View Full Version : Who Is John Kerry?

Pages : [1] 2 3

07-29-04, 08:00 PM
This I had already posted on the tread...

lily-livered liberals

But after i saw that the Kerry committee had NASA pull his photos, it really irritated me.

John kerry, posed for those pictures
when they realized the pictures made him look duffus, they pressured NASA to take the photos off their site.

NASA Ordered to Pull Kerry Photos Offline (http://spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=967)

NASA Ordered to Pull Kerry Photos Offline
Keith Cowing
Thursday, July 29, 2004

On Monday Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry made a campaign stop at NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) [story]. Kerry was accompanied by former Ohio Senator John Glenn and Florida Senators Bill Nelson and Bob Graham. Photos taken of this visit depict Kerry and others wearing so called "bunny suits" which are required of all visitors entering a space shuttle orbiter in the Shuttle Processing Facility.

Bumbling by Kerry's staff, and a press corps itching for something to make fun of, and a perfect photo opportunity turns into a media nightmare. The net loser? NASA.

Now, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel has told NASA to remove all images of Kerry's visit to KSC from all NASA web sites - immediately - due to Hatch Act concerns. These images have now been removed.

CLARIFICATION 1:00 PM EDT: NASA sources are now saying that NASA's General Counsel ordered the images removed - not the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.

YET ANOTHER CLARIFICATION 4:00 PM EDT: After reviewing all of the Kerry photos to ensure NASA's apolitical position, NASA has decided to put the photos of John Kerry in the OPF back online. The photos of the political rally at the KSC visitors center will remain offline.

Just as you think this silly story is going away some bureaucrat finds a way to breathe new life back into it.


What a Vain individual

How can one individual prevent my rights to see a part of history on a government sponsored web site because the picture makes him look duffus

This really iritates me how this man, one individual can censor my rights to history when he is nothing but another US Senator.



Who is John Kerry?

In tonight's DNC John Kerry will be trying to identify himself to the American public. Here you get an insight on who he really is and can judge for yourself.

On Attacking President During Time Of War
On Death Penalty For Terrorists
1991 Iraq War Coalition
View Of War On Terror
Funding For Our Troops In Iraq

Who Is John Kerry? (http://stupidpoliticians.bizland.com/Kerry.chtml)

07-29-04, 08:34 PM
Kerry's title for Boston stirs dispute over history

By Stephen Dinan

BOSTON — Some folks are saying the man who wants to be the next Democratic president of the United States needs a history lesson.
During his six-day journey from his birthplace in Colorado to the Democratic National Convention in Boston, Sen. John Kerry has proclaimed his Massachusetts hometown to be America's birthplace — stirring the competitive juices of rivals in Pennsylvania and Virginia who say their states have equal or better claim to that title.

"Boston, although an important venue in our nation's history, kind of pales in comparison to Philadelphia, the real birthplace of America, where the greatest minds in Colonial America hammered out a Declaration of Independence and Constitution," said Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican.
Even members of Mr. Kerry's own party, supporters who will be speaking at the convention tonight, said they had to break with him on this issue.
"Birthplace of America, cradle of democracy — it depends on how you define it," Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, a Democrat, said via a spokeswoman. "But we would contend Jamestown's the answer to that question."
The spokeswoman noted, though, that Mr. Kerry did stop in Norfolk on Tuesday morning, which placed him in the state's Tidewater region where Jamestown is located.
"So he can check that off," she said.
Refereeing the dispute, Timothy J. Shannon, a history professor at Gettysburg College, said, "I would call Boston the place of the pregnancy of America and Philadelphia the site of the actual delivery."
He said Virginia also can lay claim to being the birthplace of the nation because so many of those Colonial "greatest minds" Mr. Santorum spoke about who had gathered in Philadelphia actually were from the Old Dominion.
"There is a point of pride here between New Englanders on the one hand and especially Virginians on the other, who really created the American nation. The brain power was really on [Virginia's] side," Mr. Shannon said.
He did, though, credit New Englanders with being the "instigators — the people who rallied folks in the street" to spark the Revolutionary War.
Pennsylvania Gov. Edward G. Rendell, a Democrat, took the issue straight to the top of the Kerry campaign this weekend.
At a meeting this weekend of the Pennsylvania delegation to the convention, with Pittsburgh resident Teresa Heinz Kerry present, Mr. Rendell said that "the birthplace of America is a little bit south."
Mrs. Kerry disputed that.
"I hate to correct the governor, but actually John said that [Boston] is the birthplace of freedom," she said, according to CBS News' Web site.
Actually, Mr. Kerry did not say freedom.
He visited Philadelphia on Tuesday afternoon, and the press announcement for the visit called Boston "home of this year's Democratic National Convention and the birthplace of America."
Also, a press release Monday announcing the beginning of the convention referred to Mr. Kerry's journey along "America's Freedom Trail, a trail they are blazing from Kerry's birthplace of Aurora, Co., to America's birthplace of Boston."
And Mr. Kerry, arriving in Boston yesterday, said, "We're here at the end of a journey that began where I was born — in Colorado — and ends where America was born — in Boston."
"This is clearly another case of John Kerry trying to rewrite history," said Sen. George Allen, Virginia Republican, who said he worried for the nation's impressionable youngsters. "It is hardly helpful to the education of our children."
In addition to the first permanent English colony at Jamestown, founded in 1607, Virginia also had the first elected legislative body in North America, started in 1619, "a year before the Pilgrims even got to Plymouth Rock," Mr. Allen said.
Mr. Allen's claim for Jamestown has some strong backing.
No less an authority than the National Park Service says on its Web page for Jamestown that it should be marketed as "America's birthplace."
Virginia and Massachusetts also spar for recognition as the site of the first Thanksgiving, with Virginians battling the Pilgrims' version with their Thanksgiving that took place at Berkeley Plantation in 1619.
Another former Massachusetts Democrat took the bold step of giving Virginia its due. President Kennedy in 1963 recognized Virginia's Thanksgiving claim.



Cook I do have to agree with you.....We don't know much of this man.......

07-29-04, 09:00 PM
<br />
The official convention video introducing John Kerry tonight, directed by Steven Spielberg protégé James Moll,...

07-29-04, 10:00 PM
John Kerry's Newt Gingrich Problem?
Carl Limbacher
May 12, 2003

After Newt Gingrich hit the national spotlight in 1994 by becoming the first Republican speaker of the House in 40 years, he was skewered by reports that he had served his first wife divorce papers as she lay in a hospital bed battling cancer.
But the press has been far kinder to Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry, who, according to published accounts going back more than a decade, began extricating himself from his first marriage to Philadelphia heiress Julia Thorne at the same time she was battling a case of depression so debilitating that it drove her to the brink of suicide.

In an attempt to explain why he decided not to let his wife's precarious mental state derail his 1982 bid to become Michael Dukakis' lieutenant governor, Kerry told the New Yorker magazine last December, "When I get focused and set out to do something, I'm pretty good at staying focused."

"You don't want to let yourself down, you know what I'm saying?" added the ambitious Democrat without a hint of irony.

Thorne, whose family is reportedly worth $300 million, married Kerry in 1970. According the New Yorker's Joe Klein, the couple's friends said Julia was not a typical political wife.

"There were times at dinner parties when John would be very pompous, unable to control his impulse to make a speech," one acquaintance told the writer. "It was all slightly laughable, and Julia was one of those who laughed. She'd say things like, 'What the f--k did you just say?'" Kerry's career focus was so intense that Thorne apparently felt she was an impediment to her husband's ambitions. In her 1994 book about that period in her life, titled "You Are Not Alone," she wrote:

"I could no longer pretend I was of use to my husband or my children. ... I knew that, once I was gone, my family and friends would be relieved of the burden of my incompetency."

By Thorne's own account, she began to contemplate suicide a full two years before Kerry ratcheted up his 1982 campaign. Reviewing her book shortly after it was published, the Boston Globe reported: "One night in 1980, Julia Thorne put her children to bed and then sat on the edge of her own bed to contemplate suicide. She was exhausted - overwhelmed by despair, self-loathing and pain. She wanted to lie down. Curl up. Sleep forever." The Kerrys were separated in 1982 but didn't divorce until 1988.

Press summaries of the New Yorker report focused on other details of Kerry's life story, such as his Vietnam heroism. Most omitted any mention of Kerry's first wife altogether, a fact that likely pleased the Massachusetts Democrat. "Kerry is understandably loath to talk about the details of the marriage," noted Klein.

In response to the New Yorker report, Sen. Kerry wrote what was described as "an anguished letter" of protest to the magazine. Thorne's two daughters by Kerry also registered their displeasure. Their mother, who has since conquered her depression and is happily remarried and living in Montana, told the Globe, "I support John's [presidential] candidacy, and I believe in John's candidacy. I think he is an immensely talented statesman, and I am 100 percent behind him."

But previous reports indicate that Thorne had problems with Kerry even after they split 21 years ago.

During the period the Kerrys were separated, for instance, the senator apparently felt little constrained by his marital vows. Gossip columns at the time linked him to Morgan Fairchild, Cornelia Guest and even President Reagan's liberal daughter, Patti Davis. An upcoming Boston Globe expose will reportedly feature details of the Massachusetts Democrat's 1980s affair with a 25-year-old British reporter.

According to a previous account offered by the paper, the fact that Kerry was still technically married till 1988 "reportedly came as a surprise to some of his frequent companions."

Just weeks before his May 26, 1995, remarriage to Ketchup heiress Theresa Heinz, Thorne took Kerry to court in a bid for an increase in child support payments, arguing that "his income was up substantially," according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

Both Kerry and Thorne denied that the lawsuit had anything to do with Heinz or her fortune.

But friction arose again two years later when Kerry, a Catholic, applied to the Washington, D.C., archdiocese to have his marriage to Thorne annulled, even though the couple had two grown daughters.

Thorne "has written a letter of opposition to the archdiocese because she feels the process demeans their relationship and their children," reported the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette in 1997.

The paper blamed Kerry's new wife on the annulment bid. His office issued a terse statement: "Sen. Kerry very much understands Julia's feelings and appreciates her support. Sen. Kerry believes that this is a private family matter."

The Washington Times noted in a Kerry profile several years ago that his critics consider him "a ruthless political opportunist." Given some of the more obscure details of Kerry's first marriage, that assessment may not be too far off the mark.



07-29-04, 11:13 PM
Mon Jul 5, 7:55 AM ET Add Top Stories - Los Angeles Times
By Stephen Braun Times Staff Writer

A mission upriver in John F. Kerry's war started with a call to arms. "Saddle up, tigers," he would bark to his gunboat crewmen before they headed off on patrol deep into Vietnam's mangrove-choked canals. It was a command and a warning.

Kerry led his men into combat with a gambler's daring that masked a doubter's disillusionment. The remote southern coast of the Mekong Delta became a proving ground for a Navy lieutenant junior grade eager to test his mettle as a leader — and a crash course in failed policy for a Yale graduate skeptical of the war's outcome.

For four months, from the fall of 1968 into the spring of 1969, Kerry, then 26, experienced Vietnam's chaos from both vantages, piloting a succession of machine-gun-armed Swift boats on raids against Vietcong river outposts. His aggressive, unorthodox tactics made admirers of his crewmen, raised eyebrows among fellow officers and commanders, and earned him a Silver Star and a Bronze Star for valor.

He approached Vietnam with ambivalence, but intent on making his mark in wartime — much as had his political role model, President John F. Kennedy. Kerry's passage steeped him with self-confidence and a lasting "sense of what it means to be under fire," he said recently during an interview in Portland, Ore.

"I think I was a good warrior," Kerry said. "I think I knew how to fight. I also think I was smart enough and sensitive enough to see through it, and know what the downsides and the strategy faults were."

Kerry took calculated risks in battle even as his unease grew over the Vietnam War's stalemated strategy and rising death toll. After a final blur of firefights and close calls, a third combat wound allowed him to shorten his one-year tour. Kerry returned to the U.S. to publicly oppose the war and subsequently run for office.

His complicated stance and abrupt exit were emblematic of his layered, opaque character. If Vietnam helped define him as a soldier and a leader, Kerry also went to war displaying traits that have marked his public life. His fierce drive to excel and his knack for cementing lifelong friendships alternated with a cerebral aloofness and a barely sheathed instinct for advancement.

The loyal band of Navy crewmen and gunboat officers who bonded with Kerry 35 years ago now campaign for him, depicting him as a trusted fighter. "He got us psyched up to go out on patrol every day, even though he needed it as much as we did," said Del Sandusky, one of Kerry's gunboat helmsmen.

Other Swift boat officers — Republican sympathizers and veterans bitter over Kerry's post-Vietnam peace activism — pose a darker alternate history. Members of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, an anti-Kerry political committee, they are led by retired Rear Adm. Roy F. Hoffmann, a blunt-edged Navy career man who oversaw the hit-and-run river raids Kerry viewed as a costly waste of American lives.

In Vietnam, Hoffmann and other former officers contend, Kerry bucked Navy procedure, staying in country just long enough to prime his political resume. Some question the accuracy of Kerry's recollections and the legitimacy of the first of his three Purple Hearts — a minor wound, they claim, that was not suffered in action.

"He went to Vietnam to build a career," Hoffmann said. "He was a loose cannon while he was there, and he bugged out early."

Yet Hoffmann and Kerry had few direct dealings in Vietnam. A Los Angeles Times examination of Navy archives found that Hoffmann praised Kerry's performance in cabled messages after several river skirmishes. And while the Purple Heart account remains murky, its award was routine. Navy records show Swift boat crews were frequently raked with slight wounds of uncertain origin — injuries that often earned decorations.

"I don't know what conclusions you can draw about someone's ability to lead from their combat experience, but John's service was commendable," said James J. Galvin, a former Swift boat officer who, like Kerry, was honored for three minor wounds and left the coastal combat zone early. "He played by the same rules we all did."

Since George Washington's day, a candidate's wartime service has almost "always been seen as an advantage," said Alan Brinkley, professor of American history at Columbia University.

That presumption has been swept aside this presidential election year. Even as the Massachusetts senator uses his Vietnam days in media ads and speeches to emphasize his firmness on national security, sparring over his four-month tour shows how even a prized military record can be picked apart during an election.

Kerry went off to war cautiously, analyzing every move that nudged him closer.

Aware that he was eligible for the draft, Kerry explored his uncertainty in a valedictory speech to his 1966 Yale graduating class. "This Vietnam War," he said, "has found our policymakers forcing Americans into a strange corner." Solemnly insisting he valued military service, he mused about "the very roots of what we are serving."

He sidestepped the draft by applying to the highly competitive Navy Officer Candidate School in Newport, R.I. As U.S. troop levels escalated and fierce fighting flared, college graduates flooded the Navy OCS with applications because duty aboard a ship was seen as far safer than being a junior officer in the Army or Marines.

But sea adventure also held allure, and Kerry shared the noblesse oblige of his social set. "In our circle, duty was a strong consideration," said Kerry intimate George Butler. "He knew what was expected."

The sons of New England's elite prep schools emulated fathers and heroes. Richard Kerry had been a World War II test pilot. John F. Kennedy, whose path Kerry talked of following and whose initials he shared, won renown on PT-109 in the South Pacific.

On training duty off Vietnam's coast in 1968 aboard the missile frigate Gridley, Kerry fixated on the 50-foot aluminum boats on patrol nearby. Shallow Water Inshore Fast Tactical craft were speedy oil rig transports modified with grenade launchers and .50-caliber machine guns.

"We were just enamored of those boats," said former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy Wade Sanders, who trained with Kerry. "It was cool; it was what Kennedy did."

Avoiding brutal warfare was also a factor, Kerry has admitted. Swift boat training prepared him for coastal duty, targeting junks and sampans that supplied the Vietcong. He expected a gentleman's war, with skirmishes and some casualties, not an infantryman's grinding combat.

But by his November arrival at the U.S. base at Cam Ranh Bay, Swift boat duty had grown hazardous. Frustrated at the Vietcong's ease at moving through the Mekong's web of rivers and canals, the Navy was probing inland. The Navy's new top officer in Vietnam, Vice Adm. Elmo R. Zumwalt Jr., had launched Operation Sealords, a plan that relied on Swift boats to seek out and destroy enemy vessels and hamlets.

Nosing past rice paddies and elephant grass, the noisy, thin-hulled boats were vulnerable to ambush by guerrillas with rocket launchers. "People started getting wounded, and boats were getting shot up. They needed a steady stream of replacements," recalled Stephen Hayes, a former Swift boat officer.

Kerry arrived "intent on living up to standards." But "from my first week in country," he said, he was disturbed by the "lack of taking territory. Strategically, it didn't make a lot of sense."

Hoffmann, a decorated Korean War veteran whom Navy officials chose to carry out that strategy, has not forgiven Kerry for questioning Sealords' results.

"He never saw the big picture," Hoffmann, 78, said during an interview at his Virginia home. "The key concept was to take over the rivers and work up to the Cambodian border. Well, we did that."

Plucked off a destroyer to head the Navy's effort to slash Vietcong supply routes, Capt. Hoffmann demanded initiative and obedience. A distant figure known by his code name, Latch, he popped in on missions, standing watch on deck with a .45 on his hip and a cigar clenched in his teeth. He gave officers authority to fire at will, and demanded body counts to prove their success. Favored lieutenants were cheered on with terse "Bravo Zulu" messages that signified "Well done." Sometimes Hoffmann added: "Good shooting."

07-29-04, 11:14 PM
Hoffman commanded more than 100 Swift boats, also called PCFs, for &quot;patrol craft fast,&quot; as part of the Sealords mission. The boats advanced inland at a high cost. Several were sunk by rocket blasts,...

07-29-04, 11:35 PM
Kerry Leaves a Large Hole in His Resume

Associated Press Writer

July 29, 2004, 10:38 PM EDT

BOSTON -- John Kerry skipped past his role in the Vietnam protest movement that brought him to prominence when he talked of his younger days fighting for his country and ignored that conflict when praising the American tradition of going to war only "because we have to."

Kerry once famously called the Vietnam War "the biggest nothing in history," and says he is still proud of his anti-war activism when he came back. But in the text of his televised speech at the Democratic National Convention, he emphasized his war record and offered mere clues to his protesting past.

A video introduction shown at the convention before the broadcast networks began carrying his speech included a clip of the young Kerry, in military garb, testifying to Congress against the war in 1971.

And his speech made passing reference to his generation's marches for "civil rights, for voting rights, for the environment, for women, and for peace."

Kerry short-handed a few telling policy details in other parts of his speech.

He declared, for example, that "we value health care that's affordable and accessible for all Americans" and called that care "a right for all Americans."

But his plan, while aimed at expanding coverage and reducing premiums, does not ensure coverage for all. His campaign says the plan would extend coverage to an additional 27 million people, which would leave more than 10 million without health insurance.

He rhetorically asked, "What does it mean when 25 percent of the children in Harlem have asthma because of air pollution? America can do better. And help is on the way."

A study by Harlem Hospital Center last year found 25 percent of the children in a 24-block area of Harlem had the disease. But blaming all of that on air pollution as part of a case against the Bush administration is not supported by the study.

Apart from genetic factors, the study found that the asthmatic children were about 50 percent more likely to live with a smoker. Pollen, dust, animal dander, cockroaches and cold air were thought to be among the contributing causes, along with urban air pollution.

On equipping the military, he said, "You don't value families if you force them to take up a collection to buy body armor for a son or daughter in the service." He's had a long-running dustup with Republicans who criticize him for voting against an $87 billion package for Iraq and Afghanistan that included money for thousands of extra sets of body armor.

His campaign said he voted against the bill, among other reasons, because it included no-bid contracts for companies.

Kerry emphasized throughout his speech his credentials as a Vietnam veteran. "I defended this country as a young man," he said. "We fought for this nation because we loved it and we came back with the deep belief that every day is extra."

There was no telling from his remarks that Kerry became a leading anti-war protester after his return from Vietnam.

Testifying to Congress on behalf of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, he detailed atrocities he said were committed by U.S. troops in Vietnam, including rapes, beheadings and random killings of civilians, only to acknowledge later he had not witnessed these acts.

He tossed away the ribbons he had received with his war medals, threw away the medals of other veterans who weren't able to attend a protest and told the 1971 Senate hearing: "The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history."

Despite his judgment then that Vietnam was about "nothing" -- and despite other wars and invasions of arguable necessity -- Kerry suggested Iraq was a departure from a long-held practice of last-resort wars.

"As president, "I will ask hard questions and demand hard evidence," he said. "I will immediately reform the intelligence system so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics.

"And as president, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to."
Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press



07-30-04, 12:07 AM
Rejected by Vietnam Veterans

Couldn't help myself... LMAO

Sgt Sostand
07-30-04, 02:33 PM
John Kerry give the guy a brake at lease he did go to Vietnam as some others did not go. They stay back home under mother arms.

07-30-04, 03:35 PM
No service is better than dishonorable service.

Let's say I went to the church every Sunday and cussed out the preacher accusing him of being a child molester and tried to get everyone else in the community to believe this about our preacher based on the premise that there are SOME preachers out there who are indeed molesters. Now this innocent preacher is spit upon and can't get another job because of my false rantings. Then I go and throw my bible over the fence of church and start protesting with all of the atheists.

Am I better than the man that believes in God but doesn't go to church? At least I went to church...... Right?

07-30-04, 03:47 PM
The preacher (if he's a real man of God) would forgive you just like there are veterans that have forgiven Kerry for his anti-war activities. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't do the same. Everyone has to make that choice for themselves.

07-30-04, 03:52 PM
Is anyone researched how Kerry came to giving his controversial Congressional testimony? Who and why got him on the Hill that day to talk about Vietnam?

07-30-04, 04:32 PM
Fine - so the molesting preacher forgives me. I'll sleep better knowing that.

The question still remains unanswered - am I a better person for going to church than the guy who believes in God but chooses to mow his yard or catch the game on Sundays instead?

I'll answer it. NO. The point is John Kerry should have stayed home instead of running off to Vietnam and then trying to find a way to use it to further his political career at the expense of the other veteran's.

I didn't complain about draft dodging Bill's lack of service.
I don't complain about Bush's half-ass service.
I take extreme exception to an anti-war, anti-military, medal-throwing dumbass that is trying to gain political favor by talking about his war record.

If he'd just keep his mouth shut and quit bragging about what a good job he did and how much of a hero he is, I wouldn't care.

He claims he's proud of his service. He seems to be since he won't shut up about it. I say he needs to start bragging about what he did after he left Vietnam. Isn't he proud of that too? If he felt so strong about it then, what changed?

He may want to wipe that era from his mind and sic his lawyers after all the people posting photos of his actions on the internet, but it won't go away that easily.

I say let GOD forgive John Kerry. John Kerry can kiss MY ass.

07-30-04, 04:36 PM
He's just using his military service the way Bush uses his supposed born again status.

07-30-04, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Sgt Sostand
John Kerry give the guy a brake at lease he did go to Vietnam as some others did not go. They stay back home under mother arms.

What break did Kerry give to those that died honorably believing in what they were doing?

President Bush did more and was more prepared to serve and defend our country then Kerry who went to Vietnam and used the war and his boat mates purely for political reasons. Kerry has been groomed by the political left for such a time like this.

Going back to hostile areas to film scenes for political reasons, endangering his crew for that reason shows what he will do, for personal glorification and if that wasn't enough his anti-war efforts sucked the last drops of blood of the Vietnam Veteran that died believing in what he was doing for his country.

Kerry dressed like a grunt for pictures of glory. A navy lieutenant does not dress for combat like you saw him dressed in the combat gear showed on film during last night's DNC meeting.

One thing has always stuck with me, about George Bush that occurred on 9-11 and that was when he was asked about giving the command to shoot down the remaining two commercial airlines after the first two had struck the twin towers.

His thoughts went to his training and the jets he flew and he knew he would do it himself if he had been ordered to, and that shows me the courage of a warrior prepared to do what is right if called upon to do so.

Bush has certainly proved himself above and beyond Kerry who went to war for the pictures and medals and got out right away.

I would bet that over 20-30% of Marines in Nam received wounds equal to or larger then the total scrape marks Kerry got and was awarded purple hearts for, and those Marines never reported them.

My own lieutenant was struck twice by shrapnel and bullets fragments but because they were only flesh wounds he never put in nor receives recognition for them

Even when a Marine was wounded three times did not mean he was taken out of the field and when they were, they finished their tour of duty in Vietnam, not like Kerry who finished the time he should have been in Vietnam demonstrating against the war, then meeting with our enemies.

Can you imagine what he will do if he is elected?

The first thing he would do is ask to meet with al-Qaida terrorist to make peace with them. He did this before can we expect any difference?

He has given us no indication otherwise, nor has he presented anything different then what is now being done against our enemies.

Anyone voting for Kerry is once again slaping the face of the Vietnam Veteran for having served with honor.

07-30-04, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by eddief
He's just using his military service the way Bush uses his supposed born again status.

Kerry's military service was for show.

Bush's convictions are for real!

07-30-04, 04:49 PM
He's just using his military service the way Bush uses his supposed born again status

True - but you can be a born-again Christian.

You cannot be a born-again hero.

Bush was never too over-the-top about his born-again status.

Kerry makes his hero status a topic of every speech he gives.

I don't think I've ever heard of a Presidential Candidate use their supposed war-record as much as Kerry since Douglas MacArthur ran for president.

07-30-04, 05:00 PM
I have personally seen senior SNCOs and field grade officers in 1983+ with the Purple Heart with silver star to notate way more than three awards, (is it 5 or 6?).

The only exception was a Colonel Chief of Staff. He had the Silver Star on down, and would ocassionally and proudly say, "See these, Lcpl? Not a single Purlple Heart, I was too good of an Aviator through two tours!"

Anyway, my questions still stands, How did Kerry end up in front of Congress testifying his version of Vietnam?

07-30-04, 05:28 PM
December 1968 <br />
<br />
While the campaign cannot locate a detailed report on the injuries that earn Kerry his first Purple Heart, a brief medical note in his personal files dated Dec. 3, 1968, reads,...

07-30-04, 05:38 PM
Early April, 1969 -- U.S. Naval Lieutenant John Kerry leaves Vietnam and is soon reassigned as a personal aide and flag lieutenant to Rear Admiral Walter F. Schlech, Jr. with the Military Sea...

07-30-04, 05:39 PM
April 18 - 23, 1971 -- Operation Dewey Canyon III. More than a thousand VVAW members stage an &quot;invasion&quot; of Washington D.C., where they hold memorial ceremonies, meet with sympathetic members of...

07-30-04, 06:14 PM
That is pretty thorough. Thank you, I have never seen this data.

I still missed who in the Congressional Investigation summoned John Kerry. And why did they single out Kerry and not the likes of John McCain, Max Cleland, or even John O'Neill and Ted Sampley?

07-30-04, 07:31 PM
Basically, John Kerry was so famous for his anti-war approach and just beginning to get into politics, he had some connections. He was invited byt the Senate Intelligence Committee (by exactly whom, I'm not sure).

They wanted an officer who was a "hero" to feed their anti-war mindset. That was pretty hard to find until Kerry came along.

07-30-04, 09:55 PM
Okay in relation to the People of the Republic, who is Congress? Why did the then current representatives of America want this guy Kerry instead of John O'Neill?

07-31-04, 01:26 AM
Originally posted by yellowwing
Is anyone researched how Kerry came to giving his controversial Congressional testimony? Who and why got him on the Hill that day to talk about Vietnam?

Kerry has been connected to the Kennedy's from the beginning.

Ted Kennedy met with him for three hours late one night before the VVAW demonstrated and a few days before he was invited to testify before Congress. It was all pre-arranged and if you may have noticed, Ted Kennedy at the DNC mentioned that it was there, that he met John Kerry, but Kerry was already dating John Kennedy's sister-in-law.

Ted Kennedy was involved with other legislators in opposing the war mostly because it was draining money they wished to use for social programs, which was one of the reasons President Johnson decided not to run for re-election.

It was by Ted Kennedy’s invitation that Kerry got to testify before Congress. Kerry practiced and practiced that speech for days before he appeared before Congress.

The Vietnam Veterans Against the War were broke and needed money to transport demonstrators to Washington, D.C.But, after Kenney’s meeting with Kerry, Jane Fonda and a very liberal moneybags man from New York that has never been identified provided $50.000 to the VVAW.

Everything Kerry has been doing has been planned for this time in history. But, along came the Clinton's and they were suppose to set the stage for Kerry but then Bill blew it, or rather he got blown and it all blew up.... LOL

No conspiracy here, just recorded history.

All punts intended. I maybe off on some of the dates here but its pretty much what happened.

What we should be asking is;

How come he was able to leave Vietnam early (that was not normal Naval practice, even with three purple hearts), after only 4 months?

How was it that they then allowed him to leave the military service early within a month of his request? Someone was pulling strings for him.

How was it that after his Co denied his request for his 1st Purple Heart, he still got it, when Kerry went over his CO’s head.

How was it that he got invited to go on the Dick Cavett show? Was it because he needed this high profile visibility so when he met with our enemies in Paris later that same month they would take him seriously?

The secret to this is based on his political connections to both people in high office in Washington DC and those in Hollywood.
What is interesting is his marriage to two wealthy women that are both dingbats.....LOL


07-31-04, 08:08 AM
Money still talks but Bull$hit no longer walks

In a stunning reversal, Bull$hit has ended its long-standing policy of walking.

Reached for comment by bull$hit journalists, a bull$hit spokesman said, "At this point, it is unclear exactly what will do the walking from now on, but it definitely will not be Bull$hit."

As a result, bull$hit corporate executives everywhere are scrambling to cope with these unanticipated developments, as are bull$hit accounting firms. A major restructuring effort is expected in coming weeks.

The effect on bull$hit stock market analysts is, as yet, unknown.

Bull$hit attorneys have also been forced to reevaluate their positions, although they expect a somewhat smoother transition. And bull$hit politicians are expected to adapt immediately.

Bull$hit, which has not yet decided to talk, was unavailable for comment.

Wonder which politicans are we talking here?
People wonder how John Forbes Kerry got to leave Vietnam early.
Might the name "Forbes" have anything to do with his early release?
Money talks but does bull$hit walks?
Not in this case money did some talking and some bull$hit did some walking.

Semper Fidelis/Semper Fi

PS might I be getting an E-mail to not post that or have this deleted because it offends money and bull$hit...

07-31-04, 08:37 AM
The Anti-war Hero <br />
Opposition and protest, not mature leadership, have defined John Kerry’s political career. | 30 July 2004 <br />
<br />
<br />
One thing that just about everybody seems to accept about John Kerry...

07-31-04, 08:38 AM
Ted Kennedy. Thankyou Sparrowahwk.

07-31-04, 08:39 AM
bull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbu ll$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull $hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$h itbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hit bull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbu ll$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull $hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$h itbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hit bull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbu ll$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull $hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$hitbull$h itbull$hitbull$hitbull$hit

Gosh darn, I like to push that button, don't I ?

And how come we can't say ****
or ****edoff
P iss
p issedoff



Morning folks...

07-31-04, 10:24 AM

07-31-04, 10:39 AM

07-31-04, 11:25 AM

HE IS STILL A JANE FONDA LOVING NO GOOD SOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


07-31-04, 11:30 AM


July 31, 2004 -- SCRANTON, Pa. — John Kerry's heavily hyped cross-country bus tour stumbled out of the blocks yesterday, as a group of Marines publicly dissed the Vietnam War hero in the middle of a crowded restaurant.
Kerry was treating running mate Sen. John Edwards and his wife, Elizabeth, to a Wendy's lunch in Newburgh, N.Y., for their 27th wedding anniversary — an Edwards family tradition — when the candidate approached four Marines and asked them questions.

The Marines — two in uniform and two off-duty — were polite but curt while chatting with Kerry, answering most of his questions with a "yes, sir" or "no, sir."

But they turned downright nasty after the Massachusetts senator thanked them "for their service" and left.

"He imposed on us and I disagree with him coming over here shaking our hands," one Marine said, adding, "I'm 100 percent against [him]."

A sergeant with 10 years of service under his belt said, "I speak for all of us. We think that we are doing the right thing in Iraq," before saying he is to be deployed there in a few weeks and is "eager" to go and serve.

The Marines — all of whom serve at nearby Stewart Air Force Base — wouldn't give their names.

It wasn't an auspicious start to the senators' "Believe in America" bus tour — a 22-state, 43-city tour that will cover roughly 3,500 miles over 15 days in an effort to carry some of their momentum out of the Democratic convention.

But the rest of Day One went smoothly, as massive crowds — including what Kerry said were up to 20,000 in Harrisburg, Pa., — greeted him, Edwards, their families and Ben Affleck at the tour-kickoff event in Boston and at two stops in the Keystone state.

"Ninety-seven days [left in the campaign]; let's make it happen," Kerry told hundreds of bleary-eyed but upbeat supporters who showed up at a 7:30 a.m. rally on the shores of Boston Harbor — less than nine hours after Kerry finished his acceptance speech.

Kerry also employed Paul Revere's famed midnight run and imagery of Bunker Hill to bash President Bush over U.S. intelligence failures.

"These are the places where people dared to stand up and put their lives on the line — to take a risk — for something they believed in very deeply," Kerry said of the Boston neighborhood where he was speaking.

"One if by land, two if by sea, and the message was right. Come to think of it, they had better intelligence than we do today about what's going on," Kerry continued, drawing the loudest applause of the event.

In Harrisburg, Kerry noted that there was more bad news coming out of the financial markets yesterday, with oil prices reaching new highs and economic growth limping along at three percent.



07-31-04, 12:09 PM
From my life history, I wish to offer this; my mind set as oppose to John Forbes Kerry.
I too served in Vietnam, I came home angry at the madness we call war.
I came back and went to work in the steel mills of northwest Indiana, Inland Steel Company to be exact.
One day while I was walking home, I stop at a clothing store.
There I happen to see a coffee can with the words "The Service Memorial Fund" it asked for donations.
After that I stop at a jewelry store. there too was a coffee can with the same words.
I asked the owner, who behind the Service Memorial Fund, he told me the name of a woman, who's Marine son died in Vietnam.
Her name was Elsie Gomez, mother Cpl. Harold Gomez USMC.
Later that day, I went to my grandmother's house.
I asked her if she knew Elsie Gomez.
Her reply "She one of my dear friend" with that I asked her if she could invite her over the next day.
That I wanted to talk to her about the Service Memorial Fund because I had being thinking along those lines.
Well to make a story short, I met with Elsie, with the information she gave me.
I approached the organization that I was a member, with the idea that we approach the industries.
We raised enough money for a small monument to all those that died or are missing in Vietnam from East Chicago, Indiana.
Sad to say that Memorial is now in storage dued to the city building a new Police Station.
I easily could have taken the direction that John Forbes Kerry took.
But I could not have lived with myself knowing that I had stabbed many still serving in Vietnam...

Semper Fidelis/Semper Fi

07-31-04, 04:12 PM
I failed to mention the year was 1968...maybe that why I chose to make that site on the Community Veterans Memorial.
To take the place of the Memorial that now in storage.
Just got back from my ride to Community Veterans Memorial.
Today, I was feeling as gloomy as the skies above, they were over casted and heavy with rain.
But we need rain so the flowers and grass will grow.
The reason for my gloom feelings, had to do with what I felt about Vietnam.
I remember them telling us that the Vietnamese had asked for us.
Yet out in the bush and the villies it was a different story.
Than seeing all the corruption by the Vietnamese made many of us angry.
Why were we dying, so some could get rich or richer.
Now we read or see John Forbes Kerry making more of his service.
He was no better or even less than many that served there.
Yet in all fairness, we cannot forget that some hint, the reason George W. Bush avoid or missed those meeting of his Air National Guard unit, was because drug testing had become mandatory.
And that drug testing was going to be done in random order.
Only George W. Bush and God know if he was using drugs.
Its up to God to render a judgement.
But if we judge John Forbes Kerry on his service in Vietnam.
Might some also say we should judge George W. Bush on the reason or resons that he missed those meetings?

