end in his life — was an impostor.
Indeed, Burkett discovered that over the last decade, some 1,700 individuals, including some of the most prominent examples of the Vietnam-veteran-as-dysfunctional-loser, had fabricated their war stories. Many had never even been in the service. Others had been, but had never been in Vietnam.
Lewy's account recently has been called into question and Burkett has been criticized for simply accusing everyone who talks about atrocities as a phony or imposter. In the August 30 TNR Online, historian John Prados writes regarding the WSI atrocity accounts that "a handful of individual stories may have been called into question, but the main thrust of the [WSI] testimonies — that American atrocities were widespread in Vietnam — is today beyond dispute. Indeed the emergence of new evidence during the last 30 years has only solidified the winter soldiers' overall case." He then criticizes Lewy's account of the WSI:
Lewy's primary evidence consists of noting that VVAW members refused to give depositions. When the Naval Investigative Service tried to pull VVAW members into an inquiry, it found one Marine who either could not or would not give details of what he had seen and allegedly located several other veterans who said they had never gone to Detroit. (O'Neill had cited this same information in his televised debate with Kerry.) But even if true, these incidents were far too limited to establish anything in particular about the Winter Soldier Investigation; the fact that some of the winter soldiers declined to give depositions does not prove or disprove the legitimacy of the entire project. The VVAW leadership left it up to individual members to decide how to respond to requests for depositions. And veterans had good reasons to decline. For one thing, they argued that their purpose was to protest U.S. policy, not to draw attention to individual soldiers. What's more, with the VVAW under direct assault from the Nixon administration, it's understandable that the group's members were loath to cooperate with government investigators.
The debate turns, it seems to me, on Prados's assertion that it is today beyond dispute that "American atrocities were widespread in Vietnam." Again I stipulate that they did occur. Recent revelations include the Son Thang event described by Marine Corps veteran Gary D. Solis in his book Son Thang: An American War Crime and the more troubling "Tiger Force" story broken earlier this year by the Toledo Blade, which reported that members of an elite unit of the 327th Airborne Infantry in the Central Highlands in 1967 committed war crimes ranging from murder and assault to dereliction of duty.
Of course the best-known incident was the admission several years ago by Bob Kerrey, the highly respected former senator from Nebraska and Medal of Honor recipient, that the Navy SEAL team he led in Vietnam killed women and children during a nighttime mission some 32 years ago.
Kerrey's admission was prompted by a lengthy New York Times Magazine story by Gregory Vistica that went further than the charge that civilians died during this action. It contained the explosive claim that then-Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerrey had ordered the civilians to be rounded up and then shot point-blank to facilitate the SEAL team's escape. If this allegation is true, what happened that night in the Mekong Delta village of Thanh Phong was more than a terrible tragedy of war — it was a war crime.
KERRY, THE SOVIET PROPAGANDIST
These are all troubling events. But they do not prove that atrocities in Vietnam were more widespread than in previous wars. Additionally, there is no evidence that atrocities were a matter of policy, as suggested in this September 1970 VVAW flyer issued in conjunction with one of its stunts:
A US Infantry
If you had been Vietnamese —
We might have burned your house
We might have shot your dog
We might have shot you
We might have raped your wife and daughter
We might have turned you over to the government for torture
We might have taken souvenirs from your property
We might have shot things up a bit
We might have done all these things to you and your whole town
Let's put things in perspective. Some three million men served in Vietnam. Since the logistics tail of U.S. forces is fairly large, only about 25 percent, or 750,000, served in combat units. If we add up all of the atrocities, both proven and alleged, and multiply them by two as a hedge against under-reporting, the percentage of American combat soldiers who might have committed atrocities is still less than 1 percent of the total. I doubt that many armies in history could match that record.
I have tried on many occasions to get to the heart of why some Americans committed atrocities in Vietnam and others didn't. The fact is that anyone who has been in combat understands the thin line between permissible acts and atrocity. The first and potentially most powerful emotion in combat is fear arising from the instinct of self-preservation.
But in soldiers, fear is overcome by what the Greeks called thumos, spiritedness or righteous indignation. It is thumos, awakened by the death of his comrade Patroclus, that causes Achilles to quit sulking in his tent and wade into the Trojans, slaughtering them in great numbers. But unchecked, thumos can engender rage and frenzy. It is the role of leadership, which provides strategic context for killing and enforces discipline, to prevent this outcome. Such leadership was not in evidence at My Lai, or most of the other cases of atrocities.
In the May 3 issue of National Review, I suggested three reasons that explain the belief on the part of so many that atrocities in Vietnam were more frequent than in other wars and that they were a part of policy: 1) Soviet propaganda; 2) the belief on the part of the veterans who related atrocity stories that they were telling their listeners what they wanted to hear; and 3) liars and phonies.
In America in Vietnam, Lewy noted the establishment of a veritable war-crimes industry, supported by the USSR, as early as 1965. As Ion Mihai Pacepa, a former Romanian intelligence chief, has recounted, the Soviets set up permanent international organizations — including the International War Crimes Tribunal and the Stockholm Conference on Vietnam — "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." Pacepa claims to have been responsible for fabricating stories about U.S. atrocities in Vietnam and "flacking" them to Western news organizations.
Lewy writes that "the Communists made skillful use of their worldwide propaganda apparatus . . . and they found many Western intellectuals only too willing to accept every conceivable allegation of [American] wrongdoing at face value."
The VVAW, a small, radical group that never exceeded a membership of 7,000 (including John Kerry) from a pool of nearly three million Vietnam (and nine million Vietnam-era) veterans, essentially "Americanized" Soviet propaganda. When he testified before the Senate in 1971, Kerry was merely repeating charges that had been making the rounds since 1965.
To the anti-war Left, atrocities revealed the Nazi-like character of "Amerika." But, unlike their Nazi counterparts, U.S. soldiers could be redeemed: By confessing atrocities, the Vietnam veterans, once denigrated as "baby killers," were able to receive absolution from the Left, and were transmuted into innocent victims of a brutal war. American military sociologist Charles Moskos has suggested that atrocity stories out of Vietnam were the functional equivalent of heroic war stories from World War II: They provided a meaning to participation in Vietnam that resonated with those who opposed the war and were now judging the returning soldiers. Some atrocity claims were the product of outright fantasy, on the part of soldiers who returned from the war emotionally disturbed. The (anti-war) psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton wrote of a veteran who, after some time in group therapy, could "confess that he had been much less violent in Vietnam than he had implied. He had previously given the impression that he had killed many people there, whereas in actuality, despite extensive combat experience, he could not be certain he had killed anyone."
Third were the phonies: In response to the claim that some if not many of those who testified at the WSI event were exaggerating or even imposters, Prados writes that "every veteran who presented in Detroit had to show a copy of his military papers (the military form known as DD-214) to demonstrate that he had actually been present at the places and times he was speaking about."
Let me be clear. Not all atrocity stories can be pawned off as the work of phonies. But one of the most striking revelations of Stolen Valor is how easy it is to produce fraudulent records, including the DD-214. And anyone who served in Vietnam has no doubt at one time or another confronted a wannabe Vietnam vet. It has always amazed me how many people want to claim to have served in such an unpopular war.
I would add a fourth reason — the passing down of a story from soldier to soldier. According to FactCheck.org, Keith Nolan, author of ten published books on Vietnam, says he's heard many veterans describe atrocities just like those Kerry recounted from the Winter Soldier event. Since 1978, Nolan has interviewed roughly 1,000 veterans in depth for his books, and spoken to thousands of others. "I have heard the exact same stories dozens if not hundreds of times over," he said. "Wars produce atrocities. Frustrating guerrilla wars produce a particularly horrific number of atrocities. That some individual soldiers and certain units responded with excessive brutality in Vietnam shouldn't really surprise anyone."
Let me recount a personal anecdote that makes me question the idea that a story heard many times validates it. I didn't commit or witness atrocities during my tour as a Marine infantry platoon leader. As far as I know, neither did the other officers in my regiment and battalion. But I heard of an atrocity just after I joined the unit. A Marine who was scheduled to rotate soon recounted an incident that he claimed had occurred shortly after he had arrived in the unit about a year earlier.
According to the story, members of a sister company had killed some North Vietnamese soldiers after they had surrendered. Some months later, I heard another Marine who had joined my platoon after I took it over relate exactly the same story to some newly arrived men, only now it involved me and my platoon. I had a little chat with him and he cleared things up with the new men. But that episode has always made me wonder how many of the stories have been recycled and how many accounts of atrocities are based on what veterans heard as opposed to committed or witnessed. Of course, an account based on hearsay may be true. After all, the soldier who broke the My Lai story was not present during the massacre.
Unfortunately for the body politic, this issue is not going to go away. Too many veterans have long memories and they believe that Kerry sacrificed their honor on the altar of his political ambitions.
This article was published by The National Review Online
The First Rathergate
The CBS anchor’s precarious relationship with the truth.
By Anne Morse
Critics are calling the media scandal over the Jerry Killian forgeries "Rathergate." But to thousands of Vietnam veterans, the real Rathergate took place 16 years ago when Dan Rather successfully foisted a fraud onto the American people. Then, unlike now, there was no blogosphere to expose him.
On June 2, 1988, CBS aired an hour-long special titled CBS Reports: The Wall Within, which CBS trumpeted as the "rebirth of the TV documentary." It purported to tell the true story of Vietnam through
the eyes of six of the men who fought there. And what terrible stories they had to tell.
"I think I was one of the highest trained, underpaid, eighteen-cent-an-hour assassins ever put together by a team of people who knew exactly what they were looking for," said Steve Southards, a Navy SEAL who told Rather he had escaped society to live in the forests of Washington state. Under Rather's gentle coaxing, Southards described slaughtering Vietnamese civilians, making his work appear to be that of
the North Vietnamese.
"You're telling me that you went into the village, killed people, burned part of the village, then made it appear that the other side had done this?" Rather asked.
"Yeah," Steve replied. "It was kill VC, and I was good at what I did."
Steve arrived home "in a straitjacket, addicted to alcohol and drugs" knowing that "combat had made him different," Rather intoned. "He asked for help; that's unusual, many vets don't. They hold back until they explode."
Rather then moved on to suicidal veteran named George Grule, who was stationed on the aircraft carrier Ticonderoga off the coast of Vietnam during a secret mission. Grule described the horror of watching a
friend walk into the spinning propeller of a plane, which chopped him to pieces and sprayed Grule with his blood. The memory of this trauma left Grule, like Steve, unable to function in normal society.
Neither could Mikal Rice, who broke down as he described a grenade attack at Cam Ranh Bay, which blew in half the body of a buddy, "Sergeant Call." "He died in my arms," Rice tearfully recalled. Rice
described how the sound of thunder and cars backfiring would regularly trigger his terrible memories.
Most horrific of all were the memories of Terry Bradley, a "fighting sergeant" who told Rather he had skinned alive 50 Vietnamese men, women, and children in one hour and stacked their bodies in piles.
"Could you do this for one hour of your life, you stack up every way a body could be mangled, up into a body, an arm, a tit, an eyeball . . . Imagine us over there for a year and doing it intensely," Bradley said.
"That is sick."
"You've got to be angry about it," Rather replied. "I'm suicidal about it," Bradley responded.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, drug abuse, alcoholism, joblessness, homelessness, suicidal thoughts: These tattered warriors suffered from them all.
The The Wall Within was hailed by critics who — like the Washington Post's Tom Shales — gushed that the documentary was "extraordinarily powerful." There was just one problem: Almost none of it was true.
The truth was uncovered by B.G. Burkett, a Vietnam veteran and author of Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of its Heroes and its History (with Glenna Whitley). Burkett discovered that only one of the vets had actually served in combat. Steve Southards, who'd claimed to be a 16-year-old Navy SEAL assassin, had actually served as an equipment repairman stationed far from combat. Later transferred to Subic Bay in the Philippines, Steve spent most of his time in the brig for repeatedly going AWOL.
And George Gruel, who claimed he was traumatized by the sight of his friend being chopped to pieces by a propeller? Navy records reveal that a propeller accident did take place on the Ticonderoga when Gruel was aboard — but that he wasn't around when it happened. During Gruel's tour, the ship had been converted to an antisubmarine warfare carrier which operated, not on "secret mission" along the Vietnam coast, but on training missions off the California coastline. Nevertheless, Burkett notes, Gruel receives $1,952 a month from the Veterans Administration for "psychological trauma" related to an event he only heard about.
Mikal Rice — the anguished vet who claimed to have cradled his dying buddy in his arms — actually spent his tour as a guard with an MP company at Cam Ranh Bay. He never saw combat. Neither did Terry Bradley, who was not the "fighting sergeant" he'd claimed to be. Instead, military records reveal he served as an ammo handler in the 25th Infantry Division and spent nearly a year in the stockade for
being AWOL. That's good news for the hundreds of Vietnamese civilians Bradley claimed to have slaughtered. But it doesn't say much for Dan Rather's credibility.
As Burkett notes, the records of all of these vets were easily checkable through Freedom of Information Act requests of their military records — something Rather and his producers simply didn't bother to
do. They accepted at face value the lurid tales of atrocities committed in Vietnam and the stories of criminal behavior, drug addiction, and despair at home.
Perhaps that's because this is what they wanted to believe. Says Burkett: The Wall Within "precisely fit what Americans have grown to believe about the Vietnam War and its veterans: They routinely
committed war crimes. They came home from an immoral war traumatized, vilified, then pitied. Jobless, homeless, addicted, suicidal, they remain afflicted by inner conflicts, stranded on the fringes of society."
Burkett, who did check the records of the vets Rather interviewed, shared his discoveries with CBS. So did Thomas Turnage, then administrator of the Veterans Administration, who was appalled by
Rather's use of bogus statistics on the rates of suicide, homelessness, and mental illness among Vietnam veterans — statistics that can also be easily checked. Rather initially refused to comment, and CBS spokeswoman Kim Akhtar said, "The producers stand behind their story. They had enough proof of who they are." For his part, CBS president Howard Stringer defended the network with irrelevancies. "Your criticisms were not shared by a vast majority of our viewers," he sniffed, adding that "CBS News and its affiliates received acclaim from most quarters . . . In sum, this was a broadcast of which we at CBS News and I personally am proud. There are no apologies to make."
Sarah Lee Pilley, who ran a restaurant in Colville, Washington where the CBS crew dined while filming The Wall Within, would not agree. The wife of a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who saw combat in Vietnam, Pilley, said she "got the distinct feeling that CBS had a story they had decided on before they left New York." After interviewing 87 Vietnam veterans, CBS chose the "four or five saddest cases to put on the film," Pilley said. "The factual part of it didn't seem to matter as long as they captured the high drama and emotion that these few individuals offered. We felt all along that CBS committed tremendous
exploitation of some very sick individuals."
Why would Dan Rather do such a thing? Partly because the stories of deranged, trip-wire vets is much more dramatic than the true story: That most Vietnam veterans came home to live normal, productive, happy lives. Second, Rather apparently wanted the story of whacked-out Vietnam veterans to be true — just as he now wants the Jerry Killian story to be true.
Or maybe — despite a preponderance of the evidence — he considered the sources of these tales of Vietnam atrocities "unimpeachable." As angry Vietnam veterans began calling CBS to complain about the factual inaccuracies of The Wall Within, Perry Wolff, the executive producer who wrote the documentary, claimed that "No one has attacked us on the facts." Despite the growing evidence that he'd been had, Rather also continued to defend the documentary — which is now part of CBS's video
history series on the Vietnam War.
Perhaps Vietnam veterans ought to take a page out of the book of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and air television ads exposing Rather's deceits — something along the lines of: "Dan Rather lied about his
Vietnam documentary. I know. I was there. I saw what happened. When the chips were down, you could not count on Dan Rather."
Certainly, we cannot count on him for the truth. During a 1993 speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Association, Rather criticized his colleagues for competing with entertainment shows for
"dead bodies, mayhem, and lurid tales." "We should all be ashamed of what we have and have not done, measured against what we could do," Rather said.
Thousands of Vietnam veterans — not to mention the Bush campaign — would agree.
— Anne Morse is a writer living in Maryland.
Redstone Bails On CBS/Viacom
It seems that Sumner Redstone, Chairman and CEO of CBS owner Viacom Corporation exercised his option to sell 341,500 shares of Viacom stock.
On September 14, 2004. When the stock was at $35.00. He sold them at $35.00.
So. It makes you wonder. What did Sumner know and when did he know it?
Kerry's Testimony Speaks Volumns
|I was recently able to hear almost all of John Kerry’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I must say I was impressed. His monologue was well structured and eloquently delivered. Being 28, I was not around during Vietnam. Like 99.99% of Americans I was not an eyewitness to Kerry’s service. Having no first hand knowledge therefore, I must rely on the testimony of those who, like Kerry, were there. If I had absolutely no knowledge of the subject matter, I would likely accept such well supported and obviously heartfelt testimony without question. However, I do have first hand knowledge as to a small fraction of the subject matter of his testimony. For most of that fraction, he's just plain wrong; eloquent, but wrong.
I separated from active duty about a year ago after spending just over Five years in the United States Air Force. I served as an Air Battle Manager aboard the E-8C Joint STARS. In addition to intelligence collection, surveillance and reconnaissance, my duties focused on the coordination and application of firepower. I worked with artillery, rotary-wing aircraft (helicopters), fighter aircraft, bombers, cargo aircraft, Special Forces ground units and unmanned aerial vehicles, from every branch of the military. In preparation for this duty I received extensive training on the Geneva Conventions, the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), Rules of Engagement (ROE) and Fire Control Measures (FCMs). In addition to implementing these concepts myself, I served as an instructor for over two years, teaching them to others. I also served briefly in combat during Operation Iraqi Freedom. I offer this information not as self promotion, but only to suggest that I have both theoretical and practical knowledge of the following subject matter.
Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry testified that “we are more guilty than any other body of violations of those Geneva Conventions, in the use of free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, the bombings, the torture of prisoners, the killing of prisoners, accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. It is party and parcel of everything.” During his April 18, 1971 appearance on Meet the Press, Kerry said much the same and added, “I used .50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people.”
Free fire zones, harassment interdiction fire, search and destroy missions, and .50 caliber weapons all sound most unpleasant. Indeed to the average civilian they probably sound so horrible that they would be accepted as war crimes without question. But in reality all of these are within the Geneva Conventions and the LOAC.
A free fire zone (FFZ), which is now called a free fire area (FFA) is an FCM. (Why the name change? Well, it’s often said in the military, “Every time an acronym changes, a Colonel gets his wings.”)
Operational Terms and Graphics -- Army Field Manual 101-5-1/Marine Corps Reference Publication 5-2A 30 September 1997 -- defines a free fire area as follows:
free fire area (FFA) -- A specific designated area into which any weapon system may fire without additional coordination with the establishing headquarters. Normally, it is established on identifiable terrain by division or higher headquarters. (See also fire support coordination and rules of engagement (ROE).) See FM 6-20 series.
Here’s some background and a hypothetical to put it in layman’s terms. The Army and Marines divide the battlefield into lanes, and every unit from Corps down to Platoon has its own lane; its own slice of the battlefield. As a general rule, no one from Division A may fire into Division B’s lane without first coordinating with Division B. This is good because troops in Division A don’t usually know exactly where Division B is or what Division B is up to. Firing into Division B’s lane may cause fratricide or disrupt Division B’s plans in some way. This is also bad because if troops in Division A see the enemy in Division B’s lane, they can’t help Division B without time consuming coordination. So…
Let’s say Division A and Division B are fighting side by side. Let’s say there is a portion of Division B’s lane, in which Division B has no troops and which Division B can’t see (perhaps it’s behind a mountain). Let’s further imagine that Division A has good visibility of this area and has plenty of artillery or air support which could cover an enemy attack there. The commander of Division B will designate this area a “free fire area” meaning that Division A can fire into that portion of Division B’s lane without coordination. It does not mean that combatants are allowed to mow down anything and every thing that moves. The ROE, the LOAC, and the Geneva Conventions still apply in the FFA. It is an FCM not a war crime.
Army Field Manual 101-5-1/Marine Corps Reference Publication 5-2A also defines interdiction fire:
interdiction fire (NATO) -- Fire placed on an area or point to prevent the enemy from using the area or point. (See also interdict and interdiction.) See FMs 6-series and 7-90.
Again this sounds horrible, and you wouldn’t want interdiction fire at a family reunion, but it is not a war crime. When conducting interdiction fire, the ROE, the LOAC and the Geneva Conventions still apply.
“Search and Destroy Mission” is no longer defined in Army Field Manual 101-5-1/Marine Corps Reference Publication 5-2A, it is my (limited) understanding that the term was replaced by two separate orders, Movement to Contact followed by Engagement. In layman’s terms a seek and destroy mission meant, “Find the enemy and kill them.” Not a polite thing to do at Starbucks, but not a war crime.