Semper Fidelis/Semper Fi

07-31-04, 04:57 PM
he did drink alcohol but drugs was not the reason he didn't go to nam. And random drug testing would not have made a difference one way or the oher because he was a pilot and they were always being tested for drugs because of the physicals they had to take.

People forget that there is almost a two years difference in the time when kerry went to Nam and when Bush was eligiable to go. They needed men there during Kerry's time, but were cutting back during Bush's time.

Now, as far as doing drugs, Kerry DID!

07-31-04, 11:35 PM
Everybody has something in their past, they rather not have seen...
http://web.archive.org/web/20000816165911/http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/Republican_ticket_lets_a_military_connection_slip+ .shtml

About the drugs, there's pages on the web that hint, that the reason he past on taking his flight physical.

We try to be moderated in our thinking, and we try to be fair.
If we hold someone to a high standard, than its only fair that we hold others to the same standards.
Politics have never been fair, but these recent attacks by both sides are ones we rather have not seen.

Semper Fidelis/Semper Fi

07-31-04, 11:40 PM
Well that link doesn't work, it had to do on the year and half of failed Air National Guard meetings not attended by Lt. George W. Bush in Alabama or Texas.
And the reason for him not flying, because he failed to take his flight physical by Air Force Flight Surgeons at the Air Base in Alabama...

Semper Fidelis/Semper Fi

08-01-04, 07:39 AM
Posted on Fri, Jul. 30, 2004

Kerry hasn't yet closed the sale with undecided voters


Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Alejandro Garcia-Tunon of Kendall, Fla., is the kind of guy Sen. John Kerry needed to reach this week. A suburban Republican in a pivotal battleground state, Garcia-Tunon has turned away from President Bush but not yet decided to vote for Kerry.

After watching Kerry use the Democratic National Convention to frame his campaign themes, Garcia-Tunon still came away undecided.

That seems to be the initial verdict on the convention from the thin national slice of undecided voters, according to initial polls, focus groups, analysts and anecdotal reports. Kerry got his foot in the door of the White House, he impressed some swing voters in key states, but he hasn't yet closed the sale.

And Bush gets his chance at them with his convention in New York in four weeks.

In the Miami suburb of Kendall, Garcia-Tunon was looking for an alternative to Bush. A Cuban-American from a solidly Republican family - the kind Bush needs to hold Florida again - Garcia-Tunon has doubts about the president.

Watching Kerry, he was impressed: "He's a really strong speaker and he's more charismatic than I knew."

Still, Garcia-Tunon doesn't like Kerry's position on the economy and taxes.

"I still really don't know who I'm going to vote for," he said. "I really want to wait for George Bush to say a little more."

It's no great surprise that Kerry's speech didn't change the political landscape. The country is evenly split politically, the stakes in this election are unusually high and the great majority of Americans made up their minds long ago whether they were for or against Bush. Even a convention speech, in that context, isn't likely to detonate big change.

"It's not a judgment on Kerry," pollster John Zogby said. "You're just not going to see much movement among hard-core undecided voters until late in the campaign."

In a nationwide poll of likely voters this week that ended as Kerry was speaking Thursday, Zogby found the Democratic ticket widening its lead slightly to 48-43 percent over Bush-Cheney, up from 48-46 percent July 9. Both polls had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

It's noteworthy in that pre-speech period that Kerry didn't gain support but some likely voters switched from Bush to undecided. Zogby said few likely voters were switching yet - and probably wouldn't until the final days of the campaign.

That suggests that any "bounce" Kerry may get from the convention is likely to be small and temporary.

In Canton, Ohio, firefighters split over Kerry's performance.

"He did a nice job," firefighter Pat Bodnar said, lauding Kerry's talk about the economy and health care. "This election is about jobs, jobs, jobs."

Mike Rodriquez, the station's captain, wasn't impressed.

"To me it was just rhetoric. It was just a pep rally," Rodriquez complained. "He was making a lot of promises that he can't possibly keep."

In Phoenixville, Pa., outside Philadelphia, registered independent and former Al Gore voter Rosemary Hoffman, 50, was undecided before the convention and after. Kerry needs to hold voters like her to hold Pennsylvania, another battleground. She liked him, but had reservations.

"He didn't say anything about his Senate career, which made me a little suspicious," she said. "Is it because his record is so liberal, as the Republicans are saying? ... But I really liked the tone of his speech; no Bush-bashing. And I liked what he had to say about religion, about not wearing it on his sleeve."

Kerry's next chance to sway her might not come until he faces off against the president in the fall. "It made me very anxious to see the debates," she said. "They'll help me a lot more to make up my mind."

Kerry strategist Bob Shrum expected this.

"There are little spikes up and down, (but it) keeps returning to equilibrium in a closely divided country," he said. "I hope to be pleasantly surprised. But I expect it to return to equilibrium."

Frank Luntz, an independent political researcher who used to work for Republicans, was more upbeat about Kerry's short-term prospects. After watching the convention's final two nights with a focus group of undecided voters in Cincinnati, he predicted a 7 percentage-point bump in Kerry's standing.

The focus group, conducted for MSNBC, suggested that Kerry won over four of the 20 undecided voters.

"These undecided voters came into the convention anti-Bush, but they left pro-Kerry," Luntz said. "Before the convention, they could all articulate at least one reason why they were disappointed by George W. Bush, but now, for the first time, they can articulate at least one reason why they like John Kerry."

In Plymouth Meeting, Pa., health-care provider James Cox, 58, was left wanting more details of what Kerry would do to improve health care.

"I'm straddling the fence as much as I ever did," said Cox, who voted for Gore in 2000. "Empty rhetoric is not going to win me over; I want to see something done. As of today, I don't know which way I'd go. I won't waste a vote on Nader, but I might not vote for president at all."

Because there are so few undecided voters left, analysts don't expect big shifts in polls anytime soon.

"We never believed that you do this all in one single leap or bound," Shrum said. "It's going to happen in several stages. It's not going to happen in one speech. It's not going to happen in one two-week (campaign) trip. We're just going to keep making steady progress."


(Thomma reported from Washington; Chancellor, of the Akron Beacon Journal, reported from Canton, Ohio; Larry Eichel, of The Philadelphia Inquirer, reported from Philadelphia; Knight Ridder Newspapers correspondent Tere Figueras of The Miami Herald contributed to this article from Miami.)


© 2004, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.



08-01-04, 09:11 AM


08-01-04, 11:27 AM
A new medal named in honor of John Kerry is called the "Purple Owie". It is worn directly over the wound in question. After use, it is rolled up and thrown over the nearest fence.......


"Who has 3 purple hearts in 4 months but never spent a day in the hospital?"


Toby M
08-01-04, 09:30 PM
I need to put in for one of these purple owies! I fell out of my bunk one night and stubbed my toe really bad! Oh wait...then I would be totally worthless too...never mind! I'll suffer in silence!

08-02-04, 06:47 AM
What Kerry Said and What You Need to Know
Written by Edward L. Daley
Sunday, August 01, 2004

On Thursday July 29, 2004, Senator John Forbes Kerry gave his acceptance speech before the 2004 Democratic National Convention at the Fleet Center in Boston, Massachusetts. It is my intention to illuminate certain truths underlying Mr. Kerry's speech which might otherwise go unnoticed by the majority of voters in this country. Each statement made by Senator John F. Kerry is in italics, prefaced with the * symbol, and followed by information that Mr. Kerry would, I suspect, rather you were not privileged to.

* ''I'm John Kerry and I'm reporting for duty.''

''In a survey of 500 Bay State voters conducted last Sunday and Monday, 59 percent said they 'are concerned' that Kerry 'missed 70 percent of the votes in the Senate over the last two years' and 45 percent say he should resign his Senate seat'' - Brian Mooney (The Boston Globe, 07/24/04)

* ''And I am determined now to restore that pride to all who look to America.''

''A Ho Chi Minh City museum that honors Vietnam war protesters features a photograph of Sen. John Kerry being greeted by the general secretary of the Communist Party, Comrade Do Muoi. A snapshot of the display in the Vietnamese Communist War Remnants Museum – formerly known as the 'War Crimes Museum' '' - WorldNetDaily (06/01/04)

* ''We have it in our power to change the world again. But only if we're true to our ideals - and that starts by telling the truth to the American people. That is my first pledge to you tonight. As President, I will restore trust and credibility to the White House.''

''There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed in that I took part in shootings in free fire zones. I conducted harassment and interdiction fire. I used 50 calibre machine guns, which we were granted and ordered to use, which were our only weapon against people. I took part in search and destroy missions, in the burning of villages. All of this is contrary to the laws of warfare, all of this is contrary to the Geneva Conventions and all of this is ordered as a matter of written established policy by the government of the United States from the top down.'' - John F. Kerry (Testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 4/22/71)

''I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lt.(jg) Kerry.'' - Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)

''I was in An Thoi from June of '68 to June of '69, covering the whole period that John Kerry was there. I operated in every river, in every canal, and every off-shore patrol area in the 4th Corps area, from Cambodia all the way around to the Bo De River. I never saw, even heard of all of these so-called atrocities and things that we were supposed to have done. This is not true. We're not standing for it. We want to set the record straight.'' - William Shumadine

''In a whole year that I spent patrolling, I didn't see anything like a war crime, an atrocity, anything like that. Time and again I saw American fighting men put themselves in graver danger trying to avoid... collateral damage. When John Kerry returned to the country, he was sworn in front of Congress. And then he told my family--my parents, my sister, my brother, my neighbors--he told everyone I knew and everyone I'd ever know that I and my comrades had committed unspeakable atrocities.'' - David Wallace

''He served four months in Vietnam while I served five years in Vietnam, I think that I had the opportunity to witness any possible atrocities a lot more then him as I was directly involved in the ground action, I saw None! The vast majority of American fighting Servicemen did an Honorable Performance with just a few malcontents who were dealt with harshly and punished accordingly. Kerry on the other hand, came home to portray himself as our spokesman, able to play the 'Chameleon' as politics dictated to fit his needs and reinvent himself to satisfied his political aspirations.'' - Pascual R. Meza

''I strongly believe that the statements made by the Senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States' efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and their allies, retreated to a life of despair and suicide. Two of my crewmates were among them. For that there is no forgiveness.'' - Richard O'Mara

* ''Saying there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq doesn't make it so.''

''The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons.'' - John F. Kerry (Congressional record10/09/02)

''If you don’t believe Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.'' - John F. Kerry (Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

''Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror...'' - John Kerry (12/15/03)

* ''I ask you to judge me by my record.''

John Kerry voted against the B-1 Bomber, the B-2 Stealth Bomber, the F-14, the F-15, the F-16, the AV-8B Harrier Jet, the AH-64 Apache Helicopter, the Patriot Missiles, the Aegis Air Defense Cruiser, the Trident Missile System, the M-1 Abrams Tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and the Tomahawk Cruise Missile. - Congressional Record

* ''And here at home, wages are falling, health care costs are rising, and our great middle class is shrinking.''

''Wages and benefits for U.S. workers rose a moderate 0.9 percent in the April-June quarter this year, down slightly from the previous quarter's increase, as price pressures for benefits like health insurance eased significantly.'' - Associated Press writer Martin Crutsinger citing data from the U.S. Department of Labor

* ''We can do better and we will. We're the optimists.''

''While the addition of new jobs to the economy is of course welcomed news for America's workers, America is still in the worst job recovery since the Great Depression.'' - Terry McAuliffe, head of the DNC

* ''I am proud that at my side will be a running mate whose life is the story of the American dream and who's worked every day to make that dream real for all Americans.''

''When I came back from Vietnam in 1969 I don’t know if John Edwards was out of diapers then. Well, I’m sure he was out of diapers.'' - John F. Kerry (New York Times, January, 2004)

''Edwards says he’s the only one who can win states in the South. He can’t win his own state.'' - John F. Kerry (New York Times, 2/03/04)

* ''And what can I say about Teresa? She has the strongest moral compass of anyone I know.''

Mrs. Heinz Kerry called for more civility in politics and added, ''We need to turn back some of the creeping, un-Pennsylvanian and sometimes un-American traits that are coming into some of our politics.'' Shortly afterward, she was asked by Colin McNickle, editorial page editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, what she meant by ''un-American.'' Instead of clarifying, Mrs. Heinz Kerry denied her statement. The AP reported, ''Heinz Kerry said 'I didn't say that' several times to McNickle. When Mr. McNickle asked her again, Mrs. Heinz Kerry declared, 'You said something I didn't say. Now shove it. Reuters reported the same series of exchanges.'' - Washington Times (7/27/04)

* ''We fought for this nation because we loved it and we came back with the deep belief that every day is extra. We may be a little older now, we may be a little grayer, but we still know how to fight for our country.''

''They told the stories at times 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.'' - John F. Kerry (Testifying before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 4/22/71)

* ''Remember the hours after September 11th, when we came together as one to answer the attack against our homeland. We drew strength when our firefighters ran up the stairs and risked their lives, so that others might live. When rescuers rushed into smoke and fire at the Pentagon. When the men and women of Flight 93 sacrificed themselves to save our nation's Capitol."

''Bush is calling on the biggest disaster in our country's history, and indeed in the history of the fire service, to win sympathy for his campaign.'' - Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters which has endorsed John Kerry for president


08-02-04, 06:48 AM
* ''I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.'' <br />
<br />
''He (Saddam Hussein) cannot...

08-02-04, 06:49 AM
* ''And it gives a tax credit to families for each and every year of college.''

''The National Center for Education Statistics report, 'Getting Ready for College,' found that while the vast majority (91 percent) of students and parents report plans for higher education, they are generally unable to estimate accurately the cost of college tuition. When students and parents could offer estimates of tuition costs, they tended to overestimate, especially for public institutions... President Bush's 2004 budget request expands overall student aid available for postsecondary education to a record $62 billion, an increase of $3.1 billion, or 5 percent over the president's 2003 request. Working families will also see savings of $22.7 billion over five years in tax relief for expenses related to higher education.'' - U.S. Department of Education (10/01/03)

* ''Our health care plan for a stronger America cracks down on the waste, greed, and abuse in our health care system and will save families up to $1,000 a year on their premiums''

''John Edwards made nearly $27 million as a personal injury lawyer who won a string of multimillion-dollar jury verdicts and settlements. The Kerry-Edwards presidential campaign released Edwards' income figures in a statement Friday in response to questions about the taxes he paid after he created a tax shelter in 1995. Edwards paid $9,353,448 in federal taxes on his income of $26,869,496, but the shelter allowed him to avoid paying $591,112 in Medicare tax, the figures provided by the campaign show.'' - The San Francisco Chronicle (7/10/04)

* ''And when I'm President, America will stop being the only advanced nation in the world which fails to understand that health care is not a privilege for the wealthy, the connected, and the elected - it is a right for all Americans.''

''Health care in the modern world is a complex, scientific, technological service. How can anybody be born with a right to such a thing? Under the American system you have a right to health care if you can pay for it, i.e., if you can earn it by your own action and effort. But nobody has the right to the services of any professional individual or group simply because he wants them and desperately needs them.'' - Leonard Peikoff, Ph.D. (12/11/93)

* ''We value an America that controls its own destiny because it's finally and forever independent of Mideast oil.''

John F. Kerry voted against ANWR oil exploration seven times. - Congressional Record

* ''I want to address these next words directly to President George W. Bush: In the weeks ahead, let's be optimists, not just opponents.''

''After recession, 9-11 and war, today our economy has been growing for ten straight months. Historic tax relief helped create 1.4 million jobs. Inflation, interest and mortgage rates are low. And homeownership rates are at record highs. We've met serious challenges and things are beginning to turn around... The economy added 1,100 new jobs in May and the unemployment rate has dropped to 5.6 percent. So, what does John Kerry say? He's still pessimistic, on a misery tour talking about days of malaise and the Great Depression.'' - Bush/Ceney 04 (6/21/04)

* ''This is our time to reject the kind of politics calculated to divide race from race, group from group, region from region.''

''We will not stand by, and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.'' - Al Sharpton (1995)

''George W. Bush has chosen tax cuts for the wealthy...'' - John F. Kerry

''Rev. Jesse Jackson referred to Jews as 'Hymies' and to New York City as 'Hymietown' in January 1984 during a conversation with a black Washington Post reporter, Milton Coleman.'' - The Washington Post (3/27/98)

* ''What if we have a president who believes in science, so we can unleash the wonders of discovery like stem cell research to treat illness and save millions of lives?''

''Contrary to ongoing research with adult stem cells, which do not cause death and are supported by President Bush and unimpeded federal funds, not one human being is being treated with embryonic stem cells anywhere in the world. No clinical trials are in progress using this approach. No studies with human embryonic stem cells are even being contemplated. None! And why not? Because these cells are unpredictable and tend to create tumors in animals being treated with them.'' - Dr. James Dobson (6/15/04)

* ''It is time to reach for the next dream. It is time to look to the next horizon. For America, the hope is there. The sun is rising. Our best days are still to come.''

''It's morning in America'' - Ronald Wilson Reagan

''I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity, and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.'' - Ronald Wilson Reagan

* ''Goodnight, God bless you, and God bless America.''

Now THAT I can agree with.

Edward L. Daley



08-02-04, 07:39 PM

Kerry repeated his argument that the Bush administration is encouraging the recruitment of terrorists. He said Bush hasn't reached out to other countries and the Muslim community.

"The policies of this administration, I believe and others believe very deeply, have resulted in an increase of animosity and anger focused on the United States of America," Kerry told reporters after a campaign meeting with first responders. "The people who are training terror are using our actions as a means of recruitment."


This is the same thing he said and did during his Vietnam Anti-war protesting days when he went and met with our enemies, just a few months after leaving the service.

He was given a six months early out at his request and less then four month after leaving the service he was in Paris, meeting with NVA Communist officials.

We can expect him to do the same witht he war on terrorism; I am surprised he is not now making arrangements to meet with terrorist as they are echoing his words by their works.

The four attacks on Christian churches in Iraq was followed by a terrorist statement that stated, they are fighting us because we are after them. DUH!

I wonder if kerry's campaign chairman wrote the Press Release for them.

08-02-04, 08:08 PM



08-02-04, 10:31 PM
i can't believe you folks are bad mouthing kerry's war record. compared to presidente less than zero's silver spoon reservist awol record.

i think it took a pair, unlike our neutered drunk commander in chief's record, to come home from nam and declare that the emperor had no clothes.

08-03-04, 01:08 AM
Kerry is right that Bush's actions are encouraging terrorist recruitment. The war in Iraq is a big recruiting tool for Al Qaida. This war of choice (and not necessity) is going to produce some serious blowback for years to come.

08-03-04, 08:01 AM
July 30, 2004

Kerry’s war record starting to make impression on voters

By Rick Maze
Times staff writer

John Kerry’s carefully crafted campaign to highlight his combat experience as proof he would make a good commander-in-chief appears to be paying off. A public opinion poll released July 27 — in the midst of the Democratic National Convention in which Kerry was confirmed as the party’s presidential nominee — shows he narrowly trails President Bush in voters’ minds as a leader.
Forty-six percent believe Bush would do a better job on national security while 43 percent favor Kerry, the poll shows.

“Despite George Bush’s four years as commander in chief, John Kerry is tied with the president on national security issues,” says a campaign memo released to reporters. While Bush has a small overall lead, the fact that Kerry ranks so close and is slightly ahead among voters in contested states is evidence, Kerry aides said, that their message is getting across.

The campaign is going to great effort to attract support from the military and veterans. More than 2,000 veterans and their families attended a caucus meeting at the start of the Convention in Boston to organize grassroots support.

More than 500 official delegates to the convention were veterans. Campaign officials said their goal is to organize 1 million or more by election day, with former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., a disabled Vietnam vet who served under Jimmy Carter, leading the effort.

‘Reporting for duty’

From the moment Kerry hit Boston, he was surrounded with comrades from Vietnam. This was an unsubtle effort to draw a contrast between Kerry’s combat service and Bush’s duty in the National Guard during the war.

Kerry’s July 29 acceptance speech began with a reference to his military service.

“I’m John Kerry, and I’m reporting for duty,” he said.

Cleland and other vets have joined him, he said, “because of what we learned as soldiers. We fought for this nation because we loved it and we came back with a deep belief that every day is extra. We may be a little older now, we may be a little grayer, but we still know how to fight for our country.”

As president, Kerry said he’d “bring back this nation’s time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to.”

If elected, Kerry said he would use his combat experience. “I know what kids go through when they are carrying an M-16 in a dangerous place and they cannot tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they are out on patrol at night and they don’t know what is coming around the next bend. I know what it is like to write letters home telling your family that everything is all right when you are not sure that is true.

“On my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.”

That is not weakness, he said. “I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president,” he said. “Let there be no mistake. I will never hesitate to use force when it is required.”

Kerry’s plan for the war in Iraq begins with “a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That is the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.”

He also renewed his vow to add 40,000 troops to the active-duty force, double the current size of special operations forces, reduce mobilizations of National Guard and Reserve troops and provide deployed forces with “the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle.”

Repeating a phrase used by Bush in his 2000 campaign, Kerry said he had a message for “all who serve in the armed forces today: I say, help is on the way.”

Veterans divided

Republicans will hold their convention and nominate Bush for re-election Aug. 30 in New York, but they are not hesitating to return fire.

The Bush-Cheney campaign issued a statement July 28 by retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, a Medal of Honor recipient, who said Kerry’s vote against an $87 billion wartime supplemental last year says more to him than any words.

“One of those women in harm’s way was my daughter who served during the war in Iraq,” he said. “As a combat veteran, I know from experience the importance of supporting our troops. President Bush has a proven record of support for our troops and the 25 million veterans that proudly serve our nation. He has earned and holds the highest respect of my daughter and her comrades.”

Democrats had their own vets endorsing Kerry, including retired Army Gen. John Shalikashvili, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, who in a July 28 convention speech called himself “an old soldier and new Democrat” who was appearing because he believes “John Kerry and John Edwards are the right choice for America’s security and the right choice for America.”

“A safe America, a just America, is what we want,” said retired Army Gen. Wesley Clark, former U.S. European Command commander who tried to win the Democratic nomination himself. “John Kerry is a leader and a fighter, and he will be a great commander in chief.”In a statement released by the Kerry camp, retired Vice Adm. Lee Gunn, former Navy inspector general, noted that his son, son-in-law and nephew are all sailors.

“I want them, and all of America’s sons and daughters in uniform to have a new, wiser, better and courageous commander in chief in John Kerry,” Gunn said.



benny rutledge
08-03-04, 11:29 AM
Hello!! Kerry was in Country a grand total of 4 months!His last purple heart was for a FINGER injury!Once you get three "Hearts" you are rotated out!Kerry's entire time in country was politically orchestrated from the beginning to make him a Senator.Kerry is the Manchurian Candidate if I ever saw one.Don't vote for that clown!Bush is the lesser of two evils here.

08-03-04, 01:20 PM
Correction benny, Frenchurian Candidate!
If you want the reasons not to vote for Kerry, take all this crap that's coming out of his mouth about defense, intelligence and taxes and compare that to his voting record.
You don't learn much about a man from his pittence of 4 months in Vietnam. Just look at his Senate voting record, that is, when he even bothered to show up and vote!
Also on Intelligence, while on the Senate Intelligence Committee, Kerry only bothered to show up for 11 out of 49 hearings.
Kerry's Voting Record (http://www.kerryquotes.com/votingrecord.htm)

08-03-04, 01:55 PM
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. - Edmund Burke

Kerry is a self-centered bastard looking out for his own future and no one elses especially when he came home from Vietnam. Don't make him sound like he's got a pair, ivalis. He took a big fat dump on every Vietnam Veteran out there with his self-serving testimony.

Did you know that according to John Kerry, "A lot of guys, 60, 80 percent stay stoned 24 hours a day just to get through the Vietnam" I think it's funny that a few of you are calling President Bush a drunk and a drug addict and John Kerry has said the same thing about you.

08-03-04, 03:24 PM
staying stoned 24 hrs a day is impossible, ya have to get a nap in once in awhile.

08-04-04, 07:29 AM
Ex-POWs slam Kerry's war-protest activities
By Richard Tomkins
UPI White House Correspondent
Published 8/3/2004 5:20 PM

WASHINGTON, Aug. 3 (UPI) -- John Kerry's bid to become commander in chief of wartime America has opened old wounds among some former Vietnam-era POWs who bristle over Kerry's anti-war activism and atrocity allegations during the Vietnam conflict.

Those activities and statements, pushed out of sight by a campaign that spotlights Kerry's service in Vietnam, were used by the POWs' North Vietnamese captors to sap the morale of prisoners and U.S. troops still in the field in South Vietnam, former POWs told United Press International.

"They were always talking about that (anti-war demonstrations), and they picked right up on Kerry's throw-away line, 'Don't be the last man to die in a lost cause, or die for a lost cause,'" said Kenneth Cordier, an Air Force pilot who spent 2,284 days as a prisoner. "They repeated that incessantly.

"They used these photographs and inputs, voice tapes, whatever, from these peace people to try to convince us the whole country had turned anti-war and we were showing a very bad attitude and would never go home."

Jim Warner, a prisoner of the North Vietnamese in the Hoa Lo prison complex -- known to U.S. servicemen as the Hanoi Hilton -- remembers Kerry. He became acquainted with him, he said, when a North Vietnamese guard and interrogator the prisoners nicknamed "Boris" took Warner to the quiz shack in the complex's punishment camp called "Skid Row" in May 1971.

During a four-hour propaganda and harassment session, Boris pulled papers from his pocket and gave them to Warner to think about, he said. Some were clippings from a leftist newspaper in the United States. The other was a typewritten transcript of Kerry's testimony before a U.S. Senate panel in which he repeated allegations of U.S. troops routinely committing atrocities, attacking the war and saying communism was not a threat in Vietnam.

The atrocity allegations were garnered from the so-called Winter Soldier Investigation in Detroit in early 1971, in which actress and activist Jane Fonda and Kerry, a leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War, were involved.

At that event people claiming to have seen combat in Vietnam alleged committing atrocities -- rape, cutting off of ears and heads, murdering women and children -- on a routine basis and with the knowledge of their superiors. Many of the allegations proved false or could not be documented, and the veracity and identities of many witnesses later came into question.

"It was the stuff about the Winter Soldier," Warner said. "The paper he showed me, the statements from John Kerry, were separate. And the stuff that was supposed to be from Kerry was a typewritten transcript of a few pages, but he was pointing to the statements.

I can't quote the statements, but essentially they were the same as those being played now on talk shows of his testimony in front of the Senate."

Warner was in his Marine Corps F-4B aircraft when he was shot down over North Vietnam on Oct. 13, 1967, and was held for 1,979 days. He told UPI that in that confrontation with the North Vietnamese officer he was told "these statements (by Kerry) ... were proof I deserved to be punished. I was pretty sure they weren't going to do anything, but in the summer of '69 they had spent four months trying to get information out of me, and I still had the memory of my mistreatment -- sleep deprivation, leg irons, a cement box in the sun (and feet and ankles swollen from chains digging into the flesh).

"The memory of that was still pretty fresh in my mind, and I was extremely uneasy. Every time he mentioned (the papers), this officer said I committed crimes, that this war was illegal. I just had no idea. ... All along they told us they would execute us for our 'crimes.'"

Particularly galling for Warner was his parents' brief participation at an anti-war event in Detroit where they said their son was a prisoner and they hoped he would be released. Warner said he never spoke to his parents about that after his return -- it just wasn't something talked about -- but his sisters had told him Fonda and Kerry were involved in getting his parents to appear, an appearance he believes lent a measure of respectability to the event.

Warner said Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, which had staged large demonstrations in Washington, were often mentioned in the radio broadcasts that played incessantly over the camp's loudspeakers.

"On our (former POW) listserve there are many people who mention hearing Kerry on Radio Hanoi and how much that infuriated them," Warner said, "but I don't know of anyone else confronted like that."

Cordier, now living in Texas, doesn't recall Kerry's name specifically being used in interrogations, propaganda broadcasts by Hanoi Hannah (Radio Vietnam) or during "attitude checks" -- political indoctrination sessions -- since Kerry was then not a household name. But he said he does remember the North Vietnamese using the so-called Winter Soldier investigations and photographs of war veterans, both real and imposters, throwing military medals over the White House fence.

Paul Galanti, a former Navy pilot who spent 2,432 days in captivity and worked on the 2000 primary campaign of fellow former POW Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., also remembers the broadcasts.

"It was propaganda. They stopped torturing us after Ho Chi Minh died pretty much, but all that stuff we got banged on -- they wanted us to say and to confess to war crimes and killing babies and all this other stuff," he said. "They kept talking about Vietnam Veterans Against the War, they had seen the right way and blah, blah, blah, and they were on our side, they had crossed over to the peoples' side and all that stuff."

Galanti said he didn't know Kerry's name then, although he had seen a newspaper photograph while in captivity that showed someone who looked like Lurch (a character in "The Addams Family" television show in the mid-'60s). Like others, they had only heard newscasts about a former Navy lieutenant and the anti-war movement. "I figured out who it was later," he said.

Cordier, Warner and Galanti said although the anti-war protest propaganda was sometimes disheartening, the North Vietnamese failed in their attempt to use it to break the prisoners' will.

"It didn't make us want to give up, it just made us feel discouraged that there were people who felt that way about us," said Warner, who works as a corporate attorney.

Cordier, Galanti and Warner are dead set against a President John Kerry. Cordier says it's just not his anti-war past, but his record till now, including his voting against funds for troops in Iraq.

"The measure of a person's character is their whole history up until the present," he said. "It's not what they say they believe or what they'll do when president or all these platitudes. ... And he has consistently taken the side of our enemies and other countries that oppose us or have a different viewpoint."

Joe Crecca, who was shot down over North Vietnam in 1966 and held for 2,280 days, won't be supporting Kerry either, accusing him of having "betrayed those who served with him by falsely accusing them of war crimes and a host of other things as soon as he returned to the USA."

Retired Adm. Jeremiah Denton -- held 2,766 days -- helps lead Vets4Bush. Everett Alvarez, who at 3,113 days was the longest-held prisoner of the North Vietnamese, would only say that he would be considered partisan since he had been a Reagan administration appointee.

McCain, who is campaigning for Bush, was also a prisoner at the Hanoi Hilton and counts himself as a friend of Kerry. Calls to his office for comment for this article were not returned. However, in 1973, shortly after his release from the Hanoi Hilton, McCain had a strong negative opinion on prominent anti-war activists, although he did not know Kerry by name at the time.

The Kerry campaign, asked to comment, sent UPI an e-mail message the included two quotes form a Oct. 21, 1996, New Yorker article entitled "A Friendship that Ended the War" and asked they be included.

"John McCain has never changed his mind about Kerry's participation in that anti-war demonstration, but he has changed his mind about the man," the article stated. "When I asked McCain if he would be campaigning for (former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld, who ran against Kerry for Senate), he shook his head, an emphatic no. 'I simply would not do such a thing. I couldn't do that. ... I'm surprised you would ask. ... Going to campaign against John Kerry is something I wouldn't consider.'"

The second quote from the same New Yorker article the Kerry campaign wanted cited was from Kerry in the same interview: "'We started talking about the war, and Vietnam, prison -- what happened to him and all that. ... Nothing had brought us together before, and we just talked. We talked about what I had done.' Kerry was referring to the episode that McCain had denounced in the 1984 campaign. 'But by now it wasn't a big hurdle,' he went on. 'To his credit, he didn't make it one. He made it clear that he had moved beyond all that. ... The war was a tough period for a lot of people, for a lot of reasons. Both of us decided to put all that kind of stuff behind us, and work together at something.'"

During the Democratic National Convention in Boston last week, a number of anti-Kerry veterans' groups participated in demonstrations opposing Kerry's campaign for the nation's top job, and other groups have more demonstration plans in the works.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth -- former Navy patrol-boat crews, including former comrades and a crewmate of Kerry in Vietnam -- publicly came out in opposition to the senator from Massachusetts last May and plan to launch a television ad attacking his candidacy later this month.

Kerry, meanwhile, is attempting to organize other veterans into a reliable voting bloc. His campaign works with several people who served with Kerry during his four-month stay in Vietnam as testimonials to his service, during which he was awarded three Purple Hearts and two medals for bravery.

In July Kerry told CBS's Dan Rather that he was "very proud" of having been a leader of the anti-war movement but admitted some of his language may have been too strong.

"Yes, some language that I used, I've said before, I think was a little reflective of a young man who was angry, a young man who felt disappointed in our government leaders who had lied to us," Kerry said when asked if he had made any mistakes during that period. "I regret that I wasn't perhaps more tuned into to something I said might affect somebody. But you learn. That's the beauty of life."

Campaign spokesman Phil Singer said last week: "When John Kerry testified before Congress, almost 45,000 Americans had died in Vietnam. He knew that standing up to end the war would anger some people, but he took that stand out of principle, spurred by the fact that when he returned home, he found that the highest-level military and political leaders were not aware of what was happening in Vietnam.

"Unlike George Bush, John Kerry knows what it means to serve in combat. He is uniquely qualified for the Oval Office and will be a president that makes America stronger at home and more respected in the world."




08-04-04, 07:51 AM
I find it a little funny that "Unlike George Bush, John Kerry knows what it means to serve in combat. He is uniquely qualified for the Oval Office and will be a president that makes America stronger at home and more respected in the world." - Clinton didn't even serve - but he was qualified to for the Oval Office?

08-04-04, 08:43 AM
ELECTION 2004 <br />
Kerry's wounds <br />
self-inflicted? <br />
More blockbuster charges leaked from new book by Vietnam comrades <br />
<br />

08-04-04, 09:26 AM
George Washington Va. 30 Apr 1789 4 Mar 1797 Virginia Militia 1754-58; on General Braddock's staff in 1755; appointed C-in-C of armed forces of the Co 1783; commissioned Lt Gen and appointed to...

08-04-04, 09:38 AM
I think it makes little difference.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was one of the greatest wartime Presidents. Never Served.

Dwight D. Eisenhower was a 5 star Army general. He wanted to disband the Marine Corps and fought real hard to do so. If it wasn't for former Marines in congress, he would have succeeded.

John F. Kennedy was one of the worst presidents by conservative standards. He was a squid in WWII.

Richard Nixon was one of the worst presidents by liberal standards. He was a squid in WWII.

Jimmy Carter was THE worst president in history. He was was a squid and did nothing. He was a president and did nothing.

Ronald Reagan was one of the best presidents by conservative standards and he only acted in Army training films.

Bill Clinton was one of the best presidents by liberal standards and he never served.

08-04-04, 12:09 PM
Enviro, I agree, I don't think that it makes much of a difference; however, I find it a little hypocritical that the Dems are saying that Kerry's military record, specifically his combat service in Nam make him a better choice then GW Bush because he only served in the Air National Guard and did not serve in combat. While at the same time they are saying what a great president Clinton was and he never served. Either it makes a difference or it doesn't, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. If it is your opinion that combat experience makes you better suited for the presidency then someone who has never seen combat, then it should apply across the board.