Refutation of the .50 caliber reference is a little more involved. Since WWII, there has been a rumor floating around the military that use of .50 caliber weapons against soldiers (as opposed to use against tanks, equipment, aircraft, buildings, etc.) is banned by the Geneva Conventions, or the LOAC or some other international law. I heard this rumor as a cadet and I was skeptical since the Browning .50 caliber machine gun can be seen on tanks, helicopters, patrol boats, bunkers and just about everywhere it’s needed. During a LOAC briefing conducted by one of the instructors from the Air Force Judge Advocate School at Maxwell Air Force Base I learned that this was, in fact, only a rumor. Indeed a casual reading of the LOAC and the Geneva Conventions will uncover absolutely no restriction on the use of .50 caliber weapons. And that’s a good thing since the venerable .50 Caliber Browning machine gun has been mowing down the enemy at long range for going on 80 years now.
The above may sound like inconsequential minutia but I find it relevant for two reasons. First of all, I am disappointed but certainly not shocked to find that a junior officer was confused concerning the above. However, to think that a commander would lead men in to battle under such ignorance is appalling. That he professed such ignorance as enlightenment before the Senate and on national television is exponentially more appalling.
Secondly, most of us were not in Vietnam. But for a few, Americans did not see the courageous or cowardly actions of Kerry. Therefore, regarding most of the accolades and accusations delivered, it becomes a question of who are we to believe. Concerning some matters we have documented facts, such as Kerry’s recorded testimony and actual military documents. The fact that Kerry is wrong concerning that of which I have first hand knowledge is sufficient to, in my mind, divest him of the benefit of doubt, and shift the burden onto him to prove that which is unknown
THE WOUNDS THAT NEVER HEAL:
A VIETNAM VETERAN'S PERSPECTIVE ON JOHN KERRY'S VIETNAM
Now that Senator John Kerry has, surprisingly, given his Vietnam War record a prominent place in his presidential campaign, its time to look at that record carefully.
Using His Vietnam Record as a Shield
Kerry uses it, first, as a "sword" for the positive images loosely associated in the public mind with a junior officer leading men in war. But, second, Kerry uses Vietnam as a "shield" against criticism or even careful review of all kinds: of his Vietnam record in the both the United States and in Vietnam, and of his defense voting record in the U.S. Senate.
Its the use of his war record as a "shield" which makes Kerry's campaign unique. In a kind of left-wing McCarthyism, any critique of Kerry's defense record in the Senate or Vietnam war record is labelled as attacking Kerry's "patriotism". This extends even to mentioning certain undisputed facts (e.g., that he accrued three Purple Hearts without spending even a day in a hospital; or that he left Vietnam at his own request after only 4-1/2 months of a twelve month tour; or that he met with North Vietnamese officials in Paris while we were still at war; or that he voted against certain defense and intelligence funding). From Kerry himself and his campaign, you've all heard: its "wrong" to criticize someone who fought for his country; you can't criticize him if you "weren't there" or you didn't experience combat yourself; or it's improper to impugn the patriotism of someone who "took three bullets for his country" (an interesting quote from a leading Kerry campaign aide in the NY Times, insofar as Kerry has never "taken" or been touched by any bullets at all, for his country or anyone else).
The Facts on Kerry's Vietnam Record: Post-Navy
Let's look at the facts. First, regarding Kerry's post-Navy actions in the united States while the war continued:
** Kerry testified to the u.s. Senate in April 1971 that the United States in Vietnam was "reminiscent of Genghis Khan"; that officers like me routinely let their men plunder villages and rape villagers at will; that "war crimes committed" in Vietnam by my fellow soldiers "were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command".
** Kerry urged "an immediate withdrawal from South Vietnam, unconditionally, leaving our Prisoners of War in enemy hands with no hope of release.
** Kerry's 1971 book, "The New Soldier, by John Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War", displayed on its cover a photograph of protesters simulating the famous Marine Corps flag-raising on Mt. Suribachi, Iwo Jima -- with an upside down American flag. In that book, Kerry wrote that he "will not quickly join those who march on Veterans' Day", and that he "will not uphold traditions which decorously memorialize that which was base and grim."
** Kerry threw away (or pretended to throw away) awards, decorations, or medals over the Capitol fence in front of television cameras. At these protest events, ~freepnet/kerry/graphics/VVAW06.jpg"handbills from Vietnam Veterans Against the War (in which Kerry was a key leader) claimed that the U.S. Infantry would "turn your son into a butcher", who would shoot civilians, rape women and children, and so forth. The accusation concluded with, "American soldiers do these things every day to the Vietnamese".
** Kerry met with North Vietnamese officials in Paris while the war continued and American POWs were still in enemy hands. The North Vietnamese, in turn, display Kerry's picture in an honored place in Ho Chi Minh City's war museum as a hero to the communist war effort.
** Kerry ran for Congress, taking the position that all U.S. armed forces outside the United States should be under the command of the United Nations.
The Facts on Kerry's Vietnam Record: Navy Service
That's a summary of Kerry's post-Navy activities during the Vietnam War. Now let's look briefly at his Naval record.
** As an alternative to the Army draft and to an almost certain assignment to Vietnam ground combat, Kerry volunteered for the Navy. While assigned to a warship patrolling off the coast of Vietnam, Kerry asked to switch to patrol boats (the so-called "Swift Boats"), which at the time also patrolled off the coast (these boats did not patrol in interior rivers of vietnam when Kerry asked for reassignment) and which an officer of his grade would command over a crew of 5 or so sailors. After Kerry's reassignment to patrol boats, the patrol boat mission was changed to interior river patrols to interdict communist supply lines.
** Kerry commanded a patrol boat for about four months, receiving a Silver Star, a Bronze Star, and three Purple Hearts from shrapnel (metal fragments). His and other patrol boats came under enemy fire on several occasions. He was never hospitalized and was never wounded from small arms fire (bullets).
** After a little more than four months of a twelve month tour in Vietnam, Kerry asked to be reassigned out of the combat zone, back to the United States; and in the United States, he then asked to be released from the Navy early (which was granted).
That, then, is his record in the Navy.
Analysis of Kerry's Vietnam Record
Now let's analyze and comment on that record. His post-Navy actions in the U.S. Senate (and related actions, such as throwing away medals in protest) amounted not just to, or even primarily, opposition to the war; his actions were, instead, false accusations against those who were fighting the war, against his fellow servicemen. Kerry now seeks to re-characterize his post-Navy activities as merely "anti-war", but they were really "anti-U.S." and "anti-soldier". Not only did he accuse the country of criminal government policies; he also accused soldiers of being butchers and told Americans that Vietnam had traumatized American servicemen, emotionally scarring them. He was a leader in fostering and perpetuating the myth of the dysfunctional, victimized, misfit veteran. He is a significant reason why Vietnam veterans continually explained to their parents and wives and children that they had not in fact, butchered or raped villagers, that they were not in fact emotionally disabled, that they could hold jobs and function in society like everyone else. Kerry said in a recent speech that "the first definition of patriotism is keeping faith with the people who wore the uniform of our country." Its obvious that Kerry fails his own definition.
It is now beyond dispute (by Kerry's own subsequent admissions) that Kerry did not witness individual atrocities to which he testified. After all, if he had, he should have stopped them and taken corrective punitive actions. Kerry defends much of his rhetoric based on the so-called "Winter Soldier" conference held in a Detroit Howard Johnson's in early 1971, conducted by vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) with financial assistance from Jane Fonda. The "Winter Soldier" accusations were later I unmasked as significantly fraudulent by uncontrovertible (and now undisputed) proof showing that many of the individuals making claims as Vietnam veterans had never been to Vietnam at any time, and still others had never been in military service at all (many assuming the names of actual veterans without their knowledge). But Kerry and the anti-war media were undeterred by these revelations of fraud. In any event, Kerry defended the Winter Soldier conference even after learning that a key individual had lied. When public news broke that a leader of the VVAW, who claimed in Detroit to have seen atrocities in Vietnam, had never even been to Vietnam, and the VVAW leader confessed to the lie, Kerry commended him for having the courage to "tell the truth" (the "truth" being that he, like other Detroit participants, had lied).
A Most Egregious Offense: Bearing False Witness
The record is compelling: John Kerry bore false witness against his fellow servicemen, making despicable claims for which he had no substantial basis and which he had to know were not true. When he couldn't get sufficient attention for himself by simply arguing that the war was unsound strategically and militarily, he switched to the self-righteous ethical claim that those who fought it routinely committed war crimes.
His actions were selfish, reflecting a lack of honesty and integrity; self-serving at the expense of others who served honorably, tarring them for his own gain. He lent his phony aura of knowledge, based on having "been there", to validate false claims about which he had no knowledge or substantial basis. By doing so, he made himself the center of attention, the hero of the anti-war movement, the symbol of the elite counter-culture. By doing so, he betrayed and smeared the generation of young Americans who fought a difficult war with honor and with respect for civilian life at increased risk to their own lives. Kerry committed the most egregious of offenses by bearing false witness against his fellow servicemen, an offense for which he will forever bear the mark of Cain.
Undercutting U.S. Efforts:
Meeting the Enemy in Paris / Aid and Comfort to the Enemy
These actions clearly undercut the efforts of the United States to negotiate the release of our POWs in North Vietnam and Laos in 1971 and 1972. Kerry compounded these actions with an inexcusable act of betrayal to those POWs (as well as to his country), meeting with the North Vietnamese enemy in Paris while the war continued. Providing aid and comfort to the enemy, Kerry symbolized the roadblock to peace and release of our POWs which the anti-war movement constituted.
Exaggerated Claims and the Judgment of His Fellow Naval Officers in Vietnam:
"Unfit to be Commander-in-Chief"
Kerry first volunteered for the Navy; and then volunteered for patrol boats which sailed along the coast, not boats on interior river patrols which were likely to come under fire. When he was put on the interior rivers under hostile fire, he worked his way out of there as fast as he could, "unvolunteering" himself in less than 4-1/2 months of a 12 month tour. It is duplicitous to claim to be a volunteer while in fact being an "unvolunteer".
Kerry received three awards for minor injuries (sometimes at his own insistence and over the initial objection of his commanding officer), what Army grunts (infantrymen) derisively called "band- aid" Purple Hearts. Assuming the band-aids resulted from enemy fire (that is, ignoring reports from the doctor who dealt with the first award that a thorn caused greater injury and that a crewman claimed that the boat never came under enemy fire, that it was their own mortar fire that ricochetted back toward the boat, and ignoring that Kerry reported to a routine sick-call the day after the alleged wound), the Purple Hearts were authorized. But veterans know of many soldiers who were never offered or declined Purple Hearts in such circumstances. Even Newsweek magazine characterized Kerry's injuries as so minor that many soldiers wouldn't take a Purple Heart in such cases. In any event, it is uncontestable that soldiers were often returned to combat after weeks in a hospital from combat wounds, none of them thinking that they had a ticket home. For Kerry to request reassignment out of Vietnam after little more than a third of his tour of duty was up, without ever having spent even one night in a hospital from his injuries, based on those very insubstantial injuries, is not an act of honor. Someone else had to enter into harm's way to accommodate Kerry, with less experience and thus exposing those who remained to greater danger.
The officers I knew always felt bad if they had to leave their men; they did not seek to do so voluntarily and out of ordinary sequence. Thus, the claim of a "band of brothers", trying to capitalize on the award-winning book and TV series about paratroopers in World War II, rings hollow indeed. In fact, in that paratroop "band of brothers", a wounded soldier was expected to do everything possible to get back to his unit in combat, including breaking out of a hospital or rehabilitation center against orders if necessary.
These observations provide insight into the causes of a recent statement by Swift Boat veterans who knew Kerry in Vietnam. In early May 2004, every officer in Kerry's chain-of command in Vietnam, from immediate superior to the flag officer in charge of the whole Naval coastal program, announced that they judge Kerry "unfit to be commander-in-chief". In addition, 19 of the 23 officers who served with him in Coastal Division 11 likewise state that he is "unfit" to be commander-in-chief". The ex-commanders and fellow officers wrote that Kerry has "withheld and/or distorted material facts as to [his] own conduct in this war" and that Kerry "grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of American soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us)".
The War John Kerry Chose, the War He Now Wants, and the War He Deserves
John Kerry is the living embodiment of the philosophical proposition that "we each get the war we deserve." That is, whatever the circumstances or situation in which we find ourselves in this world -- whatever our time and place -- we each make choices regarding those circumstances, for which we are responsible. We choose how to relate and react to our circumstances. These choices shape our identities and our lives. The choices John Kerry made about the Vietnam War define his war. His war, then, is not the same as other soldiers' Vietnam War. Kerry chose to accuse American soldiers of being like Genghis Khan, of routinely ravaging and plundering villages, of being butchers. He chose to meet with enemy officials in Paris while the war was still underway with American soldiers fighting in the field and while peace talks (especially the return of American POWs) were in a delicate stage. In the book repeating the Genghis Khan accusations, he chose "parody the U.S. Marine raising of the American flag on Iwo Jima's Mt. Suribachi by showing protestors simulating the flag raising with the American flag upside down. He chose to throw away his awards in a symbolic repudiation of the U.S. armed forces.
These choices defined Kerry's war as a war of dishonor, betrayal, and shame -- these are the hallmarks of Kerry's war, the elements which permeate all understanding of the war. Its either the country's dishonor or Kerry's dishonor, but either way dishonor is a defining element of Kerry's war. Its either betrayal by the U.S. or betrayal by Kerry; the country's shame or Kerry's shame -- with betrayal and shame as defining elements of Kerry's war either way.
There are always alternative ways to define and experience the central elements of any event, including the Vietnam War. In other words, there can be a "different war" for someone else, based on the different choices they made. Some of those choices might include: (1) staying for a full tour to fight for freedom for the Vietnamese (rather leaving prematurely yourself, urging your country to abandon its ally, and redefining communism as no threat to freedom); (2) respecting your comrades by staying the course assigned (rather than putting someone else in harm's way to increase your own safety); (3) investigating and prosecuting any soldier seen or reported to have committed war crimes (rather than claiming to have witnessed crimes but done nothing about them when corrective action was possible); (4) showing some faith and confidence in soldiers (rather than believing horror stories from masquerading non-veterans); (5) honoring and supporting veterans in the U.S. (rather than bearing false witness against them with broad general accusations of misconduct); and (6) siding with your country rather than with the enemy in peace talks. This is a war viewed and experienced through the elements of honor, commitment, sacrifice, and pride.
Now Kerry wants to change his war. For a long time, his war of dishonor, betrayal, exploitation, and shame served his political purposes. But that war, Kerry's war, has been rejected by the American people. It no longer serves Kerry's political purposes to have served in that war. In perhaps the ultimate act of exploitation, Kerry now wants to define his war as a war of honor, commitment, sacrifice, and pride. He now publishes pictures of himself in campaign ads in a clean white Navy uniform, standing at attention (rather than the scruffy fatigues and long hair of the protester and Senate witness, published during Kerry's war). He now publishes pictures of himself receiving his medals (rather than pictures of him throwing them away, published during Kerry's war). He now quotes from his Senate testimony about the difficulty of asking the last person to die in the war (rather than the testimonial accusations about Genghis Khan and war crimes, which were so often quoted during Kerry's war). This new and different Vietnam War would serve Kerry's present political interests much better than Kerry's Vietnam War, if he could just substitute this war for his war. As political winds change, Kerry hopes, this war too can be abandoned when expedient to do so; and if useful, due to military setbacks or international complications, Kerry will return to his original Vietnam War.
In other words, Kerry wants to take the war of the very veterans he once so harshly criticized, and make it his war. He wants the war of honor -- he wants my war and the war of veterans like me. And we're here to tell him that he can't have it.
Kerry's premise that we can change our histories -- that we change our wars once we've chosen them -- through press releases and media buys, overlooks the fundamental philosophical lesson. We each get the war we deserve. We cannot later change it because it is a consequence of our own actions, a consequence of our choices. Kerry already made his choices, choices for which he is responsible. In choosing how to relate and react to the circumstances in which he found himself -- in choosing how to relate and react to the Vietnam War -- Kerry created his identity. Kerry created his vietnam War of dishonor, betrayal, and shame. And Kerry got the war he deserves.
A Strange But Fitting Irony
(To Be More Respected By a Former Enemy Than By a Presidential Candidate)
More than 15 years after the war's end, the North Vietnamese Colonel who accepted the surrender of the presidential palace in Saigon in 1975, came to the Wall of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial to lay flowers. "I have brought these flowers to pay my respect to you... in the U.S. armed forces," he said, "for your valiant and dedicated struggle on behalf of the ideals in which you put your faith." To my former enemy, my endeavor was "valiant", on behalf of "ideals" in which I believed; to John Kerry, I was "like Genghis Khan". A strange but fitting irony, perhaps, to the [misunderstood] Vietnam War and to this Vietnam veteran -- to be respected more by my former enemy that by a presidential candidate.
Conclusion: The Wounds that Never Heal
Now for a little personal memoir, in conclusion. In 1971, I awoke after three days unconsciousness from a combat wound to find that I couldn't see, my jaws were wired shut, a cheekbone was missing, and I had a hole in the side of my face -- and to find that John Kerry was telling the U.S. Senate and the world that I was in an army like Genghis Khan, that I routinely let my men plunder villages and rape villagers at will, that we in the military were "butchers" who committed atrocities "every day". Then Kerry went off to Paris to meet with enemy officials while our soldiers were still fighting in the field.
I was discharged from a military hospital eighteen months and several operations later, almost as good as new from the wounds inflicted by the enemy. Those wounds were just flesh and blood. But the wounds inflicted by Kerry -- the bearing false witness against me and a generation of honorable veterans -- those wounds were much more serious. Those wounds, intentionally inflicted without substance or cause, went to the heart and soul. Those wounds never go away.
Now my son is in the Marine Corps, flying F-18 Hornet jet fighters, during another war. That's the Marine Corps which Kerry mocked with a book cover showing protesters simulating the flag raising on Iwo Jima, with the American flag upside down. That's the F-18 fighter that Kerry voted against in the U.S. Senate. And today John Kerry's picture hangs in an honored place in the Ho Chi Minh City war museum, as a hero to the Vietnamese Communists.
In this global war on terrorism, I can say with confidence that John Kerry is not the kind of man veterans have earned to be in charge of veterans affairs. I can say with confidence that John Kerry is not the kind of man mothers and fathers deserve commanding their sons and daughters as commander-in-chief. In this global war on terrorism, I can say with confidence that John Kerry is not the kind of man Americans need or want sitting in the White House as President of the United States.
This address was delivered at a fundraiser held in Connecticut on August 16, 2004 for the Kerry Lied Rally.
Dexter Lehtinen was wounded in Vietnam as a reconnaissance platoon leader in 1971. After eighteen months and several operations, he was retired as a 1st Lieutenant, going on to earn an M.B.A. from Columbia University and a J.D. from Stanford Law School (graduating first in his class). He has served as a member of the Florida House of Representatives and the Florida Senate, and as the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and has argued before the United States Supreme Court. He is an adjunct law professor and practices in South Florida.
Kerry's war criticism backed by U.S. Reds
Communist Party paper knocks Bush,says Kerry represents 'hope for peace'
Posted: September 18, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
A year ago, as WorldNetDaily reported, the Communist Party USA decided it would not run a candidate for president in 2004, choosing instead to form a "united front" to stop the re-election of President Bush.
Until recently, the party's official newspaper, People's Weekly World, focused its editorial slant on bashing Bush, rather than praising Sen. John Kerry.
But with Kerry fading in some polls, the Communists appear to be pulling out all the stops – switching from just criticizing Bush to saying positive things about Kerry.
This week, the paper took particular comfort in Kerry's harsh criticism of the war in Iraq.
In a front-page headline, the paper announced: "Kerry slams war costs."
The lead article in the current edition of the Communist Party paper explains that the Democratic Party candidate for president "articulated the hope and the anger that workers and their families are feeling."
The paper quoted Kerry in a speech in Toledo, Ohio, as saying: "And now every American is paying the price. Almost all the casualties are the sons and daughters of America. And nearly 90 percent of the cost is coming out of your pocket. The price tag so far: $200 billion and rising every day ... $200 billion we're not investing in health care … not investing to make sure no child is left behind ... $200 billion we're not investing in new and better jobs ... in homeland security, to protect our airports, our subways, our bridges and tunnels."
"Workers are not naive," the article concludes. "They do not expect that if Kerry wins, the war in Iraq will end Nov. 3. What they are looking for is hope for peace, a shot at a decent job, a chance for health care coverage, an opportunity to put their issues on the table in Washington, a president who tells the truth and upholds the law, and a government that reflects their moral values in reality."
Left reeling by slipping polls since the barrage of attention grabbed by the Swift Boat Vets for Truth ad campaign, Kerry continued his anti-war rhetoric yesterday – hoping to regain momentum in an uphill fight to win the White House.
He targeted Vice President Dick Cheney and his links to Halliburton, the oil services and construction contractor.
"Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton, has profited from the mess in Iraq at the expense of American troops and taxpayers," Kerry said at a town-hall-style meeting in Albuquerque.
Though Cheney has dissolved his ties with Halliburton, he continues to receive income through bonuses and deferred compensation. Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt accused Kerry of hypocrisy, noting that Kerry's running mate, Sen. John Edwards, received deferred compensation while in the Senate.
The Gallup poll released yesterday has Bush leading Kerry by 13 percentage points, other national polls show the race tightening.
While the Communist Party USA is on record as opposing Bush at all costs, the Democratic Socialists of America Political Action Committee has officially urged its members to work for the election of John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election.
"Kerry was hardly the first choice of our members," said Frank Llewellyn, national director of the DSA. "Most supported Dennis Kucinich or Howard Dean in the Democratic primary elections and would be very critical of Senator Kerry's voting record on trade issues, as well as his support for the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq; but the most important concern of our members now is to defeat Bush."
The statement urged DSA members to participate in get-out-the-vote and voter education projects with other progressive organizations.
The Democratic Socialists of America's chief organizing goal is to work within the Democratic Party and remove the stigma attached to "socialism" in the eyes of most Americans.
"Stress our Democratic Party strategy and electoral work," explains an organizing document of the DSA. "The Democratic Party is something the public understands, and association with it takes the edge off. Stressing our Democratic Party work will establish some distance from the radical subculture and help integrate you to the milieu of the young liberals."
Nevertheless, the goal of the Democratic Socialists of America has never been deeply hidden. Prior to the cleanup of its website in 1999, the DSA included a song list featuring "The Internationale," the worldwide anthem of communism and socialism. Another song on the site was "Red Revolution" sung to the tune of "Red Robin." The lyrics went: "When the Red Revolution brings its solution along, along, there'll be no more lootin' when we start shootin' that Wall Street throng. ..." Another song removed after WorldNetDaily's expose was "Are You Sleeping, Bourgeoisie?" The lyrics went: "Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping? Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie. And when the revolution comes, We'll kill you all with knives and guns, Bourgeoisie, Bourgeoisie
NEW KERRY MEDAL FLAP
September 15, 2004 -- A newly surfaced document from John Kerry's Navy record says he shot a lone, wounded enemy who was running away in the incident that led to his Silver Star, his highest military decoration.
Members of the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth say the report vindicates their claim that Kerry didn't show the kind of valor that merits a Silver Star. The after-action report was obtained from the Navy archives by syndicated TV commentator Mark Hyman of "The Point." A Navy official confirmed its authenticity.
John O'Neill, a leader of the Swift Vets running anti-Kerry TV ads, said the document shows Kerry "was pursuing a wounded man and not charging alone into superior numbers and intense fire," as his Silver Star citation claims. Deborah Orin
Al-Zarqawi's Message to the Fighters of Jihad in Iraq on September 11, 2004
On September 12, 2004, an audiotape of a September 11 speech by Al-Qa'ida leader in Iraq Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi was broadcast by several Islamist websites.  A transcript of this speech was posted the following day on those sites.  The person who posted the transcript called himself the "Glimmer of the Swords" and referred to Al-Zarqawi as "The Sheikh and Commander of Slaughterers."
Al-Zarqawi's speech is delivered in a high style of classical Arabic. Many of the sentences are in rhymed prose, inlaid with Koranic verses and poetry. The speech singles out Iraq's Prime Minister Iyad Allawi as a primary target. It is addressed to the Jihad fighters in Iraq, and in particular to the foreign volunteers.
The tone of the speech seems to suggest that it is intended to encourage the fighters, who have sustained great losses, and to restore their faith in the ultimate victory. Some of the expressions used by Al-Zarqawi – such as "a call for help from the deep" – may hint at the state of distress of the fighters, which prompted the speech.
According to Al-Zarqawi, the war in Iraq is against a "tri-partite Satanic alliance of heresy and deceit" of Americans, Kurds, and Shi'ites: "The first are the Americans who carry the banner of the cross; the second are the Kurds through their pashmerga forces, which are reinforced by Jewish military cadres under the command of the two collaborators, [Massoud Al-] Barzani and [Jalal Al-] Talabani; the third are the Shi'ites, the Sunnis' enemies, represented by the army of treachery … the Party of Satan.
"The traitor Allawi is today their tool, and the lion's share of our arrows are for him, Allah willing."
Al-Zarqawi explains that the real aim of the U.S. is not the conquest of Najaf, but rather the Sunni Triangle. He says that America was defeated and humiliated by the Muslim warriors: "This is the brotherhood of Jihad, both Muhajireen and Ansar [i.e., both foreign volunteers and native Iraqis].  The other ones, who led the international alliance to drink the draught of humiliation…"
Al-Zarqawi calls upon young Muslims in Iraq and in every Muslim country to join the Jihad in Iraq. He also calls upon the Islamic nation not to be deceived by Western propaganda and by those who echo it in Muslim countries.
Al-Zarqawi calls on the Muslims to rise from their slumber and to unite against the infidels who offend their honor: "Here, the Abu Ghreib prison is in front of you – go ahead and ask it.
"As for you, fighters who came from afar, by Allah, missions of da'wa [the propagation of Islam] have never been a road lined with roses and sweet basil; the price of da'wa missions is heavy, and the price of bringing principles to the land of reality is a lot of torn limbs and blood. The light of dawn shall not be lit in this darkness save by Jihad fighters and shahids."
Al-Zarqawi warns the Jihad fighters: "Beware of the disease of weariness, beware of preferring [your own] safety, because the consequence of such a regression is remorse, God forbid.
"Believe me when I tell you that I do not know anyone who has been wronged or conspired against or denied his deserved rights more than the Jihad warriors and Jihad itself."
Al-Zarqawi goes on to say that the leader of the U.S. is no better than Abu Jahl, who suffered a humiliating defeat and was killed by the Muslim fighters.  He advises his audience not to fear the airplanes of their enemies because "Allah is above [their] airplanes and is of greater might."
Al-Zarqawi warns the foreign Jihad fighters "not to be deceived by sugarcoated expressions and false proclamations…" He then goes on to mention a number of great heroes of Jihad, dwelling in particular upon Musa Ibn Nusayr, "the conqueror of the Maghreb and the man who completed the conquest of Spain."
He continued: "Far be it from Allah to let you perish, you who have gone out to fight your enemy, leaving your wives and children behind. He shall never forfeit you, you who have abandoned your pleasures and desires and left your families and neighbors, yearning for the paradise of your Lord… As long as you stay on the path of Truth, rejoice. For Allah shall never put you to shame. You shall overcome America, by Allah. You shall overcome America even though [it may be] after a while… It shall remain a mole of shame on the cheek of time…
"This is a call for help from the deep to the lions in Baghdad and Al-Anbar, and to the heroes in Diyala and Samarra, and to the tigers in Mosul and the north: prepare for battle … be alert to what is going on around you… You are facing fierce civil strife, but then victory shall be yours, Allah willing… Behold, the spark has been lit in Iraq and its flames will blaze, Allah willing, until they consume the Armies of the Cross in Dabiq…" 
Al-Zarqawi concludes his speech with two Quranic verses: "Oh ye who believe, when you encounter an army, stand firm and pray fervently to Allah so that you may be successful [Quran 8:45];" "Allah has full power over all things but most people know it not [Quran 12:21]."
 It was posted, for example, by Al-Qal'ah, an Islamist forum which includes Al-Qa'ida supporters: http://www.qal3ah.org/vb/showthread.php?s=0146179154df42c4a8e36624e5b55ef5&threadid=114851.
 These terms refer to the early supporters of Muhammad in Medina, Muhajireen designating those who emigrated from Mecca, and Ansar ("helpers") designating the native Medinan supporters.
 Abu Jahl was one of the most prominent members of the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, who commanded the Meccan army in the Battle of Badr, where he was defeated and slain.
 A Prophetic tradition ( hadith ), which is often quoted in the Islamic apocalyptic literature, states that one of the events heralding the Last Day of Judgment will take place in Dabiq. The Mahdi will destroy the armies of the infidels that will have assembled in A'maq and Dabiq. The traditional explanation is that these are two places in the area north of Aleppo, in northern Syria. Zarqawi is clearly referring to this apocalyptic tradition.
FBI Documents indicate that while Kerry was withthe VVAW that leaders met with the KGB in the US
John F. Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War VVAW, who did John Kerry work for?
In reading the FBI files concerning John F. Kerry and the VVAW I find several instances where the VVAW is receiving money, directions, and non-monetary support from Communist Organizations in the USA, Europe, Soviet Union,France
and Southeast Asia, as well as other countries.
So, John Kerry worked for Communist Organizations attempting to overthrow the Government of the United States of America
FBI Documents indicate that while John Kerry was with the VVAW, VVAW leaders met with KGB agents in the US. “VVAW collusion with foreign spies? “The Diplomatic List published by U.S. Department of State, in 1971 listed Grigoriy Sergeyvich Milhaylovskiy as an assistant Military Attache, Embassy of the U.S.S.R., Washington, D.C
Highlights of the FBI files and John Kerry, section 7 (October 1971)
Vietnam Veterans Against the War, John Kerry, FBI files Section 8 (Oct-Nov 1971)
Do the FBI Files concerning the VVAW (Kerry’s antiwar group) indicate a plot to assassinate Pres. Nixon?
Here is what I have found in the FBI files re: VVAW and John Kerry
John Kerry caused a fracture in VVAW for his own selfish goals (FBI Files reveal)
Kerry, Watergate: DNC Links Caused Break-in? (Kerry lied! Still with the VVAW after February 1972
Treat as Yellow – John Kerry’s VVAW coordinating with the North Vietnam Communist Government when US forces are under attack
VVAW leader meets with Communists to discuss tactics in the US antiwar movement. Kerry’s group!
Vietnam Veterans Against the War, John Kerry, FBI files Section 8 (Oct-Nov 1971)
Dan Rather’s Forgery Fit
by L. Brent Bozell III
September 15, 2004
CBS News and anchorman Dan Rather have entered the journalistic equivalent of one of Dante’s circles of Hell, forced to live forever with a scandal they created. With their Texas Air National Guard forgeries, they now live in a neighborhood of national media embarrassments. Faked Food Lion resumes. Staged GM pickup truck explosions. Janet Cooke’s profile of Jimmy the eight-year-old coke addict. Jayson Blair’s phony travelogues from "West Virginia."
Watergate was a scandal Mr. Rather thoroughly enjoyed, since he built his career on ripping into Richard Nixon. Now Rather is Nixon, a bitter, vengeful man who allowed his friends to use dirty tricks against his political opponents and when caught, can only deny, deny, deny and bluster about the evil intentions of his enemies.
To borrow lingo from John Kerry, Dan Rather has been reckless, arrogant, and ideologically blind in his pursuit of Moby Bush. When it became obvious that Rather and "60 Minutes" had passed off bad forgeries – and let’s assume Rather was an irresponsible dupe, not an active participant – in an attempt to fill in the blanks of President Bush’s 1972-73 Air National Guard service, the smart move would have been to come clean, apologize, and clear up the mess. Sure, it would have been humiliating for Rather and CBS – but only for a day. Thereafter CBS would have reaped the rewards. "At CBS, our focus is the truth," could have been their new rallying (and marketing) cry.
But no. Rather continues to stand by a disaster. As CNSNews.com first reported, and others have repeated, nearly every independent expert says CBS’s "memos," supposedly from Bush’s commander Jerry Killian, most assuredly were produced by a modern word processor, not a 1970s typewriter. Killian’s widow and son testified that the idea he’d written these memos was preposterous. The widow said he didn’t type and didn’t keep files.
The son, also a National Guard officer, said no Guard officer in his "right mind" would write such a memo. The son was interviewed by CBS. CBS chose not in include him in the piece. The son recommended CBS talk directly to Lt. Bush’s roommate. The CBS producer dismissed this witness as a Bush supporter.
Every new story brought more damning detail. The Dallas Morning News reported the commander who supposedly was blamed for pressuring a subordinate to "sugar coat" Bush’s record had retired 18 months before he was said to have applied such pressure. The Los Angeles Times found Gen. Bobby Hodges, who CBS used to vouch for their documents, and he said CBS only described documents over the phone that he presumed were hand-written. When he saw the documents, he said they were forgeries. Marcel Matley, the lead expert Rather put forward as an authenticator of these memos, came forward and said "There's no way that I, as a document expert, can authenticate them," since they are weak copies, not original documents.
The CBS story is a hoax and a fraud, and a cheap and sloppy one at that. It boggles the mind that Dan Rather and CBS continue to defend it. The Wednesday night story imploded on Thursday, and by Friday night, Rather offered a six-minute response from his bunker on the "CBS Evening News." The aging anchor blustered on and on about all the questions George W. Bush urgently needs to answer. He ignored most of the substantive charges (including any mention of the Killian family) and painted CBS’s critics as a vast right-wing conspiracy.
"Today, on the Internet and elsewhere, some people, including many who are partisan political operatives, concentrated not on the key questions of the overall story, but on the documents that were part of the support of the story," Rather complained. On Monday night, Rather tried the same rinse-and-repeat strategy, and it only looked sillier.
The responses of CBS flacks in print were even more comical. When confronted with the fact that their first line of defense, Gen. Hodges, found forgery, a spokeswoman told reporters, "We believed Gen. Hodges the first time we spoke to him." When it became apparent that the superior officer Killian was supposedly addressing, Buck Staudt, had retired 18 months before the memo, CBS proclaimed Staudt was a "mythic figure" in the Guard. You send official memos to "mythic figures"? When confronted with Mr. Matley’s retrenchments, CBS flack Sandy Genelius declared, "In the end, the gist is that it’s inconclusive." No, it’s not. But even if it were, are these the ethical standards of CBS?
The ultimate excuse came from Rather himself, insisting his critics have to prove him wrong: "Until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill." Mr. Rather, you have it completely backward. The responsibility is yours to get it right in the first place.
I HAVE HAD IT!
Opinion by Don Bendell
Tonight I saw an ad on television funded and produced by the 527, Moveon.org, and my mind is still reeling. The ad, slamming President Bush naturally, shows an American soldier in the desert holding his weapon high overhead with both hands, and he is sinking in a quagmire, supposedly. At a time of war, you collective geniuses, that is the exact position of surrender, and yet you non-thinking, self-centered Bush-bashers have portrayed an American soldier on worldwide television indicating surrender! Do you folks even have a clue what the enemy=92s propaganda machine will now do with your negative images? Do you even have a clue what this will do to the morale of our troops in harm=92s way, and do you understand or even care that lowered morale can get men and women killed in a combat zone?
I want to know if there is a pro bono attorney who can tell me if the Moveon.org PAC principals can be charged with aiding and abetting the enemy or any similar charges?
Write me please: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org.
What is going on now is ludicrous! The Kerry campaign admits that Kerry's 1st Purple Heart was fake and there was no combat involved. They admitted he did not go into Cambodia on Christmas Day, 1969. He even lied about this on the floor of the US Senate, but what happens? Dan Rather hosts a so-called news show with forged documents trashing the President, does not admit the lies when the sham is exposed, and Kerry's poll numbers go up. The Oval Office is one of the most hallowed pieces of ground in the world, where globe-altering decisions were made by FDR, JFK, Ike, Reagan, Truman, Honest Abe, and other great world leaders. Then, breaking with Presidential tradition, good old Bill Clinton used that historied and revered place to get head jobs from a 21-year old intern. And afterwards he used the same venerable room to videotape a lie about it, trying to cover it up. Tell me, fellow Americans, is that when we started looking the other way and sold out our collective souls for political party loyalty, instead of loyalty to our country? Or was it when Clinton, an avowed draft-dodger, gave Kerry advice on how to win this election, like making G. W. Bush's National Guard service, as a jet pilot; no less, seem worse than draft-dodging.
Why do I still get e-mails from democrats asking what Bush is hiding, when he signed a form to release his military records and Kerry still refuses to?
Why does NBC interview a discredited, already-flawed Kitty Kelly and help sell her trash-filled book of gossip and lies, yet refuses to interview any of the 250 honorable, highly-decorated, respected democratic, independent, and republican members of Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, www.swiftvets.com when they have a lot to say to voters in this country?
When the Democratic Party has produced such fine statesmen as Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Martin Luther King, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, and many more, how in the world can you embrace the Skid Row version of the Pillsbury Dough Boy, Michael Moore, and call his propaganda piece a "documentary" when it has been proven to contain 56 outright lies? http://davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-in-Fahrenheit-911.htm
How in good conscience can you do that?
Does anybody remember planeloads of innocent screaming American men, women, and children in jets loaded with jet fuel slamming into the World Trade Center, Pentagon, the heart of our military, and a lonely field in Pennsylvania, killing more than even Pearl Harbor?
Does anybody remember that we have fine, lonely, but brave young men and women fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Are you even aware that, besides hundreds of little children being murdered in Russia, a number of the young girls in that school were gang-raped by the terrorists, or that kindergarten children, who should be drawing pictures of bunnies and flowers, were repeatedly stabbed in the back while they screamed until they died?
We are at war against some of the worst lunatics this world has ever known, and many of you only care about defeating Bush, because you believe the diatribe from the most extensive negative propaganda outpouring in US Presidential elections. I do not care if my grandchildren get stuck with some deficit debt. It will do them good to struggle like so many previous Americans have had to, but more importantly, if we do not take care of this problem now, our grandchildren will not have an America to struggle in. I am sick of all the "want-to-be Woodward and Bernstein newscasters", who no longer take pride in actually reporting the news. They instead want to create the news and then get to be portrayed in a movie by the latest Hollywood hunk. I am sick of the corporate monsters who hire them and affix their beady little eyes on the daily share and ratings, instead of simply taking pride in trying to report solid, timely news that is straight down the road without any political agenda attached. And you, John Kerry: A real hero would never allow their President, during a time of war, to be attacked by their political supporters with lies and distortions, even if it cost them the election. You have fed the lies instead. With real heroes, their country and their fellow soldiers come first. And by the way, real heroes don't take tripods and movie cameras into combat zones, and endanger their men, making home movies of themselves trying to act like they are real heroes. John Forbes Kerry, I have known real heroes. There are real heroes who are friends of mine, and you, sir, are no hero. You are all about "Me",4 and not about "We". In the middle of "Bush," you will find the word "us," but in the middle of "Kerry," you will find the word "err."
Wind-surfing is a perfect metaphor for your leadership abilities: You enjoy having the wind blow you first one direction, then the next, you drag your feet and stop, and most of the time, you are all wet. Folks, we can fight the terrorists in any country "over there" or fight them here on our soil, but fight them and defeat them we must! And our first and most important contribution to that end is to solidly support our troops, from the commander-in-chief on down, and stop demoralizing them with this political cacophony. This is not daddy's Vietnam: This is our survival! Even if you disagree, you are an American; Please get out and vote!
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 books, with over 1,500,000 copies of his books in print worldwide, a 1995 inductee into the International Karate Hall of Fame, and owns karate schools in southern Colorado. His editorials on Bush/Kerry have been published all over, and he has been interviewed on FOX NEWS LIVE and many radio shows.
Permission is hereby granted to reprint, copy, or pass this on wherever and to whomever you choose. This is the 12th in a series of 12 editorials about John F. Kerry, and is posted on my website with the other 11. Blessings, Don Bendell mailto:email@example.com
POW Featured in Documentary Labels Kerry as 'Traitor'
Candidate's Testimony in 1970s Prolonged War and Encouraged Enemy, He Says
By Chad Groening
September 17, 2004
(AgapePress) - A former Air Force pilot who spent almost eight years in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp says John Kerry's anti-war activities helped extend the amount of time he was incarcerated by the Communists -- and encouraged the Communist regime to prolong the war.
Smitty Harris, who now resides in Tupelo, Mississippi, is one of 17 former POWs who was interviewed for Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal, a video that investigates how John Kerry's actions during the Vietnam War impacted the treatment of American soldiers and POWs. Their combined time spent in prison during the war amounts to more than 109 years. Harris, who was a POW from April 1965 to February 1973, says he has come forward to tell his story now because he does not think the Massachusetts senator should be America's next Commander-in-Chief.
The Democratic presidential hopeful, says Harris, "helped extend my incarceration in North Vietnam" through his well-documented anti-war activities made after returning stateside. "I would label him, personally, as a traitor," the former POW adds.
Kerry has made his service in Vietnam the leitmotif of his presidential campaign -- to which Harris responds: "People say, 'Well, he served in Vietnam, honorably, got all those medals.' Well, that's questionable -- but let's take it on face value that he did. So did Benedict Arnold, the great general."