08-04-04, 08:06 PM
Human Events Exclusive:
Vietnam Vets Organization Blasts Kerry in New TV Ad

HUMAN EVENTS has obtained a copy of a scorching new television advertisement addressing Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's record in Vietnam that has been produced by Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth. The group is a non-partisan "527" organization whose membership is limited to former military officers and enlisted men who served in Vietnam on Navy Swift Boats or affiliated commands. The group says, "Senator Kerry misrepresented his own actions and those of his fellow officers and men." Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is chaired by Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, USN (ret), and includes on its steering committee John O'Neill,...



08-04-04, 09:38 PM

08-05-04, 08:11 AM
Kevin McCullough
Radio Talk Show Host, Syndicated Columnist, and past recipient of the Tesla and Marconi Awards

Wednesday, August 4, 2004

KMC EXCLUSIVE: Kerry was asked to leave Vietnam

MEDIA MAY REPRODUCE AUDIO WITHOUT PERMISSION - PLEASE CREDIT: "The Kevin McCullough Show - Salem Communications/New York"


~5:40pm~ EST
HEAR THE ACTUAL AUDIO: Lt. Thomas Wright admitted to me on the air today several exclusive and revealing looks at the Vietnam service of John Kerry.

Wright's first claim was that as his former commanding offcier, Wright frequently had to confront Kerry over willful disobedience to orders aboard Swift Boat patrols.

On frequent occasions Wright stated that Kerry would randomly fire at "things he thought were moving" along the shoreline. Wright stated that the protocol was only to fire when the unit was receiving hostile fire. Wright explained that part of the Swift Boat patrol's goal was to develop contacts with non-combatants living along the rivers being patrolled.

Wright pointed out that firing on the people you were meant to develop contacts with generally worked against the goals.

Wright also points out that when confronted about his defiance of patrol rules, Kerry would make claims of not hearing the orders, knowing the protocols or "thinking that he saw something".

Wright's boldest claim was that after Kerry had in fact received his third purple heart, Wright along with two other ranking officers basically flat out asked Kerry to leave Vietnam. The reason being his behavior continually put the group in greater vulnerability and danger.

According to Wright, Kerry claimed he would not leave, "but was out of there by morning."



08-05-04, 08:12 AM
With pals like Dean, Kerry's in trouble
By Boston Herald editorial staff
Tuesday, August 3, 2004

We have one question for Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry: Why is Howard Dean [related, bio] still associated with your campaign?

Dean's comments over the weekend, insinuating that the Bush administration was playing politics with the latest terror threat, should not only be harshly criticized by Kerry, it's reason enough to demand Dean stop campaigning for the Kerry/Edwards ticket.

``How much of this is real and how much of this is politics?'' Dean said on CNN Sunday. ``Every time something happens that's not good for President Bush [related, bio] he plays his trump card, which is terrorism.''

Dean didn't bother to reconcile his vile accusation with the fact that senior intelligence officials have said much of the detail of the planned attacks on financial centers had been gathered in ``the past 36 hours.''

``There may be more to come,'' according to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. But officials decided, ``We better get out with what we know now.''

And why would that be? To step on a purported post-convention bounce for Kerry? How blinded by partisan cynicism can Howard Dean be?

The information outlined by federal officials Sunday included these security specifics about the New York Stock Exchange, CitiGroup Center, Prudential Financial, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund: Security camera placement, pedestrian traffic, structural features that might ``prevent the buildings from toppling down,'' and the degree of incline of entrances to underground garages.

The level of detail is chilling to the bone. It would have been a total dereliction of duty for federal officials not to share that information immediately.

Sen. Joe Lieberman said, ``I don't think anybody who is in their right mind would think the president or the secretary of homeland security would raise an alert level and scare people for political purposes. That's outrageous.''

Howard Dean is a fool and worse, he's a dangerous fool. Fortunately, Democratic primary voters saw that. Doesn't the man who touted his own judgment and experience at the Democratic National Convention last week see it, too? We've yet to hear a peep out of John Kerry [related, bio] denouncing Dean's comments. And that, too, is outrageous.



08-05-04, 11:27 AM
<br />
<br />
Slaughters Animals, Burns Down Tiny Village <br />
<br />
**Exclusive** <br />
<br />
A veterans...

08-05-04, 02:38 PM
Challenging Kerry on his Iraq vote
By Scott Ritter | August 5, 2004

WITH THE release last month of the report by the Senate Select Committee on intelligence and Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, John Kerry was handed a gift that rarely occurs in a major political race: the chance to underscore a major failing on the part of an opponent. The committee found that there was no intelligence data to sustain President Bush's oft-cited reason for last year's invasion of Iraq -- the presence of WMDs and ongoing projects dedicated to their manufacture. Kerry said that the Bush administration had been "wrong, and soldiers lost their lives because they were wrong."

But Kerry failed to address that he was also wrong and that it was his leadership in the Senate that enabled President Bush to oversee the most flagrant abrogation of congressional constitutional responsibilities in modern time, the October 2002 vote to give Bush power to wage war against Iraq without assuring that there was a clear and present threat to the United States. It is Kerry's yes vote that calls into question the character of the man who wants to replace Bush in the White House.

When asked if he would agree with other Democratic senators who said they would not have voted to give Bush war powers authority if they had known about the lack of intelligence on WMD, Kerry let his vice presidential nominee, Senator John Edwards, speak for him: "I'm not going to go back and answer hypothetical questions about what I would have done had I known this." Kerry concurred with Edwards, adding, "The vote is not today, and that's it."

More than 900 American troops in Iraq are dead and more than 5,000 wounded as a result of that vote, numbers that are sure to go higher. Kerry cannot honestly say he was not aware of the paucity of verifiable intelligence concerning the existence of WMD in Iraq on the eve of war. I personally discussed this matter with Kerry in April 2000 and again with his senior staff in June 2002. I asked Kerry to allow me to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during its hearing on Iraq in July-August 2002 but was denied. Kerry knew that there was a viable case to be made to debunk the president's statements regarding the threat posed by Iraq's WMD, but he chose not to act on it.

As a lifelong Republican who voted for Bush, I have made it my personal goal to make sure that he does not survive his first term because of his decision to go to war with Iraq without any legitimate justification. However, I believe there are many people, especially disenchanted Republicans like myself, who even though we reject Bush are looking for a good reason to vote for Kerry. Bush's elective war with Iraq provides that reason, if only Kerry could find a way to separate himself from the Bush record that does not insult the intellect and integrity of the electorate.

Kerry claims he voted for the war resolution to give Bush the support needed to win over much-needed international support to confront Saddam. According to Kerry, Bush failed to do this. "With a new president," Kerry pronounced during his acceptance speech last week at the Democratic National Convention, "who strengthens and leads our alliances, we can get NATO to help secure Iraq. We can ensure that Iraq's neighbors like Syria and Iran, don't stand in the way of a democratic Iraq. We can help Iraq's economy by getting other countries to forgive their enormous debt and participate in the reconstruction."

However, a prerequisite for getting such support rests on the legitimacy of the conflict with Iraq. This legitimacy hinged on Saddam's possession of WMDs in violation of Security Council resolutions, a notion that has been totally discredited. Kerry can quibble about the hypothetical nature of looking back on his decision to vote for war, but one must question how Kerry plans to enlist support for a war that not only has been proven to be without justification but violates the very principles of international law one presumes would serve as the rallying cry for garnering international support to begin with.

Kerry needs to publicly reexamine the reasoning for his vote for war and articulate a clear strategy for Iraq that includes not only a plan for reengagement with the international community but also disengagement of American soldiers.

These are real issues that must be addressed directly if Kerry plans on winning the votes of the many Republicans who have been put off by the disingenuous nature of Bush's war in Iraq. To brush them off as hypothetical puts Kerry on the same hypocritical plane as President Bush when it comes to Iraq, something that will not endear him to the legions of crossover voters he needs to win the presidency.

Scott Ritter, former UN weapons inspector in Iraq, is author of "Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America."

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.



08-06-04, 06:54 AM
Four months in Vietnam won't cut it
Ben Shapiro

John Kerry served in Vietnam.

And I couldn't care less.

I was born in 1984, over eight years after the end of the Vietnam War. The fact that John Kerry served in the Navy on a swift boat for four months means little to me, beyond the fact that I'm grateful for the service of any veteran -- even if that service was clearly an excuse to bulk up a resume.

John Kerry was anti-war before he ever set foot in Vietnam, so the idea that he became pacifistic only after seeing the horrors of war is baloney. In 1966, two years before Kerry entered the Gulf of Tonkin, he told his graduating class at Yale that "The United States must, I think, bring itself to understand that the policy of intervention that was right for Western Europe does not and cannot find the same application to the rest of the world."

In any case, I'm far more concerned with John Kerry's record since he got back to the United States. His record starts with stabbing in the back American soldiers who were still under fire. In 1971, he told Congress that American military members "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, (blew) 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 ... "

Hilariously, Kerry has attempted to build his 2004 presidential campaign on the idea that he was a famous war hero. Kerry infamously intoned upon reaching the stage at the Democratic National Convention: "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty." In his nomination acceptance speech, Kerry referred to his Vietnam service no fewer than eight times. He didn't refer to his 1971 testimony before Congress once.

But the fact remains that had Kerry not defamed American troops, he would be an obscure war veteran, not a presidential candidate. To ignore this essential element of Kerry's history is to overlook his opportunism. If experiencing enemy fire makes you a better president, being a selfish mercenary surely makes you a worse one.

Despite his encouragement to judge him by his record, during his acceptance speech, Kerry completely overlooked his tenure as Massachusetts lieutenant governor under Michael Dukakis. He explicitly mentioned his Senate service a grand total of one time and even then only mentioned three policies he pursued. This is a man obviously attempting to escape his record -- which is why he can only point to his four months of service in Vietnam.

Kerry believes Americans are children who will accept platitudes over substance, who will overlook 30 years of radical liberalism in favor of four months in Vietnam. We are not. Whether "help is on the way" or whether Kerry is campaigning for "a stronger America," Americans want real policy solutions, not tired one-liners. And merely hearkening back to Vietnam, when candidate Kerry led men into combat -- men whom he would later slander -- won't do the trick. Those voters within my general age range especially refuse to look back years before our births to find the last recorded example of Kerry's honorability.

It's much easier and much more accurate to examine Kerry's actions in the past few years. In fact, let's simply scrutinize the key point in Kerry's acceptance speech: "I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to."

The idea that elective war must be denounced is absurd. Yet Kerry reiterated this ridiculous idea, stating: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response."

Apparently, Kerry believes that only a direct attack on the United States justifies war, which would invalidate every major American military action since 1900 aside from World War II in the Pacific sphere and the Afghanistan war. In John Kerry's world, Americans have to die in Los Angeles or New York or Chicago or Washington, D.C., before the American military can defang the monster.

That solution is unacceptable. John Kerry can talk all he likes about avoiding military engagements around the world. But fighting abroad is certainly a better solution than watching as more American buildings become smoking rubble -- or standing by as millions die from the effects of a biological or dirty-bomb attack. No amount of posturing about service in Vietnam can justify Kerry's lack of a pre-emptive strategy. And I'm not willing to risk that a President John Kerry would prevent such an attack, just because he spent four months on a swift boat.



08-06-04, 10:07 AM
Any Questions?

John Edwards: "If you have any question about what John Kerry is made of, just spend 3 minutes with the men who served with him."

Al French: "I served with John Kerry."

Bob Elder: "I served with John Kerry."

George Elliott: "John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam."

Al French: "He is lying about his record."

Louis Letson: "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury."

Van O'Dell: "John Kerry lied to get his bronze star ... I know, I was there, I saw what happened."

Jack Chenoweth: "His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day."

Admiral Hoffman: "John Kerry has not been honest."

Adrian Lonsdale: "And he lacks the capacity to lead."

Larry Thurlow: "When the chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry."

Bob Elder: "John Kerry is no war hero."

Grant Hibbard: "He betrayed all his shipmates ... he lied before the Senate."

Shelton White: "John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam."

Joe Ponder: "He dishonored his country ... he most certainly did."

Bob Hildreth: "I served with John Kerry ...

Bob Hildreth (off-camera): John Kerry cannot be trusted."

Announcer: "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is responsible for the content of this advertisement."



08-06-04, 10:09 AM
"Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry"

"Many took exception to the Purple Hearts awarded to Kerry. His `wounds' were suspect, so insignificant as to not be worthy of the award of such a medal. That Kerry would seek the Purple Heart for such `wounds' is a mockery of the intent of the Purple Heart and an abridgement of the valor of those to whom the Purple Heart had been awarded with justification." --- WILLIAM FRANKE, Swift Boat veteran

A normal tour of duty in Vietnam was at least one year for all personnel. Many sailors, like Tom Wright (who would later object to operating with Kerry in Vietnam) and Steven Gardner (the gunner's mate who sat behind and above Kerry for most of his Vietnam stay and came to regard him as incompetent and dishonest), stayed for longer periods either because of the special needs of the Navy or because they had volunteered to do so. With very few exceptions in the history of Swift Boats in Vietnam, everyone served a one-year tour unless he was seriously wounded. One exception was John Kerry, who requested to leave Vietnam after four months, citing an obscure regulation that permitted release of personnel with three Purple Hearts. John Kerry is also the only known Swiftee who received the Purple Heart for a self-inflicted wound.

None of Kerry's Purple Hearts were for serious injuries. They were concededly minor scratches at best, resulting in no lost duty time. Each Purple Heart decoration is very controversial, with considerable evidence (and in two of the cases, with incontrovertible and conclusive evidence) that the minor injuries were caused by Kerry's own hand and were not the result of hostile fire of any kind. They are a subject of ridicule within our unit. "I did get cut a few times, but I forgot to recommend myself for a Purple Heart. Sorry about that," wrote John Howland, a boat commander with call sign "Gremlin."1

Moreover, many Swiftees have now come forth to question Kerry's deception. "I was there the entire time Kerry was and witnessed two of his war `wounds.' I was also present during the action [in which] he received his Bronze Star. I know what a fraud he is. How can I help?" wrote Van Odell, a gunner from Kerry's unit in An Thoi.2 Commander John Kipp, USN (retired), of Coastal Division 13 also volunteered, "If there is anything I can do to unmask this charlatan, please let me know. He brings disgrace to all who served."

Swiftees have remarked that, if Kerry faked even one of these awards, he owes the Navy 243 additional days in Vietnam before he runs for anything. In a unit where terribly wounded personnel like Shelton White (now an undersea film producer who records specials for National Geographic) chose to return to duty after three wounds on the same day, Kerry's actions were disgraceful. Indeed, many share the feelings of Admiral Roy Hoffmann, to whom all Swiftees reported: Kerry simply "bugged out" when the heat was on.

For military personnel no medal or award (with the exception of the Congressional Medal of Honor) holds the significance of the Purple Heart. John O'Neill remembers witnessing, as a five-year-old child, the presentation of the Purple Heart to his widowed aunt, standing with her five children, at a memorial service for his uncle, a fighter pilot lost in Korea. Many remember the Purple Heart pinned on the pillows of the badly wounded in military hospitals throughout the world during America's wars in defense of freedom. For this reason, there were those in Coastal Division 11 who turned down Purple Hearts because, when the medals were offered, these honorable men felt they did not really deserve them. Veteran Gary Townsend wrote, "I was on PCF 3 [from] 1969 to 1970...I also turned down a Purple Heart award (which required seven stitches) offered to me while in Nam because I thought a little cut was insignificant as to what others had suffered to get theirs."3

To cheat by getting a Purple Heart from a self-inflicted wound would be regarded as befitting the lowest levels of military conduct. To use such a faked award to leave a combat sector early would be lower yet. Finally, to make or use faked awards as the basis for running for president of the United States, while faulting one's political opponents for not having similar military decorations, would represent unbelievable hypocrisy and the truly bottom rung of human conduct. Anyone engaging in such conduct would be unfit for even the lowest rank in the Navy, to say nothing of the commander in chief.

The Purple Heart Adventure in the Boston Whaler


John Kerry's website presents his first Purple Heart incident in typical heroic fashion: "December 2, 1968--Kerry experiences first intense combat; receives first combat related injury."4

As Kerry described the situation to Brinkley, who recounts the event in Tour of Duty, he grew bored in his first two weeks in Vietnam while awaiting the assignment of his own boat. So he volunteered for a "special mission" on a boat the Navy calls a skimmer but which Kerry knew as a "Boston whaler." The craft was a foam-filled boat, not a PCF Swift Boat. Kerry and two enlisted men were patrolling that night, as Kerry described it, "the shore off a Viet Cong*infested peninsula north of Cam Ranh." Kerry claims that he and his two crew members spent the night being "scared ****less," creeping up in the darkness on fishermen in sampans. They feared that the fishermen in sampans with no lights might be Viet Cong. According to Kerry, the action started early in the morning, around 2 or 3 a.m., when it was still dark. Here are Kerry's words, quoted by Brinkley:

The jungle closed in on us on both sides. It was scary as hell. You could hear yourself breathing. We were almost touching the shore. Suddenly, through the magnified moonlight of the infrared "starlight scope," I watched, mesmerized, as a group of sampans glided in toward the shore. We had been briefed that this was a favorite crossing area for VC trafficking contraband.5

Kerry reports that he turned off the motor and paddled the Boston Whaler out of the inlet into the bay. Then he saw the Vietnamese pull their sampans onto the beach; they began to unload something. Kerry decided to light a flare to illuminate the area. The entire sky seemed to explode into daylight. The men from the sampans bolted erect, stiff with shock for only an instant before they sprang for cover like a herd of panicked gazelles [Kerry] had once seen on TV's "Wild Kingdom." We opened fire...The light from the flares started to fade, the air was full of explosions. My M-16 jammed, and as I bent down in the boat to grab another gun, a stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell. By this time one of the sailors had started the engine and we ran by the beach, strafing it. Then it was quiet.6

That was the entire action. As Kerry explained to Brinkley, he was not about to go chasing after the Vietnamese running away. "We stayed quiet and low because we did not want to illuminate ourselves at this point," Kerry explains.

In the dead of night, without any knowledge of what kind of force was there, we were not all about to go crawling on the beach to get our asses shot off. We were unprotected; we didn't have ammunition; we didn't have cover; we just weren't prepared for that....So we first shot the sampans so that they were destroyed and whatever was in them was destroyed.7

In the introduction of the incident in the book, Kerry said that it "was a half-assed action that hardly qualified as combat, but it was my first, and that made it exciting." Kerry and his crew loaded their gear in the Swift Boat that was there to cover them, and with the Boston Whaler in tow, they headed back to Cam Ranh Bay. Brinkley ends his discussion by quoting Kerry's summary, an account that again paints a larger-than-life picture:

"I felt terribly seasoned after this minor skirmish, but since I couldn't put my finger on what we had really accomplished or on what had happened, it was difficult to feel satisfied," Kerry recalled. "I never saw where the piece of shrapnel had come from, and the vision of the men running like gazelles haunted me. It seemed stupid. My gunner didn't know where the people were when he first started firing. The M-16 bullets had kicked up the sand way to the right of them as he sprayed the beach, slowly walking the line of fire over to where the men had been leaping for cover. I had been shouting directions and trying to unjam my gun. The third crewman was locked in a personal struggle with the engine, trying to start it. I just shook my head and said, `Jesus Christ.' It made me wonder if a year of training was worth anything." Nevertheless, the episode introduced Kerry to combat with the VC and earned him a Purple Heart.8


A somewhat different version is recounted in the Kerry biography written by the Boston Globe reporters. In this account, Kerry had emphasized that he was patrolling with the Boston Whaler in a free-fire curfew zone, and that "anyone violating the curfew could be considered an enemy and shot."9


08-06-04, 10:10 AM
By the time the Globe biography was written, questions had been raised about whether the incident involved any enemy fire at all. The Globe reporters covered this point as follows:

The Kerry campaign showed the Boston Globe a one-page document listing Kerry's medical treatment during some of his service time. The notation said: "3 DEC 1968 U.S. NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY CAM RANH BAY RVN FPO Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and apply Bacitracin dressing. Ret to duty."

The Globe asked the campaign whether Kerry was certain that he received enemy fire and whether Kerry remembers the Purple Heart being questioned by a superior officer. The campaign did not respond to those specific questions and, instead, provided a written statement about the fact that the Navy did find the action worthy of a Purple Heart.10

The two men serving alongside Kerry that night had similar memories of the incident that led to Kerry's first wartime injury. William Zaldonis, who was manning an M-60, and Patrick Runyon, operating the engine, said they spotted some people running from a sampan to a nearby shoreline. When they refused to obey a call to stop, Kerry's crew began shooting. "When John told me to open up, I opened up," Zaldonis recalled. Zaldonis and Runyon both said they were too busy to notice how Kerry was hit. "I assume they fired back," Zaldonis said. "If you can picture me holding an M-60 machine gun and firing it--what do I see? Nothing. If they were firing at us, it was hard for me to tell."

Runyon, too, said that he assumed the suspected Viet Cong fired back because Kerry was hit by a piece of shrapnel. "When you have a lot of shooting going on, a lot of noise, you are scared, the adrenaline is up," Runyon said. "I can't say for sure that we got return fire or how [Kerry] got nicked. I couldn't say one way or the other. I know he did get nicked, a scrape on the arm."11

In a separate conversation, Runyon related that he never knew Kerry was wounded. So even in the Globe biography accounting, it was not clear that there was any enemy fire, just a question about how Kerry might have been hit with shrapnel.

The Globe reporters noted that, upon the group's return to base, Kerry's commander, Grant Hibbard, was very skeptical about the injury. The Globe account also quoted William Schachte, the officer in command for the operation. As the Globe reporters recount, Another person involved that day was William Schachte, who over-saw the mission and went on to become an admiral. In 2003, Schachte responded: `It was not a very serious wound at all.'12

Still, on Sunday, April 18, 2004, when NBC correspondent Tim Russert questioned Kerry on national television about the skimmer incident, Kerry described the incident as "the most frightening night" of his Vietnam experience. The Globe reporters noted that Kerry had declined to be interviewed about the Boston Whaler incident for their book. Kerry's refusal to be interviewed may well have been because witnesses such as Commander Hibbard, Dr. Louis Letson, Rear Admiral William Schachte, and others had begun to surface, and Kerry's fabricated story of "the most frightening night" had begun to unravel.


The truth is that at the time of this incident Kerry was an officer in command (OinC) under training, aboard the skimmer using the call sign "Robin" on the operation, with now-Rear Admiral William Schachte using the call sign "Batman," who was also on the skimmer.

After Kerry's M-16 jammed, Kerry picked up an M-79 grenade launcher and fired a grenade too close, causing a tiny piece of shrapnel (one to two centimeters) to barely stick in his arm. Schachte berated Kerry for almost putting someone's eye out. There was no hostile fire of any kind, nor did Kerry on the way back mention to PCF OinC Mike Voss, who commanded the PCF that had towed the skimmer, that he was wounded. There was no report of any hostile fire that day (as would be required), nor do the records at Cam Ranh Bay reveal any such hostile fire. No other records reflect any hostile fire. There is also no casualty report, as would have been required had there actually been a casualty.

Following "the most frightening night" of his life, to the surprise of both Schachte and the treating doctor, Louis Letson, Kerry managed to keep the tiny hanging fragment barely embedded in his arm until he arrived at sickbay a number of miles away and a considerable time later, where he was examined by Dr. Letson. Dr. Letson, who has never forgotten the experience, reported it to his Democratic county chairman early in the 2004 primary campaign. When Kerry appeared at sickbay, Dr. Letson asked, "Why are you here?" in surprise, observing Kerry's unimpressive scratch. Kerry answered, "I've been wounded by hostile fire." Accompanying crewmen then told Dr. Letson that Kerry had wounded himself. Dr. Letson used tweezers to remove the tiny fragment, which he identified as shrapnel like that from an M-79 (not from a rifle bullet, etc.), and put a small bandage on Kerry's arm.

The following morning Kerry appeared at the office of Coastal Division 14 Commander Grant Hibbard and applied for the Purple Heart. Hibbard, who had learned from Schachte of the absence of hostile fire and self-infliction of the "wound" by Kerry himself, looked down at the tiny scratch (which he said was smaller than a rose thorn prick) and turned down the award since there was no hostile fire.13

When we interviewed Grant Hibbard for this book, he was equally emphatic that Kerry's slight injury, in his opinion, could not possibly merit the Purple Heart:

Q: When did you first meet John Kerry?

GH: Kerry reported to my division in November 1968. I didn't know him from Adam.

Q: Can you describe the mission in which Kerry got his first Purple Heart?

GH: Kerry requested permission to go on a skimmer operation with Lieutenant Schachte, my most senior and trusted lieutenant, using a Boston Whaler to try to interdict a Viet Cong movement of arms and munitions. The next morning at the briefing, I was informed that no enemy fire had been received on that mission. Our units had fired on some VC units running on the beach. We were all in my office, some of the crew members, I remember Schachte being there. This was thirty-six years ago; it really didn't seem all that important at the time. Here was this lieutenant, junior grade, who was saying "I got wounded," and everybody else, the crew that were present were saying, "We didn't get any fire. We don't know how he got the scratch." Kerry showed me the scratch on his arm. I hadn't been informed that he had any medical treatment. The scratch didn't look like much to me; I've seen worse injuries from a rose thorn.

Q: Did Kerry want you to recommend him for a Purple Heart?

GH: Yes, that was his whole point. He had this little piece of shrapnel in his hand. It was tiny. I was told later that Kerry had fired an M-79 grenade and that he had misjudged it. He fired it too close to the shore, and it exploded on a rock or something. He got hit by a piece of shrapnel from a grenade that he had fired himself. The injury was self-inflicted, that's what made sense to me. I told Kerry to "forget it." There was no hostile fire, the injury was self-inflicted for all I knew, besides it was nothing really more than a scratch. Kerry wasn't getting any Purple Heart recommendation from me.

Q: How did Kerry get a Purple Heart from the incident then?

GH: I don't know. It beats me. I know I didn't recommend him for a Purple Heart. Kerry probably wrote up the paperwork and recommended himself, that's all I can figure out. If it ever came across my desk, I don't have any recollection of it. Kerry didn't get my signature. I said "no way" and told him to get out of my office.14

Amazingly, Kerry somehow "gamed the system" nearly three months later to obtain the Purple Heart that Hibbard had denied. How he obtained the award is unknown, since his refusal to execute Standard Form 180 means that whatever documents exist are known only to Kerry, the Department of Defense, and God. It is clear that there should be numerous other documents, but only a treatment record reflecting a scratch and a certificate signed three months later have been produced. There is, of course, no "after-action" hostile fire or casualty report, as occurred in the case of every other instance of hostile fire or casualty. This is because there was no hostile fire, casualty, or action on this "most frightening night" of Kerry's Vietnam experience. Dr. Louis Letson agreed with Grant Hibbard. Kerry's injury was minor and probably self-inflicted:

The incident that occasioned my meeting with Lieutenant Kerry began while he was patrolling the coast at night just north of Cam Ranh Bay where I was the only medical officer for a small support base. Kerry returned from that night on patrol with an injury.

Kerry reported that he had observed suspicious activity on shore and fired a flare to illuminate the area. According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a firefight, receiving small arms fire
from on shore. He said that his injury resulted from this enemy action.

The story he told was different from what his crewmen had to say about that night. Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a grenade round at close range to the shore. The crewman who related this story thought that the injury was from a fragment of the grenade shell that had ricocheted back from the rocks. That seemed to fit the injury I treated.


08-06-04, 10:10 AM
What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about one centimeter in length and was about two or three millimeters in...

08-06-04, 10:11 AM
Kerry vigorously protested being transferred to An Thoi, arguing that he had volunteered only for coastal patrol and not for the far more hazardous duty of missions within the inland waterways....

08-06-04, 07:45 PM
John Kerry And The Unasked/Unanswered Questions

August 6 , 2004

by Thomas D. Segel

Though never even being close to entering the John Kerry camp, as a writer I have followed this presidential race with great interest. What I have found most perplexing is the Senator has built his entire race around his four month tour of duty in Vietnam. This is the same service he later decried as an anti-war protester, an activity he now fails to mention in his public addresses.

Many questions have arisen about his valor in combat, but though they fester below the surface, I have yet to hear or read any of these questions being brought up to the candidate by members of the combined electronic and print media.

Having an Internet reader list of several hundred retired military, veterans and reservists, I sent out a note, requesting their input. I asked them if, in their military experience they knew of anyone who had been awarded three Purple Hearts for minor wounds in less than three months, then sent home? I asked if anyone had ever heard of a Silver Star being awarded to someone who shot a wounded enemy soldier running away from the action? Finally, I asked if anyone knew of, or had seen anyone taking home-movies of their combat action or attempting to recreate that action on film, after the fact? The answers I received were not all on topic, but all were most interesting.

One of the first to respond was Major Norm Hatch, a combat photographer in WWII and a Life Member of the United States Marine Corps Combat Correspondents Association. Speaking on the side of caution, he reminded me thatŠ "Someone in the Navy's medical command had to certify the wounds to enable him to receive Purple Hearts, not the least of this being a navy medical report on the treatment received."

The best answer to that particular statement comes from Lieutenant Commander Lewis Letson who was a medical officer serving with the Swift Boats. Says the Commander; "I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart, because I treated him for that injury."

Major Hatch also posed this question, "Don't you think that the crew members who supported John Kerry during the convention could have knocked down any of the allegations that keep flying around? I question that they would put their integrity on the line just to walk out on the stage that night."

First, it should be noted these former service personnel came on stage, but did not speak. So, perhaps other Swift Boat veterans who knew and served with the candidate can best clarify Swift Boat veterans support for the candidate.

Former Swift Boat officer Lieutenant (jg) Jack Chenoweth says, "His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day."

Gunners Mate Van O'Dell was with Kerry during one action. "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star. I know. I was there and I saw what happened." Another Swift Boat officer is Lieutenant Commander George Elliott who claims, "John Kerry has not been truthful about what happened in Vietnam". He is echoed by former Ensign Al French who bluntly says, "John Kerry is lying about his record."

Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, who was there among the Swift Boaters, further reinforces these comments. The admiral holds both the Distinguished Service Medal and the Silver Star. He says, "John Kerry has not been honest about Vietnam."

Commander Adrian Lansdale, who received both the Legion of Merit and the Bronze Star, says of John Kerry, "He lacks the capacity to lead".

The final Swift Boat officer to comment was Lieutenant (jg) Larry Trudow, who said, "When the chips were down you could not count on John Kerry." Gunners Mate Overly Hackled completed 202 missions with River Division 594 on the Vam Co Tay and Van Co Dong rivers. His boat worked with SEAL teams and performed special operations, along with running regular patrols and setting up ambushes on the rivers. He says, "I never saw anyone get 3 Purple Hearts in four months, not that it couldn't happen. And if you got three you'd be one lucky SOB not to get hurt worse than Kerry did. I never saw anyone get a Silver Star for what he reportedly did and I never saw anyone with a home movie camera. Sure as hell nobody was taking pictures of anything during a real firefight. The boat Captain would be driving the boat and all hands would be putting down suppressive fire and would have had no time or business filming anything. Your job was to survive, kill the other guys before they killed you."

The Gunners Mate concluded saying "I honestly think the whole Kerry drill was a plan he had from day one to get 3 Purple hearts, come hone a hero and become the next JFK. When he got home he found no one was interested in a Vietnam War hero, so he became an anti-war hero."

Retired Marine Colonel Tom Hobbs had stronger words to describe the Kerry Swift Boat saga. "If it looks like a rat, smells like a rat, it's most likely a rat. With three Purple Hearts in such a short time, I'm glad we weren't in the same company in Vietnam. He must attract the enemy. If memory serves, one criterion for a Purple Heart was evacuation from the unit for 24 hours. If a corpsman patched you up and sent you back to duty, no Purple HeartŠjust a combat experience. If Kerry's integrity was breached at such an early age, I wonder if that is why he is so flip-flop today?"

Jay Adams served in both the Air Force and the Marine Corps, retiring as a Master Sergeant. He wonders if the Senator's awards don't add up to "Quite a number of decorations for a short four month tour." He also feels that the truth has been covered up. He thinks the political elite in partnership with those who report the news orchestrated the cover-up. "Even if such a cover-up came to light", he says, "The mainstream media would never publicize it."

As of this writing, 123 retired and former service personnel responded to my questions. Of that number four were neutral in their remarks. Three, including a retired Woman Marine, were admitted Kerry supporters and felt he should be given the benefit of the doubt. All the remaining veterans had strong reservations about the Kerry candidacy. Since military comments are still being received, this topic may warrant a follow-up.

One person who is very clear in his thinking about the upcoming presidential election is retired Air Force Colonel George "Bud" Day. He says, "The Kerry Vietnam anti-war movement directly encouraged the vicious torture I received as a POW in the Hanoi Hilton, was demoralizing for other POW's and their families, and provided aid and comfort for North Vietnam to continue the war.

"I can think of no action more despicable than false public condemnation of warriors on the field of battle, as John Kerry made under oath.

"Senator Kerry is unfit to become President and our Commander in Chief."

Colonel Day, an Air Force pilot, former POW and war hero, is the recipient of the Medal of Honor.

Thomas D. Segel



08-07-04, 07:08 AM

Printer-friendly version
Kerry is AWOL from Iraq...
Mark Alexander (back to web version) | Send

August 6, 2004

"I will be a commander-in-chief who will never mislead us into war," claims John Kerry, with a none-too-subtle implication that President George W. Bush lied about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

On that note, we decided to take a look at the historical record. Indeed, we wanted to know precisely what the senator from Massachusetts had been saying all along about the Butcher of Baghdad. Lo and behold, we found that Kerry makes a compelling argument in support of President's Bush's actions to free the Iraqi people -- and the world -- from Saddam's terror.

Back in 1991, Kerry voted against the use of force in removing Iraq from neighboring Kuwait (S. J. Res. 2), later explaining that he only "voted against the timing of it. I said very clearly in my statement on the Senate floor that I was committed to getting Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait...and that I was prepared to go to war if it took that...."

Regarding Bill Clinton's attacks on Iraqi targets, Kerry said in 1997, "So clearly the allies may not like it...where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity?"

A year later, after additional bombing, Kerry said, "We have to be prepared to go the full distance, which is to do everything possible to disrupt [Saddam's] regime and to encourage the forces of democracy. ... [H]e can rebuild both chemical and biological. And every indication is, because of his deception and duplicity in the past, he will seek to do that. So we will not eliminate the problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing attack. ... I believe that in the post-Cold War period this issue of proliferation, particularly in the hands of Saddam Hussein, is critical."

Three months after the 9/11 attack on our countrymen by state-supported Jihadi terrorists, Kerry argued, "Saddam is one who is and has acted like a terrorist. ... For instance, Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction against his own people. ... He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities that are unacceptable."

Reiterating his position on Saddam prior to 9/11, Kerry said, "[I] think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I've said that for a number of years. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off of the inspections...." He then added, "I think we need to put the pressure on, no matter what the evidence is about September 11."

Regarding Afghanistan and Iraq, Kerry said, "I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue [to combat terrorism], for instance, Saddam Hussein."

Regarding diplomatic solutions and the Bush administration's efforts to get the UN to enforce the Security Council's unanimous mandates on Iraqi arms, Kerry said, in May of 2002, "[Saddam is] buying time and playing a game, in my judgment. Do we have to go through that process? The answer is yes. We're precisely doing that. And I think that's what Colin Powell did today."

In July of 2002, Kerry told the Democrat Leadership Council, "I agree completely with this Administration's goal of a regime change in Iraq.... Saddam Hussein is a renegade and outlaw who turned his back on the tough conditions of his surrender put in place by the United Nations in 1991."