And like his comrades who appear in Stolen Honor, Harris says Kerry made things very difficult for Americans staying at "The Hanoi Hilton."
"[Kerry] was still in the inactive reserve when he was making those libelous statements to Congress in April of 1971. That's enough for a court martial right then and there,." Harris shares. "And his dealing with the enemy, Madame Vinh in Paris, while we were still at war and while he was still a member of the armed forces, was also traitorous."
It is that testimony before Congress that Harris claims gave the enemy the confidence that they could ultimately win the war. "They had a long history of just wearing out any foreign forces, but they were just given more encouragement by people like John Kerry," he says.
Harris credits Kerry with having more impact on prolonging the war -- and giving aid to the enemy -- than even "Hanoi Jane" Fonda and former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark. He says his captors "virtually told" the prisoners the North Vietnamese could not match the military might of the U.S., but that "they would win the war because they would win it in the streets of the United States."
"He had probably more impact than anyone else that I can imagine ...on prolonging the war and giving encouragement to our communist enemies to continue their struggle," Harris says.
The 45-minute documentary Stolen Honor, released on Thursday, features a group of highly decorated veterans, two of whom are Medal of Honor recipients. It was produced by Carlton Sherwood, himself a decorated Vietnam veteran as well as a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist.
© 2004 AgapePress all rights
Time To Look At Dan Rather's Military Records! Did Rather "cut and run" from Marine Corps?
Posted on 09/15/2004 5:29:26 PM PDT
Dan Rather is trying to wrap up his career at CBS News by attacking the service record of a young Texan who enlisted in the Air Force Reserve. This Texan then completed the very difficult pilot training program and later flew the dangerous F-102 supersonic jet fighter.
But what of the military record of another Texan, now a very controversial news anchor-star who condemns our president at every turn.
Little is know, because DAN RATHER WON'T RELEASE THE RECORDS.
We know this. Dan Rather enlisted in the United States Marines on or about January 22, 1954. It was the height of the Korean War. Young Americans were dying in a far-off Asian country.
Rather would have undoubtedly reported to Parris Island, South Carolina or the Marine Corps Depot at San Diego, California for Marine Boot Camp.
We all know the first few weeks in the Marines are tough, but now we have learned that Rather couldn't cut it! He was discharged from the Marines on or about May 11, 1954!
According to Rather, it was because he had rheumatic fever as a boy and the Marines were too stressful for him. That may be true.
Of course, this is the man who later climbed the mountains of Afghanistan as "Gunda Dan" and wrestled with security guards at the 1968 Democratic National Convention. He still works full days at age 71, and at last report, no one has seen suplemental oxygen on the set at CBS. Dan and his rheumatic fever also endured the heat and "conditions" of Vietnam (made much easier by an air conditioned luxury hotel room in Saigon every night.)
So what's the truth Dan? Where is your substantiation that it was a medical problem? Where are the records? Certainly you have them? If you don't, I'm sure the Navy/Marines have them and will be glad to release them as soon as you give them the green light.
With you calling for the release of President Bush’s records (and helping promote obvious forgeries of his official Air Force records,) what possible excuse could you have for not setting an example and releasing your own records?.
If you won’t tell us, Dan, that's Ok. Others will.
This is an open call to anyone who trained with Dan Rather back in 1954. Were you in Marine Boot Camp with Rather? Was he a good Marine trainee... or a slacker? Why was he discharged?
Was it medical, or something much more ominous?
If you or someone you know was with Dan Rather in the Marines, please let us know by private FReepmail ASAP. We’ll get the names to the right people.
Actually, we won’t need those eye witnesses, because surely, Dan will give us the official records to back up his story.... won’t you Dan?
If Rather is a USMC washout, that will explain many things. It may also explain why a man who spent four months in the Marines, then perhaps cut and ran, has a special affinity for another man who served four months in combat, then cut and ran.....
Frankly Dan, I hope this possibility isn't true. I hope you were a good Marine trainee. But time…. and the records… will tell.
Iranian student group slams John Kerry's campaign
| 9/17/04 | Smccdi
Posted on 09/16/2004 10:15:15 PM PDT by ~freedom44/"fr
The Movement's Coordinator made some sharp criticism of Senator John Kerry, in reference to his declared "Iran policy", and slammed some of his few Iranian supporters and fundraisers who are well known for their desperate activities intending to legitimize the unpopular theocracy. Aryo B. Pirouznia's comments, on behalf of SMCCDI, were made in the "Views" program of the popular, Los Angeles based, Persian speaking "Radio Voice of Iran" (KRSI) which is hosted by the well respected Ms. Pari Saffari.
In parts of the interview and by calling Mr. Kerry as "a dangerous flip flopper who's just seeking for election by gaining the support of circles affiliated or supporting the Islamic regime", Pirouznia stated: " The Democratic Presidential hopeful is intending to make a 'big nuclear bargain' with the terrorist and tyrannical Islamic regime as he has stated".
"The tyrants of the region and especially the Terror Masters, in our country, are already dreaming of Mr. Kerry's election in order to increase their misdeeds and repression of the peoples under their rules. Kerry's irresponsible 'deal statement' and his well known promise of 'repairing damages if elected' are considered, by the mullahs, as a future American green light for smashing the remain of Iranian opposition and increasing their destructive influence in the region" he emphasized.
"With respect to good American and Iranian-American democrats, we need to remind them that Mr. Kerry has nothing in common with the democratic values which were shared by good men, such as, H. Truman or JFK. All Iranian-Americans must mobilize behind Mr. Bush who has publicly recognized their right for freedom and self determination. Voting for him it's voting for a peaceful World and the Freedom of Iran" the SMCCDI Coordinator added.
On the Movement's litigation with "Kerry's Iranian connection" and referring to the "Front Page Magazine" and the "Washington Times" articles, published on this matter, Pirouznia stated: "Our problems with Mr. Nemazee and his friends, such as, Akbar Ghahary, Faraj-Alai, Sadegh Nemazikhah, Susan Akbarpoour or Houshang Amir-Ahmadi who have mobilized for Mr. Kerry's election, is nothing new. We stood against their demagogy during the Clinton era, when they tried to portray the Islamic regime as an Islamic Disneyland, and we will stand till the victory of the Iranian Nation or till our death."
"They tried to scare us, before the elections, by threatening with a costly frivolous law suit, but the Movement's sense of responding to its duty has made them look like poker bluffers caught with a bad hand. Now they're counter sued."
"The funny point is that at this time, it seems that it's our lawyers who have to chase Mr. Nemazee in order to try to bring him to depose in the Dallas Court. He seems to be trying to avoid the start of the legal process before the US Presidential elections by maybe thinking that some of its ramifications might tarnish the Kerry campaign. Normally, anyone having initiated a law suit, which is supposedly intending to seek reparation from the other party, should be eager to catch such occasion in order to speed up the process. This is not the case with Mr. Nemazee who seems to have more of a political goal than a request for justice."
"In addition, an astonishing and alarming fact is that his lawyers have requested that we reveal the names of our members and affiliates in Iran. It's out of the question that we accept such request even if we have to go to jail in the democratic America due to Mr. Kerry and his Iranian connection who are claiming to wish to reinforce democracy in this country" Pirouznia stated.
This radio interview program, broadcasted (on 9/16 PM in the US = 9/17 AM in Iran) via satellite worldwide and relayed in main N. American and some European cities by KRSI's affiliated local radio stations, can be listened at: http://www.krsi.net/archive/archive.asp?archive=10
NEW MOVEON.ORG AD SHOWS DEFEATED U.S. SOLDIER
NARRATOR: "George Bush misled us into war with Iraq, sending poorly equipped soldiers into battle. He said 'Mission Accomplished,' yet almost every day more soldiers die."
CHYRON: "Over 1,000 U.S. Soldiers Killed"
NARRATOR: "Going it alone, George Bush has spent $150 billion dollars, money we need for schools and health care."
CHYRON: "$150 Billion"
NARRATOR: "Now, facing a growing insurgency, he has no real plan to end the war. George Bush got us into this quagmire. It will take a new president to get us out. MoveOn PAC is responsible for the content of this advertisement."
CHYRON: "Quagmire;" MoveOn PAC Disclaimer
X X X X X
Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign Chairman Gov. Marc Racicot issued the following statement regarding the MoveOn.Org ad:
"When John Kerry speaks before the National Guard today, he should apologize for the actions of his surrogates and demand that they take down their ad depicting a defeated American soldier.
"John Kerry's campaign is rooted in the past, hollow with pessimism, and preaching defeat to the American people.
"John Kerry's continually shifting positions on Iraq and his sinking rhetoric of a defeated America send a signal to our allies and our enemies that America is not willing to finish the job. This attitude undermines the great progress that the men and women in America's armed forces have made in the fight against terror around the world. America expects more from one who aspires to the position of Commander-in-Chief." Developing...
Dan Rather's swan song
Posted: September 16, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
This may come as a shock to some of you, but I grew up idolizing Dan Rather.
In 1973, he stood up to Richard Nixon and asked tough questions in a press conference when the Watergate scandal was unfolding. Nixon tried to deflect the query by saying: "Are you running for something?"
Rather's brilliant retort: "No, Mr. President, are you?"
That's the kind of reporter I wanted to be at the age of 19. I read Rather's book. And I set out to be a courageous investigative reporter.
But there was a problem.
To do this kind of work honestly, you've got to be tough on all politicians – left, right, Democrat, Republican. And I soon learned that my hero – Dan Rather – was one of those journalists who was only tough on Republicans.
I tell you this story because I just got back from a panel discussion about "Rather-gate" with some of my colleagues on MSNBC's "Scarborough Country."
You know what I mean by "Rather-gate." It's the story of how an aging network news anchor ended his multi-generational career with a bang – by claiming to have in his hands smoking-gun documents that prove President George Bush didn't fulfill his National Guard duty more than 30 years ago.
This was no doubt going to be the capstone of Rather's tenure heading CBS News. Instead, it turned out to be one more giant black eye for him and his network. It may prove to be Rather's undoing.
Anyway, everybody on this panel – from John Stossel to Gerry Warren to Mort Zuckerman to Byron York – was, in my opinion, pussyfooting around. No one wanted to offend Rather. No one wanted to say the guy is a fraud. No one wanted to say he has no integrity.
And I never got the chance.
So, here goes.
Rather's big mistake was not accepting these bogus documents from an anonymous source and peddling them like they were the Dead Sea Scrolls. I'm sure he's done stuff like that hundreds of times over the years. Heck, he still thinks there's nothing wrong with those papers – even though it is technically impossible for them to have been produced before the desktop computer age.
No, that wasn't Dan's big mistake, because he would have gotten away with that one as he has so many times over the last 35 years,
His real mistake was allowing CBS to post those papers on the network's website, where they could be inspected by 300 million Americans far more discerning than Rather and his producers.
They looked bogus. They smelled bogus. And within hours, experts and amateur sleuths on the Internet – with far fewer resources than Rather's fact-checking staff – were poking holes in them. Big holes. Monster holes.
Nevertheless, even though Rather had, with malice aforethought, impeached the integrity of the president of the United States – in wartime, no less – his colleagues on this cable show wanted no part of challenging the highly paid network anchor's integrity.
Again, it is left to me.
Rather's a fraud. He's always been a fraud. He has no integrity. He's a partisan shill. And I'll prove it to you.
Do you remember him cooing with Bill and Hillary Clinton in those love fests that passed for interviews during eight years of that regime? It was sickening. He was a sycophant. He loved them and it showed.
Three years ago, Rather spoke at a fund-raiser for the Texas Democratic Party.
He later apologized and said it was the biggest mistake he ever made in his career. But what Rather really meant was getting caught was the biggest mistake he ever made.
He's been doing the partisan work of Democrats ever since he's been in the business. The only time he was honest about it was when he spoke to that fund-raiser.
This wasn't an honest mistake – any more than "Rather-gate" is. You can't tell me that after 35 years in the business, Dan Rather didn't know newsmen aren't supposed to dabble in partisan politics. He thought he could get away with it. He thought he was bigger than life. He thought the rules that applied to mere mortal journalists no longer applied to him.
When challenged about this partisanship, Rather said it's not true. And he offered as proof his opposition to President Lyndon Johnson's conduct of the Vietnam War.
Well, Dan, I got news for you. Lots of other Democrats objected to Johnson's conduct of the war, too. And one of them, your buddy, John Kerry, is running for president today.
And we all know you would do anything in your power to get him elected. As an American, that is your right. But as a newsman, that is your disqualification.
Time to go, Dan. Don't let the door slam on your way out.
Navy Contradicts Kerry on Release of Military Records
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
September 16, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - The U.S. Navy released documents Wednesday contradicting claims by Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry that all of his available military records have been released.
The Navy, responding to a Freedom of Information Act request from the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch, also referred interested parties to Kerry's campaign web site for government military documents.
Navy Personnel Command FOIA Officer Dave German wrote in an e-mail to Judicial Watch that the Navy "withheld thirty-one pages of documents from the responsive military personnel service records as we were not provided a release authorization."
A "release authorization" would have to come from Kerry filling out and signing a Standard Form 180, something he has yet to do. A Standard Form 180 would authorize the complete release of all his military records. Judicial Watch filed Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests in August to obtain Kerry's military records.
The official U.S. Navy response was received by Judicial Watch on Wednesday, the same day that Kerry told syndicated radio and MSNBC TV host Don Imus that "We've posted my military records that they sent to me, or were posted on my website. You can go to my website, and all my -- you know, the documents are there."
When Imus pressed Kerry as to whether all of his documents were in fact included on the campaign website, Kerry responded, "To the best of my knowledge. I think some of the medical stuff may still be out there. We're trying to get it.
"We released everything that they (the Navy) initially sent me," he added.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said the Navy's correspondence confirms that Kerry has not been forthright in releasing his military files.
"It's written confirmation from the U.S. Navy that there are additional documents from Kerry's service record that have yet to be made publicly available," Fitton told CNSNews.com.
Fitton called the Kerry campaign's contention that all of the candidate's military files have been released, "wrong."
"They (the Kerry campaign) are either ignorant or misleading us. The simple solution is to authorize the release of all records related to his service," Fitton said.
German in a letter dated September 15, also referred Judicial Watch to Kerry's campaign website for more information on Kerry's military records.
"Numerous responsive U.S. Navy service record documents, as well as service record documents not subject to disclosure requirements under the FOIA, may be accessed at" the Kerry campaign's website applying to his military records, wrote German.
"Right now we are in the 'Alice in Wonderland' situation, where the U.S. Navy is telling us to go to a campaign Internet site to get government FOIA documents," Fitton said.
"I am not aware of any other instance where [a government agency] told us to go to a political website for documents," he added. "It's not a reliable repository of government documents."
In additional correspondence with Judicial Watch dated Sept. 15, the Navy stated that it did not have a copy of Kerry's Discharge Certificate (DD Form 256N), adding that the Navy did not keep files of the certificate in its records.
German wrote in a letter dated Sept. 15, "A copy of an honorable discharge certificate (DD256N) is not placed in the U.S. Navy Service record when issued."
Jerome Corsi, co-author of the best-selling book "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," told CNSNews.com the he was "surprised" the Navy did not have a copy of Kerry's discharge file.
"That means [Kerry's] got it," Corsi said. "It goes against his contention that he has released everything that is in his possession, because certainly that form is in his possession."
Corsi believes that the Navy's official response proves that "it's Kerry who is blocking the release of the [military] documents and nobody else."
"What's Senator Kerry got to hide?" Corsi asked. "By not releasing these files, he is creating the impression that there is something there he doesn't want anybody to see. What is it?"
Judicial Watch is also awaiting the U.S. Navy's response to its inquiry regarding Kerry's "Silver Star with combat V." The citation appears in Kerry's DD214 military form on his website, but according to military officials, no such medal exists.
"Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star," said a Naval official to reporter Thomas Lipscomb in an article for the August 27th Chicago Sun Times.
According to the Sun Times article, "Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a 'combat V' for the Silver Star, the third-highest decoration the Navy awards. None of the other services has ever granted a Silver Star 'combat V,' either."
Stolen honor documentary... may sink Kerry's presidential boat
August 25, 2004
Democrats acted as though they had lost their capacity to speak — when many were confronted with the 59 lies presented so transparently in Michael Moore's "pathetic" President Bush bashing documentary, Fahrenheit 9/11. To them it was just good entertainment. In fact, Moore received preferential treatment at the Democratic National Convention which brought out the Democrats true colors, and they weren't red, white, and blue either.
Now the battle lines have been drawn, and a scathing documentary is scheduled to air, bashing John Kerry by former Viet Nam POWs — only chances are very good this documentary is not going to be fictional or lathered up in lies.
War is hell — is going to be emphasized to a much greater degree when the documentary hits the airwaves in about two weeks. The documentary has no direct link with the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, but they are probably delighted and looking forward to front row seats — as many other people are.
The documentary Stolen Honor — will detail how the Prisoners of War felt betrayed by John Kerry when they learned of his antiwar stance back in the United States. Just like the pictures aired 24/7 by the liberal news media dealing with the prisoner abuse at the Iraqi prison camp Abu Ghraib by American soldiers endangered captives held by al-Qaida operatives to a much higher level, the same was true when John Kerry spoke openly about alleged war atrocities by his comrades in Viet Nam. Boy. . .talk about being hung out to dry.
While the alleged war atrocities were horrible if they are accurate — it was endangering the POWs lives still being held captive in Viet Nam. Sleeping with the enemy is never a good idea. Before the liberals start getting their underwear twisted up in a knot, they need to put themselves in the shoes of the POWs for just a minute, to see how they would feel if they were being held captive and one of their comrades went over the public airways relating war atrocities to the world, and the enemy.
While John Kerry has called on President Bush to halt the infamous ads produced and aired by the Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth — he has only batted his eyes and turned a deaf ear to the ads that have bashed the president for nearly a year from his camp or by his supporters. Kerry needs to practice what he preaches and call off his own gang of attack dogs. But isn't that just like a Democrat? They have the right to smear, but they scream foul — when the shoe's tightening up on the other foot.
With all of the paramount problems strangling Americans in dealing with terrorists, do we really need a leader who voted to take action in Iraq and then said if he had known the outcome he wouldn't have voted for the action? How can anyone know the outcome of a war? We don't even know what is going to happen tomorrow, much less a week, month or year from now.
With all of the negativity surrounding politics in the 21st century — along with war. . . politics can be viewed as hellfire and brimstone. . . to many Americans.
Kerry Showing Signs of Meltdown?
The Kerry campaign closed out last week in full flail. And according to one source close to the campaign, the candidate is really starting to feel the heat.
With looming questions about the integrity of his service in Vietnam dominating the narrative of the 2004 campaign, Democrat nominee John Kerry is in full battle mode against the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. In addition to the highly orchestrated smear campaign against the vets being run out of the Democrat National Committee, the Kerry campaign and the DNC has also produced a blizzard of legal threats toward television stations who are running the Swiftees television commercials, bookstores that carry their best-selling book Unfit for Command and against the Bush campaign and the Swiftees themselves for what the Kerry campaign insist is an illegal, coordinated attack against America’s most liberal Senator.
But for all the legal harassment and public scorn dumped on the Swiftees, it is Kerry himself who is nervous about the outcome of this increasingly nasty dispute. And it’s starting to show behind the scenes.
A source close to the Kerry campaign and the Democrat National Committee told crushkerry.com that John Kerry spent the better part of last week fighting with his political and legal advisors about how best to handle the Swiftees. His key political advisors did not want to confront the controversy head on, as Kerry has, for fear that it would draw further attention to charges of lies, fabrication and war crimes.
“There were several conference calls and a couple of meetings. Everyone was screaming. I would consider it the low point of the campaign,” our source told us. “By taking the Vets on, John Kerry thinks he’s demonstrating bravery. But it’s a horrible mistake, politically.”
Kerry also battled with his lawyers all week, insisting they distribute threatening letters to bookstores. According to our source, the Kerry legal team thought this, too, would be a mistake with a big risk of backfire.
“Look, bookstores aren’t going to stop selling this book because John Kerry wants them to,” our source told us. “From what I understand, John Kerry made the lawyers send these letters out. Kerry ordered it personally! I mean, we just look desperate.”
Our source also told us that several political advisors argued strenuously against threatening the bookstores and television stations, again fearing they would simply draw attention to the charges.
When asked if they expected anything to come out of the Kerry campaign’s complaint to the FEC against the Bush campaign and the Swiftees, our source was not optimistic. “Those complaints are pretty much pro forma. The Bush people have filed dozens of complaints against us and the 527’s.” our source stated.
When asked if they thought the campaign had overreacted and mismanaged the issue, our source said yes.
“The original plan was to let the press handle it [the controversy, on behalf of the Kerry campaign],” our source told us. “But John Kerry has gone off the deep end. He wants to personally discredit these guys. I don’t know if what they’re saying about him is true, but they have touched a big nerve with him. There is a lot of bad blood there.”
CBS Guard Documents Traced to Tex. Kinko's
Records Reportedly Faxed From Abilene
By Michael DobbsWashington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A06
Documents allegedly written by a deceased officer that raised questions about President Bush's service with the Texas Air National Guard bore markings showing they had been faxed to CBS News from a Kinko's copy shop in Abilene, Tex., according to another former Guard officer who was shown the records by the network.
The markings provide one piece of evidence suggesting a source for the documents, whose authenticity has been hotly disputed since CBS aired them in a "60 Minutes" broadcast Sept. 8. The network has declined to name the person who provided them, saying the source was confidential, or to explain how the documents came to light after more than three decades.
There is only one Kinko's in Abilene, and it is 21 miles from the Baird, Tex., home of retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, who has been named by several news outlets as a possible source for the documents.
Robert Strong, who was one of three people interviewed by "60 minutes," said he was shown copies of the documents by CBS anchor Dan Rather and producer Mary Mapes on Sept. 5, three days before the broadcast. He said at least one of the documents bore a faxed header indicating it had been sent from a Kinko's in Abilene.
Strong's comments came as CBS News President Andrew Heyward in an interview acknowledged that there were "unresolved issues" that the network wanted "to get to the bottom of." Since the broadcast, critics have pointed to a host of unexplained problems about the memos, which bore dates from 1972 and 1973, including signs that they had been written on a computer rather than a Vietnam-era typewriter.
"I feel that we did a tremendous amount of reporting before the story went on the air or we wouldn't have put it on the air," Heyward said in an interview last night, while acknowledging "a ferocious debate about these documents."
Asked what role Burkett may have played in CBS's reporting of the report, Heyward said: "I'm not going to get into any discussion of who the sources are."
Burkett, who has accused Bush aides of ordering the destruction of some portions of the president's National Guard record because they might have been politically embarrassing, did not return telephone calls to his home. His lawyer, David Van Os, issued a statement on Burkett's behalf saying he "no longer trusts any possible outcome of speaking to the press on any issue regarding George W. Bush and does not choose to dignify recent spurious attacks upon his character with any comment."
In news interviews earlier this year, Burkett said he overheard a telephone conversation in the spring of 1997 in which top Bush aides asked the head of the Texas National Guard to sanitize Bush's files as he was running for a second term as governor of Texas. Several days later, he said, he saw dozens of pages from Bush's military file dumped in a trash can at Camp Mabry, the Guard's headquarters.
The Bush aides Burkett named as participants in the telephone conversation were Chief of Staff Joe M. Allbaugh and spokespersons Karen Hughes and Dan Bartlett. All three Bush aides and former Texas National Guard Maj. Gen. Daniel James have strongly denied the allegations.
Suspicions that Burkett could have been a source for the CBS documents first surfaced earlier this week when Newsweek magazine reported that Mapes flew to Texas to interview him over the summer. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that a CBS staffer, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed that Burkett was a source for the "60 Minutes" report but "did not know the exact role he played."
Yesterday reporters from several news organizations were camped near Blair, Tex., outside Burkett's home, which is on a working ranch, with a gate barring access to a one-story farmhouse and a pickup truck outside. At 6 p.m. Central Time, Burkett walked to the gate on his cane with a black dog by his side to collect his mail. He refused to answer questions over whether he provided the documents to CBS.
"Get out my way," he told the reporters. "You need to go home."
Earlier this year, Burkett gave interviews to numerous news outlets, including The Washington Post, alleging corruption and malfeasance at the top of the Texas National Guard, many of which have never been substantiated. He has also been a named source for several reports by USA Today, which reported Monday that it had independently obtained copies of the disputed memos soon after the broadcast.
Like CBS News, USA Today has declined to name the source of its memos on the grounds of confidentiality.
Burkett, who served with the Texas National Guard in an administrative capacity before his 1998 retirement, has been involved in a bitter dispute with the Guard over medical benefits after suffering from a tropical disease following a military assignment to Panama. He has told reporters that he suffered a nervous breakdown and was hospitalized for depression after he left the Guard.
Burkett has provided different accounts of exactly what Bush records he allegedly saw in the trash can at Camp Mabry. At times, he has described them as "payroll-type documents" and performance assessments. But in an Aug. 14 posting to a Web log, www.steveverdon.com, he said he saw "a two-page counseling statement" signed by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the officer named by "60 Minutes" as the author of its Bush memos.
Author James Moore, who relied on Burkett as a primary source for a book attacking Bush as having wriggled out of his Guard service, said in an interview yesterday that he did not think Burkett provided the memos to CBS. "His life is complicated enough already, and I don't why he would make further complications for himself," Moore said.
On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, 39 Republican House members, led by Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.), wrote a letter to Heyward demanding that CBS retract its report. Accusing the network of becoming "part of a campaign to deceive the public and to defame the president," the lawmakers said: "CBS reporters would not accept such behavior from public officials like ourselves, and we cannot accept it from them."
Separately, Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Calif.), citing reports in The Post and the Dallas Morning News, asked that a House communications subcommittee investigate what he called "the continued use of CBS News of apparently forged documents" intended to damage Bush's reputation and "influence the outcome of the 2004 presidential election." But the panel's chairman, Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), rejected the request, saying that the oversight of network news should be left to the viewing public and news media.
In a related development, White House press secretary Scott McClellan hinted that more documents regarding Bush's National Guard service may soon be released. Asked whether officials in the White House have seen unreleased documents, McClellan called that "a very real possibility." Other officials with knowledge of the situation said more documents had indeed been uncovered and would be released in the coming days.
Staff writers Howard Kurtz and Dana Milbank in Washington and Sylvia Moreno in Baird, Tex., contributed to this report.
Was Dan duped?
Posted: September 15, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
Dan Rather, successor to Walter Cronkite as anchor of CBS News, may be about to close out his career on a banana peel.
Last Wednesday, Rather launched a "60 Minutes" pre-emptive strike against the president. Rather's charges: Bush got into the National Guard through pull, was an insubordinate officer who refused to take the medical exam to keep flying and used clout to prevent his being disciplined.
Rather's attack was based on four newly discovered memos said to be from the personal files of Bush's squadron commander, Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian. The memos, writes the New York Times, indicate "Mr. Bush ... failed to take a physical examination 'as ordered' and that his commander felt under pressure to 'sugarcoat' his performance rating, because 1st Lt. Bush ... was 'talking to someone upstairs.'"
Rather seemed to have substantiated the rumors about Bush's Guard service, as his piece also featured an interview with former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, who confessed to having interceded to get Bush into the Texas Air National Guard.
Within hours, however, Rather's case was crumbling. From both independent analyses of the memos and witness testimony, it appears that Rather may have been duped into colluding with a scheme to use forgeries to smear and sink a president of the United States.
First, the new Killian memos appear to have been produced on a word processor that did not exist in 1972-73. They are written in a Times New Roman typeface rarely found on old typewriters. The letters "th" in "111th squadron" are written in a "superscript" few typewriters of the Vietnam era had. And the spacing of the letters on the memos is more like that of modern word processors than of early 1970s' typewriters, where letters were of equal size.
Killian's widow (he died in 1984) and son say he never kept notes and call the memos a farce. "No officer in his right mind would write a memo like that," says Killian's son Gary, an ex-Guardsman himself, of the memo in which Col. Killian says he is being pressured to "sugarcoat" Bush's record of insubordination.
Rufus Martin, personnel chief in Killian's unit, also calls the memos fakes: "I don't think Killian would do that, and I knew him for 17 years."
On "60 Minutes," Rather identified the senior officer who was said to be leaning on Killian. "Killian says [in his memo) Col. Buck Staudt, the man in charge of the Texas Air National Guard, is putting pressure on to 'sugarcoat' an evaluation of Lt. Bush." But according to the Dallas Morning News, Staudt was discharged from the Guard and gone 18 months before Killian's memo was written.
Rather claims Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, Col. Killian's superior, confirmed to CBS that the memos were consistent with what he recalls.
But ABC quotes Hodges as saying CBS mislead him into thinking the memos were handwritten, and he thus responded, "Well if he wrote them that's what he felt." Hodges now calls the memos a "fraud" that has been "computer-generated."
If Killian did write the four memos, notes National Review's Byron York, he would have to have been a complete hypocrite. For as he was allegedly writing bitter memos to himself about Bush, he was praising Lt. Bush in the official records in Guard files. Killian's widow says her late husband was an admirer of young George.
As for Ben Barnes, his daughter Amy says her father is now lying. Barnes is a Kerry fund-raiser and Nantucket neighbor of the windsurfer whose story about intervening for Bush has changed over the years.
Despite the cloud over the authenticity of the memos, CBS says it is conducting no internal investigation of how it got them or whether they are authentic. Hard to believe. For the reputations of Rather, CBS and "60 Minutes" are all on the line.
It should not be difficult to authenticate the memos. If they were written by Killian over an 18-month period, then other memos about unrelated matters, but with the same Times New Roman font, the same spacing, the same signature and the same "superscript" should be there. If, however, none are found, CBS may have placed its credibility behind a criminal forgery to destroy a president.
Indeed, if these memos turn out to be fakes, CBS and Rather will be guilty of, at least, having been played for fools. At worst, they could be convicted in the court of public opinion of collusion in a plot to bring down a president – a plot into which they were lured by a blinding bias against George W. Bush.
SPECIAL OFFER: Pat Buchanan's book, "The Death of the West," an eye-opening exposé of how immigration invasions are endangering America, is now available at HALF-PRICE from WorldNetDaily's online store! Autographed edition also available!
Patrick J. Buchanan was twice a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination and the Reform Party’s candidate in 2000. He is also a founder and editor of the new magazine, The American Conservative. Now a political analyst for MSNBC and a syndicated columnist, he served three presidents in the White House, was a founding panelist of three national television shows, and is the author of seven books.
Hi! Received this from a very good friend in PA. she wants everyone to know what she saw.
Good Tuesday morning! John Kerry brought his "front porch meeting" to our Canonsburg, PA neighborhood on Labor Day morning. Since
you will never hear the truth from the TV or print media I thought that you should know from someone who was `almost' there.
The residents who live on the street where the event took place were not allowed to attend.
Kerry shipped in approximately 90 invitation only VIPs. In addition, there was a hard luck case who was about to lose her job at USAIR and
another was an elderly woman who was having health care problems. Neither one was from this neighborhood. The street was closed to all
traffic the night before and all residents on the street were REQUIRED to remove their Bush/Cheney signs.
The sympathetic police officers on duty told us that Kerry used imminent domain to claim the street for his purposes. Residents who have
homes within the perimeter (approximately 1 full block) were kept behind a line away from the partisan crowd. The rest of us were not allowed
within the 1 block cordon. A neighbor from across the street came to the line where we were being kept and asked us to come onto his property.
The police told us that we could stand on this mans FORMERLY private property! This was set up so that Kerry's views could be heard - but not
the neighbors. About 30 peoples (mostly neighbors) shouts echoed down the street "Let the neighbors in".
We could barely hear Kerry speaking with his microphone because press buses were used to block us off from view! This mornings papers are
reporting hecklers tried to interrupt Kerry as he spoke to the neighborhood gathering, but he turned our chants to his favor by calling us rude.
Even though most of the media was there to record our stories of not being included in the neighborhood forum, not one of them printed or aired
the truth. This is what America will look like if Kerry becomes president.
Get registered and get all of your friends registered to vote if they have not already. Kerry thinks that he is better than the rest of us and he has
the media on his side to make him out to be what he is not! Finally, last night as I drove down the street where the rally was, I was shocked to
see Bush/Cheney signs in almost every yard on the street!
LET FREEDOM RING!
Kerry Calls Swift Boat Book 'A Pack of Lies'
By Scott Wheeler
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
September 15, 2004
(CNSNews.com) - Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry called the best-selling book Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans
Speak Out Against John Kerry "a pack of lies" in an interview with syndicated radio and MSNBC TV host Don Imus Wednesday morning.
"Look, it's a pack of lies. It's an absolute pack of lies," Kerry said about the book. " It's been proven to be a pack of lies, and I have no
interest in reading it," Kerry told Imus in response to a question about whether Kerry had read the book by Vietnam veteran John O'Neill
and Jerome Corsi.
Kerry said the only reason the book has been on the New York Times best seller list for the last several weeks is because "right wing people"
are buying the books in bulk.
Corsi, the book's co-author, questioned how Kerry can criticize a book he admits he has not read.
"Is he psychic? He says he hasn't read the book, so how does he know it's a 'pack of lies?'" Corsi commented to CNSNews.com shortly
after Kerry made the allegations.
"There is no assertion in the book that has been refuted," Corsi added.
National Guardsmen Stand By 'Proud Bush'
Yesterday, 20 Republican congressmen who served in the Guard signed a letter demanding that Mr. Kerry "immediately apologize
for comments attacking the honorable service of those in the National Guard. "When Senator Kerry attacks President Bush's National
Guard record as a refusal to serve in the U.S. military, he is degrading the commitment of all the proud men and women who have served
and are serving today," said Rep. Joe Wilson, South Carolina Republican. "We demand that Senator Kerry cease his attacks and apologize
for his comments."Capt. Pat Campos, a member of the New Mexico Army National Guard, said he doesn't expect Mr. Kerry to be received
as warmly as Mr. Bush was at the convention.
Source Article: Washington Times
Lawmaker Requests Investigation of CBS
Charges CBS Forgeries 'Attempted to Influence Outcome of Election'
A leading House Republican on Wednesday asked for a congressional investigation into disputed documents used by CBS News for a story
examining President Bush's Vietnam-era service in the Texas Air National Guard.Rep. Chris Cox, R-Calif., sought an investigation. "Despite
the growing abundance of evidence that CBS News has aided and abetted fraud, the network has declined to reveal the source of the disputed
documents," Cox wrote to the chairman of the House Energy Committee's subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet. The letter
asks Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., to "commence a subcommittee investigation into the continued use by CBS News of apparently forged documents
concerning the service record of President George W. Bush intended to unfairly damage his reputation and influence the outcome of the 2004
Source Article: AP Wire
The First 'Rathergate'
Dan Rather's Precarious Relationship with Truth
Critics are calling the media scandal over the Jerry Killian forgeries "Rathergate." But to thousands of Vietnam veterans, the real Rathergate
took place 16 years ago when Dan Rather successfully foisted a fraud onto the American people. Then, unlike now, there was no blogosphere
to expose him.
On June 2, 1988, CBS aired an hour-long special titled CBS Reports: The Wall Within, which CBS trumpeted as the "rebirth of the TV
documentary." It purported to tell the true story of Vietnam through the eyes of six of the men who fought there. And what terrible stories they
had to tell.
"I think I was one of the highest trained, underpaid, eighteen-cent-an-hour assassins ever put together by a team of people who knew exactly
what they were looking for," said Steve Southards, a Navy SEAL who told Rather he had escaped society to live in the forests of Washington
state. Under Rather's gentle coaxing, Southards described slaughtering Vietnamese civilians, making his work appear to be that of the
"You're telling me that you went into the village, killed people, burned part of the village, then made it appear that the other side had done
this?" Rather asked.
"Yeah," Steve replied. "It was kill VC, and I was good at what I did."
Steve arrived home "in a straitjacket, addicted to alcohol and drugs" knowing that "combat had made him different," Rather intoned.
"He asked for help; that's unusual, many vets don't. They hold back until they explode."
Rather then moved on to suicidal veteran named George Grule, who was stationed on the aircraft carrier Ticonderoga off the coast of Vietnam
during a secret mission. Grule described the horror of watching a friend walk into the spinning propeller of a plane, which chopped him to pieces
and sprayed Grule with his blood. The memory of this trauma left Grule, like Steve, unable to function in normal society.
Neither could Mikal Rice, who broke down as he described a grenade attack at Cam Ranh Bay, which blew in half the body of a buddy,
"Sergeant Call." "He died in my arms," Rice tearfully recalled. Rice described how the sound of thunder and cars backfiring would regularly trigger
his terrible memories.
Most horrific of all were the memories of Terry Bradley, a "fighting sergeant" who told Rather he had skinned alive 50 Vietnamese men, women,
and children in one hour and stacked their bodies in piles. "Could you do this for one hour of your life, you stack up every way a body could be
mangled, up into a body, an arm, a tit, an eyeball . . . Imagine us over there for a year and doing it intensely," Bradley said. "That is sick."
"You've got to be angry about it," Rather replied. "I'm suicidal about it," Bradley responded.
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, drug abuse, alcoholism, joblessness, homelessness, suicidal thoughts: These tattered warriors suffered from
The The Wall Within was hailed by critics who — like the Washington Post's Tom Shales — gushed that the documentary was "extraordinarily
powerful." There was just one problem: Almost none of it was true.
The truth was uncovered by B.G. Burkett, a Vietnam veteran and author of Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of its Heroes
and its History (with Glenna Whitley). Burkett discovered that only one of the vets had actually served in combat. Steve Southards, who'd claimed
to be a 16-year-old Navy SEAL assassin, had actually served as an equipment repairman stationed far from combat. Later transferred to Subic Bay
in the Philippines, Steve spent most of his time in the brig for repeatedly going AWOL.
And George Gruel, who claimed he was traumatized by the sight of his friend being chopped to pieces by a propeller? Navy records reveal that a
propeller accident did take place on the Ticonderoga when Gruel was aboard — but that he wasn't around when it happened. During Gruel's tour,
the ship had been converted to an antisubmarine warfare carrier which operated, not on "secret mission" along the Vietnam coast, but on training
missions off the California coastline. Nevertheless, Burkett notes, Gruel receives $1,952 a month from the Veterans Administration for "psychological
trauma" related to an event he only heard about.
Mikal Rice — the anguished vet who claimed to have cradled his dying buddy in his arms — actually spent his tour as a guard with an MP company at Cam Ranh Bay. He never saw combat. Neither did Terry Bradley, who was not the "fighting sergeant" he'd claimed to be. Instead, military records reveal he served as an ammo handler in the 25th Infantry Division and spent nearly a year in the stockade for being AWOL. That's good news for the hundreds of Vietnamese civilians Bradley claimed to have slaughtered. But it doesn't say much for Dan Rather's credibility.
As Burkett notes, the records of all of these vets were easily checkable through Freedom of Information Act requests of their military records —
something Rather and his producers simply didn't bother to do. They accepted at face value the lurid tales of atrocities committed in Vietnam and the stories of criminal behavior, drug addiction, and despair at home.
Perhaps that's because this is what they wanted to believe. Says Burkett: The Wall Within "precisely fit what Americans have grown to believe
about the Vietnam War and its veterans: They routinely committed war crimes. They came home from an immoral war traumatized, vilified, then
pitied. Jobless, homeless, addicted, suicidal, they remain afflicted by inner conflicts, stranded on the fringes of society."
Burkett, who did check the records of the vets Rather interviewed, shared his discoveries with CBS. So did Thomas Turnage, then administrator
of the Veterans Administration, who was appalled by Rather's use of bogus statistics on the rates of suicide, homelessness, and mental illness
among Vietnam veterans — statistics that can also be easily checked. Rather initially refused to comment, and CBS spokeswoman Kim Akhtar said, "The producers stand behind their story. They had enough proof of who they are." For his part, CBS president Howard Stringer defended the network with irrelevancies. "Your criticisms were not shared by a vast majority of our viewers," he sniffed, adding that "CBS News and its affiliates received acclaim from most quarters . . . In sum, this was a broadcast of which we at CBS News and I personally am proud. There are no apologies to make."
Sarah Lee Pilley, who ran a restaurant in Colville, Washington where the CBS crew dined while filming The Wall Within, would not agree. The wife of a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who saw combat in Vietnam, Pilley, said she "got the distinct feeling that CBS had a story they had decided on before they left New York." After interviewing 87 Vietnam veterans, CBS chose the "four or five saddest cases to put on the film," Pilley said. "
The factual part of it didn't seem to matter as long as they captured the high drama and emotion that these few individuals offered. We felt all along that CBS committed tremendous exploitation of some very sick individuals."
Why would Dan Rather do such a thing? Partly because the stories of deranged, trip-wire vets is much more dramatic than the true story: That most Vietnam veterans came home to live normal, productive, happy lives. Second, Rather apparently wanted the story of whacked-out Vietnam veterans to be true — just as he now wants the Jerry Killian story to be true.
Or maybe — despite a preponderance of the evidence — he considered the sources of these tales of Vietnam atrocities "unimpeachable." As angry Vietnam veterans began calling CBS to complain about the factual inaccuracies of The Wall Within, Perry Wolff, the executive producer who wrote the documentary, claimed that "No one has attacked us on the facts." Despite the growing evidence that he'd been had, Rather also continued to defend the documentary — which is now part of CBS's video history series on the Vietnam War.