That's "completely," fellow Patriots.

A month later in a New York Times op-ed, Kerry asserted, "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."

That's even if it's "mostly at the hands of the United States."

In September of 2002, a year after 9/11, Kerry said: "It is imperative that we issue an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein, and that would require immediate and full compliance, and if Hussein doesn't comply, the United States must be prepared to go in and...if need be, largely alone remove Saddam Hussein from power. There is also no question that Saddam Hussein continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and his success can threaten both our interests in the region and our security at home. ...[Saddam] may even miscalculate and slide these [WMD] off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. It's the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat."

A few days later, he told MSNBC, "The president...always reserves the right to act unilaterally to protect the interests of our country." On 11 October 2002, Kerry voted for the Iraq War Resolution (H.J. Res. 114).

That's "unilaterally."

In May of 2003, Kerry defended that vote, saying, "I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." But when Howard Dean turned up the heat with his anti-war message, Kerry began to waffle. Announcing his candidacy, Kerry's support for regime change morphed into, "I voted to threaten the use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the resolutions of the United Nations."

Notice the head of the pin on which Kerry is now attempting to dance. He's claiming that he only "voted to threaten the use of force." In other words, he's now insisting that he only voted to deliver a hollow threat. Not exactly a profile in courage, eh?

As the Demo-primary season approached, Kerry began to hone his newfound opposition to the removal of Saddam: "They rushed to war. They were intent on going to war."

When it came time to provide supplemental appropriations for our troops in Iraq, Kerry (who planned to run his campaign on his veteran status) claimed, "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible. I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job."

But on 17 October 2003, Kerry abandoned our troops, voting against S. 1689, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan Security and Reconstruction. Thus, he put pure political expedience ahead of his obligation to arm and equip our fighting forces -- specifically those fighting forces currently standing in harm's way.

In January of this year, when asked if he was "one of the anti-war candidates," Kerry answered firmly, "I am -- yeah." After announcing his running mate in March, he said of John Edwards, "I'm proud to say that John joined me in voting against that $87 billion...."

Got that? He's actually "proud" of having stiffed our troops.

Last month, when asked by CBS if his vote for the removal of Saddam was a mistake (which, politically, it clearly was), Kerry fumbled his answer: "What -- what -- what I voted for, you -- you -- you see, you're playing here. What -- what I voted for was a -- 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." When pressed for a direct answer to the question, Kerry responded curtly, "I think I answered your question."

When asked why he "voted for the war, but didn't vote for the money to finance the war," Kerry responded, "That's not a flip-flop. That's not a flip-flop."

And this week, Kerry claims, "I believe this administration is actually encouraging the recruitment of terrorists. The policies of this administration, I believe and others believe very deeply, have resulted in an increase of animosity and anger focused on the United States of America." (Here we suppose "others" is in reference to the same yet-to-be-identified foreign leaders who Kerry claims support his candidacy.)

The reality is, of course, that it's our very existence, and not our actions, that the Jihadis really object to. Kerry's failure to acknowledge this fact is indicative of just how deeply he has delved into the fevered swamp.

Last week, greeting Demo-conventioneers with a limp Clintonesque salute, Kerry intoned that he was "reporting for duty." To which we say, it's about time -- because he has been AWOL from Iraq since he voted to invade.

Mark Alexander is Executive Editor and Publisher of The Federalist Patriot, a Townhall.com member group.



08-07-04, 05:27 PM
John Kerry has a new secret plan, a new proposal, on how to get things done. New ideas to take care of the problems, New original thoughts by John Kerry.

Now, all that is great, but now I hear that in his 19 years in the Congress thee in no bill there that he authored!

I guess he was waiting with all those new ideas and answers until now, to come up with them.

08-07-04, 07:11 PM
A soldier is loyal to the man who shares his foxhole. How can a veteran allow a man who has disavowed this loyalty become the Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States of Amerca?

08-08-04, 08:50 AM
Spook reform <br />
<br />
<br />
By Tony Blankley <br />
<br />
<br />
On Friday, July 23, Sen. John Kerry took the first significant substantive act of what would be a Kerry presidency: It was a cynical, possibly dangerous,...

08-08-04, 09:30 AM
Middle America, My A** <br />
<br />
Doug Giles <br />
<br />
<br />
August 7, 2004 <br />
<br />
When I hear John Kerry and John Edwards try to pawn off on the American public that they are defenders of middle class Americans…...

08-08-04, 10:35 AM
Sen. John Kerry discusses his vision for military <br />
<br />
<br />
By Patrick Dickson, Stars and Stripes <br />
European edition, Sunday, August 8, 2004 <br />
<br />
SMITHVILLE, Mo. — At a campaign stop to roll out his plan to...

08-08-04, 10:45 AM
Complete transcript of Stars and Stripes' interview with Sen. John Kerry <br />
<br />
<br />
By Patrick Dickson, Stars and Stripes <br />
European edition, Sunday, August 8, 2004 <br />
<br />
<br />
John Kerry and John Edwards spoke...

08-08-04, 10:46 AM
And I will strengthen the military. I will strengthen the military with the weapons I’m going to procure. With the availability to all the troops of the training we’re gonna provide – we’re not going to send troops to do jobs they haven’t been trained for. This is a disgrace, what people have been put through. People have been sent over there without the training necessary, with too little training. We even have our top trainers who have been deployed to go over there rather than be where they can train people. I think that’s movement toward a hollow military, and I’m told that equipment is in sore need of repair, the backup on maintenance is enormous – these guys are way overstretched.

Stripes: Would you reach across the aisle [to the Republican Party] for a secretary of defense?

Kerry: It’s very possible. I’m not committing to it, but it’s entirely possible. But I’ll tell you this: I will have it a prerequisite that the secretary of defense work effectively with the professional military, listens to their advice, and if you’re going to disagree with it, is respectful in the way we DO disagree with it, that we don’t ruin careers over advice honestly spoken in an honest way to a Congressional committee. And I think the military deserves an invitation of their advice, not a chilling effect to it.

Stripes: In the transformation plan outlined by [Defense] Secretary [Donald] Rumsfeld and others in the administration, they’re talking about moving troops out of Europe east, south into Eastern Europe and Africa. Smaller lily-pad bases, closer to the hot spots. Would you continue that trend?

Kerry: I’m going to get a re-evaluation when I get in. I’m not going to start moving troops around, hypothetically. What I’ve called for is to stop the BRAC (Base Realignment And Closure) process temporarily, I wanna make certain that we are re-evaluating precisely what America’s military needs are in this new structure. I’ll bring the best experts in the country together – Republican and Democrat alike – in order to determine what the best platform is for the American military.

And my hope is, that with my diplomacy, we can be more effective with North Korea. We might be able to reduce the deployment in that part of the world, that’s been much too similar for 50 years now, and I hope that we can do a better job ultimately with Europe.

But I can’t tell you I’m going to start spreading pods around individually, at this point in time. I want my people in there, I want my diplomacy to begin to take hold, I want a better assessment of what the lay of the land is going to be with a new president.

Stripes:You mentioned South Korea – part of the 2nd Infantry Division is headed over to Iraq right now. And there are rumors that these guys might be rotating back to the United States rather then going back to South Korea. Do you support an overall reduction in troops in South Korea?

Kerry: As an ultimate goal, but not as an immediate step.

Stripes: You voted for BRAC in 2001, but you’re now opposed to a 2005 round [of stateside base closures]?

Kerry: Yes. Because I think I want to reassess exactly what our status is. We have a huge procurement evaluation to make, we have an enormous deployment evaluation to make … I have to see what the response is to my diplomatic initiatives in order to make a judgment of what the real demands will be on our military.

And I think it’s premature to start going into a sort of automatic post-Cold War base-closing process when we’re in a war with very hot spots around the world that may demand more from us, not less. So, I think that wisdom and prudence requires us to proceed cautiously. I want my evaluation, based on my presidency, to take place before anything is shut.

Stripes: Let’s move over to pay issues. The civilian-military pay gap right now is about 5 percent, down from 13 percent in 1999. The law is that GIs should get half a percent more than their civilian counterparts in the federal government. Would you continue the plus-0.5 percent raise –

Kerry: Absolutely. You’ve got to raise pay.

Stripes: – or would you go more?

Kerry: I’m looking at that. Actually, I’m making a judgment right now, I may have a proposal, but I’m going to hold it until I have it. We’re looking at the cost issue, and I’ve got to make a judgment about it. Particularly for entry-level enlisted.

Stripes: So you would target raises.

Kerry: It’s possible. I’m looking at it.

Stripes: What about Serviceman’s Group Life Insurance? Guys are paying a nominal amount, but for guys in combat areas --

Kerry: You ought to give it to them automatic [without monthly payments into the system] and it ought to be raised.

Stripes: [Automatic] for all $250,000?

Kerry: You bet. Why not? I mean, you’re looking at, if you’re running a wise policy, and you’re in a limited war situation, which I hope to very much be in, it’s not asking too much for the United States of America to guarantee an appropriate level of life insurance, cost-free, to those who are willing to put themselves on the line. And I think that anything less is almost an insult.

Stripes: Family Separation Allowance. You said that the Bush team wanted to cut it. [The DOD plan was to roll back increases in FSA and Imminent Danger Pay, but increase Hardship Duty Pay to compensate for the drop, so only people in combat areas would see no reduction.] You want to keep [FSA] for everyone deployed over 30 days?

Kerry: Family separation is family separation. When people are away, particularly on active duty, their families are earning less money than they were, in most cases. In a lot of cases, you know, family separation is family separation. Mothers have a problem with child care, they have a problem with education, they have a problem managing, and I think you gotta help people. I mean, where are the family values?

Stripes: Any plan for tax breaks for people who are deployed?

Kerry: I don’t have a specific, beyond what exists today, I do not have a new plan.

Stripes: Would you encourage states to change tax forms? To have check-boxes that –

Kerry: I think it’d be great; a lot of states have done that. I also think that there should be a simplification for those people.

Stripes: Of the tax process? For filling out forms?

Kerry: Yeah. Yeah.

Stripes: I’m a GI overseas. Why do I want to vote for John Kerry?

Kerry: Because I’m going to do a better job of making America safe. I’m going to do a better job of providing them with a lifestyle that pays tribute to the service they’ve given. Because I’ll do a better job of funding the [Veterans Administration], so that when they’re in veteran status, not on active duty, the services they expect will be there for them. Because I’ll do a better job of being a commander in chief who understands what it means for them to go on patrol and be at risk, and provide them with the support structure and the weapons systems and the leadership they need to get the job done.

I think the job of commander in chief in Iraq was to do this as successfully as possible. I don’t think he’s done that. I don’t think they planned for the peace, I don’t think they had the support beside them, I don’t think they put enough troops on the ground, a whole bunch of things.

I think that the folks who are deployed would be better served by a commander in chief who knows what it means to be deployed.



08-09-04, 09:54 AM
Inside Politics <br />
<br />
<br />
By Jennifer Harper <br />
<br />
<br />
Selective memory <br />
It's not easy to tease out the truth of Sen. John Kerry's much-ballyhooed Vietnam tour. But some try. <br />
<br />
&quot;Pity the poor guy...

08-09-04, 10:50 AM

08-10-04, 08:16 AM
Kerry stands by vote authorizing force to oust Saddam

By: DAVID ESPO - AP Special Correspondent

GRAND CANYON, Ariz. (AP) -- Responding to President Bush's question with several of his own, Sen. John Kerry said Monday he would have voted to authorize the war in Iraq knowing what he does now, but added that he would have used the power more effectively than the current commander in chief.

The Democratic presidential nominee said he hoped to begin reducing the number of U.S. forces in Iraq within six months of taking office if he is elected. "It is an appropriate goal to have," he said, but added that achieving it would depend on broader international assistance, better stability within Iraq and other related factors.

Fielding questions from reporters after he and wife Teresa Heinz Kerry hiked along the rim of the Grand Canyon, Kerry also said he opposes raising the retirement age for Social Security as part of any plan to overhaul the system.

"People who start talking about raising the retirement age are people who may not have worked at real jobs for a lifetime," he said.

Kerry, a Massachusetts senator, voted in October 2002 to give Bush authority for using military force to oust Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

At the same time, public opinion polls show that Bush's handling of the postwar period is unpopular, and the Democratic presidential nominee routinely accuses Bush of having sent troops into war without a plan to win the peace.

Last Friday, Bush challenged Kerry to answer yes-or-know to the question of whether he would have supported the invasion of Iraq "knowing what we know now" about the failure to find weapons of mass destruction.

"I have given my answer. We did the right thing and the world is better off for it," the president said.

In response, Kerry said, "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

Then he had a few barbed questions for Bush.

"Why did we rush to war without a plan to win the peace? Why did you rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth?

"Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war. Why has he not brought other countries to the table in order to support American troops in the way they deserve it and relieve the pressure on the American people?"

Kerry faulted Bush for the use he made of the authority he had to wage war.

"American presidents should not send American forces into war without a plan to win the peace. This president did not have a plan to win the peace and the evidence is still that they are scrambling and struggling to try to find a way to do it," the Democrat said.

Specifically, Kerry noted that the administration is scrambling to persuade Arab countries to dispatch Muslim forces to Iraq. "All of this should have happened in the beginning," he said.

The presidential nominee said he intends "to get more people involved in that effort and I'm convinced I can be more successful than President Bush in succeeding in doing that."

Kerry said in an interview last week his goal was to begin reducing the number of troops in Iraq within the next year. Asked about his plans, he said he would use diplomacy to help build stronger international alliances.

The feasibility of that goal, he said, would hinge on "the stability of Iraq, the ability to have the elections, and the training and transformation of the Iraqi security force itself."

Kerry made his comments as he continued to campaign by train through several western battleground states -- Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona and Nevada, where he was scheduled to end his day.

He used the spectacular scenery of the Grand Canyon as the backdrop for an attack on the Bush administration's handling of the nation's parks. He said administration policies have resulted in a backlog of $600 million in underfunding, and promised to find the funds to erase it.

Asked where the money would come from, he said, "Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans have to give." Kerry has proposed rolling back Bush-era tax cuts for the top 2 percent of American income earners, and using the funds for a variety of programs.

In addition, he said he may call for increased fees to raise money for the parks. He has said previously he favors changes in an 1872 federal mining law to increase the amount of money the government receives in royalties.



08-10-04, 09:18 AM
Issue Date: August 09, 2004

Kerry camp pushes military background

By Rick Maze
Times staff writer

John Kerry’s carefully crafted campaign to highlight his combat experience as proof he would make a good commander in chief appears to be paying off.
A public opinion poll taken by Kerry’s campaign and released July 27 — in the midst of the Democratic National Convention in which Kerry was confirmed as the party’s presidential nominee — shows he narrowly trails President Bush in voters’ minds as a leader.

Forty-six percent believe Bush would do a better job on national security while 43 percent favor Kerry, the poll shows.

“Despite George Bush’s four years as commander in chief, John Kerry is tied with the president on national security issues,” says a campaign memo released to reporters. While Bush has a small lead, the fact that Kerry ranks so closely and is slightly ahead among voters in contested states is evidence, Kerry aides said, that their message is getting across.

The campaign is going to great effort to attract support from the military and veterans. More than 2,000 veterans and their families attended a caucus meeting at the start of the convention in Boston to organize grass-roots support.

More than 500 official delegates to the convention were veterans. Campaign officials said their goal is to organize 1 million or more by Election Day, with former Sen. Max Cleland, D-Ga., a disabled Vietnam vet who headed the Veterans Administration under Jimmy Carter, leading the effort.

From the moment Kerry hit Boston, he was surrounded with comrades from Vietnam. This was an unsubtle effort to draw a contrast between Kerry’s combat service and Bush’s duty in the National Guard during the war.

Kerry’s July 29 acceptance speech began with a reference to his military service.

“I’m John Kerry, and I’m reporting for duty,” he said.

As president, Kerry said he’d “bring back this nation’s time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to; we only go to war because we have to.”

If elected, Kerry said, he would use his combat experience. “I know what kids go through when they are carrying an M16 in a dangerous place and they cannot tell friend from foe. I know what they go through when they are out on patrol at night and they don’t know what is coming around the next bend. I know what it is like to write letters home telling your family that everything is all right when you are not sure that is true.

“On my first day in office, I will send a message to every man and woman in our armed forces: You will never be asked to fight a war without a plan to win the peace.”

That is not weakness, he said. “I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as president,” he said. “Let there be no mistake. I will never hesitate to use force when it is required.”

Kerry’s plan for the war in Iraq begins with “a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side and share the burden, reduce the cost to American taxpayers and reduce the risk to American soldiers. That is the right way to get the job done and bring our troops home.”

He also renewed his vow to add 40,000 troops to the active-duty force, double the current size of special operations forces, reduce mobilizations of National Guard and reserve troops and provide deployed forces with “the newest weapons and technology to save their lives and win the battle.”

Repeating a phrase used by Bush in his 2000 campaign, Kerry said he had a message for “all who serve in the armed forces today: I say, help is on the way.”



08-10-04, 11:17 AM
Why, do I find it hard to square politicans with words such as;
Integrity, Ethics and the Truth?

Integrity is incorruptibility -- incapable of being false to a trust, responsibility or pledge.

A person with integrity, reliably delivers on promises, honours commitments and demonstrates honesty and trustworthiness, and respect for the rights of all persons. Where rules and regulations are barriers a person with integrity challenges them through appropriate means.

Individually, we hold ourselves to high standards of moral and ethical conduct.

Integrity is "doing right when there is no one to make you do it but yourself."

"The meaning of integrity in the public service is derived from, and finds its distinctive public service character in, its relationship to the public trust and the need to put the common good ahead of any private interest."

Most politican don't square with the above because they always putting self-interest above anything.

The promises they propose. they will never keep.
That goes for both parties!
Where did we go wrong?
Could we have done as President George Washington in his farewell speech of 1796, when he warned us about foreign entanglements.

So, likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others, which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill will, and a disposition to retaliate in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld; and it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation) facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country without odium, sometimes even with popularity, gilding with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

Now the politicans seek a way out of a foreign entanglement of they're own making.

Which of the two is telling us the "truth"?...
The truth shall set you free...

Semper Fidelis/Semper Fi

08-10-04, 03:55 PM
What did you do in the not-so-great war?
Monday, August 9, 2004 Posted: 1:30 PM EDT (1730 GMT)

WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate) -- Bankrolled by a Texas Republican millionaire, a TV spot that features Vietnam vets accusing Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry of lying about his own war record provides conclusive proof that the 2004 campaign has officially entered the ugly "What Did You Do (or Not Do) in the Not-So-Great War?" stage.

It is moments like this when we owe a collective debt of gratitude to the voters of Arizona for sending Republican John McCain to the U.S. Senate.

McCain, who endured similar attacks upon his own patriotism in 2000 when he was also -- coincidentally, of course -- running against George W. Bush, told The Associated Press' Ron Fournier: "I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. ... None of these individuals (making the accusations) served on the same boat (John Kerry ) commanded. Many of (Kerry's) crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I think George Bush served honorably in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War. ... I think the Bush campaign should specifically condemn the ad."

Fat chance. When asked by reporters, George W. Bush's press secretary Scott McClellan refused to denounce the anti-Kerry attack ad.

At the top of my roster of American heroes who became great political leaders is the late Paul H. Douglas who served three terms in the U.S. Senate from Illinois and was even more independent than John McCain. Power and privilege were his foes. Courageously and tirelessly, Douglas fought for civil rights, tax reform, economic justice and the environment, and against big oil and big drug companies.

What made Paul Douglas an American original was that after Pearl Harbor -- when he was both an elected Chicago alderman and a professor at the University of Chicago -- Douglas, a Quaker, enlisted as a private in the Marine Corps. After boot camp at Parris Island, Douglas turned down stateside assignments and insisted on joining the First Marine Division. That meant heavy combat against the Japanese in Pacific landings at Peleliu and Okinawa, where "for heroic achievement in action," he won the Bronze Star. He was wounded twice so severely that he permanently lost the use of his left arm.

Why is Paul Douglas' story of courage under fire different from so many other brave Americans who answered their nation's call? Consider this: When he enlisted in the Marines as a private, Douglas was 50 years old! That means when he fought and was wounded at Okinawa, Douglas was 52.

President Bush has chosen to ignore my earlier request that he, by executive order, create the Paul Douglas Brigade, which would seek and welcome the enlistment into today's active military of middle-aged leaders of Congress, 50-something captains of the private sector, and tenured think-tank/academic commandos -- all of whom were "prevented" from answering the draft call sent to them in their youth by their nation by career, graduate school or concern for their own pleasure and safety.

As an alumnus of Parris Island (whom the Marine Corps brass has never asked to do a testimonial) and having earned no Bronze or Silver stars nor qualified for any Purple Hearts, I am still asked why former distinguished Marines like Douglas of Illinois, John Glenn of Ohio, Mike Mansfield of Montana and Dale Bumpers of Arkansas could go on to become distinguished, mostly liberal Democratic U.S. senators.

At their best, liberal values are in harmony with many Marine values. From the first day of boot camp, Marine recruits are taught that Marines never leave their own behind. The Marine ethic emphasizes responsibility to duty and to others before self. Unbridled individualism that elevates to high virtue profit and personal comfort above duty to your comrades is prohibited and condemned. The Marine officer -- the very opposite of the selfish, self-centered CEO -- never eats, himself, until the men under his command have been fed.

Liberals did lead the good fight for racial justice. But the greatest civil rights victories have been won by the Marines and the U.S. military. Why is the military the most successfully integrated sector of national life? No racial preference and no racial discrimination. The first time I ever slept in the same room with an African-American or took orders from an African-American was as a private in the Marines.

Liberals would be wise to understand -- which too many conservatives, drunk on individualism do not -- that Marine values are honorable and valuable American values.



08-11-04, 06:31 AM
Kerry &amp; Vietnam: This Time We Deserve the Truth <br />
<br />
August 6, 2004 <br />
<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />
by Frank Salvato <br />

08-11-04, 08:04 AM
Turn about is fair play, its sad that much is being made about whether one served or one didn't in a war that we fought in.
Its was brought about John Forbes Kerry making much about his service in that war.
We have nothing to complain about his service in that war.
We question how he came by all those medals.
Our main objection is what he did after he came back.
He dishonored many that served honorably and some gave their alls believing that its was worth us being there to deter the take over by the communists from up north.
But in a sense of fair play we cannot ingore what we read recently.
When we went seeking the Replublicans attacks on than Senator
Max Cleland.

In a democracy, instead of truth being the first casualty in war, it should be the first cause of war. It is the only way the Congress and the American people can cope with getting through it. As credibility is strained, support for the war and support for the troops go downhill. Continued loss of credibility drains troop morale, the media become more suspicious, the public becomes more incredulous and Congress is reduced to hearings and investigations.
By Max Cleland

From this web page;
Welcome to Vietnam, Mr. President.
Sorry you didn't go when you had the chance.
By Max Cleland

He makes much of how we came to be involved in Iraq and he questions how we will get out.
The getting out is on the minds of many, and the 1 billion dollars a week is hurting our ecomony.
What is the end game?
We might ask our elected officals...

Semper Fidelis/Semper Fi

Views from a moderate, neither from the right or the left of center, what ever that may be...

08-11-04, 08:06 AM

Dang how did I forget the "/" in the link...
Well the link above should work...

Semper Fidelis/Semper Fi

08-11-04, 12:16 PM
The big question still remains....Why does he think his combat record (sort of) is a platform to run on? What does that have to do with being qualifed to lead a nation? He is making himself look very stupid if you ask me. Maybe he's trying to cover up something that happened in Vietnam...like losing your courage or wanting to be like someone he served with that "had the right stuff". Four months in Nam...all those medals and wounds...Nah

08-11-04, 12:42 PM
Former FBI Agent Warns Swift Boat Vets
Gary Aldrich

August 10, 2004

In 1996, I took the ride of my life, but I have no regrets about exposing Bill Clinton for the louse that he is. Blowing the whistle on a powerful politician was different from any activity I had ever undertaken, and I arrested people and dodged bullets for a living!

I thought I had seen it all, but I was wrong.

When I began my quest to surface the truth, I was an honest, independent, a-political FBI agent. But, when the establishment was finished with me, I was “aligned with the Dole campaign, Big Tobacco, shadowy right-wing financiers of various anti-Clinton cabals and conspiracies, and a friend of the NRA!” The “Left” attacked me while the “Right” ran and hid in the tall grass.

The truth did not matter – I was whatever the news media said I was. I’ve labored long and hard to regain my reputation and credibility, and to some degree I have succeeded. But for a lot of Americans, all they will ever remember about my attempt to tell the truth is that the president’s top advisor, George Stephanopoulos, called me a pathological liar.

So, my warning to the Swift Boat Vets is this: When you take on the establishment, be prepared to suffer serious assaults to your reputation, at least in the short run. Over time, you will be proven to be honest, as well as brave. Eventually, your reputations will be mostly restored, but nothing will ever be the same for you again. The mainstream media will work diligently to alter the population’s perception of you in ways that you could not possibly imagine.

They will demonize, and then marginalize you so that your impact on this coming election will be minimal.

Many have come before you and have suffered the same fate. When you become whistle-blowers and take on the establishment, you’ll find few friends within the establishment, right or left, to support you. The establishment does not want the truth; therefore, your real support will come from the grass roots.

You have already had some hint of this from the recent White House response to your Television ad. They said they didn’t like it. Your effective and moving testimony as Swift Boat veterans who really did know John Kerry blew his war-hero cover to bits.

If your 60-second ad were given honest exposure, the election would be all but over, and the people who have seen it know this. That’s why they will destroy you, then ignore you.

The establishment can’t stand people like you. Especially not now, not after the candidates have gone through the primary process and are coming down to the wire. There is much campaigning to come, and so much money to be spent. You just cannot have a circumstance where the people are given honest information that would alter the course of an election. It’s just not done, you see?

Besides, the mainstream media does not like George Bush, and they will do nothing to help him win re-election. Did you think for a minute that they would rush to cover your press conferences and report the news that the majority of Veterans cannot stand John Kerry? Did you actually believe you would be invited on “Sixty Minutes”? Even now, reporters are out looking for your dirty laundry and trying to poke holes in your stories. After they find out that your stories match, have the ring of truth, and that you’re decent folk just trying to do what’s right, they will simply close their notebooks and quietly walk away.

And don’t expect to speak at the GOP convention in New York City or sit in the president’s box, like Michael Moore did at the Democrats’ convention. The GOP establishment doesn’t like the ad – it makes them very nervous. For example, it upset Senator John McCain, who rushed to defend his senatorial pal when he heard about it.

Of course, Senator McCain wishes all grass-roots types and ordinary folk would just go away. He has been instrumental in silencing a lot of Americans with his campaign finance legislation. Senator McCain is part of the establishment now, and the establishment does not care for boat rockers.

You have served our country well, and your exploits were heroic. You received real wounds, some of you, and you earned honest to goodness Purple Hearts and other medals which you wear proudly. You faced death and you took life in a war, and then you came home to a nation that has failed to honor you properly. You have never forgotten that this dishonest man, John Kerry, and his friends in the mainstream media caused the scorn you experienced.

But you didn’t let that get you down. You blended back into society in various ways. You have become successes in the private sector, where you have labored for decades, minding your own business and mostly letting others chase the windmills of political protest.

But like whistle-blowers before you, you came to believe that you were in possession of significant information that the American people needed to know before an important election and as a nation. You stood up for the truth, and we owe you a debt of gratitude – again!

We are a nation that was attacked, and now we are at war. We’re trying to protect ourselves against future attacks, and because of what you know – first hand – you believe with all your hearts that Senator Kerry should not become commander in chief. At least, not right now – not at this time.

I believe Kerry will lose in a landslide, just like George McGovern in 1972. I believe the reason he will lose is, in part, because you had the courage to step forward and tell the American people the truth. The people will get the truth – they always do.

You will take hits and wounds of a different kind this time, but your solace may be found printed on a sign that once sat on the desk of a great president, Ronald Reagan. It read, “Great things can be accomplished as long as you don’t care about who gets the credit.”

Gary Aldrich is president and founder of The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, a Townhall.com member group.



08-11-04, 01:00 PM
Amen and thanks for those very well chosen words. It makes us feel good to hear something positive about our service in Vietnam...after so many years of trying to hide the fact that we served in that country. We did just blend back into civilian life and tried to forget about it. Most of us have had a successful and productive life since we were removed from it for a few years at a time when we should have been out doing the things that teenagers do. We are still moving forward..Semper Fi

08-11-04, 04:06 PM
Crew Member Questioned Kerry's Silver Star in 1996

A Swift Boat veteran who was a member of Sen. John Kerry's crew when their boat was targeted in February 1969 by an enemy rocket launcher has refuted Kerry's claim that he single-handedly saved his crew from the attack - an account that earned the top Democrat the Silver Star.

Interviewed during Kerry's 1996 Senate re-election battle, Kerry crew member Tom Bellodeau told the Boston Globe that he - not Kerry - fired the shot that brought down the enemy fighter, who had aimed a loaded rocket launcher at their boat just after Kerry beached it on the Ca Mau peninsula.

Story Continues Below

"You know, I shot that guy," Bellodeau said, in response to an earlier Globe account that credited Kerry for his heroism.
"He jumped up, he looked right at me, I looked at him," the Kerry shipmate explained. "You could tell he was trying to decide whether to shoot or not. I expected the guy on Kerry's boat with the twin 50s to blast him, but he couldn't depress the guns far enough. We were up on the bank."

Only after the enemy soldier was wounded, said Bellodeau, did Kerry leap from the boat onto the beach and pursue him around the back of a nearby hut, where Kerry finished him off.

Bellodeau's account is particularly damaging because he was actually a member of Kerry's Swift Boat crew - the group of Vietnam veterans the Kerry campaign has repeatedly offered up to respond to criticism of his war record by other Swift Boaters who were on different boats.

Kerry's Silver Star citation credits him alone for taking down the Viet Cong soldier, making no mention whatsoever of Bellodeau.

"An enemy soldier sprang up from his position not 10 feet from Swift Boat 94 and fled," the combat award reads. "Without hesitation Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hootch and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber."

And Kerry has done nothing to incorporate Bellodeau's role in subsequent accounts of the encounter with the enemy fighter.

In a 1996 interview, Kerry makes no mention of the first shot whatsoever.

"It was either going to be him or it was going to be us. It was that simple. I don't know why it wasn't us - I mean, to this day. He had a rocket pointed right at our boat. He stood up out of a hole, and none of us saw him until he was standing in front of us, aiming a rocket right at us, and, for whatever reason, he didn't pull the trigger - he turned and ran."

When pressed for more details, the top Democrat said: "I just won't talk about all of it. I don't and can't. The things that really turned me I've never told anybody. Nobody would understand."



08-11-04, 06:23 PM
His service couldn't be that important to him! He attended anti-war rallies and even threw his medals back!! Now he wants to come back as an American warrior with a distinguished combat record? This after he basically threw back his awards and said he didn't support his government? Please!! If he were a true hero he would have accepted his call to duty and all that was asked of him by his country and never lashed out afterwards. I think it is a matter of convenience that he now starts retelling his truimphs in battle and his distinguished military service record when 30 years ago he was trashing it. Food for thought!


08-11-04, 06:23 PM
His service couldn't be that important to him! He attended anti-war rallies and even threw his medals back!! Now he wants to come back as an American warrior with a distinguished combat record? This after he basically threw back his awards and said he didn't support his government? Please!! If he were a true hero he would have accepted his call to duty and all that was asked of him by his country and never lashed out afterwards. I think it is a matter of convenience that he now starts retelling his truimphs in battle and his distinguished military service record when 30 years ago he was trashing it. Food for thought!


08-11-04, 06:23 PM
His service couldn't be that important to him! He attended anti-war rallies and even threw his medals back!! Now he wants to come back as an American warrior with a distinguished combat record? This after he basically threw back his awards and said he didn't support his government? Please!! If he were a true hero he would have accepted his call to duty and all that was asked of him by his country and never lashed out afterwards. I think it is a matter of convenience that he now starts retelling his truimphs in battle and his distinguished military service record when 30 years ago he was trashing it. Food for thought!


08-11-04, 06:23 PM
His service couldn't be that important to him! He attended anti-war rallies and even threw his medals back!! Now he wants to come back as an American warrior with a distinguished combat record? This after he basically threw back his awards and said he didn't support his government? Please!! If he were a true hero he would have accepted his call to duty and all that was asked of him by his country and never lashed out afterwards. I think it is a matter of convenience that he now starts retelling his truimphs in battle and his distinguished military service record when 30 years ago he was trashing it. Food for thought!


08-11-04, 06:23 PM
His service couldn't be that important to him! He attended anti-war rallies and even threw his medals back!! Now he wants to come back as an American warrior with a distinguished combat record? This after he basically threw back his awards and said he didn't support his government? Please!! If he were a true hero he would have accepted his call to duty and all that was asked of him by his country and never lashed out afterwards. I think it is a matter of convenience that he now starts retelling his truimphs in battle and his distinguished military service record when 30 years ago he was trashing it. Food for thought!


08-12-04, 09:08 AM
John Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia <br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />
Editorial by CK Rairden <br />
August 11, 2004 <br />
<br />
<br />
The character of John Kerry gets...

08-12-04, 05:15 PM
Kerry of Mayberry <br />
Barney Fife Goes to War <br />
<br />
August 12, 2003 <br />
<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />
by Jim Manion <br />

08-13-04, 07:58 AM
Time for straight answers from John Kerry <br />
Posted August 12, 2004 <br />
By Richard Tomkins <br />
<br />
Allegations that presidential hopeful John Kerry embellished if not outright lied about his behavior in...

08-13-04, 09:50 AM
How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? <br />
<br />
I would like to say for the record, and for the men behind me who are also wearing the uniform and their medals, that my being here is...

08-13-04, 09:51 AM
We are asking here in Washington for some action, action from the Congress of the United States of America, which has the power to raise and maintain armies, and which by the Constitution also has the power to declare war. We have come here, not to the President, because we believe that this body can be responsive to the will of the people, and we believe that the will of the people says that we should be out of Vietnam now.

We are here in Washington also to say that the problem of this war is not just a question of war and diplomacy. It is part and parcel of everything that we are trying as human beings to communicate to people in this country -- the question of racism, which is rampant in the military, and so many other questions such as the use of weapons; the hypocrisy in our taking umbrage in the Geneva Conventions and using that as justification for a continuation of this war when 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, all accepted policy by many units in South Vietnam. That is what we are trying to say. We are also here to ask, and we are here to ask vehemently, where are the leaders of our country? Where is the leadership? We are here to ask where are McNamara, Rostow, Bundy, Johnson, and so many others? Where are they now that we, the men whom they sent off to war, have returned? These are commanders who have deserted their troops, and there is no more serious crime in the law of war. The Army says they never leave their wounded. The Marines say they never leave even their dead. These men have left all the casualties and retreated behind a pious shield of public rectitude. They have left the real stuff of their reputations bleaching behind them in the sun.

Finally, this Administration has done us the ultimate dishonor. They have attempted to disown us and the sacrifices we made for this country. In their blindness and fear they have tried to deny that we are veterans or that we served in Nam. We do not need their testimony. Our own scars and stumps of limbs are witness enough for others and for ourselves.

We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service as easily as this Administration has wiped away their memories of us. But all that they have done and all that they can do by this denial is to make more clear than ever our own determination to undertake one last mission -- to search out and destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our own hearts, to conquer the hate and the fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more, so when thirty years from now our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say "Vietnam" and not mean a desert, not a filthy obscene memory, but mean instead the place where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning.