Perhaps Vietnam veterans ought to take a page out of the book of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and air television ads exposing Rather's deceits — something along the lines of: "Dan Rather lied about his Vietnam documentary. I know. I was there. I saw what happened. When the chips were down, you could not count on Dan Rather."
Certainly, we cannot count on him for the truth. During a 1993 speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Association, Rather criticized his colleagues for competing with entertainment shows for "dead bodies, mayhem, and lurid tales." "We should all be ashamed of what we have and have not done, measured against what we could do," Rather said.
Thousands of Vietnam veterans — not to mention the Bush campaign — would agree.
— Anne Morse is a writer living in Maryland.
Time to Revist this one more time!
Kerry Exaggerates Role in Some Key Legislative Battles
He says he "led the fight" on several fronts, but few bills bear his name.
January 30, 2004
Modified: January 30, 2004
John Kerry is fond of saying "I led the fight" on a lot of things -- against Arctic drilling, against Bush's Medicare prescription drug legislation, for federal grants for 100,000 new police officers, against Newt Gingrich's attempts to lessen environmental regulations.
But reporters who cover Congress often gave others credit for the leading roles in some of those fights -- with scant mention of Kerry.
And The Associated Press last July found that only eight laws had Kerry as their lead sponsor, five of them "ceremonial," two relating to the fishing industry, and one providing federal grants to support small businesses owned by women.
A sampler of the many fights Kerry says he's led:
At the Democratic Presidential Debate in Durham, NH, December 9, 2003 :
I led the fight to stop Newt Gingrich from undoing the Clean Air and Clean Water Act.
At the Democratic Presidential Debate in Iowa , January 4, 2004 :
I led the fight to put 100,000 cops on the streets of America .
At the Democratic Presidential Radio Debate January 6:
I led the fight to stop the drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
On CBS News' Face the Nation program, January 25:
I have led the fight for deficit reduction in 1985 with Fritz Hollings and Senator Gramm of Texas.
On "Fox On the Record with Greta Van Susteren," January 19:
I personally led the fight to hold Oliver North accountable for what I believe were unconstitutional activities.
And from a Kerry TV ad that aired in Iowa in December, 2003:
There is a special interest feeding frenzy going on in Washington. A $130 billion dollar giveaway to the drug companies. John Kerry led in the fight against it.
Some of Kerry's claims have a sound basis: he has been among the outspoken opponents of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, and he did take a lead role with his fellow Vietnam combat veteran John McCain in puhsing to normalize US relations with Hanoi. But Kerry also overstates his role on some other matters.
For example, in the 1985 balanced-budget fight Kerry can justly claim credit for being an early supporter of what became the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings amendment. The amendment sought to cut then-chronic federal deficits to zero by setting targets for spending levels enforced by mandatory across-the-board cuts if necessary.
However, claiming to have "led the fight" for the balanced-budget measure is political puffery.
The measure was actually drafted by two Republicans, Sens. Warren B. Rudman of New Hampshire and Phil Gramm of Texas. Kerry became one of about 40 co-sponsors.
At a 1985 news conference Kerry actually followed behind another Democrat, Chris Dodd of Connecticut, who spoke in favor of it. The Washington Post described what happened next:
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) entered the room as the news conference broke up, saying he supports the measure now that he has been assured Social Security would not be cut.
Who Really Bottled Clean-water?
Similarly, in 1995 when the Clean Water Act amendments moved out of Newt Gingrich's Republican-controlled House and came to the Senate, Kerry and other Democrats were opposed. But it wasn't Kerry who was given chief credit for blocking the Gingrich amendments. Kerry's own hometown newspaper, the Boston Globe , said environmentalists saw their best hope elsewhere:
Today's scheduled debate on changes in the Clean Water Act, including reduced protection of fragile wetlands, follows four major bills that already passed the House this year over environmental activists' protests. Environmentalists now say that, short of a presidential veto, "green" Republicans in the Senate, led by Rhode Island 's John Chafee, are their best chance to stem the tide. (Emphasis added by FactCheck.org)
The Gingrich amendments died not because of Kerry but because Chafee refused to move them out of the Environment and Public Works Committee which he chaired.
Missing the Medicare Battle
Kerry's TV ad claims he "led the fight againt" President Bush's Medicare prescription drug bill, which Kerry and other Democrats characterize as a "giveaway" to drug companies because the bill forbids the federal government to bargain for lower prices.
But the Washington Post and others said the leader in that fight was Sen. Edward M. Kennedy -- not Kerry:
"It is the beginning . . . of privatizing Medicare, make no mistake about it," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (Mass. ), who led the fight against the measure. "Next is Social Security." (Emphasis added by FactCheck.org)
Kerry did participate in a filibuster against the measure -- but so did other presidential candidates. However the Post said the filibuster was "led by Kennedy and supported by Democratic presidential candidates John Edwards (N.C.), John F. Kerry (Mass.) and Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.)" (Emphasis added by FactCheck.org)
And when the final battle came, Kerry was one of only two Senators who were absent for the final vote. His vote would not have made a difference: the measure passed 76 to 21. Kerry was in California.
Why did the "leader" miss the battle? "He opposed the legislation in the Finance Committee," a campaign spokeswoman said, as quoted by the Washington Post. "It was clear the final tally wasn't going to be close."
AP: More Investigator than Legislator
Kerry's campaign website contains a long list of bills Kerry has either sponsored or co-sponored over the years.
But in July 2003 The Associated Press reviewed Kerry's legislative record and concluded that he "is known for using his investigative powers to shine a light on problems and corruption, but not as someone steeped in the process of making bills into law."
The AP story said:
Kerry has been the lead sponsor of eight bills that have become law. Two are related to his work on the Senate panel on oceans and fisheries - a 1994 law to protect marine mammals from being taken during commercial fishing and a 1991 measure for the National Sea Grant College Program Act, which finances marine research.
In 1999, President Clinton signed his bill providing grants to support small businesses owned by women.
The rest of the laws he saw passed were ceremonial - renaming a federal building, designating Vietnam Veterans Memorial 10th Anniversary Day, National POW/MIA Recognition Day and World Population Awareness Week in two separate years.
Leading From the Shadows?
In the most recent Democratic candidates debate, January 29 in South Carolina, Howard Dean confronted Kerry directly by accusing him of having a poor legislative record on health care:
Dean: Senator Kerry is the front-runner, and I mean him no insult, but in 19 years in the Senate, Senator Kerry sponsored nine -- 11 bills that had anything to do with health care, and not one of them passed.
Kerry didn't dispute Dean's statistics. Instead, he painted himself as working effectively behind the scenes:
Kerry: Well, one of the things that you need to know as a president is how things work in Congress if you want to get things done.
And one of the things that happens in Congress is, you can in fact write a bill, but if you're smart about it, you can get your bill passed on someone else's bill and it doesn't carry your name.
Maybe Kerry was indeed an invisible playmaker or maybe not. But would that count as "leading the fight?" You decide.
Nedra Pickler, "Kerry's Senate career marked by investigations, not legislation," The Associated Press 21 July 2003.
Scott Allen, "Chafee key figure in pollution battles," Boston Globe, 10 May 1995: 1.
Helen Dewar, "Balanced-Budget Plan Gets Senate Attention; Passage of Debt-Ceiling Bill May Depend on Addition Of Deficit-Cut Proposal," The Washington Post 3 Oct. 1985: A4.
Wayne Washington, "'Full Court Press' By Bush Plays Part in Medicare Victory," Boston Globe 28 June 2003: A3.
John H. Cushman, Jr., "Congressional Republicans Take Aim at Extensive List of Environmental Statutes," The New York Times 22 Feb. 1995: A14.
Senator John Kerry, Democratic presidential candidate, discusses domestic issues, the war on terrorism and his preparations for Tuesday's New Hampshire primary, Face the Nation, CBS, 25 Jan. 2004 .
Interview with John Kerry, Fox News Sunday, Fox News Network, 25 Jan. 2004 .
Michael Meehan, Kerry campaign spokesman, and Jamal Simmons, Clark campaign press secretary, discuss their primary strategies, Capitol Report, CNBC, 23 Jan. 2004 .
Adam C. Smith, “Kerry Battles to Dispel the Myths,” St. Petersburg Times 7 Sept. 2003 : 1A.
Ted Bunker, “Weld and Kerry Miss the Real Issues,” The Boston Herald 8 July 1996: 26.
Bob Hohler, “Kerry Defining Voice, Vision While Looking Ahead to 1996,” The Boston Globe 11 Dec. 1994 : 1.
Steve Marantz, “As Opponent Keeps up Salvos, Kerry Grapples with Image,” The Boston Globe 18 Oct. 1990: 1.
Jonathan Yenkin, “Kerry Faces Fight for Survival,” The Associated Press 1 Oct. 1990 .
Ed Hayward, “Kerry Seen Backing Vouchers – Reportedly Ready to Compromise on School Funding,” The Boston Herald 27 April 1998: 3.
Michael Rezendes and Frank Phillips, “Well-heeled Kerry Offers Deal on Campaign Funds,” The Boston Globe 20 Aug. 1995: 1.
Carol Goar, “Environmentally Friendly Dismayed at Congressional Efforts to Roll Back Environmental Legislation, Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt Took His Case to the People – and They Responded,” The Toronto Star 17 Dec. 1995 : F7.
Bruce Alpert, “GOP Suffers Setbacks on Ecology; Reform Drive Hits Snags as Agenda Called Extreme,” Times-Picayune 4 Dec. 1995 : A1.
Bill Lambrecht, “Make Cents; Young ‘Earth Force’ Environmentalists Send Pennies, and Message, to Capitol,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch 7 June 1995 : 2A.
Democratic Candidates Debate, Greenville,SC 29 Jan. 2004.
US Senate, Vote on HR 1, Prescription Drug and Medicare Improvement Act of 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug bill 25 Nov. 2003.
Copyright 2004 Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania
Judgments expressed are those of FactCheck.org’s staff
Revenge is a Dish Best Served Cold
By Barbara Stock, September 1, 2004
Over 30 years ago they put away their medals and their uniforms. They buried their anger and bitterness and moved on with their lives--and
Revisionists are trying to change history, claiming the returning Viet Nam veterans didn't suffer all that much when they returned home. All that
talk of being labeled animals has been exaggerated over the years. But the veterans know better. They were there.
On the radio last week, one man related that he had unpacked the uniform that he wore home from Viet Nam all those years ago. It had not seen
the light of day for over 30 years. He showed it to his children and grandchildren and, for the first time, spoke of the day that he returned home from war and was spat on, cursed at, and literally had to run a gauntlet of protesters who threw human waste and rotten fruit on him and his fellow vets.
With the words "baby killers"ringing in his ears he was warned by laughing policemen not to retaliate or he would be arrested. So he ran.
The able-bodied helped the wounded as they do on any battlefield because those on crutches or in wheelchairs were not spared the profanity and bags full of feces that were thrown at them by the raging anti-war protesters.
This now middle-aged vet went on to tell his family that he had hid in the bathroom at the airport for over two hours, bewildered and afraid. He wondered if he had landed in some foreign land where Americans were hated.
Finally, he cleaned up the uniform he was still proud to wear as best he could and made his way to his plane, where he suffered more insults from the passengers. When he got home, he packed up his medals and his dirty uniform, just as it was, and he knew that one day, he would take it out again and he would have his say. That day has come.
One POW stated that he had never put a face to the name until he heard the words "Genghis Khan" pronounced only as John Kerry does and suffered his first flashback to the time he was being tormented by Kerry's words in a North Vietnamese prison camp.
They buried their anger and the bitterness --and they waited. Most of them didn't know who or what would be the signal to make their move, but they knew they would recognize it when it happened.
On July 29, 2004, it happened. John Forbes Kerry came to the podium at the Democratic Convention and uttered three words that made many Viet Nam vets skin crawl: "Reporting for Duty!" At last the time had come for these long-suffering veterans.
The past was staring back at these wrongly disgraced vets from their television sets. The face it bore was that of John Kerry, the man who had shredded their honor without a thought and climbed over the bodies of their fallen friends to launch a political career.
Kerry had stripped them of their dignity the day he sat before Congress in his fatigues and portrayed them as "baby killers" and "murderers." Kerry did the unspeakable. He had publicly turned on his fellow vets while they were still in harm's way, and American prisoners were still in the hands of the enemy.
Kerry accused them all of being out-of-control animals, killing, raping, and pillaging Viet Nam at will. The anti-war movement--the protesters--had their hero and he was a Viet Nam War veteran, an officer, a medal winner, a wounded warrior: John Forbes Kerry.
Many Viet Nam vets buried the memories of their less-than-welcome homecoming, and John Kerry moved off the national scene. The feelings of betrayal had faded, but they were never resolved. The unprecedented injustice inflicted on the Viet Nam vets has always lain just under the surface, waiting for a chance to be uncovered. The war had stolen their youth and innocence and John Kerry stole their dignity and rightful place of honor in history.
Like an unlanced boil, the anger festered but there was nothing that could ease the pain. These vets didn't ask for "forgiveness" because they had done nothing wrong in serving their country. They never askedto be treated as heroes, just good soldiers. All they have ever wanted was the respect due all the men and women who have worn the uniform of this country. Being allowed to march in a few parades wasn't enough.
A long over-due memorial was not enough. The Viet Nam Veterans moveable wall only brought back the suffering as they searched for the names of their fallen friends whose memory had been defiled and disgraced by people who considered them rampaging killers instead of men who died with honor for their country.
Now before them stands this man who would be president--this man who holds his service in Viet Nam up as a badge of honor now that it suits his purposes. This man Kerry brags about his medals and his tiny wounds and demands the respect they were denied, yet he offers no apologies for what he did to them. "I will be a great leader!" Kerry proclaims, because of his brief and self-proclaimed valiant service while wearing a uniform--the very same uniform that they wore and were spat upon because of it.
All across America, soiled uniforms and memories of being shamed and humiliated have resurfaced and Vietnam vets demand their rightful place in history. John Kerry seems bewildered by the reaction of his "fellow vets."
He has become defensive and angry because now his service and honor are being questioned. Kerry seems oblivious to the pain he caused three decades ago when he stole all honor and dignity from those same "fellow vets" for personal gain. Now he wants to use them again, for the same reason.
All across America, Viet Nam vets are smiling. At last, perhaps they can bury their demons. These angry vets are demanding that this man who sentenced them to being shunned as criminals, tell the world that he was wrong and that he is sorry for what he did to them. Kerry must admit that he lied about them.
For many, it would still not be enough. Satisfaction and hopefully peace will come when Viet Nam vets see and hear John F. Kerry give his concession speech the night of November 2, 2004 with the knowledge that it was their votes that helped defeat him. There are approximately
2.5 million Viet Nam veterans in America and they have not forgotten.
Kerry denied them their rightful place as heroes and they will deny him his dream of the presidency. Angry Viet Nam veterans, silent for so long, will
finally have their say. Payment in full will be delivered to John Kerry on November 2, 2004. Revenge is indeed a dish best served cold.
Was John Kerry A.W.O.L?
By Michael Ashbury
For the past year, and most recently by CBS News, we have been deluged with reports that George W. Bush did not complete his
agreed duty in the Texas National Guard. Even the records show that George Bush exceeded his obligations from 1968-1973, and only
came into question during the last 18 months of his agreed obligation when he requested and received official permission to transfer to
an Alabama unit and then enroll in an MBA program at Harvard. His obligation was for 6 years from May of 1968 to May 1974. He received
an educational release from his obligation 8 months early and received an Honorable Discharge in October 1973.
While the left questions where George Bush was during the final year of his obligation, they and the press ignore completely the similar
obligations of John Kerry. John Kerry enlisted in the Navy and signed an Officer Candidate Agreement on February 18, 1966. This agreement
called for the Candidate to
Par 3 to serve a total period of 6 years in the Naval Reserve of the United States, including active and inactive duty.
Par 4 agrees that on completion of active duty, he will remain for Service in the Ready Reserve for a period which when added to his active
duty will total 5 years. Upon completion of 5 years of satisfactory service on active duty and in the Ready Reserve he will be eligible to
transfer to the Standby Reserve for the remaining portion of his service obligation.
Par 5 the candidate understands that the provisions of law require satisfactory participation in the Ready Reserve, unless relieved of such
participation by competent authority or as provided by law. Such participation may be satisfied annually by not less 48 drills and not more
than 17days active duty for training.
Lt. John Forbes Kerry was released from active duty and transferred to the Naval Reserve on 3 January 1970. He wasn't transferred to
inactive standby status until 1 July 1972, then Honorably Discharged on 16 February 1978. Where was Lt. Kerry during the18 months from
1970 to 1972? Did he attend the required drills and active duty that he agreed to? Was he AWOL or did he violate his agreed commitment
on accepting a commission as an officer in the service of the United States.
We do know that he made an unauthorized trip to Paris in June of 1970 to meet with Madam Win Thi Binh, the Foreign Minister of the Provisional
Revolutionary Government of Vietnam (PRG) -- the political wing of the Vietcong -- and with representatives of Hanoi who were in Paris for the
peace talks-- in direct violation of the UCMJ's Article 104 part 904, and U.S. Code 18 U.S.C. 953. That meeting, and Kerry's subsequent coddling
of Communists while leading mass protests against our military in the year that followed, also place him in direct violation of our Constitution's
Article three, Section three, which defines treason as "giving aid and comfort" to the enemy in time of warfare. In April of 1971 he went before the
Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs claiming all kinds of atrocities on the part of his fellow comrades in arms in further in violation of Article 3.
While John Kerrys hero status is in question in the United States he is still considered a hero in Vietnam where his picture is in a place of
honor in the Vietnam War Museum in Ho Chi Minh City. He is honored for leading the Vietnam Veterans against the War and helping the Communists
bring the war to conclusion.
It is time we ask where was John Kerry during his Reserve Commitment. Was he AWOL as his supporters want to say is the case with George Bush?
And, did he violate the Code of Military Justice, the Geneva Convention and the United States Constitution in his actions as a Naval Officer.
About the Writer: Michael Ashbury, a noted researcher and author, is the author of ''Who is the REAL John Kerry?'' (Booksurge.com 2004).
Kerry Silver Star report backs critics
Confirms Democrat shot wounded enemy fighter as he fled
Posted: September 14, 2004
12:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
A purported copy of the after-action report from the incident that yielded John Kerry a Silver Star in Vietnam
confirms what the Democratic candidate's critics have been charging – that the young lieutenant shot a wounded
Viet Cong fighter as he fled.
a former swiftboat skipper, write Kerry was awarded his Silver Star "by killing a lone, fleeing, teenage Viet Cong
in a loincloth."
The Silver Star, they write, "would never have been awarded had his actions been reviewed through normal
channels. In his case, he was awarded the medal two days after the incident with no review. The medal was
arranged to boost the morale of Coastal Division 11, but it was based on false and incomplete information
provided by Kerry himself."
copy of the incident's after-action report from the U.S. Navy archives. The report, written by Kerry himself, shows
he indeed shot the enemy fighter as he fled:
PCF 94 beached in center of ambush in front of small path when Viet Cong sprung up from bunker 10 feet from unit.
Man ran with weapon towards hootch. Forward M-60 machine gunner wounded man in leg. Officer-in-charge, LTjg
Kerry, jumped ashore and gave pursuit while other units saturated area with fire and beached placing assault parties
ashore. Kerry chased VC inland behind hootch and shot him while he fled – capturing one B-40 rocket launcher with
round in chamber.
Writes Hyman in his "The Point" commentary: "Death is a reality of war. Events occur that are not for the faint of heart.
Yet, John Kerry's account of killing what turned out to really be a wounded man while he fled continues Kerry's pattern of
lies, exaggerations and embellishments.
"Killing a wounded man while he retreated from battle is not an action that most servicemen would brag about. But then
again, most servicemen would not return home and attack the very country they were supposed to fight for."
Besides the controversy over the event itself, there is dispute over why the citation for the medal was reissued twice.
noted Kerry killed the man, but did not use the phrase "while he fled," as does the after-action report.
Commentary & News Briefs
September 14, 2004
Compiled by Jody Brown
...A retired Air Force pilot and former military attaché to Bill Clinton says veterans across the U.S. are not tolerating John Kerry's
embellishment of his military service record in order to advance his political career. Lt. Col. Buzz Patterson recently published his
second book, titled Reckless Disregard: How Liberal Democrats Undercut Our Military, Endanger Our Soldiers, and Jeopardize Our Security.
The man who once carried the nuclear codes for President Clinton says Kerry's falling poll numbers are the result of veterans coming forth
and telling what he believes is the truth about the senator's Vietnam War record. "I think what John Kerry's run into now is that veterans are
holding him accountable for what he did 35 years ago, and what he's done since then," Patterson says, adding that veterans will not tolerate
a "gentleman embellishing his service record -- and in some cases, maybe manipulating the system" to achieve certain awards. Veterans,
he says, do not talk about their successes, failures, and wartime experiences -- but "Kerry wants to talk about them on a daily basis." Patterson
predicts Kerry will lose, and that he will lose based on the veteran vote alone. [Chad Groening]
Vietnam veterans protest Kerry
By Arlo Wagner and Judith Person
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Thousands of Vietnam veterans and their families and friends applauded, yelled support and waved signs and flags for more than two hours
yesterday at an anti-John Kerry rally outside the U.S. Capitol.
"John Kerry is not fit to tie the shoes of the heroes we have here at this rally," said John O'Neill of Houston, a member of the Swift Boat crews
who have disclaimed the Democratic presidential candidate's statements about his military service.
"Leave John Kerry to command the largest vessel he's ever competently handled — his surfboard," said another speaker, B.G. Burkett, 60,
another veteran and author of "Stolen Valor," which is about the legacy of the Vietnam generation.
The comments drew hearty approval from a crowd that organizers estimated at between 8,000 and 10,000.
Park and Capitol officials no longer provide crowd estimates, but some veteran observers estimated that the crowd numbered in the low thousands.
About a half-dozen pro-Kerry boosters stood with a banner, Veterans For Kerry, near the stage. John Grant, 57, of Philadelphia, entered the crowd,
got in an argument and was escorted out by police.
"It's not right," Mr. Grant said, complaining that the rally was really a campaign to re-elect President Bush and that a permit for a similar rally
in opposition to Mr. Bush would have been denied.
Several speakers and audience members said the rally was not political. There were no statements urging the re-election of Mr. Bush. But Mr.
Burkett criticized CBS News anchor Dan Rather, who has become embroiled in a controversy over the network's reporting on "military records" of Mr.
Bush's that appear to be forged.
Other speakers included Jim Warner of Rohrersville, Md., who said he was a prisoner of war when Mr. Kerry returned to the United States and
criticized the conduct of American troops in Vietnam.
The Viet Cong interrogated Mr. Warner and used Mr. Kerry's quotes in an effort to persuade Mr. Warner to sign a statement about U.S. military
The audience cheered and obviously agreed with all speakers.
"I have some real problems with Kerry," said retired Sgt. Maj. Ben Swartz, 66. "We feel that he degraded the servicemen who were serving their
Mr. Swartz and brother-in-law, retired Sgt. Bryant Bowman, and their wives came from Charleston, W.Va.
Mr. Bowman put his hand on his wife's shoulder. "She had to stay home and worry about me. She had our first baby while I was in Vietnam," he
said, pausing as tears welled in his eyes. "And John Kerry is stirring it up all over again."
Debbie Ewert, 53, wore a T-shirt that read: "Kerry lied while good men died."
Mrs. Ewert's son is in the Marines. "I don't want him coming back to the same things the Vietnam vets came back to," she said.
Veterans, many holding flags and military banners aloft, stood or sat in lawn chairs listening. A smattering of younger protesters, many wearing
anti-Kerry T-shirts, were sprinkled among the mostly middle-aged crowd.
Christy Williams, 28, and Olivia Tauthus, 27, said they were members of the conservative group Protest Warriors. "We are here to support the
troops," Miss Williams said.
"This has nothing to do with political affiliation," said David Skocik, 56, who drove from Dover, Del., for the rally. His son was partly disabled
serving in the military during the Persian Gulf war era, and his son-in-law recently returned from active duty in Afghanistan.
"I feel very strongly that we have to look out for our vets and to be sure that their best interests will be in mind from the White House," he said.
"I don't think Kerry can do that."
Subject: Rubbing elbows with the elite?or scratch mine and ill scratch yours
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2004 21:48:00 -0700
Guys, This is about Rassman.
I have been waiting and waiting for someone to jump on this puppy.
First of all I knew Rassman was fired (forced to retire???) from the LAPD because of sexual improprieties with illegals.
God what a class act, taking advantage of the most vulnerable. This "Post" is from Ben Lyons.
Ben was in my Company in 1968. He went to VN and ended up in SOG. He was a legendary Recon man and is written up in John
Plaster's most recent book on SOG...
He is as real as the real deal gets, in other words, Ben is a HERO and a man of great HONOR. He crashed and burned in Central
America on a jump that resulted in him becoming a para-pelagic.
John E. Cleckner Sr. Redding, CA.
On Sunday, August 29, 2004, at 04:46 PM, Paul Longgrear wrote:
<Wonder what Rassman gets-that bag of sierra.>
Greetings Paul, Danny and friends:
Man, the above comment by Paul about Rassman is too good to pass up!
You see, my very first assignment in Vietnam was in the IV Corps Mike Force, A-403. I signed in in mid-July '69.
B-40 was the B Team for Mike Force "A" Teams and A-403 and A-405 lived with the B-Team at Can Tho.
Then Lt. James Rassman was in Can Tho and I think on A-405. He was on A-403 for the previous 2.5/3 months and before that, he was
on A-404 (Based in the town of Cao Lan-sp?) the airboat battalion of the Mike Force.
This was his assignment when he and other USSF worked with Kerry and the "Swifties".
The airboat guys with their Chinese Nungs ("Strikers") say 15 or so troops, used to load up on these Swift boats and patrol the river banks,
looking for Commies. I'm not sure exactly why A-404 wasn't using their airboats on this one but I believe it's because they were in for maintenance.
Also, the airboats only had one .30 cal.machine gun while Swifts had several .50 cal, some 7.62mm MG's, and grenade launchers much more
covering firepower for troops on shore.
Rassman's Commanding Officer (CO) on A-404 eventually took over A-403 while I was on 403. Plus, I worked with most of the A-403 guys who
served with Rassman before they and he rotated back to the States.
So, in the almost six months I was on A-403 (mid-July to late Dec.
'69), I personally served with several men who personally served with LT. Rassman- they knew him well!
Right off the bat, I suspected that he was a bit "odd" in that when I heard his name mentioned, it was NOT; "Lieutenant Rassman" or "Jim Rassman"
, it was always -"Rassman" and in the context of a jerk! Now I know why!
Rassman had two major problems; the first was what we all suffered from when new in VN-a case of the "dumbass".
His second problem is what got a lot of guys killed or shot up; the combination of dumbass AND stupid decision making!
As a very young leader and in a nasty business, he was expected to do stupid things, as we all were, BUT at some point, one wises up OR gets
shipped out, this is why Rassman was "shipped out" of A-404 and into A-403.
In the last few days, I've had a chat with both of these A-Team Commanders and very good friends and here's what happened:
The 403 CO needed a lieutenant and the 404 Commander wanted to get rid of one- you guessed it; Rassman, who by this time, say Spring of 1969,
was getting close to ending his tour anyway. So, off goes Rassman to Can Tho and since two A Teams (403/405) plus the B-Team folks shared the
same club/chow hall, I, a lowly "Enlisted Swine", got to rub elbows with the "jerk and infamous", one each- Lt.Rassman!
So, 35 years later, who would have thunk that a, at best, "par" infantry leader (I'll cut him some slack because he was in a front line combat infantry
outfit, not hiding out in Oxford or some cushy REMF job and for his full 12 months, so pegging his as totally worthless, would not be fair -NOT
that he deserves that slack mind you but fair is fair.)
would end up on center stage of US politics with one phony and treasonous son of a b---h; not me!- "Rassman"- naawwww!!
I've asked his commander from 404 (The A Team he was Executive Officer (XO) of when on Swift boats) if he thought that Rassman and Kerry had
a "thing" going with medals-"you lie for me and I'll lie for you" kinda deal and he really didn't think so. Rassman was not well thought of and that
reputation was earned but at least he was not medal hungry, OR at least not up until the time he got dumped off Kerry's boat!
While on those operations, the SF and Navy guys talked about making it through the next 24 hours without getting drilled and buying some
n----e when the operation is over- typical GI stuff BUT not Kerry! His focus was on the US Senate and he sure was not humble about his aspirations,
Rassman voted for Democrats in the last two, maybe three presidential elections, so his political heart is that of a Democrat, even though he's
supposed to be a registered Republican.
Take the above two paragraphs, add a "Rassman hunch" that maybe Kerry is going places politically and he (Rassman) could use a "chit" later
on in life, because Rassman's military career was on "short final"- it is NOT inconceivable to me anyway, that Rassman bent the hell out of the
truth or just outright lied, when Kerry went back to pluck him out of the drink!
Those boats had an immediate action drill (IA drill) in that if a boat(s) was blown by what was usually an electrically command detonated mine
(The Commies would blow these things and then just leave or maybe squeeze off a magazine of AK and run vs. slugging it out with a bunch of .50
cal machine guns.) placed in the river channel. That IA drill was that each boat hoses down the closest river bank with ALL their machine guns,
clear what may be the "kill zone" and then reevaluate the tactical situation.
When that boat was blown/disabled but not destroyed by a command mine, all the gunners opened up on the river banks, Kerry's boat cleared the
kill zone and that acceleration tossed Rassman into the drink.
When Rassman popped to the surface, he must have thought he was in the middle of "World War Five" with all those machine guns going off, but
what he didn't know, at that moment in time, was that there was LITTLE/INEFFECTIVE to NO incoming!
The proof of ineffective to NO enemy fire is that when the rest of the boats, I think four or five, were covering the disabled boat, NO boats/crew
members were hit by enemy lead! Now, these boats are about 50 feet long- say four/five boats moving very slow around the disabled boat in the
middle of the river, that's about 250 feet of "boat" and NONE ventilated by "heavy enemy fire" that Rassman/Kerry/a few others say was snapping
around Kerry when he pulled Rassman from the water! Really!! (This is the action where Kerry got the Bonze Star with "V"device and I believe another
My point in the above is that; ONCE Rassman was safely back on Kerry's boat, his "pucker factor" back down to a somewhat "normal" flutter and
certainly once on shore and heading for or drinking a beer, the fact that LITTLE to NO incoming bullets was the NORM, would have been kicked
around by those present and THIS is the moment when Rassman had his chance to pass the "Character Test" but chose otherwise!
It's impossible to get into another persons head during a shoot-out BUT those of you who have been in some gun fights know exactly what I'm getting
at: Once the smoke clears, troops accounted for, holes if any are patched up/med-evaced, and equipment cared for, only THEN do the FACTS
of that gunfight become known to ALL in it- such as Rassman, Kerry and the "Swift Boat Vets for Truth"!!
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, he has trashed, by his former association, the honorable name of my US Army Special Forces and since we
are all judged by the company we keep, his support for a self-serving, phony, and Traitor scum-bag like John Forbes Kerry sure judges him poorly!
A few closing comments:
I would love to know what that once scrawny, now porky turd is getting from Genghis Kerry in exchange for the total loss of professional respect
that any combat soldier deserves. Surely, a man wouldn't sell his "soul"
to a slug like Kerry for those "15 Minutes"- OR would he?
Finally, as his former CO on A-404 said to me a week ago and tongue in cheek
-I hope!-: "Watch Kerry win, Rassman (A retired (Fired) ) Los Angeles County deputy sheriff.) ends up as head "dick" in the FBI and goes to
NAILING those that said "naughty" things about him!" How sweet is that!
Danny, Paul and "You All"; Take Care and if any of you want to send my note to your friends, please do so BUT only in full, with no editing.
I'm tired of seeing/hearing about this jerk hob-nobing with Kerry and sliming by default, Special Forces and the IV Corps Mike Force.
Later, "Ben" Lyons, (USA-SF, Ret.) ======
Kerry Blamed for Viet Vets Being Dubbed 'Atrocity Committing Monsters' POW Says
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
September 10, 2004
Washington (CNSNews.com) - A coalition of former Vietnam prisoners of war gathered in Washington on Thursday to denounce John
Kerry's anti-war activism, which, they said, labeled an entire generation of veterans as "atrocity-committing monsters."
A new documentary called "Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal," featurs POWs explaining how Kerry's testimony before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee in April 1971 was used against them in interrogations by North Vietnamese communists.
"When these people came back from the war and were vilified, spit upon and so forth, that was largely due to the efforts of this man [Kerry],
" said former POW, Col. George "Bud" Day, who was on hand to promote the documentary detailing how Kerry's claims of daily war atrocities
Day, who was held in captivity by North Vietnam for over five-and-a-half years, said Kerry came back from Vietnam masquerading as a war hero
"and told the country that we were a bunch of atrocity committing monsters and that these monsters were coming home."
"[Kerry] cast the longest shadow of possibly any person over the performance of soldiers, sailors, marines, air force in Vietnam," said Day.
"They [Kerry's comments] were precisely the kind of thing that a propaganda expert and the news media were looking for," Day explained in
Kerry told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the Detroit "Winter Soldier" investigations in which he claimed more than 150 Vietnam
veterans "testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia - not isolated incidents, but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full
awareness of officers at all levels of command...."
According to Kerry, some of the 150 veterans admitted they "had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones
to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of
Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam..."
Day has not forgiven Kerry for his testimony.
"[Kerry] has destroyed the good name of all Vietnam veterans. This man committed an act of treason. He lied. He besmirched our name, and
he did it for his own self-interest, and now he wants us to forget? I can never forget," Day said.
The new documentary also features clips of anti-war former Vietnam veterans apparently making up and embellishing testimony for the 1971
anti-war "Winter Soldier" investigations in Detroit that alleged many of the war atrocities on which Kerry based his Senate testimony in April of 1971.
Paul Galanti, who was held in captivity for over six-and-a-half years in Vietnam, rejects Kerry's claims of atrocities outright.
"He never saw anybody's ears getting cut off. He knew or should have known those guys he was with were frauds. They were just outright frauds,"
Galanti said in the documentary.
Jack Van Loan, a former POW who was held for nearly six years in Vietnam prison camps, also rejects all of Kerry's allegations.
"To say we were rapists, we were murders, we were pillagers, is absolutely a lie. There is just no two ways about it," Van Loan said in the film.
Leo Thorsness, a POW who was held in captivity for over five years, recalled how Kerry's allegations of war crimes by U.S. soldiers were used as a
tool to interrogate POWs.
"The [North Vietnamese] interrogator went through all of the statements of John Kerry. He started pounding on the table - 'See here this naval officer
[Kerry]. He admits you're a criminal and you deserve punishment,'" Thorsness said.
Thorsness said Kerry's atrocity claims mirrored those of his North Vietnamese captors.
"As a prisoner of war, we were being told that we were war criminals and we were being tried for war crimes and unless we confess and ask
forgiveness and bad mouth the war ---take their side [North Vietnam's] in the war, we'd never go home," Thorsness explained.
According to Thorsness, Kerry said "the same things that we were being tortured to say. That was a very difficult time."
The movie alleges that "Kerry painted a depraved portrait of Vietnam Veterans, literally creating the image of those who served in combat as
deranged drug addicted psychopaths, baby killers," an image the former POWs say still haunts them.
Jim Warner, who spent nearly five-and-a-half years as a Vietnam POW, told CNSNews.com that he was interrogated by the North Vietnamese
prison guards using Kerry's claims of U.S. war crimes.
[The testimony] was [from] John Kerry. [The North Vietnamese interrogator] told me it was a naval officer. I couldn't believe this could possibly be
true. He spent a long time just berating me, telling me 'Here this officer proves that you deserve to be punished,'" Warner said.
"I was feeling very uneasy as he went over this. We spent about an hour or two talking about this naval Lieutenant John Kerry and his admission
that I deserved to be punished," Warner added.
Jack Fellowes, a former POW who spent more than six years in captivity, said that Kerry "should be accountable" and "we are asking him to be
Fellowes believes that the anti-war activists prolonged the war. "[Kerry] owes me two years, as does Jane Fonda and that crowd," he said.
Kevin McManus, a POW for over five-and-a-half years, told CNSNews.com his thoughts about Kerry possibly becoming commander in chief
"Revulsion - I can't imagine it. I can't imagine anybody in their right mind who had done any work studying the candidates would vote for him,"
Fellowes told CNSNews.com , "I don't think [Kerry] should accept that role [commander in chief], because he betrayed all of us. He betrayed
all the military. So it kind of bothers me."
"We just don't do that. We are Americans," he added.
CBS News denies Bush docs forged
Experts suspect damning '70s memos created with modern word processor
Posted: September 9, 2004
5:00 p.m. Eastern
By Art Moore
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Amid questions raised on Internet weblogs about the authenticity of National Guard documents potentially
damaging to President Bush, CBS News told WorldNetDaily it stands by its claims.
Spokeswoman Kelli Edwards said she was aware of the charge that the documents, purportedly produced in
1972 and 1973, appear to have been forged with a modern word processor. Read On
OK, Kerry came back from RVN and joined the VVAW, then, under oath,
admitted he had committed war atrocities, threw someone's medals away...but collected his bonus from
Massachusetts anyway. What a guy!
GOP bounce, Dem desperation
Posted: September 9, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 Laurence A. Elder
Why did the Republicans get a "bounce" after their convention, while the Democrats did not?
Many pundits certainly expected a Democratic National Convention bounce. The Los Angeles Times'
Ronald Brownstein, before the DNC, argued that Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry
"is likely to receive the traditional 'bounce' from the convention if he can use the opportunity to impress
voters ..." According to political strategists, wrote Brownstein, "If Kerry and his aides can shape the
convention to serve [his] goals ... then the event will be a success – and the bounce will follow."
But, no bounce. Why?
The Republicans successfully attacked Kerry for flip-flopping on Iraq, and Kerry's speech at the DNC provided
little clarity on what Kerry would do in Iraq and how Kerry would prosecute the War on Terror differently than
"60 Minutes" asked Kerry whether – if he knew then what he knows now – he would still vote for the presidential authority
for war in Iraq. Kerry answered, "What I voted for was an authority for the president to go to war as a last resort if Saddam
Hussein did not disarm and we needed to go to war. I think the way he went to war was a mistake." Kerry said, however
, he didn't regret his vote, "I believe, based on the information we have, it was the correct vote." Only days ago,
Kerry offered another perspective, "it's the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time."
At the Republican National Convention, Sen. Zell Miller, D-Ga., rattled off a litany of weapons programs Kerry voted
against. Vice President Dick Cheney said, "Sen. Kerry is campaigning for the position of commander in chief. Yet he
does not seem to understand the first obligation of a commander in chief – and that is to support American troops in
President George W. Bush, in accepting his party's nomination for a second term, emphasized national security, while
reiterating broad goals to reform the tax code, make the tax cuts permanent, and to allow younger workers to invest a
portion of their Social Security taxes.
But not one hour after President Bush's Thursday-night address at the RNC, a panicked Kerry held an Ohio campaign rally
at midnight. (How many working families did Kerry keep up past their bedtime?) Kerry then falsely accused Vice President
Dick Cheney of calling him "unfit for office." Actually, Cheney cited Kerry's flip-flopping, his "wrong call on national security,"
his inadequate support of our troops and his record of voting against major weapons programs.
A clearly irritated Kerry said, "I guess I'll leave it up to the voters," said Kerry, "whether five deferments makes someone
more qualified to defend this nation than two tours of duty." Hmmm. Does this apply to Kerry's running mate John Edwards?
Since Kerry now seems to attack Vietnam-era men who could have served, what about Edwards?
After shaking up his top advisers, Kerry apparently intends to focus on the economy. Here again, Kerry faces trouble.
He criticizes the Bush administration for "inheriting a surplus and turning it into a deficit." But the National Taxpayers'
Union added up Kerry's spending proposals: more than $2.26 trillion over a 10-year period of time. To "pay for" the
spending, Kerry intends to repeal Bush's "tax cuts for the rich."
Bush's critics reject the argument that tax cuts improve the economy, thus increasing tax revenues. They claim the tax
cut "cost" the Treasury approximately $100 billion a year. Still, this does not close the deficit. Kerry claims to be strong
on national security, and does not intend to reduce spending on national security and homeland defense. So who pays?
So let's sum up. The Democrats offer a candidate fuzzy on the war in Iraq, and who infuriated over two-and-a-half-million
Vietnam vets by accusing them of engaging in widespread atrocities. He criticizes Bush for excessive spending – record
deficit! – while offering even bigger spending proposals. Kerry talks down an economy with 12 consecutive months of job
growth, and with an unemployment rate – 5.4 percent – roughly the same rate as when Bill Clinton ran for re-election in 1996.
The passion at the DNC registered high on the anti-Bush quotient and low on pro-Kerry sentiment. Republicans,
on the other hand, salute President Bush as a principled, unpretentious, likable man with an intense love for his
wife and family. First lady Laura Bush stands as the epitome of class, dignity and grace.
Some pundits expect the race to tighten again, and suggest the upcoming debates as race-changing variables.
Perhaps. But, above all, Americans want a leader they trust, and whose positions they know, even when they
Good luck, Sen. Kerry. You'll need it.