-- From John Kerry's statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 22, 1971.

A slightly different version of Kerry's statement is posted at the PBS web site under "Great American Speeches" -- one of only four speeches selected to represent the entire decade of the 1970's. Interestingly, Ronald Reagan's 1987 "Tear Down This Wall" address at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin is nowhere to be found in the PBS archive.

Your tax dollars at play...



08-13-04, 11:08 AM
From John Kerry's statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, April 22, 1971.
At that very moment some POW in South or North Vietnam was being tortured.
That speech was giving aid and comfort to our enemies.
We now ask him to square us on the killing fields of Laos, Cambodia.
Also on the "boat people" of Vietnam.

Semper Fidelis/Semper Fi
Veteran of the Vietnam War
1965, 1966 and 1967

08-13-04, 04:06 PM
john foreskin kerry is a disgrace to the uniform that he once wore. He is a jane fonda loving SOB (HAVE I MENTIONED THAT BEFORE?). Also add the fact that when he was doing all his CAMPAIGNING FOR THE NORTH VIETNAMESE he was still an officer in the Naval Reserve - THAT SPELLS "TRAITOR" TO ME!!!!!!!!!!!!

Did I mention I hate the ugly SOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

kerry couldn't tell the truth if his fifthy life depended on it - that's why I have trouble believing anything that comes out of his face!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Veteran of Vietnam
1966 - 1967 - 1969 - 1970

08-14-04, 04:50 AM
Kerry 'invented Christmas in Cambodia claim' <br />
By David Rennie in Washington <br />
(Filed: 12/08/2004) <br />
<br />
<br />
For the first time, Sen John Kerry, the Democratic presidential challenger, has been left...

08-14-04, 10:10 AM
Patterns Emerge with the Swift Boat Veterans
Commentary by August Keso
August 13, 2004

"A false report, if believed during three days, may be of great service to a government." - Catherine de’ Medici

“Hmmm” a mother wonders, “thought I had twelve cookies on the counter.” Turning, she looks at her young boy who is standing innocently with his hands crossed behind his back. The mother bends down to peer into the oven and when she returns to the counter finds only ten cookies remaining. Looking again, at the young boy she sees nothing unusual in his behavior but a question bubbles to the surface of her mind, “Is he taking the cookies?”

“Did you take the cookies?” she asks the boy carefully, not wanting to seem accusatory.

“No Mom!” he responds forcefully.

Not every circumstance in life leaves decisive clues as to what exactly preceded it. Often we are left with only deductive reasoning and intuitive thought to lead us in our conclusions. The mother never saw her son take the cookies but because they were the only people in the kitchen, it would be absurd for her not to question whether or not he had taken them. She recognized a pattern emerging between the boys presence and the disappearance of her baked goods.

During the 2000 Republican Presidential primaries, John McCain’s service during Vietnam was questioned. The assault on the former Prisoner of War and current Senator’s service to country was vile, mean spirited and lacking in fact or evidence. Then there were the reprehensible television ads that called into question Max Cleland’s Patriotism. Cleland left a few of his limbs on the battlefield of Vietnam, as testament to his Patriotism but it didn’t matter to those wanting to win elections without regard to honor or honesty. Now, of course we have yet another nefarious allegation concerning Senator John Kerry’s service in Vietnam.

The Bush administration feigned innocence in all three instances but it is beginning to defy both deductive and intuitive reasoning. There have after all been only two other people and one institution in the political kitchens of the three Vietnam Veterans in question – George W. Bush, Karl Rove and the Republican Party. Apparently, service to your country is only Patriotic when you swear allegiance to Rove and the Republicans. Nonetheless, we do see a pattern emerging here.

The pattern is this. Twice Bush has stood in election against Vietnam Era Veterans and in both instances there were a sudden onslaught of people willing, like so many cockroaches to crawl out from under the Republican cupboards and scurry about slinging wild accusations concerning the opposition. Max Cleland’s mistake was being a Democrat running against a Republican, while Bush and Rove were selling their souls to the devil in order to control all branches of government.

Fortunately, this time ‘round we are able to shine a bit of light on some of the roaches before they can take cover. Let us start with John O’Neil. O’Neil caught the eye of Richard M. Nixon in 1971, when he began to speak out against Kerry’s assertions that the policy of the United States, in Vietnam violated the Geneva Conventions. The policies included Free Fire Zones, whereby any Vietnamese within a specific area were considered combatants and were fired on. Another policy of the United States government that Kerry referenced in his post war comments was Search and Destroy Missions. The most famous of these Search and Destroy Missions, was carried out in the village of Mai Lai and was conducted on March 16, 1968 by Charlie Company, Eleventh Brigade. More than 300 unarmed people were killed including women, children and elderly.

John O’Neil would have the world believe that Vietnam, even with the benefit of hindsight was a just and honorable war. The rationale for the war was that if Vietnam fell to communism, the whole of Asia would soon follow. Something we know now was not the case. O’Neil too would prefer that the unseemly aspects of the Vietnam war, like My Lai not be discussed. In 1971, prior to his debate with John Kerry on the Dick Cavett Show, John O’Neil was motivated by the administration of the only President of the United States to resign in dishonor – Richard M. Nixon.

One thing has been consistent from that day to this, as it pertains to John O’Neil. He has never been mature enough to accept that in a big wide world there are those who do not see life through the same rose colored glasses as he. For nearly 35 years, O’Neil has nurtured his anger and resentment toward John Kerry. More than any other facts, this petty bitterness, so long fostered by John O’Neil and his undying allegiance to the disgraced Nixon, says more about his character than any failure or accomplishments he may have managed during his lifetime.

If O’Neil is such the uber-Patriot, why would he hold in such esteem Richard M. Nixon? Nixon, like no other public figure in our history disgraced our nation and nearly destroyed our very democracy. And still for John O’Neil he is an honorable man and a Vietnam veteran like Senator John Kerry isn’t?

What about Ted Sampley, another person leading the smear campaign against John Kerry? According to the Washington Times and Phoenix New Times, Sampley has accused Senator McCain of being brainwashed by the Vietnamese and an agent for the KGB. He even managed an outburst during a Senate hearing in which Sampley asked Senator McCain, “Who do you work for, Hanoi or Moscow?” Ted Sampley once started a fight with a McCain staffer, which led to him being in jail for two days and on probation for another 180 days.

The most troublesome supporter of the anti-Kerry campaign is the Senators former Commanding Officer in Vietnam. George M. Elliott has recently signed an affidavit claiming Kerry was not all together honorable. At first glance this seems rather damning, until one reads the Fitness Report Elliott wrote about Kerry’s service under his command in Vietnam. In the report signed by George Elliott and dated December 18, 1969, he writes of Kerry, “In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action LTJG Kerry was unsurpassed.” A bit more than mildly enthusiastic considering his current position on Kerry, but the report continued after describing the young Lieutenants courage under fire, “LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group.”

Here too we find a pattern emerging concerning the character of the men attacking Kerry’s honor. O’Neil seems to have difficulty letting go of his anger and worshipping disgraced Presidents. Sampley seems to see dishonor in everyone’s service but his own and Elliott is obviously rewriting his perception of Kerry 30 years after the fact.

Of course the biggest pattern emerging here concerns Bush and Rove. Whenever they or their interests meet up with a Vietnam Combat Veteran, there seems to be a sudden epidemic of the smears. I suppose boys will always be looking for political cookies to steal, but it just might be time Bush and Rove leave the kitchen and take their roaches with them.



08-14-04, 05:27 PM
Posted on Sat, Aug. 14, 2004 <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Pilot claims Kerry committed treason <br />
<br />
But his supporters denounce accusation

08-16-04, 02:25 PM
War stories collide as Kerry's Vietnam medals come under fire <br />
Monday, August 16, 2004 <br />
Stephen Koff <br />
Plain Dealer Washington Bureau Chief <br />
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group of Vietnam...

08-16-04, 06:23 PM
Kathleen Antrim
Backlash of Kerry claims
By Kathleen Antrim | Special To The Examiner
Published on Friday, August 13, 2004
URL: http://www.examiner.com/article/index.cfm/i/081304op_antrim
E-mail this story | Print this page
John F. Kerry's campaign for president is imploding. And he knows it.

The anti-war candidate went public as a pro-war candidate this week, and the members of his beloved "Band of Brothers" are exposing a whole book's worth of ugly lies. And they've got details, evidence, footnotes, signed affidavits and witnesses who back up their claims.

Kerry himself bestowed immense credibility on his "Band of Brothers" when he used a picture of some of them in his campaign ad titled "Lifetime."

Essentially, Kerry made Vietnam, and these men, the centerpiece of his campaign. Of course, that was when he thought they'd support his candidacy. No matter that he'd never bothered to ask their permission to use them to promote his political career.

Now, however, the Kerry campaign is on a search-and-destroy mission to attack the credibility of these same men -- calling them liars, all 60 of them, and saying they didn't serve in the military with him. Really? Then why'd Kerry use their pictures in his ad campaign?

These are the same men who Kerry hailed as his "Band of Brothers," who he implied knew him well and could vouch for him as a wonderful soldier and man.

These men, who Kerry inferred that we, the American people, could trust to tell us that he would make a great president, are suddenly liars. And why? Because they aren't saying what Kerry wants them to say. Because they aren't puppets. Because they're insisting on speaking the truth, a concept with which Kerry obviously isn't familiar.

Could this attack on their credibility be related to the fact that they've announced that he's unfit to serve as president? Looks to me like he wrote the wrong names down in the reference column of his resume.

The worst part of this political fiasco is that it could have been completely avoided. With a little work, preparation and organization, Kerry or his staff could have shown these veterans a little common courtesy by finding out where they stand regarding his candidacy and asking their permission to use them as references. This was a huge mistake, and it's costing Kerry dearly.

But like an old fish story in which the catch keeps getting larger with every telling, Kerry didn't stop at telling tales of war crimes.

He also told the Senate, in 1986, that he was illegally in Cambodia.

Kerry said, "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 that memory which is seared -- seared -- in me."

Utter lies, total and complete exaggerated lies, the Swift Vets claim. So, this fish tale stinks worse each time Kerry drags it out.

With accusations flying, Kerry's version of free speech has shrunk down to only one veteran: himself. All others must be silenced.

This is called "damage control," folks, and it's in high gear because Kerry knows he's in trouble here. Big trouble.

Of course, this whole matter could be cleared up if Kerry would release his Vietnam records and his personal journal. It's a simple matter to release these records, requiring only a standard Form 180.

So, Mr. Kerry, if you haven't been making up stories, and if the Swift Vets are lying, then release your records and prove your case. Trust the American people to discern the truth. Or have the courage to admit you lied, over and over again.

Let me be clear, Mr. Kerry, as a journalist, a columnist and most importantly as an American citizen, I am asking you to release your Vietnam records and your journal (in its entirety) to the American people.

But don't take my word for it; check it out for yourself at www.swiftvets.com.

Kathleen Antrim is a weekly columnist for The Examiner and the author of the political thriller "Capital Offense." For more information on Ms. Antrim, or to see where she'll be appearing next, go to www.kathleenantrim.com.



08-17-04, 07:35 AM
FBI Files Show Kerry Met With Communists More Than Once
By Marc Morano
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
June 04, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - Newly released FBI files reveal that presumed Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry attended a second meeting with North Vietnamese communists in Paris in the early 1970s. Kerry has previously admitted to meeting only once with the North Vietnamese delegations in 1970.

According to the FBI files, Kerry met with representatives from the North Vietnamese government in Paris in 1971 in an effort to secure the release of captured American prisoners of war. Kerry has previously acknowledged meeting "both delegations" of Vietnamese communists in Paris in 1970, but has said nothing of the 1971 meeting.

Researcher and author Jerry Corsi, who began studying the anti-war movement in the early 1970s, believes Kerry is hiding key aspects about his anti-war past from the public as he seeks the presidency.

"Kerry has admitted to one meeting with Madam Binh. Now we have reason to believe there was a second [meeting], so let's press them to admit the second [meeting]," Corsi told CNSNews.com.

"Kerry needs to explain to the American people why he directly went into negotiations with communists," Corsi added. Corsi has written an essay on Kerry's dealings with the Vietemese communists on the Internet site, WinterSoldier.com.

According to Gerald Nicosia, a Kerry supporter and the author of the book Home to War: A History of the Vietnam Veterans' Movement, Kerry's second visit to Paris to meet with emissaries of the North Vietnamese communist government is documented in redacted FBI files from the era.

"The [FBI] files record that Kerry made a second trip to Paris that summer (1971) to learn how the North Vietnamese might release prisoners," Nicosia wrote in an essay in the Los Angeles Times on May 23.

"After deciding not to run [for Congress] in 1970, he and his new wife, Julia Thorne, traveled to France in May to meet Madame Nguyen Thi Binh and other Viet Cong and Communist Vietnamese representatives to the Paris peace talks, a trip he now calls a 'fact-finding mission,"' Nicosia wrote.

Nicosia noted that, "Kerry had tried to distinguish between his own trips to meet with the Vietnamese in Paris, which he considered necessary to fight through the lies of his own government, and actual negotiations with the enemy, which Kerry knew were illegal."

Kerry told the New York Times on April 24 that his first meeting with the Vietnamese communists in 1970 was "not a big deal."

''People were dropping in (at the Paris Peace Talks). It was a regular sort of deal," Kerry explained to the New York Times .

But Corsi believes it was a very big deal.

"You had (Former Nixon aide) Henry Kissinger there (in Paris) trying to negotiate formally with the Paris peace delegation and then these guys (from Vietnam Veterans Against the War) are off on their own side show, establishing back channels to the Vietnamese communists; all of this is against the law," Corsi said, referring to U.S. code 18 U.S.C. 953, which declares it illegal for a U.S. citizen to go abroad and negotiate with a foreign power.

"Exactly who was Kerry ... to have arranged these trips? He had to be in discussion with some link with the communist party of Vietnam in order to establish these trips and meetings," Corsi explained.

Kerry also may have had plans to go to South Vietnam in 1971, according to a June 16, 1971 article in the communist Daily World newspaper.

"Former Navy Lt. John Kerry is planning a three-week trip to South Vietnam in July to report on 'what is really happening' to the GI's there, he told newsmen here," read the article, written by the Daily World's Ted Pearson. Kerry was attending an event in Chicago with Jesse Jackson, who at the time was head of the organization, Operation Bread Basket.

It is unclear whether Kerry ever made the trip to South Vietnam in 1971 and Kerry's campaign did not return several phone calls seeking comment for this article.

Nicosia has criticized Kerry in the past for not being more open about his anti-war past.

"I am in kind of an awkward position here. I am a Kerry supporter and I certainly don't want to do anything that hurts him. On the other hand, my number one allegiance is to truth. So I am going to go with where the facts are, and John is going to have to deal with that," Nicosia told CNSNews.com back in March when the contents of the FBI files became public and caused Kerry to revise his past statements on a series of issues dealing with his past.

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

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

Kerry's anti-war activism and his meetings with the communists had a big impact, according to Corsi.

"Vietnamese communists would not have won the war without John Kerry. They were cultivating his protest activity with the VVAW," Corsi said.

Corsi said the Vietnamese communists have shown their gratitude to Kerry by displaying a photo of him at Ho Chi Minh City's Protestors Hall of the War Remnants Museum. The photo of fellow anti-war activist and actress Jane Fonda also appears in the Women's Museum in Saigon.

"As soon as [Kerry] came onto the seen, [the Vietnamese communists] latched on to him like bees on to honey. [The communists] said 'This is a guy who tells our story, it will undermine the sympathy for the war in America,'" Corsi added.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=%5CSpecialReports%5Car chive%5C200406%5CSPE20040604a.html


08-17-04, 04:20 PM
John Kerry



Phantom Blooper
08-17-04, 05:24 PM
To start each day with a positive outlook, or for an instant "pick-me-up" anytime of the day:

1. Open a new file in your PC.

2. Name it "John Kerry."

3. Send it to the trash.

4. Empty the trash.

5. Your PC will ask you, "Do you really want to permanently delete John Kerry?"

6. Answer calmly, "Yes," and press the mouse button firmly.

7. Feel better instantly.

8. Repeat process as needed.


08-18-04, 07:19 AM
Winter Soldier Investigation
Winter Soldier Investigation in the news

The Winter Soldier Investigation was a meeting of American Vietnam War veterans as well as civilians at which information was given alleging atrocities against the popualtion of Vietnam by U.S. troops.

The meeting took place in Detroit, Michigan, on January 31-February 2, 1971 as an activity of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and was presented as an assembly of 109 Vietnam War Veterans and 16 civilians which alleged specific war crimes by the United States in Vietnam during the years of 1963-1970. The soldiers' testimony often overlaps, alleging a pattern of atrocities against the Vietnamese people. According to Stolen Valor author Burkett, the investigation has been thoroughly discredited, while the VVAW maintains the validity of all accounts and participants except Al Hubbard. Hundreds of known violations were prosecuted by the military, however, none of those testifying specifically at this event are known to have been prosecuted.

Jane Fonda helped raise funds for the event, and organizers included Dick Gregory, Phil Ochs, Graham Nash, David Crosby, and Donald Sutherland.

Future Senator John Kerry, then a decorated lieutenant in the Naval Reserve (inactive status), would shortly thereafter testify before the American Congress to the general conclusions gathered in Detroit. Prior to Winter Soldier, Kerry interviewed some of the participants to familiarize himself with their complaints. They were officially interviewed during the three day hearing in Detroit by moderator Al Hubbard, while Kerry observed.

Sen. Mark Hatfield of Oregon entered the Winter Soldier transcripts into the Congressional Record and asked the commandant of the Marine Corps for an investigation of the Marines that testified. Investigators were unable to confirm or refute the claimed atrocities, but identified one organizer (Al Hubbard) as never being in combat. Guenter Lewy in America in Vietnam says "The results of this investigation, carried out by the Naval Investigative Service are interesting and revealing ... Many of the veterans, although assured that they would not be questioned about atrocities they might have committed personally, refused to be interviewed. One of the active members of the VVAW told investigators that the leadership had directed the entire membership not to cooperate with military authorities."

Testimony Troubles the Nation
The February 3, 1971, Detroit Free Press interviewed James Weber and Ron Palosaari, and another soldier (Wilson, by phone, as he hadn't heard of the hearings) all of the same Americal unit, after the Winter Soldier Hearings. Weber told of witnessing an attack on a village by white phosphorous artillery and air strikes - an event neither he nor Palosaari mentioned during the hearings. Palosaari and Wilson confirmed the artillery and air strikes, but differed in opinion about the amount of damage done. Palosaari noted the strikes did hit the village, "because we could see people running around and trying to drag away bodies." They had photos of a large arms cache uncovered in the village, it apparently being a Vietcong stronghold. The Pentagon confirmed that Weber and Palosaari were Vietnam veterans. To view the events they actually testified about at the hearings, and had entered into congressional record, see the Winter Soldier Investigation link below.
Phony Vietnam veterans alleged in books
Guenter Lewy's 1978 book America in Vietnam (pages 316-317) and B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley's Stolen Valor (Verity Press, Inc., Dallas, Texas)(pages 113, 131-137) contain similar information about alleged flaws in Lane's book. Neither book, however, refutes any of the testimony given during the Winter Soldier Investigation.

Lawyer and leftist activist Mark Lane was one of the organizers of Winter Soldier. In 1970, Lane had published a book called Conversations With Americans purporting to be interviews with Vietnam veterans about war crimes, containing Vietnam tales of atrocities. Reporter Neil Sheehan showed some interviewed in Lane's book had never served in Vietnam and others had not been in the situations they described. Lane admitted he did not check military records, as confirmation of details was not relevant. Lane later confirmed these militarty records.
The following are often falsely listed as being participants in Winter Soldier, but were actually in Lane's book instead. This confusion is probably due to Stolen Valor having an explanation of Lane's history within the section on Winter Soldier.
Chuck Onan, stock room clerk in Beaufort, S.C.
Michael Schneider, deserted in Europe and deserted again in the USA.
Terry Whitmore, was in an unpopulated area of Vietnam.
Garry Gianninoto, medical corpsman at battalion headquarters.
VVAW leader and Winter Soldier co-organizer Al Hubbard lied about being an officer, and sustaining war injuries - but he never testified at Winter Soldier .
According to the investigative work of Burkett, Lewy and others, there were many imposters, liars, and plain nutjobs who infiltrated the ranks of the anti-war movement, and, in some cases, testified to war crimes and atrocities that never occurred in order to get attention, sympathy, and, in one documented case, medals and honors. It is also true, as noted by author Gerald Nicosia in his authoritative history of the Vietnam Veterans Movement “Home to War”, that those discredited voices were never key witnesses in either the Winter Soldier Investigation or in subsequent war crimes investigations such as the congressional Dellums Hearings of 1971.

Also from that same chapter in Guenter Lewy's book America in Vietnam (page 309): "The conflict in Vietnam was a guerilla war without fronts, and this created a setting especially conducive to atrocities. Aggressive behavior is often the result of frustration and anxiety, and the American servicemen in Vietnam experienced both of these states of mind in abundance ... Gradually the entire Vietnamese population became an object of fear and hatred. As a marine lieutenant told an American doctor: "You walk through the ****ing bush for three days and nights without sleep. Watch your men, your buddies, your ******* kids get booby trapped. Blown apart. Get thrown six feet in the air by a trap laid by an old lady and come down with no legs." Eventually you conclude, he said, that the only thing to do is 'kill them all.'"

While no one involved with the Winter Soldier Investigation, and subsequent Senate hearings, ever accused "all" servicemen of misconduct - it was obvious the problem had grown beyond "isolated incident" status. The problem was perceived by the participants as epidemic, and was seen as ignored and even condoned by leaders at all levels in the military and government. Winter Soldier was the culmination of efforts to finally bring national attention to this situation, and to expedite the end of America's participation in the Vietnam conflict.

External links
World On Fire Columnist Rick Freedman on Winter Soldier
VVAW Archives The truth behind "Stolen Valor"
Baltimore Sun Article Vietnam Vets Stand by Kerry Today
Winter Soldier Investigation Sixties project archive
Wintersoldier.com - partisan examination
FBI VVAW file during Winter Soldier (18 megabyte PDF file)
Nicosia, Gerald (2002). Home to War: A History of the Vietnam Veterans' Movement. CA: Three Rivers Press. ISBN 0609809067
Burkett, B. G. & Whitley, Glenna (1998). Stolen Valor: How the Vietnam Generation Was Robbed of Its Heroes and Its History. Dallas: Verity Press Inc. ISBN 096670360X.
Lewy, Guenter (1978). America in Vietnam. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195023919. ISBN 0195027329 pbk.



08-18-04, 08:49 AM
Kerry’s Evidence
Gary Aldrich (archive)

August 17, 2004 | Print | Send

Deftly, the Democrats have managed to exclude hard truth from their political campaigns. The most recent presidential campaigns are the best evidence. Nowhere can we find any real evidence upon which to make our judgements.

Is this because we think presidential politics is less important than simple small claims court cases heard before Judge Judy?

I helped enforce the law for 26 years, and I worked in the White House. During that time, I helped three presidents screen their important appointees for character flaws so that the president would at least have the option to keep men and women of low character out of the White House. The process was formal, and we developed real, honest to goodness legal evidence on the road to deciding character issues.

We are a nation of laws, but in 1992, when Bill Clinton declared that he would not release his medical records to the media so that the nation would know if he suffered from some debilitating illness, the mainstream media didn’t even whimper. His claims of good health were all that was required.

Looking back at the Kennedy presidency, we knew after the fact that Jack Kennedy had terrible health and took heavy doses of serious prescription drugs. Was it fair to the nation to hide important information about his health? Perhaps after election, but before? Where is the rationale for failing to get important information from the candidates?

If a candidate fails to produce evidence of good health, shouldn’t the mainstream media take the position that his health is unknown because the candidate refuses to talk?

When Bill Clinton’s convoluted financial matters became a scandalous issue, once again, the mainstream media looked the other way. As scandal after scandal emerged, it became obvious that if the public had known about the many serious questions of his moral character, they might have chosen a different commander-in-chief.

Eight years of chaos and messy revelations were the reward for deciding that politics deserved less attention than the most routine family law case. But, who decides what the public gets to know? These days the public assumes somebody is checking, but they are dead wrong. I am always amazed when I hear somebody say that the “government” or a political party knows all about the candidate. The recent campaign in Illinois is stark evidence that candidates can hide serious secrets about their poor character.

Not convinced of that? Why not ask voters in the state of New Jersey?

There is no FBI background check conducted on candidates at any level because there is no constitutional requirement for that. So, what you know is either what the candidate tells you or what the mainstream media is able to dig up.

In the case of John Kerry, many issues swirl around his service in Vietnam and his activities after he returned and became engaged with an anti-war, anti-American group known as Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Kerry could make hard evidence available to the general public through the mainstream media by just filling out a few simple forms and submitting them to the federal government. But Senator Kerry refuses to do that.

Kerry will not release his medical records. Kerry will not release his military records. Kerry will not release records of the investigation conducted about his anti-war, anti-American activities, and Kerry will not release his IRS records which would show the source of his wealth, suggested as enormous. In short, Kerry will not produce any real evidence about his true character. He is suggesting, I suppose, that we should take his word for it. Or perhaps we should just guess.

If Judge Judy heard Kerry’s flimsy case, not only would she throw it out, she probably would fine Senator Kerry fifty dollars for annoying the court and wasting its precious time. In view of the absence of any real evidence, I think voters must assume Senator John Kerry’s true character is highly questionable.

Gary Aldrich is president and founder of The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, a Townhall.com member group.



08-18-04, 01:29 PM
Kerry disputes allegations on Cambodia
By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff | August 18, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Senator John F. Kerry is disputing an allegation made by a group of veterans opposed to his presidential candidacy that he never operated inside Cambodia during the Vietnam War.

In a just-published book, "Unfit for Command," the veterans said that "Kerry was never in Cambodia during Christmas 1968, or at all during the Vietnam War" and that he "would have been court-martialed had he gone there."

But the Kerry campaign said that the group, which calls itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is wrong and that Kerry was inside Cambodia to drop off special forces on one mission and was at the border on other occasions.

"During John Kerry's service in Vietnam, many times he was on or near the Cambodian border and on one occasion crossed into Cambodia at the request of members of a special operations group operating out of Ha Tien," Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan said in a statement. The statement did not say when the cross-border mission took place.

At the time of Kerry's service, the official policy was that US forces were supposed to respect the territorial integrity of Cambodia, but they occasionally went inside Cambodia either secretly or in pursuit of the enemy.

For years, Kerry has said he was in Cambodia on Christmas Eve 1968. He gave a detailed view of that experience in an article he wrote for the Boston Herald in 1979. "I remember spending Christmas Eve five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas," Kerry wrote. "The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real." A similar recollection by Kerry was mentioned in a Globe biography of the Massachusetts senator published earlier this year.

The anti-Kerry veterans have said Kerry's recollection does not make sense because Nixon was not inaugurated until January 1969. But Kerry campaign spokesman Meehan said Kerry was referring to a range of time that included when Nixon was president-elect and president. During the 1968 presidential campaign, Nixon opposed a change in US policy that would allow "hot pursuit" of enemy forces into Cambodia; in March 1969 he authorized the secret bombing of Cambodia, which was followed by the 1970 invasion of Cambodia.

Kerry said in a 2003 interview that after the Christmas Eve 1968 engagement, he asked his crew to write a caustic telegram to the chief of naval forces in Vietnam, Elmo Zumwalt Jr., to wish him "Merry Christmas from the troops that weren't in Cambodia, which was us. We were."

Meehan, in his statement issued last week, described the incident this way:

"On December 24, 1968, Lieutenant John Kerry and his crew were on patrol in the watery borders between Vietnam and Cambodia deep in enemy territory. In the early afternoon, Kerry's boat, PCF-44, was at Sa Dec and then headed north to the Cambodian border. There, Kerry and his crew along with two other boats were ambushed, taking fire from both sides of the river, and after the firefight were fired upon again. Later that evening during their night patrol they came under friendly fire."

James Wasser, who accompanied Kerry on that mission aboard patrol boat No. 44 and who supports Kerry's candidacy, said that while he believes they were "very, very close" to Cambodia, he did not think they entered Cambodia on that mission. Yet he added: "It is very hard to tell. There are no signs."

Another crewmate who said he was with Kerry on Christmas Eve, Steven Gardner -- who is a member of the veterans group opposing Kerry's candidacy -- said Kerry was 50 miles from Cambodia at the time. He accused Kerry of lying about being in Cambodia or by the border. "Never happened," Gardner said.

Separately, according to Meehan's statement, Kerry crossed into Cambodia on a covert mission to drop off special operations forces. In an interview, Meehan said there was no paperwork for such missions and he could not supply a date. That makes it hard to ascertain or confirm what happened. Kerry served on two swift boats, the No. 44 in December 1968 and January 1969, and the No. 94, from February to March 1969.

Michael Medeiros, who served aboard the No. 94 with Kerry and appeared with him at the Democratic National Convention, vividly recalled an occasion on which Kerry and the crew chased an enemy to the Cambodian border but did not go beyond the border. Yet Medeiros said he could not recall dropping off special forces in Cambodia or going inside Cambodia with Kerry.



08-18-04, 02:39 PM
Kerry's fellow 'Swiftees' dispute his Purple Hearts

A number of the combat commanders, fellow officers and other men who served with Sen. John Kerry in Vietnam have challenged his accounts of combat heroism in a new book, "Unfit for Command" (Regnery Publishing), by John E. O´Neill, who took over command of Swift Boat PCF 94 from Lt. Kerry, and Jerome R. Corsi, a political scientist who has written extensively about the Vietnam War protest movement. Each of these excerpts from "Unfit for Command" includes comparisons of Mr. Kerry´s earlier published accounts to recollections of others who served with him.

First of three excerpts
In the history of Swift Boats in Vietnam, all military personnel served a tour of duty of at least one year unless seriously wounded. Among the few exceptions was John Kerry, who requested to leave Vietnam in 1969 after four months, citing a regulation that permitted release of personnel with three Purple Hearts.
Kerry, now the four-term senator from Massachusetts and the Democratic presidential nominee, is also the only known "Swiftee" who received the Purple Heart for a self-inflicted wound.
None of Kerry's three Purple Hearts was for serious injuries. They were minor scratches, resulting in no lost duty time.
Each of these decorations is controversial, with considerable evidence (and in two cases, incontrovertible and conclusive evidence) that the injuries were caused by his own hand and not the result of hostile fire.
Kerry's injuries are a subject of ridicule among fellow Swiftees.
"Many took exception to the Purple Hearts awarded to Kerry," Swift Boat veteran William E. Franke, a Silver Star recipient, wrote to the authors in March. "His 'wounds' were suspect, so insignificant as to not be worthy of the award of such a medal."
Franke and about 200 others, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, came forth in May to question Kerry's deception. These veterans from Kerry's unit signed a petition calling on him to execute Standard Form 180 and allow the public complete access to his service record.
Swiftees have remarked that if Kerry faked even one of these awards, he owed the Navy 243 additional days in Vietnam before running for anything.
In a unit where terribly wounded personnel like Shelton White (now an undersea film producer for National Geographic) chose to return to duty after three wounds on the same day, Kerry's actions were disgraceful.
Indeed, many share the feelings of Adm. Roy F. Hoffmann, to whom all Swiftees reported when he was commander of Coastal Surveillance Force Vietnam in 1968-69: Kerry simply "bugged out" when the heat was on.

Kerry volunteers
The Navy first brought Swift Boats to Vietnam in 1966 to control the coast. The high-speed, 50-foot aluminum boats — designated PCFs, for Patrol Crafts Fast — were specifically designed to intercept and inspect offshore traffic. They carried mortars.
Swift Boats, or PCFs, had no armor and relied on speed and firepower. Each boat had a six-man crew and operated as part of a small division.
Kerry volunteered for service on the Swifts. Given his extreme opposition to the Vietnam War and his view that it was an immoral enterprise, Kerry's action has always puzzled most Swiftees. But in the early days, Swift Boats saw infrequent combat, which is apparently why they attracted Kerry.
"Although I wanted to see for myself what was going on, I didn't really want to get involved in the war," Kerry wrote in his 1986 contribution to "The Vietnam Experience: A War Remembered."
In late 1968, the Swift Boat mission was redefined to root out the enemy hiding in the difficult terrain of the canals and rivers of the Mekong Delta.
On Nov. 17, 1968, Kerry reported for duty to Coastal Squadron One, Coastal Division 14, at Cam Ranh Bay in South Vietnam. He had served a year without seeing combat aboard the USS Gridley, a guided-missile frigate that spent five weeks off the coast of Vietnam doing guard duty for planes.
Cam Ranh, a French tourist town with a well-protected, deep-water harbor and beautiful white beaches, was generally regarded as the safest place in Vietnam. Kerry, promoted five months earlier to lieutenant junior grade, spent one month of his four-month Vietnam tour training in Cam Ranh Bay.
Kerry's campaign Web site, johnkerry.com, presents his first Purple Heart incident in typical heroic fashion: "December 2, 1968 — Kerry experiences first intense combat; receives first combat related injury."

Kerry's account
Kerry recalled the incident as "a half-assed action that hardly qualified as combat" in Douglas Brinkley's book "Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War" (William Morrow, 2004).
As Kerry described the situation to Brinkley, he grew bored in his first two weeks in Vietnam while awaiting assignment of his own boat.
So Kerry volunteered for a "special mission" on a boat the Navy calls a skimmer, but which he knew as a "Boston whaler." The craft was a foam-filled boat, not a Swift Boat.
Kerry and two enlisted men were patrolling along what Kerry described as "the shore off a Viet Cong?infested peninsula north of Cam Ranh" when the action started around 2 or 3 a.m. Here are Kerry's words, quoted by Brinkley:
"The jungle closed in on us on both sides. It was scary as hell. You could hear yourself breathing. We were almost touching the shore. Suddenly, through the magnified moonlight of the infrared 'starlight scope,' I watched, mesmerized, as a group of sampans glided in toward the shore. We had been briefed that this was a favorite crossing area for VC trafficking contraband."
Kerry said he turned off the motor and paddled the Boston whaler out of the inlet into the bay. Then he saw the Vietnamese pull their sampans onto the beach; they began to unload something. As recounted in "Tour of Duty," Kerry decided to light a flare:
"The entire sky seemed to explode into daylight. The men from the sampans bolted erect, stiff with shock for only an instant before they sprang for cover like a herd of panicked gazelles I had once seen on TV's 'Wild Kingdom.' We opened fire ...The light from the flares started to fade, the air was full of explosions. My M-16 jammed, and as I bent down in the boat to grab another gun, a stinging piece of heat socked into my arm and just seemed to burn like hell. By this time, one of the sailors had started the engine, and we ran by the beach, strafing it. Then it was quiet."
That was the entire action. As Kerry explained to Brinkley, he was not about to go chasing after the Vietnamese:
"We were unprotected; we didn't have ammunition; we didn't have cover; we just weren't prepared for that. ... So we first shot the sampans so that they were destroyed and whatever was in them was destroyed."
Kerry and his crew loaded their gear in the Swift Boat that was there to cover them and, with the Boston whaler in tow, headed back to Cam Ranh Bay.
"I felt terribly seasoned after this minor skirmish," Kerry recalled in the Brinkley book, "but since I couldn't put my finger on what we had really accomplished or on what had happened, it was difficult to feel satisfied. I never saw where the piece of shrapnel had come from, and the vision of the men running like gazelles haunted me."

Boston Globe's account
A somewhat different version is recounted in "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography" (PublicAffairs Reports, 2004), by Boston Globe reporters Michael Kranish, Brian C. Mooney and Nina J. Easton.
In this account, Kerry emphasized that he was patrolling with the Boston whaler in a free-fire curfew zone, and that "anyone violating the curfew could be considered an enemy and shot."
Questions had been raised about whether the incident involved any enemy fire, and the Globe reporters covered this point as follows:
"The Kerry campaign showed the Boston Globe a one-page document listing Kerry's medical treatment during some of his service time. The notation said: '3 DEC 1968 U.S. NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY CAM RANH BAY RVN FPO Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and apply Bacitracin dressing. Ret to duty.'"
The Globe asked the campaign whether Kerry was certain he received enemy fire and whether Kerry remembers the Purple Heart being questioned by a superior officer. The campaign did not respond to those specific questions and, instead, provided a written statement that the Navy did find the action worthy of a Purple Heart.
Two men serving alongside Kerry that night had similar memories. William Zaldonis, who was manning an M-60, and Patrick Runyon, operating the engine, said they spotted some people running from a sampan to a nearby shoreline. When they refused to obey a call to stop, Kerry's crew began shooting.
"When John told me to open up, I opened up," Zaldonis recalled to the Globe.
Zaldonis and Runyon both said they were too busy to notice how Kerry was hit.
"I assume they fired back," Zaldonis said. "If you can picture me holding an M-60 machine gun and firing it — what do I see? Nothing. If they were firing at us, it was hard for me to tell."
Runyon said he assumed the suspected Viet Cong fired back because Kerry was hit by a piece of shrapnel.
"I can't say for sure that we got return fire or how [Kerry] got nicked," Runyon told the Globe. "I know he did get nicked, a scrape on the arm."

So even in the Globe accounting, it was not clear there was any enemy fire, just a question about how Kerry might have been hit with shrapnel.


08-18-04, 02:40 PM
The Globe reporters noted that upon the group's return to base, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, Kerry's superior officer in Coastal Division 14, was skeptical about the injury. The Globe account quoted William Schachte, a lieutenant in command for the operation who went on to become an admiral. "It was not a very serious wound at all," Schachte said in 2003.
Still, on April 18, when NBC correspondent Tim Russert questioned Kerry on national television about the incident, Kerry described it as "the most frightening night" of his Vietnam experience.
The Globe reporters noted that Kerry declined to be interviewed about the incident.

What happened
At the time of this incident, Kerry was an officer in command (OinC) under training. He was aboard the skimmer using the call sign "Robin" on the operation; Schachte, using the call sign "Batman," also was on the skimmer.
After Kerry's M-16 jammed, Kerry picked up an M-79 grenade launcher and fired a grenade too close, causing a tiny piece of shrapnel (one to two centimeters) to barely stick in his arm. Schachte berated Kerry for almost putting someone's eye out.
There was no hostile fire of any kind, nor did Kerry on the way back mention to OinC Mike Voss, who commanded the PCF that towed the skimmer, that he was wounded.
There was no report of hostile fire that day (as would be required), nor do the records at Cam Ranh Bay reveal such hostile fire. No other records reflect hostile fire. There is no casualty report, as would have been required had there actually been a casualty.
To the surprise of both Schachte and the treating doctor, Louis Letson, Kerry managed to keep the tiny hanging fragment barely embedded in his arm until he arrived at sick bay miles away. Kerry was examined by Letson, who never has forgotten the experience and related it to his Democratic county chairman early in the 2004 primary campaign.
Letson, observing Kerry's unimpressive scratch, asked in surprise, "Why are you here?"
Kerry answered, "I've been wounded by hostile fire."
Accompanying crewmen told Letson that Kerry had wounded himself. Letson used tweezers to remove the tiny fragment, which he identified as shrapnel like that from an M-79 (not from a rifle bullet), and put a small bandage on Kerry's arm.
The following morning, Kerry appeared at the office of Cmdr. Hibbard and applied for the Purple Heart. Hibbard turned down the award.

Hibbard's account
When the authors interviewed Hibbard on June 17, he was emphatic that Kerry's slight injury, in his opinion, could not possibly merit the Purple Heart.
Q: When did you first meet John Kerry?
Hibbard: Kerry reported to my division in November 1968. I didn't know him from Adam.
Q: Can you describe the mission in which Kerry got his first Purple Heart?
Hibbard: Kerry requested permission to go on a skimmer operation with Lieutenant Schachte, my most senior and trusted lieutenant, using a Boston whaler to try to interdict a Viet Cong movement of arms and munitions.
The next morning at the briefing, I was informed that no enemy fire had been received on that mission. Our units had fired on some VC units running on the beach. We were all in my office, some of the crew members, I remember Schachte being there.
This was 36 years ago; it really didn't seem all that important at the time. Here was this lieutenant, junior grade, who was saying, "I got wounded," and everybody else, the crew that were present were saying, "We didn't get any fire. We don't know how he got the scratch."
Kerry showed me the scratch on his arm. I hadn't been informed that he had any medical treatment. The scratch didn't look like much to me; I've seen worse injuries from a rose thorn.
Q: Did Kerry want you to recommend him for a Purple Heart?
Hibbard: Yes, that was his whole point. He had this little piece of shrapnel in his hand. It was tiny. I was told later that Kerry had fired an M-79 grenade and that he had misjudged it. He fired it too close to the shore, and it exploded on a rock or something. He got hit by a piece of shrapnel from a grenade that he had fired himself.
The injury was self-inflicted, that's what made sense to me. I told Kerry to "forget it." There was no hostile fire, the injury was self-inflicted for all I knew. Besides, it was nothing really more than a scratch. Kerry wasn't getting any Purple Heart recommendation from me.
Q: How did Kerry get a Purple Heart from the incident, then?
Hibbard: I don't know. It beats me. I know I didn't recommend him for a Purple Heart. Kerry probably wrote up the paperwork and recommended himself, that's all I can figure out. If it ever came across my desk, I don't have any recollection of it. Kerry didn't get my signature. I said "no way" and told him to get out of my office.

The doctor's account
Kerry somehow "gamed the system" nearly three months later to obtain the Purple Heart that Hibbard had denied. How he obtained the award is unknown, since his continued refusal to execute Standard Form 180 means that whatever other documents exist are known only to Kerry, the Department of Defense and God.
Only a treatment record reflecting a scratch and a certificate signed three months later have been produced. There is no "after-action" hostile fire or casualty report. This is because there was no hostile fire, casualty, or action on this "most frightening night" of Kerry's Vietnam experience.
Letson agreed with Hibbard, in a statement the doctor gave us in April, that Kerry's injury was minor and probably self-inflicted:
"The incident that occasioned my meeting with Lieutenant Kerry began while he was patrolling the coast at night just north of Cam Ranh Bay, where I was the only medical officer for a small support base. Kerry returned from that night on patrol with an injury.
"Kerry reported that he had observed suspicious activity on shore and fired a flare to illuminate the area," Letson continued. "According to Kerry, they had been engaged in a firefight, receiving small arms fire from on shore. He said that his injury resulted from this enemy action.
"The story he told was different from what his crewmen had to say about that night. Some of his crew confided that they did not receive any fire from shore, but that Kerry had fired a grenade round at close range to the shore. The crewman who related this story thought that the injury was from a fragment of the grenade shell that had ricocheted back from the rocks. That seemed to fit the injury I treated.
"What I saw was a small piece of metal sticking very superficially in the skin of Kerry's arm. The metal fragment measured about one centimeter in length and was about two or three millimeters in diameter. It certainly did not look like a round from a rifle," Letson continued.
"I simply removed the piece of metal by lifting it out of the skin with forceps. I doubt that it penetrated more than three or four millimeters. It did not require probing to find it, nor did it require any anesthesia to remove it. It did not require any sutures to close the wound. The wound was covered with a Band-Aid. No other injuries were reported and I do not recall that there was any injury to the boat.
"I remember that Jess Carreon [Letson's corpsman, now dead] was present at the time, and he, in fact, made the entry into Lieutenant Kerry's medical record."
Letson also said: "Lieutenant Kerry's crew related that he had told them that he would be president one day. He liked to think of himself as the next JFK from Massachusetts."
Most fellow Swiftees who were with Kerry at Cam Ranh Bay never knew until Kerry decided to run for president that he had somehow successfully maneuvered his way to this undeserved Purple Heart. But in Coastal Division 14, Kerry's attempt to gain the award through fraud marked him as someone who could never be trusted.
When Kerry was dispatched to go to An Thoi with Lt. Tedd Peck (who would retire as a Navy captain), Peck told him: "Kerry, follow me no closer than a thousand yards. If you get any closer, I'll teach you what a real Purple Heart is."



08-18-04, 03:25 PM
Oops! Was that Kerry or Kerrey?
Some confusion dogs candidate's resume
The Associated Press
Updated: 1:53 p.m. ET Aug. 18, 2004
WASHINGTON - John Kerry, Bob Kerrey. It’s easy to get confused.
At least that’s how the Kerry campaign is explaining claims that Kerry — the Democratic presidential candidate — served as vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Oops. Make that Bob Kerrey — the former Democratic senator from Nebraska who did serve as the panel’s vice chairman.
In news releases and postings on Kerry’s campaign Web site as recently as last Friday, the Massachusetts senator is touted as the panel’s former vice chairman. However, according to the Senate Historical Office, Kerry never had the seniority to hold a leadership position on the committee — though he was a member from 1993 until 2001.
“John Kerry, Bob Kerrey — similar names,” said Kerry campaign spokesman Michael Meehan, adding that any reference to Kerry as vice chairman was an error.
Republicans were less willing to see the misstatement as an innocent mistake.
“It’s difficult to take John Kerry’s claims about his intelligence experience seriously when one of his credentials is completely made up,” said Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson. “If he had shown up for Intelligence Committee hearings he would notice he wasn’t vice chairman.”
Kerry’s failure to attend three-fourths of the committee’s public hearings was criticized by RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie in a memo Tuesday to members of Congress.
The Kerry campaign has not denied he missed meetings but has said the criticism relies on accounts of 65 open hearings and doesn’t note that the panel held more than 329 meetings.


08-18-04, 04:01 PM
Kerry camp denies hiding war records <br />
<br />
<br />
By Stephen Dinan <br />
<br />
<br />
Sen. John Kerry's campaign said yesterday that the Democratic presidential nominee is not hiding any of his war...

08-19-04, 06:34 AM
Has Kerry Helped Vietnam Sue Over Agent Orange?

Thursday, February 05, 2004

By Steven Milloy

Fox News

When Howard Dean challenged Sen. John Kerry's effectiveness as a senator last week, Sen. Kerry defended himself in part by noting that he helped pass Agent Orange benefits for Vietnam veterans.

That's true, but it was a good deed done for the wrong reason -- one that has opened the door for Vietnam to bilk billions of dollars from U.S taxpayers.

A lawsuit was filed on Jan. 30 by the Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange -- a front group formed by the government of Vietnam -- against 10 U.S. companies associated with the manufacture of Agent Orange, such as Dow Chemical and Monsanto. The lawsuit alleges that Agent Orange caused cancer, miscarriage and birth defects among three individuals.

The U.S. military sprayed millions of gallons of Agent Orange to defoliate forests in Vietnam from 1962 to 1971. The Agent Orange
contained small amounts of dioxin, a substance that anti-chemical activists like to portray as being ultra-toxic.

Some Vietnam veterans who became ill after the war linked their illnesses to exposure to Agent Orange.

Armed with an unpublished report conducted by anti-chemical activists supposedly linking Agent Orange with veterans' health problems, Sen. Kerry sponsored legislation in May 1990 to compensate Vietnam veterans for Agent Orange exposure, stating "It is not only appropriate but scientifically correct."

But a fair reading of the still-ongoing scientific study of these veterans, including U.S. ground troops who operated in sprayed areas and the U.S. Air Force personnel responsible for spraying, actually indicates that there is no credible evidence that Agent Orange caused any health effects whatsoever.

Studies of the Air Force personnel -- the military personel with the highest exposures to the dioxin in Agent Orange -- indicated they are as healthy as other Air Force personnel not involved in the spraying and are as healthy as other U.S. men in the general population, according to Dr. Michael Gough, a 10-year member of the U.S. government committee investigating the Agent Orange controversy.

Studies of the U.S. ground troops indicated they didn't even have notable exposures to the dioxin in Agent Orange, added Gough.

At the time of the debate over Agent Orange compensation, however, the science wasn't what was driving Sen, Kerry -- it was, rather, his rightful concern about how the country was treating its veterans.

"I find it highly disturbing that those people who went to fight the VC (Viet Cong) in Vietnam spend too much time fighting the VA (Department of Veterans Affairs) back here in this country," Kerry proclaimed in 1988.

Certainly veterans should be well-taken care of by the nation they served, but the problem is that that Sen. Kerry and others made the basis of that compensation a supposed definite scientific link between Agent Orange and health effects -- something that didn't and still doesn't exist -- rather than a moral duty which does.

The lawsuit filed by Vietnam wasn't available for review at the time I wrote this column, so I don't know the precise details of their allegations. Suffice it to say for now, though, that based on what we know about Agent Orange and dioxin, the claims of related health effects aren't likely to survive scientific scrutiny -- especially in federal court where scientific experts rather than politicians will decide the matter.

Not only has dioxin not been conclusively shown to cause health effects (other than a severe acne in the case of very high exposures), but the health effects alleged in the lawsuit are common and could have a myriad of causes, especially among poverty-stricken people in a third world country.

The Vietnamese lawsuit is unlikely to survive procedural motions to dismiss it. I doubt foreign nationals have the legal right to sue U.S. companies for health effects potentially related to the companies' legally supplying the U.S. government with war materiel.

But despite scientific and legal hurdles, the controversy isn't likely to go away either.

Hoping to grab an easy few billion dollars or so, the cash-strapped government of Vietnam claims that about three million of its citizens have been harmed by Agent Orange. Vietnam has enlisted the help of U.S. environmentalists -- notably dioxin hysteric Arnold Schecter of the University of Texas -- who are eager to blame dioxin for virtually any and every health effect imaginable.

Thanks to Sen. Kerry and others who established by declaration the notion that Agent Orange caused health problems, it will be difficult to rationalize why Vietnam vets are compensated for Agent Orange exposure but Vietnamese civilians shouldn't be.

Perhaps someone should put that question to Sen. Kerry.

Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001).



08-19-04, 07:16 AM
Secret missions in Cambodia

By Andrew Antippas

I understand that the campaign of candidate John Kerry is now asserting that not only did Navy Lt. Kerry visit Cambodia in his swift boat in 1968-69, but he performed four missions to drop off agents inside Cambodia. Perhaps, but I don't think so.
In my Aug. 13 column in this paper, I described my job in the American embassy 1968-1970 as the "Cambodia man." My job was to follow events in Cambodia as they impacted the United States in Vietnam. This related in most part to border incidents. However, I did chair, on behalf of the American ambassador, a group known as the "Cambodia Committee," composed of Army, Navy intelligence, CIA and Special Forces representatives. The function of this committee was to supervise authorized cross-border operations — principally insertion of U.S. and Vietnamese Special Forces into the northeastern part of Cambodia and the panhandle of Laos to monitor the Ho Chi Minh Trail. This mountainous and jungled area had no civilian population, with the exception of some hill tribe villages. These teams performed very dangerous tasks, and the reaction of the Communists was invariably violent. Most extractions were done under fire.

Main force American units also performed reconnaissance of Communist border concentrations in their areas of operations with Long Range Patrols, known colloquially as "LRPs." Those that probed Cambodian base areas also received violent reactions. The Communist base areas after 1965 were extensive, well camouflaged and frequently underground. When U.S. and Vietnamese forces entered those areas during the incursions of May and June 1970, they encountered fierce resistance when destroying massive amounts of food and material. Military intelligence kept tabs on the more than one dozen base areas in Cambodia principally by signal intercepts, aircraft using side-looking radar, prisoner interrogation and some agent reports. At one Special Forces camp that I visited in the Mekong Delta swamps on the south side of the "Parrot's Beak" of Cambodia, the Green Berets had a ground radar system for monitoring infiltration that could discern humans from cattle as well as direction of movement.
I assisted in the delivery of five separate intelligence dossiers in 1968 on the Cambodian base areas through the Australian Embassy in Phnom Penh to the Cambodian government. We know the dossiers had a significant impact on the Cambodians, and we began a low level of cooperation as a result of the information.
The Navy kept track of Communist shipping to Cambodia, and the U.S. mission in Vietnam was persuaded that most of the munitions to the Communist forces in the southern half of South Vietnam were delivered through the Port of Sihanoukville.
Line crossers were not generally used in the populated portions of Cambodia that stretched along the borders of Vietnam's III and IV Corps to the Gulf of Siam because of the concern for the impact on civilians that could enrage Prince Sihanouk, the fiery head of state of Cambodia. Intelligence operatives had great trouble penetrating base areas. Even Cambodian provincial officials were prevented from traveling in their jurisdictions where there were base areas.
This was, by the way, one key reason for the overthrow of Prince Sihanouk in March 1970. His seeming acceptance of Vietnamese Communist usurpation of Cambodian land alienated many of his subjects, including the peasants on the border who were shot at by both sides. The Cambodian farmers detested the land grabbing of the Vietnamese. The relative openness of the terrain also militated against armed groups of Americans scouring the countryside.
I believe, based on the foregoing, that I would have been aware of Navy operations inserting agents into the southern parts of Cambodia.

Andrew Antippas is a combat infantry veteran of the Korean War and served eight of his 32 years in the U.S. Foreign Service working on Cambodia.



08-19-04, 08:24 AM
Military Documents Contradict Kerry Critic

Thu Aug 19, 4:27 AM ET

WASHINGTON - A Vietnam veteran who claims Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) lied about being under fire during a Mekong Delta engagement that won Kerry a Bronze Star was under constant fire himself during the same skirmish, according to the man's own medal citation, a newspaper reported.

The newly obtained records of Larry Thurlow show that he, like Kerry, won a Bronze Star in the engagement and that Thurlow's citation said he also was under attack, The Washington Post reported Thursday.

Thurlow, also like Kerry, commanded a Navy Swift boat during the Vietnam War. Thurlow swore in an affidavit last month that Kerry was "not under fire" when he rescued Lt. James Rassmann from the Bay Hap River.

Thurlow's records, obtained by the Post under the Freedom of Information Act, include references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at all five boats in the flotilla that day. In his Bronze Star citation, Thurlow is praised for helping a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

The records said Thurlow's actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire," which Thurlow ignored in providing immediate assistance to the disabled boat and its crew.

Thurlow is a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans who have aired a television advertisement attacking Kerry's war record.

Kerry has described how his boat came under fire from the river banks after a mine explosion disabled another U.S. Swift boat. Kerry and members of his crew say the firing continued as Kerry leaned over to fish out Rassmann, who was blown overboard in another explosion.

Thurlow described Kerry's Bronze Star citation as "totally fabricated," saying "I never heard a shot."

Thurlow, a registered Republican, said he was angry with Kerry for his anti-war activities after his return to the United States, especially his claim that U.S. troops committed war crimes with the knowledge of their officers up the chain of command.

Thurlow told the Post that he got the award for helping to rescue the boat that was mined.

"This casts doubt on anybody's awards," he said. "It is sickening and disgusting."

He said he believed his own award would be "fraudulent" if it was based on coming under enemy fire.

"We weren't under fire," he insisted, speculating that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.

Thurlow said he lost his Bronze Star citation more than 20 years ago. He said he would not authorize release of his military records because he feared the Kerry campaign would discredit him.

Members of Kerry's crew have said Kerry is telling the truth. Rassmann said he has vivid memories of enemies firing at him from both banks.



08-19-04, 09:33 AM
Ballad Of The French Berets
August 18, 2004

There ought to be a special word -- something German -- to describe the feeling of revulsion normal people experience when reading lines like these from a single article on John Kerry by Laura Blumenfeld in The Washington Post:

-- "Kerry's complexity has been an issue since his national debut in 1971."

-- "Kerry likes to quote the French writer Andre Gide: 'Don't try to understand me too quickly.'"

-- "His friend Dan Barbiero said it comes down to Kerry's complexity ..."

Apparently, Kerry's answers on the LSAT were too nuanced and complex for the Harvard Law School admissions committee: Despite all his connections, fancy education and war-protesting, Kerry couldn't get into Harvard Law School and went to Boston College Law School instead. Wait -- didn't Kerry throw that famous, game-winning "Hail Mary" pass while playing quarterback for Boston College back in the '80s? Or am I thinking of somebody else? Let's ask Doug Brinkley!)

-- "Flying to his next campaign stop, he chatted about maneuvers to avoid flak in combat."

-- "This was Primal John ... who ran with the bulls at Pamplona and, when trampled, got up, chased the bull, and grabbed for its horns."

(I'm almost sure this was a polite reference to John and Teresa's honeymoon night.)

The problem with a suck-up press for Democrats is that with no adversary press to call them on it, Democrats develop wilder and wilder Walter Mitty fantasy lives until finally one day, when they are at the zenith of their political careers, someone notices that they're not Irish, they didn't deserve their war medals, 254 Swift Boat veterans hate them, and they didn't spend Christmas Eve, 1968, in Cambodia. (Or that they are white-trash serial molesters and unrepentant rapists who somehow talked their way into an Arkansas governorship.)

The Boston Globe biography of Kerry published earlier this year compliantly repeats Kerry's yarn about how he spent Christmas 1968 in Cambodia "despite President Nixon's assurances that there was no combat action in this neutral territory."

Only recently did someone point out: (1) Kerry was 55 miles away from the Cambodian border on Christmas 1968 and (2) Nixon wasn't president in 1968. (How did "historian" Doug Brinkley miss that in his biography of Kerry?)

The media will spend weeks going through pay stubs for Bush's National Guard service in Alabama in the waning days of war, but if Kerry tells them exotic tales of covert missions into Cambodia directed by Richard Nixon, they don't even bother to fact-check who was president in December 1968.

Tom Harkin, Crazed Moron, was shouting this week that Dick Cheney is a "coward," evidently for not fighting in Vietnam like Harkin. Except Harkin didn't fight in Vietnam either! The last time Harkin was bragging about his Vietnam service was in 1984 when he told David Broder of The Washington Post: "I spent five years as a Navy pilot, starting in November of 1962. One year was in Vietnam. I was flying F-4s and F-8s on combat air patrols and photo-reconnaissance support missions."

Sen. Barry Goldwater -- not the Post -- checked with the Defense Department and soon Harkin was forced to admit he had never been in combat in Vietnam, but was based in Japan during the war, ferrying damaged planes from the Saigon airport to Japan for repairs. Oops!

Then there was Al Gore who, like Kerry, was in Vietnam just long enough to get photos for his future political campaigns. (Apparently all future Democratic politicians take cameras to war zones.)

Gore enlisted in the Army in 1970 in a calculated gambit to help his senator dad in an election year. Young Al was given a cushy job writing for the Stars and Stripes newspaper, a bodyguard, and an exit strategy when Pops lost the election. After five months of this hygienic tour of duty, Little Lord Fauntleroy asked to come home, and before long he was safe and sound and preparing to flunk out of divinity school and then drop out of law school.

But over the next 30 years, Gore provided the media with increasingly macho reminiscences of his combat experiences in Vietnam -- almost as vivid and stirring as the impassioned account he gave of being a tobacco farmer.

-- "I pulled my turn on the perimeter at night and walked through the elephant grass and I was fired upon." (The Baltimore Sun)

-- "I took my turn regularly on the perimeter in these little firebases out in the boonies. Something would move, we'd fire first and ask questions later." (Vanity Fair)

-- "I was shot at. I spent most of my time in the field." (The Washington Post)

I think someone needs to explain to the Democrats that having your picture taken is not what most veterans mean by "being shot at."

During World War II, then-congressman Lyndon Johnson went on a single flight -- as an observer -- for which he was awarded the Silver Star by Gen. Douglas MacArthur. Only recently has it been exposed that the medal was a complete fraud, probably awarded by MacArthur to curry favor with a congressman.

At the time, no one in the press bothered to investigate why Johnson was the only member of the crew to receive any sort of decoration for the 13-minute flight that never came under enemy fire -- and on which Johnson was merely an "observer." For the rest of his life Johnson got away with wearing what historian David Halberstam called "the least deserved and most proudly displayed Silver Star in military history."

Johnson told harrowing tales of his uneventful 13-minute flight, boasting that the men had called him "Raider Johnson." One time he harangued a congressman on foreign aid, saying: "I know foreign aid is unpopular, but I didn't want to go to the Pacific in '41 after Pearl Harbor, but I did. I didn't want to let those Japs shoot at me ... but I did."

The sole surviving member of the crew, Ret. Staff Sgt. Bob Marshall, U.S. Army, a gunner on the plane, disputed Johnson's story about being attacked by Japanese Zeros: "No way. No, that story was made up ... we had never seen a Zero. It was never attacked. There was nothing."

If only talk radio and cable TV had been around in the '60s, we'd be able to hear James Carville call Bob Marshall a liar and watch the Democratic National Committee threaten to sue any TV station that aired his story.

Ann Coulter



08-19-04, 11:37 AM
kerry's a dandy isn"t he? He's got an answer for any question. Even if it is the same question asked twice, he'll have a different answer for it.

kerry is still a jane fonda loving SOB!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

08-19-04, 12:47 PM
The Washington Times


Was Kerry in combat on Dec. 2, 1968?
Published August 19, 2004

One of the criteria for awarding a Purple Heart is that the person in question was involved in action against the enemy. A wound resulting from friendly fire still qualifies for a Purple Heart as long as it was incurred while engaged with the enemy. We relate this information because the writers over at Captainsquartersblog.com have raised an interesting question surrounding John Kerry's first Purple Heart.
According to Mr. Kerry's account of what happened on Dec. 2, 1968, he and his crew were steering a Navy skimmer on patrol in Cam Ranh Bay. Mr. Kerry and his crew came upon a group of Vietnamese unloading cargo on the far shore. Mr. Kerry and his crew opened fire. In the brief moments of action, Mr. Kerry received a shrapnel wound in his arm from an unknown source. What's missing is any mention that Mr. Kerry's crew was fired upon.
The next day, Mr. Kerry was treated for the wound, returned to duty and six weeks later was awarded his first Purple Heart.
The question is not whether Mr. Kerry was sufficiently wounded on Dec. 2. The question is: Was Mr. Kerry actually involved in combat that night? Statements from the men aboard Mr. Kerry's skimmer, though inconclusive, are doubtful. Mr. Kerry himself has always insisted that the encounter qualifies as combat and was one of the most frightening episodes in his life. Over at JohnKerry.com, there are few documents that record exactly what happened on Dec. 2. What amounts to a record of the night are a timeline that states, "December 2, 1968: Kerry experiences first intense combat; receives first combat related injury"; a medical report that reads simply, "Shrapnel in left arm above elbow. Shrapnel removed and appl[ied] bacitracin dressing. Ret[urned] to Duty"; and a citation from the Navy dated Feb. 28, 1969: "On behalf of the Chief of Naval Personnel, the Commander of U.S. Naval Support Activity, Saigon, hereby awards you the Purple Heart for injuries received on 2 December, 1968." And of course Mr. Kerry's own account.
But two weeks after Dec. 2, 1968, Mr. Kerry wrote an entry in his journal that raises questions about his own account of that night. Shortly after being wounded, Mr. Kerry was transferred to Cat Lo on the Mekong Delta and assumed his first command of a swift boat. In his biography of Mr. Kerry, "Tour of Duty," Douglas Brinkley reports on page 189 that soon after Mr. Kerry turned 25 on Dec. 11, 1968, he headed out on his first mission: "[The crew] 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'. "
If he had not "been shot at" on Dec. 2, then what occurred could not be considered combat. Nevertheless, the Navy awarded Mr. Kerry his first Purple Heart.
Mr. Kerry's spokesmen have disparaged the fellow swift boat men who have contested his account of events in Vietnam. But here is an instance when Mr. Kerry's claim of deserving his medal is refuted by his own words written contemporaneously with the event.



08-19-04, 01:28 PM
'Sampan incident' belies heroic image

By John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi

A number of the combat commanders, fellow officers and other men who served with Sen. John Kerry in Vietnam challenge his accounts of combat heroism in a new book, "Unfit for Command" (Regnery Publishing), by John E. O'Neill, who took over command of Swift Boat PCF 94 from Lt. Kerry, and Jerome R. Corsi, who has written extensively about the Vietnam War protest movement. Each of these excerpts from "Unfit for Command" includes comparisons of Mr. Kerry's earlier published accounts to recollections of others who served with him.

Second of three excerpts

John Kerry invented a "war hero" persona in his private journals and in the home movies he filmed and staged in Vietnam. Playing the lead role, he developed a past intended to advance his future political ambitions.
In reality, Kerry was regarded by his Navy peers as reckless with human life. Although Douglas Brinkley's biography "Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War" recalls that Kerry used the call sign "Square Jaw" for a short time, it doesn't mention the sign he actually used for most of his four months in Vietnam: "Boston Strangler."
Kerry portrays himself as a Swift Boat officer constantly protesting to his superiors about criminal war policies and inappropriate tactics. In reality, while Kerry constantly complained about the location of assignments to his peers, he hardly ever said a word of protest or spoke out in objection to any superior officer.
Kerry, who skippered two Swift Boats in the Mekong Delta from Dec. 6, 1968, to March 17, 1969, often sported a home-movie camera to record his exploits for later viewing. Fellow "Swiftees" report that Kerry would revisit ambush locations for re-enacting combat scenes where he would portray the hero.
Kerry would take movies of himself in combat gear, sometimes dressed as an infantryman walking resolutely through the terrain. He even filmed mock interviews of himself narrating his exploits.
A joke circulated among Swiftees was that Kerry left Vietnam early not because he received three Purple Hearts, but because he had recorded enough film of himself to take home for his planned political campaigns.
Only after returning home did Kerry argue publicly that war crimes were committed on a daily basis at the direction of all levels of command. He compared his superior officers to Lt. William Calley of My Lai infamy. Kerry's accusations typically relied on impostors who concocted incidents that, when investigated, proved to be exaggerations or fabrications.
On the other hand, the propriety of Kerry's own conduct in Vietnam was and is the subject of serious question.
"Kerry seemed to believe that there were no rules in a free-fire zone, and you were supposed to kill everyone," Swift Boat veteran William E. Franke of Coastal Division 11 told us. "I didn't see it that way. I will tell you in all candor that the only baby killer I knew in Vietnam was John F. Kerry."
The evidence shows John Kerry was a ruthless operator in the field, with little regard for life. One example is the sampan incident in An Thoi in January 1969.

Kerry's account
Kerry recounts that the Swift Boat under his command, PCF 44, and another, PCF 21, were patrolling a shallow channel on a pitch-black night and continually running aground.
For "Tour of Duty" (William Morrow, 2004), Brinkley drew his account from Kerry's journals and subsequent explanations, noting that "neither Swift's search or boarding lights were working properly."
" 'Many minutes of silent patrolling had gone by when one of the men yelled, "Sampan off the port bow," Kerry wrote [in his journal]. 'Everybody froze, and we slowed the engines quickly. But the sampan was already by us and wasn't stopping. It was past curfew, and nothing was allowed in the river. I told the gunner to fire a few warning shots, and in the confusion, all guns opened up. We moved in on the sampan and taking one of the battle lanterns off the bulkhead, shone it on the silhouette of the craft that was now dead in the water.' "
Critical in this account is Kerry's statement that he ordered the gunner to fire "a few warning shots." Brinkley records Kerry's self-justification of the action, one of many versions Kerry would subsequently offer to make the actions he took seem part of standard operating procedure:
"Technically, the two PCFs had done nothing wrong," Brinkley wrote. "The sampan, operating past curfew, was undeniably in a free-fire zone; what's more, there had been more than a few instances of sampans trying to get close enough to U.S. Navy vessels to toss bombs into their pilothouses."
In other words, Kerry is trying to establish that opening fire on the sampan (a flat-bottomed Chinese skiff propelled by oars) was justified — a pre-emptive attack in self-defense. For Kerry, it was critical to maintain that his actions were taken according to Navy policy; otherwise, he had no defense. A Nuremberg defense — "just following orders" — was and is Kerry's chosen line.
Kerry then admitted the civilian casualties he caused, according to the Brinkley biography:
"But knowing that they were following official Navy policy didn't make it any easier to deal with what the crews saw next. 'The light revealed a woman standing in the stern of the sampan with a child of perhaps two years or less in her arms,' Kerry wrote. 'Neither [was] harmed. We asked her where the men from the stern were, as one of the gunners was sure that he had seen someone moving back there. She gesticulated wildly, and I could see traces of blood on the engine mounting. It was obvious that they had been blown overboard.
"'Then somebody said there was a body up front, and we moved in closer to see the limbs of a small child limp on the stacks of rice. She had already covered it, and when one of the men asked me if I wanted it uncovered I said no, realizing that the face would stay with me for the rest of my life and that it was better not to know whether there was a smile or a grimace or whether it was a girl or boy.' "

Boston Globe's find
Coastal Division 11 personnel recall at least two different explanations given for the action by Kerry, in addition to his excuses that it was the crew's fault and that it was a free-fire zone.
Kerry has suggested that, under the rice on the sampan, there might have been a bomb that could have been thrown into the Swift Boat had Kerry allowed the sampan to move close enough.
Additionally, Kerry has suggested that the Viet Cong used women and children to cover their actions and that there could have been Viet Cong in the boat ready to fire on them when they got closer. Another of Kerry's suggestions was that the woman might have been hiding weapons in the sunken boat.
These are strange explanations, since Kerry also says in the Brinkley biography that during his "entire stint in Vietnam, he never found a single piece of contraband" on the hundreds of vessels he searched.
Critically important is the fact that Kerry filed a phony after-action operational report concealing the fact that a child had been killed during the attack on the sampan and inventing a fleeing squad of Viet Cong. The operational report is one of the important missing documents that Kerry neglects to make public on his campaign Web site.
The book written by three Boston Globe reporters, "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography" (PublicAffairs Reports, 2004), cites a Navy report of "a similar-sounding incident."
"In any case, while Kerry said in a 2003 interview that he wasn't sure when the boy in the sampan was killed, a Navy report says a similar-sounding incident took place on Jan. 20, 1969. The crew of No. 44 'took sampan under fire, returned to capture 1 woman and a small child, one enemy KIA [Killed in Action] ... believe four occupants fled to beach or possible KIA.' "
Kerry was the skipper of PCF 44 at the time. The Kerry campaign was sent a copy of the report, but did not respond when the Boston Globe asked if it matched Kerry's memory of the night the child was killed.
The Globe reporters, who unknowingly uncovered a critical piece of evidence, were skeptical there could have been two such incidents.

Eyewitness account
Gunner Steve Gardner sat above Kerry on the double .50-caliber mount that night in January 1969.
PCF 44, engines shut off, lay in ambush near the western mouth of the Cua Lon River. The boat's own generator was operating and its radar was on, with Kerry supposedly in the pilothouse monitoring the radar.
Although the radar was easily capable of picking up the sampan early, Kerry gave no warning to the crew and did not come out of the pilothouse. Instead, first an engine noise and then a sampan suddenly appeared in front of the boat — still no Kerry.
The PCF lights were thrown on — still no Kerry. The sampan was ordered to stop by the young gunner, Gardner — still no Kerry.
According to Gardner, there was no order to fire warning shots, as Kerry claimed. Indeed, there was no Kerry until it was over. When an occupant of the sampan appeared to Gardner to reach for or hold a weapon, he opened up (as did others), killing the father and, unintentionally, a child.
Then Kerry finally appeared; he ordered the crew to cease-fire and then threatened them with courts-martial.