If John Kerry Were President,Saddam would still be in power.
by William Kristol
09/08/2004 11:00:00 AM
SO MUCH for the much-promised Kerry foreign policy speech. In Cincinnati today, John Kerry basically repeated his stump speech, with no sustained discussion of Iraq, the war on terror, or foreign policy in general. An astonishingly weak performance. Is Kerry so wrapped around the axle on Iraq that he's now incapable of talking about Iraq in a serious and sustained way?
Still, it does seem that Kerry has finally come down, this week, on one side of a debate that really does have only two sides. He has decided he's against the war in Iraq. It was "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time."
Fine. Now we have a clear choice in the presidential election. Bush went to war to remove Saddam. Kerry, it now appears, would not have. This means the choice is between the world we have now, and a world with Saddam still in power. For the meaning of saying we fought the wrong war at the wrong time, is that we would have been better off leaving Saddam in power. If John Kerry were president, Saddam would still be in power.
So Kerry has to answer this question: Would we be safer with Saddam still in power? Would the world? What would such a world look like? Surely we couldn't have left 150,000 troops in the nations bordering Iraq for two years. Surely, then, the inspectors would once again have been expelled. And the sanctions regime was collapsing. Does Kerry then believe Saddam would not
have moved to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction? Would that have been acceptable? Does Kerry believe pro-American, anti-terror forces in the Middle East, to say nothing of the forces of reform in that region, would be stronger or weaker if Saddam were still in power? What would have been the global effect on American credibility if we had authorized the president to use force, as Kerry voted to do, and then backed off? And what would a Kerry administration do now? How could a President Kerry ask any young American to be the last one to die for a mistake?
These are among the serious questions that have to be answered. Senator Kerry addressed none of them today, and has not answered them anywhere else. It is possible to disagree with the judgment that it was right to remove Saddam. It is irresponsible to denounce that "wrong choice," and the actions that followed from it, without addressing the consequences that would have followed from not going to war. Senator Kerry is running a fundamentally evasive and deeply irresponsible campaign.
William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard.
Posted: September 9, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Many say what happened in the lives of Bush and Kerry during the Vietnam era is not important. It's time to move on.
Not so fast! What happened is important for one big reason: Truthfulness with a capital "T." It rhymes with "see" and it gives us a glimpse into the character of each man.
Both Bush and Kerry were born into privilege. Bush, by his own admission, got off to a shaky start. He drank and partied too much, but managed to get through Yale. He then seized an opportunity to enlist in Texas Air National Guard. The move kept him out of the war.
Make no mistake. Flying fighter jets is not for the faint of heart! Even under the best of onditions, there are fatal accidents. Furthermore, this commitment required 53 weeks of full-time, intense flight training with Air Force units, which began in November of 1968 and ended in December of 1969.
Much has been made about the fact that in 1972, Bush changed his reserve duty base to Montgomery, Ala., so he
could work on the U.S. Senate campaign of Winston "Red" Blount. When Democrats questioned whether Bush had
shown up, the White House and Pentagon released all available military records. Bush missed some drills in 1972
and early 1973, but was allowed to make up the time later that year.
Bush ended his six-year National Guard service seven months early, as the war was winding down, to ender Harvard
Business School. In 1969, Kerry was allowed to leave the Navy – in the middle of the war – six months early so he
could run for public office. However, what most people do not know is that Kerry, like Bush, was a reluctant warrior.
Kerry did not jump at the chance to enlist in the Navy after graduating from Yale, where his anti-war sentiments were
well known. Instead, he petitioned the draft board for permission to study in Paris. When denied, in 1966, he reluctantly
joined the Naval Reserves – not active-duty Navy. At the time, the Navy was considered one of the best options for
avoiding combat since the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong had no battleships, submarines or aircraft carriers.
Kerry boasts that he signed up for two tours of duty in Vietnam. However, the first was on a guided-missile frigate,
the Gridley, which, during the year Kerry was aboard, spent a mere five weeks off the cost of Vietnam, miles from any
When Kerry signed up to command a swiftboat, they, too, were operating out of harm's way, inspecting offshore traffic.
Their mission changed shortly after Kerry was reassigned, and many of Kerry's fellow officers say he strenuously
objected when ordered into danger.
There are far more serious discrepancies in the Kerry record, which is challenged by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth,
whose membership includes all of Lt. Kerry's former commanding officers.
Was his first Purple Heart, awarded for an injury received on Dec. 2, 1968, the result of a self-inflicted grenade wound?
His former commanding officers all say they refused to sign off on his request for this award. Who signed the form?
Was the Purple Heart Kerry was awarded for an injury received on Feb. 20, 1969, also the result of a self-inflicted
grenade wound? The officer on the accompanying boat saw and reported no hostile fire.
Was the Purple Heart Kerry received for an injury on March 13, 1969, the result of still another self-inflicted wound
from a grenade Kerry exploded into a stock of rice, not the result of shrapnel from an underwater mine?
Were Kerry's Bronze Star and Silver Star awards based on his own inflated reports of valor and not supported by the facts?
How is it that Kerry's campaign website includes a Silver Star with a Combat V on his DD214 form which summarizes
a serviceman's career? The Navy has never issued a Combat V with this award.
Why are there three different citations for Kerry's Silver Star?
In addition to these problems, it now appears that Kerry lied about:
Spending Christmas, 1968, in Cambodia.
About personal knowledge of war atrocities.
About throwing away his war medals.
About attending a 1971 meeting of Vietnam Veterans Against the War where the assassination of U.S.
senators was discussed.
While Bush may have been given "special" treatment to accommodate his schedule, so was Kerry. Also, if just one of
Kerry's Purple Hearts was self-inflicted, he owes the Navy another eight months in a swiftboat.
If we cannot trust Mr. Kerry to tell the truth about his military record, how can he possibility be trusted to be its commander
Kerry Is a Traitor,and a Liar View the Official VVAW Documents Below
An Open Letter To Senator Kerry
Dear Senator Kerry:
I wish to clarify for you the position of myself and that of many other family members of Vietnam Veterans.
I can assure you that we, like you and Senator McCain, would prefer to leave the Vietnam War behind us as our memories associated with it and with the national upheaval which occurred are mostly painful and represent very deep and emotional wounds. Indeed, I can further assure you that, our primary concern is not with the anti-war activism which you engaged in over 30 years ago.
There are many individuals of good conscience who engaged in anti-war activism with whom we have no beef at this point in time. Our current concern and protest is not over past actions in and of themselves since most of us are not the individuals we were thirty years ago we recognize that individuals have the power to change, to learn, and even to become better people.
Our concern is not with an immature and deceitful young Lieutenant who falsely claimed three purple hearts, who further falsified medal reports for a bronze star, who lied when he testified before a Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, or even who went against his own country to engage in negotiations with a country with whom we were at war. All of these behaviors, while reprehensible, can be passed off as the failings of a young man who should have but perhaps didn't know better.
My concern and that of many of the family members of Vietnam Veterans is that your current actions show that your current character is consistent with the character of that young Lieutenant. You see it was not just the behavior of thirty years ago that has prompted my outburst of indignation. The complete lack of remorse, the arrogance, and the sheer tactlessness of your recent behavior as you have tried to pass yourself off as some kind of an American war hero DEMANDS that I do something about it.
It is no longer an issue of 30 years ago but rather your recent actions have made it an issue which must be dealt with today. Now since you have insisted on behaving like a child who doesn't understand right from wrong then like child I must clarify for you why your behavior was wrong so that you like a child can hopefully learn from it and maybe even yet become a better person.
Senator Kerry, 30 years ago you behaved badly. When you and your fellow Vietnam Veterans Against the War failed to screen the "150 honorably discharged and many very highly decorated veterans" in your Winter Soldier investigation to confirm that they were indeed soldiers and had valid testimony you behaved badly.
Using some of your own words you should understand that it is impossible to describe to you exactly the emotional pain many of your fellow Vietnam Veterans and their families have been experiencing lately as they have been reliving their experiences here in the United States brought about by people who responded to your testimony in Washington D.C. They now have had to relive the absolute horror of what this country, and you in a sense, made them go through.
When you characterized the behavior of the United States Armed Service forces in Vietnam as "reminiscent of Genghis Khan." You essentially described my father, one of the most highly decorated helicopter pilots who flew on behalf of our country in Vietnam, and all of his band of brothers as being part of those same raging hordes.
This behavior was bad and caused many good and honorable men to be treated badly. Senator Kerry, continuing with some of your own words, you may not know it yet, but you have created a monster, a monster in the form of tens of thousands if not millions of men and women who have been taught hurt by your deceitfulness and lies and who have returned with a sense of anger and a sense of betrayal which no one has yet grasped. As a family member of a Vietnam Veteran and one who feels this anger, I would like to talk about it.
We are angry because we feel we have been used in the worst fashion by you and those who have supported you in attacking our parents honor and in spreading lies and malicious falsehoods against our armed forces.
Senator Kerry I am one member of a group that numbers in the 1,000s, which is a small representation of a very much larger group of the families of Vietnam Veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to communicate in this same manner today they would do so and they would have the same kind of testimony.
Senator Kerry, you have behaved badly and you not only should not be considered for the position of Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces you should apologize at once to your brothers for your recent behavior. You have been a very, very, very, bad boy. Now go to your room and think about what I've said.
Proud to be #3 Son Of Snake
Wounded Vet Buys Full Page Of Army Times
This gentleman felt so strongly about this that he paid for a full page ad in the Sept 6th Edition of the Army Times. By Dexter Lehtinen, an Army paratrooper and Ranger, severely wounded in 1971 while a reconnaissance platoon leader in Vietnam. He later graduated first in his class from Stanford Law School and later served as a Florida State Senator and the United States Attorney in Miami.
Here is his Full Page Advertisement:
John Kerry & Vietnam
THE WOUNDS THAT NEVER HEAL
In 1971, I awakened after three days of unconsciousness aboard a hospital ship off the coast of Vietnam. I could not see, my jaws were wired shut, and my left cheekbone was missing, a gaping hole in its place.
Later, while still in that condition at St Albans Naval Hospital, one of my earliest recollections was hearing of John Kerrys testimony before Congress. I remember lying there, in disbelief, as I learned how Kerry told the world that I served in an Army reminiscent of Genghis Khans; that officers like me routinely let their men plunder villages and rape villagers at will; that "war crimes" committed in Vietnam by my fellow soldiers
"were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on aday-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."
Then Kerry went to Paris, meeting with the North Vietnamese enemy officials, all while our soldiers still fought in the field.
The pain and disbelief I felt listening to his words went deeper than the pain I felt from the enemy fire which seriously wounded my face.
Eighteen months later I was discharged from the hospital, the wounds inflicted by the enemy fully healed. But more than 30 years later, the wounds inflicted by John Kerry continue to bring pain to scores of Vietnam veterans.
Those wounds ... the bearing of false witness against me and a generation of courageous young Americans who fought and died in Vietnam ... are much more serious than any wound warranting a Purple Heart.
Those wounds go to the heart and soul.
Those wounds never go away.
Today, my son is a Marine Corps weapons officer, flying the F/A 18 Hornet. He belongs to the same Marine Corps Kerry ridiculed with his 1971 book cover showing protestors simulating the Iwo Jima Memorial, raising an upside-down American flag. He flies the same F/A 18 fighter jet that Kerry voted against in the U. S. Senate. And today, Kerrys picture hangs in an honored place in Saigons war museum, as a hero to the Vietnamese Communists.
Yet, John Kerry shamelessly drapes himself in the imagery of Vietnam, military service and the support of veterans devoid of any media scrutiny.
Meanwhile, the criticism and disapproval of Kerry by scores of veterans continues to fall on deaf ears. Worse yet, any legitimate criticism of Kerrys post-war record is discredited as a "personal" attack or an attack against his service.
John Kerry is quick to surround himself with a handful of veterans and claims overwhelming support from the veteran community. He ignores, however, the wounds heinflicted on millions of veterans, and he refuses to sign a waiver to release his military personal records and medical records. This is the portrait of a man who has failed to come to terms with his treacherous past.
I, Dexter Lehtinen, paid for this ad personally, without any connection to other individuals or groups, because I want the public to know what John Kerry did to our Vietnam veterans.
Veterans React to Wounded Soldier's Beating
By Thomas D. Segel
September 27, 2004
"This is outrageous!" yelled John Collick, a retired Marine First Sergeant from Yorktown, Virginia. He had just read an article about an unprovoked attack on a wounded soldier home on medical leave from Iraq. The Marine continued saying, "A young man who was wounded in Iraq is beaten by some of the very people that he has sworn to defend. Whether you agree with the war on not, attacking our servicemen, or watching them be physically assaulted, is anything less than cowardice."
The terrorist roadside bomb, which exploded under an Army Humvee on August 10 seriously, wounded Pfc. Foster Barton. The deep wound required two surgeries to repair. Following his hospitalization, the Army sent this 5 foot 6 inch, 130-pound soldier home on a recuperation leave. Today he is back in the hospital, not because of combat action in Iraq, but because a 6-foot 200-pound protester savagely beat him, following a Toby Keith concert in Columbus, Ohio. With a concussion, a broken nose and six stitches, it has been estimated it will take the wounded soldier 4 to 6 weeks to recover from his beating.
Jeb Phillips of the Columbus Dispatch first reported the story. Phillips told about Barton's mother surprising her son with tickets to the Toby Keith concert. He had spoken about how much he loved Keith's patriotic songs and how he regretted missing the country singer's Baghdad concert because he had been out on patrol.
The Purple Heart winning soldier had worn a T-shirt to the concert that contained the words "Operation Iraqi Freedom". As he was leaving Germain Amphitheater, Foster Barton was greeted several times by other people from the audience. He was asked if he was a soldier and was thanked for his service.
Then he heard some obscene references to the Army and as he turned, the soldier was struck repeatedly in the head. After he had fallen to the ground, his assailant continued the attack by kicking his unconscious body.
Though several people observed the beating, the only person coming to the aid of the wounded soldier was a young woman reported to be the companion of the attacker. She tried to pull him off of Barton. He then stopped his attack and ran off. Later the woman denied knowing the attacker, who has still not been apprehended.
Dozens upon dozens of veterans have reacted to the attack on Foster Barton. Some, such as retired Navy Captain Len Kaine have sent the soldier expressions of their concern and gifts. Kaine sent an interactive computer game, while Korean War Army veteran Pete Quinlan mailed his note of encouragement along with an Outback Steakhouse gift certificate.
From Hawaii, a retired Army First Sergeant wrote in comradeship and told how he too was denigrated upon his return from Vietnam. His only regret was he had not been present to inflict some retribution on the attacker.
Ray Boyden, a retired Air Force Master Sergeant from Savannah, Georgia recalls the repeated confrontations he and others in his unit had with anti-war radicals during the years of the Vietnam War. "It got so bad we had to go to work in civvies and then change into our uniforms. There were many run-ins with the great unwashed from Oberlin College in Yellow Springs, Ohio. I remember the great divide between factions in our country. The actions on poor PFC Barton are just like those of the Vietnam years. And those standing around and not coming to his defense are just like those from that time. God save us from idiots and traitors."
Army Colonel James Bond Johnson of Long Beach, California served in three wars and in three different branches of the armed forces. He says, "Some of us vets have long memories. I recall well the varied variety of "welcome home" greetings we received. We must persevere in educating the public, which today is again confused by a plethora of babble and outright lying. If we fail the results can be very, very tragic."
W. P. "Pete" Haight, a retired Marine Lieutenant Colonel from Round Rock, Texas warns in a letter to the young man... "Behavior such as theirs cannot and must not reflect the attitude of the vast majority of our American youth. I fervently pray that is so. Rather, their despicable behavior toward you (Pfc. Barton) as you expressed your support of our Armed forces, is indicative of radical and misguided attitudes toward our country being fostered, wittingly or unwittingly, by a man who would be our Commander in Chief, but whose voting record in the Senate belies his professions of loyalty and support of our Armed Forces."
John Clayton is a retired Air Force Master Sergeant living in Airway Heights, Washington. He reflected, "When I read the article on PFC Barton, my blood boiled. My son was in Iraq with the 4th ID and I wouldn't want anyone to treat him like that. Who do these idiots think they are? These anti war types get more publicity from the liberal news media than our fighting forces. Something is badly wrong with those values and that picture."
Retired Army Colonel Harry Riley of Crestview, Florida is also a past victim of the anti-war crowd. "I received the 'spit and rotten egg' treatment when returning from Vietnam...sounds like a similar song is being played for our current warriors. Kerry and others are engaged in a despicable, unconscionable act of aid and comfort to the enemy with troops on the battlefield. Senator Kerry is abandoning our troops. The colonel and many others feel what happened to Foster Barton is a direct result of the hate filled rhetoric of the current political campaigns.
Former Marine Terry Brady of Anchorage, Alaska echoes this. "The Kerry rhetoric during the Vietnam era contributed to the lack of respect for our service people. His rhetoric during this presidential campaign is likewise hurtful because it feeds the negative rather than enforcing the positive."
From Peyton, Colorado author and retired Marine Chief Warrant Officer Charles W. "Bill" Henderson writes, "Pfc. Foster Barton's beating was a direct result of sentiment stirred and elevated by not just Kerry and Edwards, but the entire Democrat machine that stoops at nothing too low or unethical to achieve their goal of electing Kerry and Edwards. Kerry is the same anti-war activist that he's been since Vietnam, now directly appealing to a rabidly left-wing sector of potential voters. Pfc. Barton's beating is a direct result of this elevated rhetoric also openly endorsed by the Communist Party USA, and is part of the price good people seem to always pay for that sort of short-sighted recklessness."
Senator Kerry's insistence that the Vietnam War should be the cornerstone of his presidential bid has impacted America in a variety of ways. It has brought back the sad memories of a painful past. It has riled Vietnam veterans by the thousands who still feel Kerry is traitorous. It has stirred the Swift Boat veterans to activism and it has helped form Veterans4Bush. This Vietnam style rhetoric has also brought back to life the bottom feeders of our society who wage attacks on recuperating wounded soldiers.
Draft-dodger monument ignites rage among vets
Americans beg Bush to oppose tribute to 'cowards' who fled
Posted: September 26, 2004
8:45 p.m. Eastern
By Joe Kovacs
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com
Plans to build a memorial to draft-dodgers from the Vietnam War is sparking outrage from American veterans, and President Bush is being urged to oppose the project.
A private Canadian group is sponsoring the bronze monument, which is slated for display in Nelson, British Columbia, in the summer of 2006.
"This will mark the courageous legacy of Vietnam War resisters and the Canadians who helped them resettle in this country during that tumultuous era," said Isaac Romano, director of Our Way Home.
Now, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. is hoping President Bush will get involved and express displeasure to Canadian officials.
"We urge the President and Congress to do whatever is necessary to communicate to the Canadian government that this exercise of free expression is an absolute slap in the face to every man and woman who ever served in uniform ... both in our military and theirs," said John Furgess, the national commander of the VFW.
He says the VFW fully supports freedom of expression and the arts, "But to honor draft-dodgers, deserters, people who brought grief to the families they left behind and anguish to those American men who took their place, is an abomination. You can say what you want about the war – we all did and some still do – but do not dishonor the warrior by memorializing cowards."
Dennis Klein, a sculptor and teacher at Kootenay School of the Arts, and artist Naomi Lewis reportedly have been selected to design and construct the monument, depicting Canadians embracing the hands of American war opponents.
"I will make sure I don't spend another cent in Canada. Why don't you chai-sipping libs do something constructive? Pathetic." (John Cislo, Grosse Pointe Farms, Mich.)
"This disrespects all of those who made the ultimate sacrifice while serving in the United States Armed Forces. It dishonors the service of all American veterans and will bring shame upon your community. This reopens old wounds that will probably never heal. I have traveled to British Columbia. I have a daughter who lives in Edmonton, Alberta. Be assured that if your community builds this disgraceful monument, I will never again travel to B.C., your city, and most likely your country." (William P. Schettino, Jr., Austin, Texas) Some remain supportive of the idea.
"My view of the whole event/monument was not so much to honor the war resisters, rather to honor the Canadians for lending a helping hand during a time of an illegal, immoral and undeclared war. The resisters do not need honoring any more then the vets need honoring. I thought the Canadian [government] did the right thing in dealing with those 125,000 leaving the U.S. at that time. This opportunity for Canada to do the right thing could well be just a few years away again." (Michael Donner, Canada)
Organizers from Our Way Home say despite the hot rhetoric, they're not backing away from their plans, which also include a concert and a host of speeches by members of the anti-war movement.
It's been estimated some 125,000 Americans fled to Canada during the Vietnam War to avoid the U.S. draft. About half returned to the U.S. when President Jimmy Carter granted them amnesty in 1977.
The information on this page is of public record and not meant to infuriate but to inform, I take no side one way or