08-19-04, 01:29 PM
'Bone of contention' <br />
Steve Gardner is the sole crewman not swayed by Kerry during his many post-Vietnam years of solicitation aimed at gaining the support of his own crew. <br />
Today, Gardner...

08-19-04, 06:16 PM
August 18, 2004, 8:29 a.m.
Extreme Supreme
A Kerry Court would be way left.

By Walter M. Weber

It is a political reality nowadays that the courts, and in particular the U.S. Supreme Court, trump the democratic process. Regardless of whether the Framers of the Constitution intended it to be so or not, we live in a de facto judge-run oligarchy. No number of laws — or votes — can overcome a court bent on enforcing its own views in the name of federal (or state) "constitutional rights."

Liberals know this. They also know that the core of their political agenda will rarely, if ever, command majoritarian support. Thus, stocking the bench with liberal judges and justices is absolutely essential to liberals.

And so we hear endless liberal moaning about what would happen should President Bush have the opportunity to appoint one or more Supreme Court justices.

Well, as a matter of fact, almost nothing would change under a second Bush term. The member of the Court most likely to retire is Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a strong conservative, and it is hard to see how his replacement could shift the Court to the right. Moreover, a solid majority of the U.S. Senate has made it clear that only over their dead bodies will any conservative justices win confirmation. So a second Bush term would likely see More of the Same.

But what if Sen. John Kerry captures the presidency? What if this committed liberal Democrat gets to pick Rehnquist's replacement?

The current Supreme Court is split into three camps. There are four dependable liberals (John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer), three dependable conservatives (Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas), and two unpredictable swing votes (Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy). Replacing Rehnquist with another dependable liberal — as a President Kerry would certainly do — would give the liberal bloc a stranglehold on the Court.

That would mean the complete victory of the liberal agenda. For example:

No more vouchers for use in religious schools: Vouchers that needy parents can use to send their children to private religious schools escaped constitutional death in the Supreme Court by the barest of margins, 5-4. A liberal replacement for Rehnquist would flip the balance.

Homosexual Boy Scout Leaders: The last time around, the Boy Scouts squeaked by with a 5-4 ruling saying they did not have to admit openly homosexual scout leaders. Say goodbye to the Scouts if Kerry gets to select Rehnquist's replacement.

Unlimited federal-government power: A slim 5-4 majority in a string of cases has enforced some modest limits on federal power under the Commerce Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and the Eleventh Amendment. Even those few limits would evaporate under a Kerry-picked Court.

Same-sex marriage and homosexuals in the military: There are already five or six pro-homosexual votes on the Supreme Court, as evidenced by the Court's 6-3 invalidation of a homosexual-sodomy statute in Lawrence v. Texas. Add another liberal and you can bank on total victory for the homosexual agenda.

Abortion on demand: There are already five votes for even the most extreme forms of abortion, such as partial-birth abortion. Put a Kerry appointee in for Rehnquist, and it won't matter whether Justice O'Connor changes her mind.

"Under God" in the Pledge: The Court recently dodged the constitutionality of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, so this remains a live issue. And while swing-vote Justice O'Connor indicated she would uphold the pledge, her vote would be irrelevant if a fifth liberal were added to the four current "strict separationists."

Farewell Christmas crèches and Ten Commandments displays: These displays are up for grabs in the current Supreme Court. Let Kerry put a fifth "strict separationist" on the Court, and all government acknowledgment of religion is likely dead on arrival.

Liberals are understandably salivating at the prospect of a Kerry administration. Win that, and they win the Supreme Court. Win the Court, and they win control of the country.

All in favor, say "aye." All opposed — well, your votes won't matter anyway.

— Walter Weber is a lawyer in Washington, D.C. This piece is written in his capacity as a private attorney and does not necessarily reflect the views of his employer.



08-19-04, 09:40 PM
Comments by Major General Patrick Brady, Medal of Honor Recipient Re John F'n Kerry <br />
<br />
Northwest Veterans Newsletter - Local News <br />
<br />
<br />
We seldom hear directly from Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady Medal Of...

08-20-04, 06:45 AM
Records Counter a Critic of Kerry
Fellow Skipper's Citation Refers To Enemy Fire

By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, August 19, 2004; Page A01

Newly obtained military records of one of Sen. John F. Kerry's most vocal critics, who has accused the Democratic presidential candidate of lying about his wartime record to win medals, contradict his own version of events.

In newspaper interviews and a best-selling book, Larry Thurlow, who commanded a Navy Swift boat alongside Kerry in Vietnam, has strongly disputed Kerry's claim that the Massachusetts Democrat's boat came under fire during a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory on March 13, 1969. Kerry won a Bronze Star for his actions that day.

But Thurlow's military records, portions of which were released yesterday to The Washington Post under the Freedom of Information Act, contain several references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units" of the five-boat flotilla. Thurlow won his own Bronze Star that day, and the citation praises him for providing assistance to a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

As one of five Swift boat skippers who led the raid up the Bay Hap River, Thurlow was a direct participant in the disputed events. He is also a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans dismayed by Kerry's subsequent antiwar activities, which has aired a controversial television advertisement attacking his war record.

In interviews and written reminiscences, Kerry has described how his 50-foot patrol boat came under fire from the banks of the Bay Hap after a mine explosion disabled another U.S. patrol boat. According to Kerry and members of his crew, the firing continued as an injured Kerry leaned over the bow of his ship to rescue a Special Forces officer who was blown overboard in a second explosion.

Last month, Thurlow swore in an affidavit that Kerry was "not under fire" when he fished Lt. James Rassmann out of the water. He described Kerry's Bronze Star citation, which says that all units involved came under "small arms and automatic weapons fire," as "totally fabricated."

"I never heard a shot," Thurlow said in his affidavit, which was released by Swift Boats Veterans for Truth. The group claims the backing of more than 250 Vietnam veterans, including a majority of Kerry's fellow boat commanders.

A document recommending Thurlow for the Bronze Star noted that all his actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance" to the disabled boat and its crew. The citation states that all other units in the flotilla also came under fire.

"It's like a Hollywood presentation here, which wasn't the case," Thurlow said last night after being read the full text of his Bronze Star citation. "My personal feeling was always that I got the award for coming to the rescue of the boat that was mined. This casts doubt on anybody's awards. It is sickening and disgusting."

Thurlow said he would consider his award "fraudulent" if coming under enemy fire was the basis for it. "I am here to state that we weren't under fire," he said. He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.

In a telephone interview Tuesday evening after he attended a Swift Boat Veterans strategy session in an Arlington hotel, Thurlow said he lost his Bronze Star citation more than 20 years ago. He said he was unwilling to authorize release of his military records because he feared attempts by the Kerry campaign to discredit him and other anti-Kerry veterans.

The Post filed an independent request for the documents with the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, which is the central repository for veterans' records. The documents were faxed to The Post by officials at the records center yesterday.

Thurlow and other anti-Kerry veterans have repeatedly alleged that Kerry was the author of an after-action report that described how his boat came under enemy fire. Kerry campaign researchers dispute that assertion, and there is no convincing documentary evidence to settle the argument. As the senior skipper in the flotilla, Thurlow might have been expected to write the after-action report for March 13, but he said that Kerry routinely "duked the system" to present his version of events.

For much of the episode, Kerry was not in a position to know firsthand what was happening on Thurlow's boat, as Kerry's boat had sped down the river after the mine exploded under another boat. He later returned to provide assistance to the stricken boat.

Thurlow, an oil industry worker and former teacher in Kansas, said he was angry with Kerry for his antiwar activities on his return to the United States and particularly Kerry's claim before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. troops in Vietnam had committed war crimes "with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command."

" 'Upset' is too mild a word," said Thurlow, a registered Republican, of his reaction to Kerry then. "He did it strictly for his own personal political gain, and it directly affected every single one of us as we were trying to put our lives together."

Two other Swift boat skippers who were direct participants in the March 13, 1969, mine explosion on the Bay Hap, Jack Chenoweth and Richard Pees, have said they do not remember coming under "enemy fire." A fourth commander, Don Droz, who was one of Kerry's closest friends in Vietnam, was killed in action a month later.

The incident featured prominently in an anti-Kerry television ad produced by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth earlier this month. "John Kerry lied to get his Bronze Star," says Van Odell, a gunner on PCF-23, one of the boats that came to the rescue of the stricken boat. "I know. I was there."

The Bronze Star controversy is also a major focus of an anti-Kerry book by John E. O'Neill, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry," which will hit No. 2 on The Post's bestseller list this weekend. The book accuses Kerry of "fleeing the scene" and lying repeatedly about his role.

Members of Kerry's crew have come to his defense, as has Rassmann, the Special Forces officer whom he fished from the river. Rassmann says he has vivid memories of being fired at from both banks after he fell into the river and as Kerry came to his rescue. The two had an emotional reunion on the eve of the Iowa Democratic caucuses in January, an event that some political analysts believe helped swing votes to Kerry at a crucial time.

The Bronze Star recommendations for both Kerry and Thurlow were signed by Lt. Cmdr. George M. Elliott, who received reports on the incident from his base in the Gulf of Thailand. Elliott is a supporter of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and has questioned Kerry's actions in Vietnam. But he has refused repeated requests for an interview after issuing conflicting statements to the Boston Globe about whether Kerry deserved a Silver Star. He was unreachable last night.

Money has poured into Swift Boat Veterans for Truth since the group launched its television advertisement attacking Kerry earlier this month. According to O'Neill, the group has received more than $450,000 over the past two weeks, mainly in small contributions. The Dallas Morning News reported yesterday that the organization has also received two $100,000 checks from Houston home builder Bob Perry, who backed George W. Bush's campaigns for Texas governor and for president.

Bush campaign officials have said they have no connection to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which is not permitted to coordinate its activities with a presidential campaign under federal election law.



08-20-04, 06:46 AM
08-19-2004 <br />
<br />
For the Record: Kerry Speech to the VFW <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
By John Kerry

08-20-04, 06:46 AM
I know what we have to do in Iraq. We need a president who has the credibility to bring our allies to our side because that’s the right way to get the job done in Iraq and bring our troops home.

We need to bring in NATO and other nations to share the cost and burdens. Right now, the United States is shouldering the lion’s share of this effort. Ninety percent of all coalition forces and nearly ninety percent of coalition coffins are draped with American flags. The American taxpayers are also paying the vast share of the cost of this war.

We also need to massively improve and accelerate our training of Iraqi police and security forces so they can defend their own country; and we need ensure that there is far greater security to provide the credible elections in 2005 critical to advance Iraq’s transition to stable, representative democracy.

As president, I will always ask hard questions and I will demand hard evidence. I will immediately reform the intelligence system – so policy is guided by facts, and facts are never distorted by politics.

As president, I will wage war with the lessons I learned in war. Before you go to battle, you have to be able to look a parent or family member in the eye and truthfully say: We tried everything possible to avoid sending your son or daughter into harm’s way. But we had no choice.

And now, with so much at stake in the struggle against al Qaeda the American people want to hear, in plain words the answer to a simple question. How are we going to get the terrorists before they get us? Just what is our strategy – not just for striking back against the terrorists, but for defeating their aims, destroying their movement, discrediting their cause, and bringing old and new friends to our side? What is our long-term strategy for making America safer?

Over the course of this campaign, I have laid out my plans to reshape and rebuild the American military so that it is ready to fight tomorrow’s wars, not yesterday’s. As a combat veteran who has walked in your shoes, I know that the first duty of a commander in chief is to make sure that our troops are the best trained, best equipped fighting force in the world. And to never send them into battle without a plan to win the peace.

That is why I have called for adding 40,000 new troops, not in Iraq, but to relieve the pressure on our overstretched forces. The fact is, the war in Iraq has taken a real toll on our armed services. Ninety percent of the Army’s active duty combat divisions are either in Iraq, have been to Iraq, or are on their way.

I will also double our Army Special Forces so we can find and get the terrorists before they get us.

And we must end the stop-loss and involuntary recall of troops that amounts to nothing more than a back-door draft. To fight this war, we have called up our Guard and Reserves at historic levels. And many of these units are being pushed to the limit. The administration has extended tours of duty, delayed retirements, and prevented enlisted personnel from leaving the service. And when these troops come home, many have lost the job they left. We’re going to see to it that everyone who fought for this country has a good job when they come back to this country.

At the same time, we must strengthen our homeland security and do everything we can to prevent another 9/11. We shouldn't be letting ninety-five percent of container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected. We shouldn't be leaving our nuclear and chemical plants without enough protection. And we must make sure first responders have the training and equipment they need.

But, as you know, winning the war on terror demands a team effort. We all know that the best intelligence comes from working cooperatively with other nations – through real intelligence sharing and joint operations. That’s why for months now, I have been calling for the creation of a National Director of Intelligence with the authority to oversee all of our intelligence agencies.

Last month, the 9/11 Commission embraced many of these ideas. I have urged the President and the Congress to act – and act now – to implement them. But if we are going to win this war, we will have to listen to another profoundly important recommendation made by the Commission. “Long term success demands the use of all elements of national power: diplomacy, intelligence, covert action, law enforcement, economic policy, foreign aid, public diplomacy and homeland defense.”

As president, I will fight a smarter, more effective war on terror. We will deploy every tool in our arsenal: our economic as well as our military might; our principles as well as our firepower. Only then will be able to tell the terrorists: You will lose and we will win.

Finally, I want to say something about the plan that the president announced on Monday to withdraw 70,000 troops from Asia and Europe. Nobody wants to bring troops home more than those of us who have fought in foreign wars. But it needs to be done at the right time and in a sensible way. This is not that time or that way.

Let’s be clear: the president’s vaguely stated plan does not strengthen our hand in the war against terror. And in no way relieves the strain on our overextended military personnel. And this hastily announced plan raises more doubts about our intentions and our commitments than it provides real answers.

For example, why are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean Peninsula at the very time we are negotiating with North Korea – a country that really has nuclear weapons? As Senator John McCain said, “I’m particularly concerned about moving troops out of South Korea when North Korea has probably never been more dangerous than any time since the end of the Korean War.” This is clearly the wrong signal to send at the wrong time.

With al Qaeda operating in 60 countries, we need closer alliances in every part of the world to fight and win the war on terrorism. So, as president, I will be a commander in chief who renews our alliances based on shared interests and a common vision for a safer world. For more than 50 years, our allies have joined with us to say: the future doesn’t belong to fear; it belongs to freedom.

As veterans, we know we can win the war on terror. As men and women who have worn the uniform of our country, you know better than most that we can make our nation stronger at home and respected in the world.

And so, whether the issue is standing by our vets and their families or standing up for our principles, our values and our freedom, the big question before us is not just who will lead America. It is whether America will continue to lead in the world.

I am running for president because I believe that if we honor our highest values and do right by our men and women in uniform, America will continue to be a beacon of hope and freedom for all the world.

Thank you for your service to our country and God bless you and God bless the United States of America.

Sen. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, addressed the VFW on Wednesday, Aug. 18.



08-20-04, 06:48 AM

For the Record: Bush Speech to the VFW

By George W. Bush

Thank you all very much. Thanks for the warm welcome. And thanks for inviting me for your 105th national convention. I’m proud to be here.

One of the great honors of being commander-in-chief is meeting the courageous men and women who stand watch for freedom. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to look them in the eye and say on behalf of our country, thank you for your service. The same is true of each of you here today. When the enemies of freedom were on the march, and our country and the world needed brave Americans to take up arms and stop their advance, you stepped forward to serve. And today, I’m proud to stand before you as commander-in-chief, look you in the eye, and say, America thanks you for your service.


In the audience today are two people I’ve gotten to know during a very traumatic period during their lives. Carolyn and Keith Maupin are with us today. They’re from this part of the world. Their son, Matt, has been missing in action for four months in Iraq. I have vowed to them we will do everything we can to find their loved one, Matt. I appreciate their courage. I continue to send my prayers to these two fine Americans during these difficult times for them. May God bless you, Keith and Carolyn.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars have always stood up for our nation and those who wear the uniform. Since your founding in 1899, the members of the VFW have been serving the men and women who served America. I appreciate your dedication. The VFW and its Ladies Auxiliary are volunteering by transporting sick and disabled vets to and from their medical appointments. You’re showing great compassion.

You’re supporting the men and women who serve today. Some 1,500 VFW posts have adopted military units deployed in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other distant theaters. You’ve distributed more than 3.5 million pre-paid calling cards to our deployed forces. You’ve sent thousands of care packages to our troops in the field. You’ve helped the families back home with groceries and home repairs, and other necessities. America respects our military and their families. I thank you for showing that respect every day.

All our nation’s veterans have made serving America the highest priority of their lives, and serving our veterans is one of the highest priorities of my administration. To make sure my administration fulfills the commitments I have made to America’s veterans, I selected one of the finest men ever to serve as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, a combat-decorated Vietnam veteran, Secretary Tony Principi.

Thanks in large part to Tony’s leadership, my administration has a solid record of accomplishment for our veterans. When my 2005 budget is approved by Congress, we will have increased overall funding for our nation’s veterans by almost $20 billion, or 40 percent, since 2001. We have increased funding for our veterans more in four years than the previous administration did in eight years. To provide health care to veterans, we’ve increased VA medical care funding by 41 percent over the past four years.

We are bringing care to more veterans more quickly. Since 2001, we’ve enrolled 2.5 million more veterans in health care services. We’ve increased outpatient visits from 44 million to 54 million. We’ve increased the number of prescriptions filled from 98 million to 116 million. We’re getting the job done. We’ve reduced the large backlog of disability claims by about a third; we will reduce it even further. We’ve cut the average time it takes to process disability claims by 70 days.

We have focused resources on the veterans who need it most, those with service-related disabilities and low incomes and special needs. We’ve established a new scheduling system to make certain that veterans seeking care for a service-connected condition are first in line. For more than a century, federal law prohibited disabled veterans from receiving both their military retired pay and their VA disability compensation. Combat-injured and severely disabled veterans deserve better. I was proud to be the first president in over 100 years to sign concurrent receipt legislation. We’re getting the job done in Washington, D.C.

My administration has launched a $35 million program to provide housing and health care and other support services to homeless veterans. No veteran who served in the blazing heat or bitter cold of foreign lands should have to live without shelter, exposed to the elements, in the very country whose freedom they fought for.

We are modernizing VA health centers, and building new ones, especially in the South and West, where increasing numbers of our veterans live. Since 2001, we have opened 194 new community-based clinics nationwide. And through the CARES initiative, we are providing $1 billion – and have requested another half-billion for next year – to modernize VA facilities, and to provide better care for veterans in areas where the need is growing, including here in Ohio.

Our VA hospitals are, on average, 50 years old. That’s why we are modernizing our facilities to make sure our veterans have 21st century health care. For example, here in Ohio, we’re building one of the largest new VA clinics in America in Columbus, Ohio. We're spending more than $100 million to consolidate two VA hospitals in Cleveland into a single 21st century facility. When it comes to providing first-class care for our nation’s veterans, we are getting the job done.

Our nation’s debt extends not just to the veterans who served, but to the families who supported them in war and depend on them today. Last December, I signed the Veterans Benefits Act, authorizing $1 billion in new and expanded benefits for disabled veterans, and surviving spouses and their children.

America’s veterans have defended America in hours of need. And to honor the veterans from the Second World War for their service to our country, the World War II Memorial now stands on the Washington Mall. And I thank you for your efforts and your hard work to get this memorial built. And we honor all of those here today who fought to defend freedom in the Second World War.

Like the Second World War, the war we face today began with a ruthless, surprise attack on America. The world changed on that September morning. And since that day, we have changed the world. Before September the 11th, Afghanistan served as the home base of al Qaeda, which trained and deployed thousands of killers to set up terrorist cells around the world, including our own country. Because we acted, Afghanistan is a rising democracy; Afghanistan is an ally in the war on terror; Afghanistan is now a place where many young girls go to school for the first time. America and the world are safer.

Before September the 11th, Libya was spending millions to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Today, because America and our allies sent a clear and strong message, the leader of Libya has abandoned his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. America and the world are safer.

Before September the 11th, the ruler of Iraq was a sworn enemy of America. He was defying the world. He was firing weapons at American pilots who were enforcing the world’s sanctions. He had pursued and he had used weapons of mass destruction. He had harbored terrorists. He invaded his neighbors. He subsidized the families of suicide bombers. He murdered tens of thousands of his own citizens. He was a source of instability in the world’s most volatile region. He was a threat.

One of the lessons of September the 11th, a lesson this nation must never forget, is that we must deal with threats before they fully materialize. I remembered what Saddam Hussein was like; I looked at the intelligence. I called upon Congress to remember his history and look at the intelligence. I thought it was important to bring Congress, get their opinion on the subject of Saddam Hussein. So members of both political parties, including my opponent, looked at the same intelligence and came to the same conclusion that I came to: Saddam Hussein was a threat.

I went to the United Nations; the U.N. Security Council looked at the intelligence and came to the same conclusion, Saddam Hussein was a threat. As a matter of fact, they passed a resolution, 15 to nothing, which said to Saddam: disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. As he had for the past 12 years, he refused to comply. He ignored the demands of the free world. He systematically deceived the weapons inspectors.

So I had a choice to make: either forget the lessons of September the 11th and trust a madman, or take action to defend America. Given that choice, I will defend our country every time.

Even though we did not find the stockpiles that we thought we would find, Saddam Hussein had the capability to make weapons of mass destruction, and he could have passed that capability on to our enemy, to the terrorists. It is not a risk, after September the 11th, that we could afford to take. Knowing what I know today, I would have taken the same action. America and the world are safer because Saddam Hussein sits in a prison cell.


08-20-04, 06:49 AM
We have more hard work to do. I’ll continue to work with friends and allies around the world to aggressively pursue the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere. See, you can’t talk sense to these people. You cannot negotiate with them. You cannot hope for the best. We must aggressively pursue them and defeat them in foreign lands, so we do not have to face them here at home.

America will continue to lead the world with confidence and moral clarity. We have put together a strong coalition to help us pursue the terrorists and spread the peace. There are over 40 nations involved in Afghanistan, some 30 nations involved in Iraq. I appreciate the sacrifices of the mothers and fathers from those countries, to have their sons and daughters stand with our troops to spread freedom and peace. I’ll continue to build on those alliances and work with our friends for the cause of security and peace. But I will never turn over America’s national security decisions to leaders of other countries.

We’ll keep our commitments in Afghanistan and Iraq; we’ll help them become peaceful and democratic societies. These two nations are now governed by strong leaders, they’re on the path to elections. We set a clear goal, and Iraq and Afghanistan will be peaceful and democratic countries that are allies in the war on terror. We will meet that goal by helping secure their countries, to allowing a peaceful political process to develop, and by training Afghan and Iraqi forces so they can make the hard decisions, so they can defend their country against those who are preventing the spread of freedom. Our military will complete this mission as quickly as possible so our troops do not stay a day longer than necessary.

It’s important we send the right signals when we speak here in America. The other day, my opponent said if he’s elected, the number of troops in Iraq will be significantly reduced within six months. I think it sends the wrong message – it sends the wrong signal to the enemy. They could easily wait six months and one day. It sends the wrong message to our troops, that completing the mission may not be necessary. It sends the wrong message to the Iraqi people who wonder whether or not America means what it says. Our friends and allies must know that when America speaks, we mean what we say. We will stay until the job is completed.

In the long run, our security is not guaranteed by force along. We will work to change the conditions that give rise to terror: poverty and hopelessness and resentment. A free and peaceful Iraq and a free and peaceful Afghanistan will be powerful, and examples in a neighborhood that is desperate for freedom. You see, by serving the ideal of liberty, we are bringing hope to others, and that makes America more secure. By serving the ideal of liberty, we’re spreading the peace. Free countries do not export terror; free countries are peaceful countries. And by serving the ideal of liberty, we’re serving the deepest ideals of America. We believe that freedom is not America’s gift to the world, freedom is the Almighty God’s gift to each man and woman in this world.

These are crucial times. We have an historic opportunity to win the war on terror by spreading freedom and peace. Our commitments are being kept by the men and women of our military. I’ve had the privilege of traveling to bases around our country and around the world. I’ve seen their great decency and their unselfish courage. I assure you, ladies and gentlemen, the cause of freedom is in really good hands.

Those who wear our uniform deserve the full support of our government. For almost four years, my administration has strengthened our military. We have enacted the largest increases in defense spending since Ronald Reagan served as the commander-in-chief. We’ve increased military pay by 21 percent. We have provided better housing and better training and better maintenance.

And last September, while our troops were in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, I wanted to make sure they had the very best, so I proposed supplemental funding to support them in their mission. The legislation provided funding for body armor and vital equipment, hazard pay, health benefits, ammunition, fuel, and spare parts. The VFW strongly supported my request. I thank you for standing up for our troops. Your work on Capitol Hill paid off; after all, the funding received strong bipartisan support – so strong that in the United States Senate, only 12 members voted against the funding, two of whom were my opponent and his running mate.

When pressed, he explained his vote – “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.” He went on to say he was proud of the vote, and the whole thing is a “complicated” matter. There’s nothing complicated about supporting our troops in combat.

We have more work to do to defend freedom and protect our country. We will ensure that our forces are well prepared, and well-positioned to meet the threats of the future. Our armed forces have changed a lot. They’re more agile and more lethal, they’re better able to strike anywhere in the world over great distances on short notice. Yet for decades, America’s armed forces abroad have essentially remained where the wars of the last century ended, in Europe and in Asia. America’s current force posture was designed, for example, to protect us and our allies from Soviet aggression – the threat no longer exists.

More than three years ago, we launched a comprehensive review of America’s global force posture – the numbers, types, locations, and capabilities of U.S. forces around the world. We’ve consulted closely with our allies and with Congress; we’ve examined the challenges posed by today’s threats and emerging threats. And so, today I announce a new plan for deploying America’s armed forces.

Over the coming decade, we’ll deploy a more agile and more flexible force, which means that more of our troops will be stationed and deployed from here at home. We’ll move some of our troops and capabilities to new locations, so they can surge quickly to deal with unexpected threats. We’ll take advantage of 21st century military technologies to rapidly deploy increased combat power.

The new plan will help us fight and win these wars of the 21st century. It will strengthen our alliances around the world, while we build new partnerships to better preserve the peace. It will reduce the stress on our troops and our military families. Although we’ll still have a significant presence overseas, under the plan I’m announcing today, over the next 10 years, we will bring home about 60,000 to 70,000 uniformed personnel, and about 100,000 members and civilian employees – family members and civilian employees.

See, our service members will have more time on the home front, and more predictability and fewer moves over a career. Our military spouses will have fewer job changes, greater stability, more time for their kids and to spend with their families at home. The taxpayers will save money, as we configure our military to meet the threats of the 21st century. There will be savings as we consolidate and close bases and facilities overseas no longer needed to face the threats of our time and defend the peace.

The world has changed a great deal, and our posture must change with it, for the sake of our military families, for the sake of our taxpayers, and so we can be more effective at projecting our strength and spreading freedom and peace.

Today, our troops have the most advanced technologies at their disposal – weapons are more lethal, more precise than were available for you. Our troops are more mobile, they can communicate better. Yet their success in the wars we fight is being made possible by the same thing that made your success possible: personal courage, love of country, dedication to duty.

As our troops fight today in Baghdad and Najaf, and the Hindu Kush mountains and elsewhere, I know America’s veterans feel a special pride in them. They’re carrying on your legacy of sacrifice and service. They’re determined to see the mission through. This country stands with them.

I want to thank you for the example you have set for our men and women in uniform. I want to thank you for your idealism, for your dedication to God and our country. May God bless you all. And may God continue to bless the United States of America. Thank you all very much.

President Bush addressed the VFW national convention on Tuesday, Aug. 17.



08-20-04, 07:44 AM
An angry dispute over a rescue in the river

By John E. O'Neill and Jerome L. Corsi

A number of the combat commanders, fellow officers and other men who served with Sen. John Kerry in Vietnam challenge his accounts of combat heroism in a new book, "Unfit for Command" (Regnery Publishing), by John E. O'Neill, who took over command of Swift Boat PCF 94 from Lt. Kerry, and Jerome R. Corsi, who has written extensively about the Vietnam War protest movement. This is the last of three excerpts that include comparisons of Mr. Kerry's earlier published accounts to recollections of others who served with him.

Last of three excerpts
John Kerry was involved in his final "combat" in Vietnam on March 13, 1969.
The public has seen it: The incident has been the subject of more than $50 million in paid political advertising.
The incident was featured before the Democratic presidential caucuses in Iowa, where Kerry met in tearful reunion with Jim Rassmann, the Special Forces lieutenant who he "rescued from the water."
Here is Kerry's account of the final episode of his four-month Vietnam cameo, for which he received his third Purple Heart and a Bronze Star:
A mine went off alongside Kerry's Swift Boat, PCF 94. Rassmann was blown into the water. Kerry was terribly wounded from the underwater mine.
Kerry, 25, turned his boat back into the fire zone and, bleeding heavily from his arm and side, reached into the water and pulled Rassmann to safety with enemy fire all around. Kerry then towed a sinking boat out of the action.
There is only one problem with this scenario involving five Swift Boats on the Bay Hap River, described in Douglas Brinkley's biography "Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War" (William Morrow, 2004) and elsewhere: It is another gross exaggeration of what actually happened and, in several ways, a fraud perpetrated upon the Navy and the nation.
Kerry's conduct on March 13, 1969, was more worthy of disciplinary action than any sort of medal. The action certainly does not establish his credentials for becoming the president of the United States.
Kerry's report
According to the records, Kerry claimed in the casualty report that he prepared March 13, 1969, that he was wounded as a result of a mine explosion.
Within a short period, he presented his request to go home on the basis of his three Purple Hearts. By March 17, 1969, his short combat career in Vietnam was over.
Notwithstanding the fake submission for his Bronze Star after this incident, Kerry never was wounded or bleeding from his arm.
All reports, including the medical reports, make clear that he suffered a minor bruise on his arm and minor shrapnel wounds on his buttocks. The minor bruise on his arm would never have justified a Purple Heart and is not mentioned in the citation.
This leaves only Kerry's rear-end wound. This wound, like the injury received at Cam Ranh Bay on Dec. 2, 1968, for which he received his first Purple Heart, was of the minor tweezer-and-Band-Aid variety.
How did Kerry receive a shrapnel wound in his buttocks from the explosion of an underwater mine, as his report suggests? Many participants in the incident state that neither weapons fire nor a mine explosion occurred near Kerry.
Larry Thurlow, an experienced, genuine hero and Swift Boat veteran, commanded PCF 51, the boat behind Kerry on March 13, 1969.
Thurlow was on the shore that morning with Kerry and a group of Nung soldiers, who were mercenaries working with the South Vietnamese. Thurlow recalls that Kerry had wounded himself in the buttocks that morning with a grenade that he set off too close to a stock of rice he was trying to destroy.
Boston Globe's account
This rice incident is all too reminiscent of the M-79 grenade that Kerry exploded too close to some rocks on shore at Cam Ranh Bay three months earlier, causing the shrapnel in his arm that resulted in his first Purple Heart.
The rice episode also involved Rassmann, later pulled from the water by Kerry, according to the Boston Globe.
"At one point, Kerry and Rassmann threw grenades into a huge rice cache that had been captured from the Viet Cong and was thus slated for destruction," Boston Globe reporters Michael Kranish, Brian C. Mooney and Nina J. Easton write in their "John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography" (PublicAffairs Reports, 2004).
"After tossing the grenades, the two dove for cover. Rassmann escaped the ensuing explosion of rice, but Kerry was not as lucky — thousands of grains stuck to him. The result was hilarious, and the two men formed a bond."
Very probably, the incident that Rassmann described to the Globe that resulted in Kerry's self-inflicted wound also produced the very wound Kerry used to claim his third and final Purple Heart.
Indeed, Kerry's report for that day mentions the rice he destroyed. He dishonestly transferred the time and cause of the injury to coincide with the Swift Boat action later in the day and claimed the cause of the injury was the mine exploding during that later action.
By March 1969, most of Kerry's Swift Boat peers at the tiny An Thoi base were aware of his reputation as an unscrupulous self-promoter with an insatiable appetite for medals. But no one actually understood what Kerry pulled off.
When Thurlow finally realized that the sinking of another skipper's boat, PCF 3, was the same incident described by a Kerry campaign advertisement and in Brinkley's "Tour of Duty," he knew Kerry had used the mine explosion and tragedy for PCF 3's crew as his ticket home.
Thurlow was astounded by the metamorphosis that had taken place in the explanation of Kerry's wound: from Kerry's own grenade as a cause, an incident the Globe described and which Thurlow knew about; to a grenade error by friendly forces in the absence of hostile fire (Kerry's secret Vietnam journal and "Tour of Duty" ); and finally to the mine explosion (Kerry's report and Purple Heart citation).
Adding it up
Unfortunately for Kerry, he ended up telling the truth by mistake.
On page 313 of "Tour of Duty," and evidently in Kerry's secret journal written on or about March 13, 1969, quoted in that book, Kerry relates his injury from the rice stock explosion.
However, he tries to place the time and context of the incident later in the day and tries to claim that it resulted from friendly forces (the Nungs), but at a time in which there was no hostile fire:
"The Nung blew up some huge bins of rice they had found, as it was assumed, as always, that these were the local stockpiles earmarked to feed the hungry VC [Viet Cong] moving through the Delta smuggling weapons. 'I got a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice-bin explosions, and then we started to move back to the boats, firing to our rear as we went,' Kerry related."
Unless one believes in the amazing coincidence that Kerry got two wounds in the same place on the same day and from the same type of incident, then Kerry's wound of March 13 was not the result of hostile fire at all but, once again, simply a self-inflicted, minor wound about which he lied to get a Purple Heart.
Whatever the facts of the March 13 incident, it seems incontrovertible that: (1) Kerry lied in the Bronze Star citation about having any arm wound other than a minor bruise; and (2) Kerry fraudulently secured a Purple Heart by falsely attributing his self-inflicted buttocks wound to the mine explosion hitting PCF 3 or to any other hostile action.
What happened
Kerry falsely described the incident in his 1969 operating report, in his campaign biography, in his advertising and on his 2004 campaign Web site.
Jack Chenoweth commanded PCF 23, the boat in front of Kerry's PCF 94. His gunner, Van Odell, had a clear view of the entire incident. Dick Pease commanded PCF 3, which was blown up by the mine that day.
None of these Swiftees recognized the incident as described by Kerry in his report, by Brinkley in "Tour of Duty" [in which, after the mine exploded under PCF 3 on his port side, Kerry recalls his right arm being "smashed" against a bulkhead when "another explosion went off right beside us"] or on Kerry's Web site. They were furious when they realized Kerry's fraudulent account.
In reality, Kerry's boat, PCF 94, was on the right side of the river when a mine went off on the opposite side under PCF 3. The boat's crewmen were thrown into the water. The officers suffered concussions.
A Viet Cong sympathizer in an adjoining bunker had touched off the mine. There was no other hostile fire and no other mines, according to Chenoweth, Odell, Pease and Thurlow. The boats had begun firing after the mine exploded, but ceased after a short time because of the lack of hostile fire.
Kerry's PCF 94 fled the scene. The remaining three PCFs, in accord with standard doctrine, stood to defend the disabled PCF 3 and its crewmen in the water. Kerry and PCF 94 disappeared several hundred yards away, returning only when it was clear there was no return fire.
Chenoweth (who received no medal) picked up the PCF 3 crewmen from the water. PCF 3's engines were knocked out on one side and frozen on 500 rpm on the other side. The boat weaved dangerously, hitting sandbars, dazed or unconscious crew members aboard.

08-20-04, 07:44 AM
Thurlow, commanding his own boat, sought a secure hold so he could jump across and board PCF 3. However, he was thrown into the water in his first attempt to board, and the boat hit the sandbars. Later, Thurlow brought PCF 3 to a stop, and the boat slowly began to sink.
Rassmann had fallen or been knocked off either Kerry's boat or the fifth boat, PCF 35. When Rassmann was spotted in the water, Chenoweth's PCF 23, with the PCF 3 crew aboard, went to pick him up.
Kerry's PCF 94, returning to the scene after its flight, reached Rassmann about 20 yards ahead of Chenoweth's boat. Kerry did the decent thing by going to pick up Rassmann, justifiably earning his gratitude. However, the claim that Kerry returned to a hostile fire zone is a lie, according to Chenoweth, Thurlow and others.
Meanwhile, the serious work of saving PCF 3 continued.

A sinking ship
Kerry's false after-action report, prepared to justify his Purple Heart and Bronze Star, reports "5,000 meters" of heavy fire — about 2½ miles, the same distance as a large Civil War battlefield. Not a shot of this fire was heard by Chenoweth, Thurlow, Odell or Pease.
Kerry's after-action report ignores Chenoweth's heroic action in rescuing PCF 3 survivors and Thurlow's action in saving PCF 3, while highlighting his own routine pickup of Rassmann and PCF 94's minor role in saving PCF 3.
When Chenoweth's boat left a second time to deliver the wounded PCF 3 crewmen to a Coast Guard cutter offshore, Kerry jumped into the boat, leaving the remaining officers and men the job of saving PCF 3. It was in terrible condition, sinking just outside the river.
Kerry's eagerness to secure his third and final Purple Heart evidently outweighed any feelings of loyalty, duty or honor with regard to his fellow sailors. Thurlow and the other brave sailors who saved PCF 3 and towed it out did not seek Purple Hearts for their "minor contusions." Indeed, several PCF 3 sailors did not seek or receive Purple Hearts.
Chenoweth, Odell and boatmates who fished out the sailors of PCF 3 likewise had no thought of seeking medals, but only of rescuing comrades and saving PCF 3.
Kerry, however, portrays himself towing the disabled PCF 3 to safety after saving it. Another lie: The damage control on PCF 3 was done by Thurlow. [Thurlow was awarded the Bronze Star as a result of his actions.]
Although Kerry's PCF 94 participated in towing PCF 3, Kerry was no longer on his boat for most of the trip. He was safely on the Coast Guard cutter.
Thurlow and Chenoweth are certain Kerry played no role in saving PCF 3 or its crew. When they, as well as several other Swiftees who were there, first saw the Kerry campaign ads they believed the events portrayed in the ads (as well as in Kerry's campaign biography and the medal citations) had to be different and involve different people. They were horrified when they realized Kerry had received medals for the incident they remembered.
Rassmann appeared for a spontaneous embrace of Kerry at a campaign event in January in Iowa, where Kerry's presidential campaign came back to life.
Rassmann was understandably grateful to Kerry for fishing him out of the river, and he was evidently happy to participate in the "no man left behind" version of the story being told by Kerry in his "war hero" mode. [Rassmann went on to help introduce Kerry when he accepted the Democratic nomination last month in Boston.]
Going home
Swiftees who learned of Kerry's fraudulent citations and ads felt betrayed.
"You've just got to make them understand," William E. Franke, a fellow commander in Coastal Division 11 and Silver Star recipient, wrote the authors. "We weren't thinking of self-promotion like him. Just survival and doing the job. We didn't want him around, and we were happy he was gone."
Kerry has implied that he volunteered for the military right after college. But he petitioned his draft board for a student deferment. His service record indicates that on Feb. 18, 1966, he enlisted in the Naval Reserves, status "inactive," not in the Navy.
These details are conveniently left out of pro-Kerry biographies. Brinkley, in "Tour of Duty," records that Kerry entered Officer Candidate School in Newport, Rhode Island; however, he fails to note that Kerry was seeking to be an officer in the Naval Reserves. The duty commitment was shorter, and a larger proportion of the period could be served stateside on inactive duty.
The repeated statements that Kerry was "sent home" by the Navy ignore the fact that Kerry requested to be sent home, invoking a regulation of which most Swiftees were unaware.
Thomas W. Wright, another PCF officer at An Thoi, discussed Kerry with other Swiftees on base after the March 13 incident. They were aware of the "three Purple Hearts" rule that sounded like "three strikes and you're out." Kerry could be sent home.
Wright approached Kerry one night and proposed to him that several fellow Swiftees felt it might be best for everybody if Kerry simply left. The next thing Wright knew, he got the exact result he hoped to achieve: John Kerry was gone.
A postscript
A central drumbeat of the Kerry presidential campaign, as in every Kerry campaign, is that it is relevant and permissible to discuss at infinite length his short Vietnam service. Any effort, however, to examine his service by seeking out the records or truth is discouraged and resisted.
The reality is that Kerry has consistently refused to disclose his Vietnam records, as the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have urged. Instead, he has released only those service records he considers favorable while concealing, for example, his own journal and home movies from the period — except for allowing friendly writers to draw from these materials and providing video clips for advertising.
There is a government form — Standard Form 180 — that Kerry could easily execute to permit the Department of Defense to release all his records, including the required records for receiving the Purple Heart or Silver Star.
By selectively releasing information, Kerry has tilted the record in his favor. Self-serving journal entries can be presented to "establish" events and circumstances as Kerry wishes to portray them.
A classic Kerry use of his private photographic cache, some of it self-staged, is his "Lifetime" campaign commercial. Kerry is depicted receiving the Bronze Star from Adm. Elmo Zumwalt III, commander of naval and Coast Guard forces in Vietnam, who later denounced Kerry.
The ad also includes a staged clip of Kerry as an infantryman in Vietnam, in bandoliers, stalking an unknown enemy through the forest in 1969 (and violating Rule No. 1 of the infantry by pointing his weapon down).
Who took this film? When and why? The viewer, typically unskilled in evaluating authentic military images, is left with the impression of Kerry as a fierce warrior engaged in the defense of his country.
John Kerry's name tossed around as "president" and "commander in chief" summoned many of us Swiftees from long political slumber — from games with grandchildren or feet by the fire — to render one last service to the nation.
That service is the hard task of informing an uninformed America — against the wishes of a media sympathetic to Kerry and his myth — of John Kerry's total unfitness to command our armed forces or lead our nation. We are our own small "band of brothers," resolved to sound the alarm.
•Copyright 2004 by John E. O'Neill and Jerome L. Corsi.



John Kerry was awarded the Bronze Star by Adm. Elmo Zumwalt III for pulling a Special Forces lieutenant from the Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969. Fellow Swift Boat veterans question his actions and wounds that day in V ietnam.
(AP/courtesy of John Kerry)


08-20-04, 08:58 AM
Kerry's Commie Friends
By Cliff Kincaid | May 7, 2004

Judicial Watch has performed a public service by posting 50 pages of FBI documents about John Kerry's involvement in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, VVAW. The problem is that the media aren't interested in what they have to say. They show that members of VVAW were close to the Communist Party USA and collaborated with the enemy, communist North Vietnam.

The FBI documents refer to the "possible violence-prone posture" of VVAW and how the group is coming under "subversive influence or control." Critics might say this is just heated rhetoric from an FBI that was determined to discredit the anti-war movement, but the facts in the documents demonstrate why this group came under surveillance. It worked hand-in-glove with the regime killing Americans on the battlefield.

The documents on several occasions report that Kerry believed that one of the founders of VVAW, Al Hubbard, who claimed to be a decorated Vietnam vet, had never served in Vietnam, and had never been a member of the military. One document says, "John Kerry again attempted to have Al Hubbard voted off the executive committee as Kerry stated he did not think Hubbard ever served in Vietnam or was ever in service." But the FBI reported that "Hubbard has strong backing in the VVAW organization since he is one of the original founders and is friendly with most of the executive committee members." Kerry and Hubbard appeared together on Meet the Press on behalf of the VVAW.

Who was Al Hubbard? He may have been more than a phony vet; the FBI documents refer to his travels abroad and association with the Communist Party USA. One document discusses Hubbard's visit to Paris to meet with representatives of communist North Vietnam. Hubbard is quoted as saying the communists invited him and members of the then-Moscow-funded Communist Party USA. A document reports that Hubbard even said his trip to Paris "was financed by the CPUSA." The document says that Hubbard was trying to arrange for VVAW to accept American POWs released by Hanoi.

There are two references in the FBI documents to VVAW members making propaganda tapes for Radio Hanoi. One says, "Tapes would be sent from the United States to North Vietnam to broadcast over Radio Hanoi to get U.S. servicemen to stop fighting in Vietnam…" One VVAW employee is said to have traveled to Hanoi in August 1971 "and talked with several North Vietnam representatives. He said the reason for his trip to Hanoi ties in with the international action of active duty people to demonstrate against the Vietnam War."

John Kerry's involvement in such a group is far more controversial than the President's National Guard record. As one of the FBI documents put it, VVAW had moved beyond "legitimate antiwar protest" to becoming a security threat to the U.S. On National Review online, Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc, said that Kerry's accusations of U.S. soldiers committing war crimes in Vietnam sounded "exactly like the disinformation line that the Soviets were sowing worldwide throughout the Vietnam era."



08-20-04, 09:25 AM
I like Hollywod, they make great movies,better thatn D.C. can ever put out. But when it comes to them helping select a president they suck (our Hollywood and not our grandparents). It seems cool to vote for Joan of Kerry. My brother and my selfe are in college right now and that is all we hear. Allbeit the profs aretrying to keep a little silent but it slips.

This brings up what I have been seen alot of, "ANYone but Bush".
I cna give a list of others htat can be placed in this part but I will not. It seems very ill-conceived to vote for some one that you may not even think is good for the job, just to get a person that youhate out of office. This is a perscription for failure.

08-20-04, 09:36 AM
Why are the media AWOL? <br />
David Limbaugh (archive) <br />
<br />
<br />
August 17, 2004 | Print | Send <br />
<br />
<br />
Contrary to the polite, watered-down dismissals of much of the beltway pundit community, there is simply...

08-20-04, 12:42 PM
The Kerry campaign calls on a publisher to 'withdraw book' written by group of veterans, claiming veterans are lying about Kerry's service in Vietnam and operating as a front organization for Bush. Kerry campaign has told Salon.com that the publisher of UNFIT FOR COMMAND is 'retailing a hoax'... 'No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them,' Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton tells the online mag... Developing...


Censorship,? ;)


08-20-04, 02:16 PM
They can not be a front organization for Bush. That would mean that they are working together and that is against the Finnance reform bill. 527's aand a political campaign can not cooperate at all, and yes that means that Bush can not give in to Kerry's demands that he should go and tell the Swift Vets to stop thier crusade against him.

Remember Kerry is a trial lair (opps) I mean lawyer and knows that people usually cave to demands. SO Let him take the Swift Vets to trail if he wants. I have yet to hear that he has threatened them yet. Here's to the good fight.

08-20-04, 02:19 PM
Yes it is censorship. But hey that is the man that alot of Americans want. "Anyone but Bush", ya right just an excuse to let a mongrel like Kerry in office.

08-20-04, 03:57 PM
No 'hostile fire at all'

Today on our front page, we reprint the third in a series of excerpts from "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" by John E. O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi. This final segment is taken from Chapter 5, "More Fraudulent Medals," and focuses on the action of March 13, 1969 — John Kerry's last combat experience in Vietnam, in which he won both a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart.
The authors say Lt. Kerry shouldn't have received either one.

By Mr. Kerry's account, the action on Bay Hap River was dramatic and intense and is retold by the authors: "A mine went off alongside Kerry's Swift Boat, PCF 94. [Jim] Rassmann was blown into the water. Kerry was terribly wounded from the underwater mine. Kerry, 25, turned his boat back into the fire zone and, bleeding heavily from his arm and side, reached into the water and pulled Rassmann to safety with enemy fire all around. Kerry then towed the sinking boat [PCF 3] out of action."
To be sure, official Navy records corroborate Mr. Kerry's version of events and are also retold in Douglas Brinkley's "Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War," as well as in an after-action report posted on JohnKerry.com. The official Navy citation for Mr. Kerry's Bronze Star describes "small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units." (There were five swift boats in the convoy.)
The authors of "Unfit to Command" say, however, that the Kerry version is "another gross exaggeration of what actually happened and, in several ways, a fraud perpetrated upon the Navy and the nation." To corroborate their version, the authors cite Larry Thurlow, commander of PCF 51 that day, who also received a Bronze Star for bravery. Mr. Thurlow signed an affadavit last month that Mr. Kerry was "not under fire" when he rescued Mr. Rassmann. According to Mr. Thurlow, other than the detonated mine, the five-boat team did not come under enemy fire. Furthermore, Mr. Kerry's arm wound was a bruise that didn't require medical attention, and that the bleeding from his side came from an wound in an episode earlier in the day in which a grenade Mr. Kerry had thrown exploded, leaving shrapnel in his buttocks.
But, as The Washington Post reported yesterday, Mr. Thurlow's own Bronze Star Navy citation describes "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at "all units." The Post story does not address several crucial facts. First, it seems likely that one after-action report was used for both Navy citations and inevitably would describe the same version of events. No one can now say who wrote this after-action report. In a statement yesterday, Mr. Thurlow said, "I am convinced that the language used in my citation ... was language taken directly from John Kerry's report."
Two other crewmen, Dan Odell and Dick Pease, both cited by the authors, agree with Mr. Thurlow's version of events.
Mr. Brinkley also describes an incident that day when a grenade explosion wounded Mr. Kerry, though he treats it as superficial. This means Mr. Kerry received two shrapnel wounds, the other one occuring on the boat and earning the young lieutenant his third Purple Heart. The authors raise an interesting point: "Unless one believes in the amazing coincidence that Kerry got two wounds in the same place on the same day and from the same type of incident, then Kerry's wound of March 13, 1969 was not the result of hostile fire at all."
We are pleased that The Post has finally joined the debate swirling around Mr. Kerry's Vietnam experience. The Post and other "major" news organizations would be more helpful to their readers, and to the debate, however, if they join the investigation and address the entire story — and not simply one part of it which they wish to debunk.



08-20-04, 06:37 PM
Kerry insists veterans lie, blames Bush <br />
<br />
<br />
By Stephen Dinan <br />
<br />
<br />
John Kerry yesterday accused Vietnam veterans who say he didn't deserve his combat decorations of lying and...

08-20-04, 06:53 PM
Kerry takes legal action against Vietnam critics <br />
<br />
<br />
FORT MYERS, United States (AFP) - Democratic White House hopeful John Kerry (news - web sites)'s campaign formally alleged that a group attacking...

08-20-04, 07:20 PM
Think Kerry and DNC Violating Campaign Finance law? File a Complaint!! Here's How

Federal Election Commission: File a Complaint ^ | Published in July 1998 | Federal Election Commission
Filing a Complaint Published in July 1998 Contents: IntroductionFiling a ComplaintComplaint: Early Stages Receipt of ComplaintNotice to RespondentRespondent's Counsel Complaint Process (Chart)Commission Action Case ProcessingInitial Vote to ProceedInvestigationGeneral Counsel's BriefEarly Resolution of ComplaintVote on ViolationsResolution of Complaint Complainant's RecourseConfidentialityFor More Information Introduction The Commission frequently receives questions on how to file a complaint concerning possible violations of federal election campaign laws.1 This brochure explains how to file a complaint with the Commission and describes how complaints are processed.2 I. Filing a Complaint Any person may file a complaint if he or she believes a violation of the Federal...



08-21-04, 07:55 AM
Four Eyewitnesses Dispute Kerry's Account of Bronze Star Incident
Posted Aug 20, 2004

By Joseph A. D'Agostino
and David Freddoso

According to an after-action report for the afternoon of March 13, 1969, John Kerry's unit of five Swift boats encountered enemy automatic and small-arms fire from both banks along a 5,000-meter stretch of the Bay Hap River in Vietnam. Three enemy mines were detonated, the report states, one of which damaged Kerry's boat. According to that same report and a separate casualty report, Kerry received a minor contusion on his arm and shrapnel in his buttocks from the incident.

On the basis of these two reports, Kerry received a Bronze Star--and importantly, his third Purple Heart, which allowed him to leave Vietnam after serving only four months of the standard one-year tour.

'No Hostile Fire'

But there are two potential problems with this story: First, four eyewitnesses now contradict the after-action report. They say there was no hostile fire in the incident, and claim that Kerry, whose version of events agrees with the report, wrote the report himself--a claim Kerry's campaign denies.

Second, a story Kerry told biographer Douglas Brinkley for Tour of Duty appears to contradict the casualty report that resulted in Kerry's tour-ending third Purple Heart. Kerry told Brinkley he received a wound to his buttocks earlier on the same day as the Bay Hap combat incident. But, in this case, the wound came from a non-combat accident in a nearby village. Some friendly forces were destroying rice that was believed to be stockpiled for the Viet Cong. "I got a piece of small grenade in my ass from one of the rice bin explosions," Kerry told Brinkley. The military does not grant Purple Hearts for self-inflicted wounds or accidents.

The casualty report filed on Kerry the next morning mentions nothing about Kerry's rice-bin injury. It says: "LTJG Kerry suffered shapnel (sic) wounds in his left buttocks and contusions on his right forearm when a mine detonated close aboard PCF-94."

Larry Thurlow, Dick Pees, and Jack Chenoweth--all Swift boat captains who served with Kerry in Coastal Division 11 and participated with him in the Bay Hap incident--dispute the after-action report, insisting there was no hostile fire from either bank. Chenoweth's gunner, Van Odell, tells the same story. All four--who this spring with other Vietnam veterans formed the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to tell their version of John Kerry's military service--told HUMAN EVENTS that only one mine was detonated, nearly sinking Pees' boat, PCF-3, and throwing two of his crewmen overboard. They all deny seeing or hearing any mines explode near Kerry's boat, which was on the opposite side of the river. Chenoweth, Thurlow and Odell have all signed affidavits attesting to their version of events.

The difference between Kerry's version of events and that of his fellow Swiftees is sharp and irreconcilable, although Kerry's account is consistent with that given by Jim Rassmann, a special forces advisor who fell off Kerry's boat during the incident.

The apparent discrepancies in the casualty and after-action reports, taken together, raise the question of whether Kerry's fellow veterans are lying now, or Kerry lied in order to get the third Purple Heart.

Thurlow disputes the after-action report even though it later became part of the basis for a Bronze Star award he received that summer after he finished his yearlong tour in Vietnam and returned home to northwest Kansas. Thurlow's citation, written and signed by division commander George Elliot, says that Thurlow's act that day of saving PCF-3 boat from sinking after the mine explosion "took place under constant enemy small arms fire which LTJG THURLOW completely ignored in providing immediate assistance."

The Washington Post, in an August 19 article, reported Thurlow's citation as evidence of a conflict in his story, but Thurlow maintains that there was no fire, and that his award citation is factually incorrect.

"In terms of receiving hostile fire, it's false," Thurlow told HUMAN EVENTS of his own Bronze Star citation.

Elliott told HUMAN EVENTS that he wrote the part about hostile fire in Thurlow's citation based on the same after-action report. "I got the information from the after-action report," he said.

"None of us believed there was any incoming fire at any point in time," said Chenoweth. "Only the mine." Chenoweth, Thurlow, and Odell concurred that there was only one mine, and that no mine had exploded near Kerry's boat, PCF-94. At that point, Pees missed much of the action, as he had been wounded by the mine explosion.

Thurlow, Chenoweth and Pees all say they did not write the disputed after-action report. The only other officers present at the incident were Kerry and Don Droz, who died in a massive ambush one month after the Bay Hap incident.

There seems to be no documentation to settle the issue of who wrote the after-action report. Thurlow told HUMAN EVENTS he believes Kerry wrote the report, noting that it mentions Kerry's actions most prominently even though he, Odell, Chenoweth and Pees remember Kerry playing a relatively minor role in the incident. For example, Thurlow said, although four people were fished out of the water after the mine explosion--including two seriously injured crewmen of the sinking PCF-3 and at one point Thurlow himself--the report only mentions the uninjured man whom Kerry pulled out of the water, an "MSF advisor" named Jim Rassmann.

"There was no statement made [in the report] about the two guys who were injured and blown off the number 3 boat," said Thurlow. According to Thurlow and the others, Kerry's boat, which was carrying infantrymen, including Rassmann, sped off downstream as soon as the mine exploded under Pees' boat. According to Thurlow and Chenoweth, the Swiftees then sprayed the banks with bullets for about 40 seconds. They ceased fire after noticing their fire was not being returned, and within minutes, Kerry's boat returned to pick up Rassmann.

The Kerry campaign put out a press release August 19 that quoted Rassmann as saying, "There was only one person in the water that day and that was me, anyone who is telling you otherwise is giving you a lie."

Thurlow said that if there had actually been three miles of hostile fire from both banks, boats other than PCF 3 would have been damaged and men other than Kerry would have been wounded.

"Nobody received even a fragment of bullets going through the metal" of the Swift Boats, Thurlow said. "Nobody was even ducking for cover," he said.

Thurlow added that he believes there was less than 5,000 meters of river between where the mine detonated under PCF-3 and the river mouth, despite the report's contention that the enemy was firing on the five boats from both banks for that long a stretch of river.

Kerry's campaign spokesman, Michael Meehan, declined to speak to HUMAN EVENTS, but in the Washington Post report of August 19 Kerry campaign researchers disputed the contention of Thurlow, Chenoweth and Pees that Kerry wrote the after-action report that Thurlow, Chenoweth and Pees insist is false.

Thurlow, who was the senior officer among the five present that day, told HUMAN EVENTS that Kerry volunteered more than once to write such after-action reports--the last thing most Swift Boat officers wanted to do after a tough day on the river. He said that he never thought twice about what was being reported. "A good officer probably says, 'Well, John, let's see what you wrote up.' I never did," Thurlow said. "I really didn't care, to be honest with you."

The incident on the Bay Hap--Kerry's last battle in Vietnam--began when the five boats in Kerry's group approached a fishing weir across the river. As Swift Boat operators Thurlow, Chenoweth, Pees, and gunner Odell describe it, Kerry's boat led the way around the weir on the right in PCF-94, while Pees led the way on the left in PCF-3. Suddenly, a mine was detonated directly beneath Pees' boat, blowing it several feet into the air before it crashed back down on the surface of the river and began to move about erratically because of engine damage from the blast.

After showering the shore with bullets, Odell, Chenoweth and Thurlow said, the Swiftees in the other boats ceased firing upon noticing that there was no hostile fire from either bank. They said that by the time Kerry returned to fish Rassmann out of the water, the only noise on the river was the idling engines of the Swift Boats, and that the Swiftees had already set about rescuing PCF-3 and its crewmen.



08-21-04, 07:56 AM
The Top, Top Secret Files of John Forbes Kerry <br />
<br />
<br />
August 20, 2004 <br />
<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />
by Frank Salvato <br />

08-21-04, 07:57 AM
Text of Swift Boat Vets' Ad Against Kerry
NewsMax Wires
Friday, Aug. 20, 2004
The new Swift Boat Veterans for Truth advertisement accuses Kerry of betraying his fellow Vietnam veterans and the U.S.

Kerry is pictured during his testimony to the Congress after he returned from Vietnam, and quotes of what he said appear on the screen, accompanied by Kerry's voice. Various former POWs recount how they believe Kerry's conduct in criticizing the war hurt them and America:

KERRY: "They personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads ..."
JOE PONDER (wounded 1968): The accusations that John Kerry made against the veterans who served in Vietnam were just devastating ..."

KERRY: "... randomly shot at civilians ..."

PONDER: "... more than any physical wounds I had."

KERRY: "... cut off limbs, blown up bodies ..."

KEN CORDIER (former POW): "That was part of the torture, that you had to sign a statement that you committed war crimes."

KERRY: "... razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan ..."

PAUL GALANTI (former POW): John Kerry gave the enemy for free what I and my comrades in the prison camps in North Vietnam took torture to avoid saying."

KERRY: "... crimes committed on a day-to-day basis ..."

CORDIER: "He betrayed us in the past. How could we be loyal to him now?"

KERRY: "... ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam ..."

GALANTI: "He dishonored his country and, more importantly, the veterans he served with. He sold them out."



08-21-04, 08:50 AM
Another Swift Boat Vet Lied in Anti-Kerry Ad, Book
By Staff and Wire Reports
Aug 19, 2004, 07:50

A Vietnam veteran who claims Sen. John Kerry lied about being under fire during a Mekong Delta engagement that won Kerry a Bronze Star was under constant fire himself during the same skirmish, according to the man's own medal citation.
The newly obtained records of Larry Thurlow show that he, like Kerry, won a Bronze Star in the engagement and that Thurlow's citation said he also was under attack.

Thurlow, also like Kerry, commanded a Navy Swift boat during the Vietnam War. Thurlow swore in an affidavit last month that Kerry was "not under fire" when he rescued Lt. James Rassmann from the Bay Hap River.

Thurlow's records, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, include references to "enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed at all five boats in the flotilla that day. In his Bronze Star citation, Thurlow is praised for helping a damaged Swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about him."

The records said Thurlow's actions "took place under constant enemy small arms fire," which Thurlow ignored in providing immediate assistance to the disabled boat and its crew.

Thurlow is a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans who have aired a television advertisement attacking Kerry's war record.

Kerry has described how his boat came under fire from the river banks after a mine explosion disabled another U.S. Swift boat. Kerry and members of his crew say the firing continued as Kerry leaned over to fish out Rassmann, who was blown overboard in another explosion.

Thurlow described Kerry's Bronze Star citation as "totally fabricated," saying "I never heard a shot."

Thurlow, a registered Republican, said he was angry with Kerry for his anti-war activities after his return to the United States, especially his claim that U.S. troops committed war crimes with the knowledge of their officers up the chain of command.

Thurlow said he got the award for helping to rescue the boat that was mined.

"This casts doubt on anybody's awards," he said. "It is sickening and disgusting."

He said he believed his own award would be "fraudulent" if it was based on coming under enemy fire.

"We weren't under fire," he insisted, speculating that Kerry could have been the source of at least some of the language used in the citation.

Thurlow said he lost his Bronze Star citation more than 20 years ago. He said he would not authorize release of his military records because he feared the Kerry campaign would discredit him.

Members of Kerry's crew have said Kerry is telling the truth. Rassmann said he has vivid memories of enemies firing at him from both banks.

The military record disputing Thurlow's account brings to four the number of "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" whose credibility have come under question. John O'Neill, leader of SBVT and co-author of the book, has been caught in several lies about his involvement in GOP political causes. Retired Admiral Roy Hoffman has given conflicting statements in newspaper interviews and former Lt. Cmdr. George Elliott recanted his statements in the book and then recanted his recant.



08-21-04, 09:46 AM
Military Itelligence reports several 7.62 bullet holes in all of the boats after this incident. Give it up Thurlow, you're full of crap and were coached and given a script. You sold your honor and integrity.

08-21-04, 11:22 AM
Swift Boat Vets Leader Adds More Lies to His Resume
Capitol Hill Blue Staff Writer
Aug 19, 2004, 08:00

John E. O'Neill, leader of the anti-Kerry Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and co-author of the book, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, lied once again on national television about his partisan political activity on behalf of the Republican party.

O'Neill, appearing on Tuesday's Fox News with Brit Hume, claimed that half of $15,000 in contributions to Republicans listed in Federal Election Commission records actually were made by a law partner with a "similar name."

"My law partner has almost the same name, Edward J. O'Neill," claims O'Neill, who practices law in Houston. In an earlier interview with newspaper reporters, O'Neill claimed the contributions were made by his firm, not him, but federal law prohibits corporate contributions to federal candidates and he changed the story before appearing on Fox.

Asked by Fox News correspondent Brit Hume to explain nearly $15,000 in donations to Republicans, O'Neill said, "about half of them were mine. Those are actually funds, as nearly as I can tell, that were given my -- by some -- my law partner who has almost the same name, Edward J. O'Neill. I simply didn't give them. I would have been happy to give them. I just didn't."

But Federal Election Commission Records clearly identify "John E. O'Neill" as the individual contributor of $14.650 to candidates -- all Republicans -- since 1990. FEC Records also list contributions by Edward J. O'Neill but they are different from the contributions listed for John E. O'Neill.

Edward J. O'Neill donated $1,000 to then-Texas Governor George W. Bush's campaign in 1999, $250 to former Democratic presidential candidate General Wesley K. Clark's primary campaign in 2003, and other contributions to both Democrats and Republicans.

"I've given more to Democrats than Republicans," John O'Neill claimed on Fox but FEC records do not show a single contribution from John E. O'Neill to any Democratic candidates. When pressed, he said he gave to Democrats "at the local level" and Republicans "at the national level."

However, a search of records with the Texas Ethics Commission, keeper of contribution records, finds no contributions listed for John E. O'Neill.

"I'm not a Republican or a Democrat," O'Neill told Hume, but he was first recruited into politics by President Richard M. Nixon's chief counsel, Charles Colson, and set up with a veterans front group to challenge then anti-war activist John Kerry's activities.

"We found a vet named John O'Neill and formed a group called Vietnam Veterans for a Just Peace. We had O'Neill meet the President, and we did everything we could do to boost his group," Colson told reporter Joe Klein in a January 5 interview published in The New Yorker magazine.

O'Neill later clerked for Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, a Nixon appointee, and worked in Republican politics in Harris County, Texas. His political activities for the GOP got him on the short list for a federal judge appointment under former President George H.W. Bush, according to Texas Lawyer magazine and Harris County voter registration records show he votes in GOP primaries.

FEC records compiled by the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics show O'Neill's political contributions go only to Republicans and include:

2004: $2,000 to Duane Sand (ND)

1999: $1,000 to Peter Staub Wareing (TX)

1998: $250 to Rudy Izzard (TX)

1996: $1,000 to Brent Perry (TX)

1994: $2,500 to Texas Republican Congressional Committee

1993: $2,500 to Texas Republican Congressional Committee

1992: $1,000 to Texas Republican Congressional Committee

1992: $1,000 George H.W. Bush

1992: $1,000 to Clark Kent Ervin (TX)

1991: $1,000 to Clark Kent Ervin (TX)

1990: $400 to Hugh Dunham Shine (TX)

1990: $1,000 to A Tribute To Ronald Reagan



08-21-04, 11:24 AM
The Kerry page <br />
<br />
What follows is an article written for a San Diego paper by Captain J. F. Kelly, who as Commander Kelly was XO of GRIDLEY in the period of 1967 and 1968 when Kerry was aboard. <br />

08-21-04, 11:24 AM
Neither Commander Kelly nor LCDR Rueckert (Kerry’s immediate boss) can recall approving a trip ashore for Ensign Kerry. The author uses remarks of David Simons IC2 as a lead in to the Danang...

08-21-04, 02:02 PM
John Kerry and &quot;Unfit for Command&quot; <br />
<br />
August 21, 2004 <br />
<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />
by Col. John H. Wambough, Jr. USAF (Ret.) <br />

08-21-04, 02:03 PM
Unfit for command
Paul Crespo (archive)

August 21, 2004 | Print | Send

To deflect attention from his glory days as an anti-war protester, John Kerry incessantly reminds us that he served in Vietnam. To buttress his war veteran image, the Democrats shamelessly brag about Kerry the "war hero" and cynically deploy, as campaign props, a few select veterans he refers to as his "band of brothers."

The hidden truth is that as soon as he left Vietnam John Forbes Kerry disowned the uniform he wore, publicly discarded his medals and betrayed his fellow American servicemen still serving there. This is why so many military people don't like Kerry. The vast majority who actually served with him in Vietnam consider him an unprincipled opportunist, and have said so publicly.

While Kerry greatly exaggerates his abbreviated four-month Vietnam tour, many Vietnam veterans recall more painfully his later dishonest anti-war activism. During the infamous 1971 "Winter Soldier" investigation and congressional hearings, Kerry maliciously maligned all American servicemen in Vietnam as "war criminals" -- falsely claiming that they regularly committed atrocities.

His group, Vietnam Veterans against the War, produced numerous "veterans" who testified against their fellow soldiers. The problem was that Kerry never witnessed any war crimes during his brief stint in Vietnam (except maybe his own). It was also proven that many of Kerry's Vietnam "veterans" were not veterans at all, and their tales of so-called atrocities were mostly fabrications.

Kerry brazenly lied and his disloyal efforts hurt our troops and POWs, aided the enemy and even made Kerry a "hero" in Communist Vietnam. He has never apologized for helping create the false image of all Vietnam veterans as "baby killers."

To further divert attention from Kerry the "anti-war hero," Democrats early on pre-emptively smeared President Bush's National Guard service as a jet fighter pilot. Some even outrageously accused Bush of being AWOL and a "deserter."

The Kerry camp conveniently ignores that George W. Bush faithfully flew F-102 Delta Dart supersonic jet interceptors for three years in the Texas Guard (after completing eighteen months of full-time active duty flight training), before his civilian job (a Senate race) took him to Alabama for his fifth and final non-flying year.

Despite Democrat claims, flying jet fighters in the Air Guard was in no way "easy" or "safe" duty. Just strapping yourself into the cockpit of one of those single-engine rockets was dangerous business. At least six pilots were killed in the Texas Guard flying the obsolescing F-102 fighters during those years. The aging jets were being phased out of the Guard during Bush's final year.

In the 1970s the Texas Guard, part of the North American Air Defense Command, also regularly scrambled fighters to intercept unknown bogies headed toward the US over the Gulf of Mexico. Then, as now, Homeland Defense was critical since Soviet bombers routinely flew into and out of communist Cuba. Vietnam was only one theater in our global Cold War against Soviet communism. Bush served our country honorably.

Meanwhile, many of those who served with Kerry in Vietnam have pointedly questioned Kerry's brief service there -- including the medals he received. In the new book, "Unfit for Command," fellow Swift boat commander John O'Neill argues that Kerry should have been reprimanded rather than commended for one incident where he killed a lone, wounded Vietnamese soldier.

O'Neill and other Kerry colleagues also accuse Kerry of lying about operating illegally inside Cambodia (the infamous incident Kerry claims was "seared" into his memory never happened), and that many of his other so-called "heroics" were self-promoting frauds.

The minor (in one case some say self-inflicted) scratches he used to justify his three Purple Hearts also have provoked special scrutiny. Kerry quickly used these medals to end his Vietnam tour eight months early. These are serious allegations and Kerry has yet to come clean. Unlike Bush, Kerry has refused to release his full military and medical records to quell the serious doubts surrounding his awards and service.

Consequently, more than 250 veterans who served with Kerry in Vietnam (including all but one of his commanders and the vast majority of those who served in his Swift Boat Coastal Division 11) created a nonpartisan group called: "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." They have publicly denounced Kerry as deceitful and "unfit to be commander in chief."

Twelve out of the nineteen officers shown in a photo with Kerry in Vietnam also have demanded he stop using that photo in his campaign, since only one of those men actually support Kerry.

Despite his deceptive "war hero" campaign rhetoric, Kerry has earned mostly contempt from those who served with him. Many veterans, including most of his real Vietnam "band of brothers" won't be voting for Kerry on Election Day.

Paul Crespo is a former Marine Corps artillery and intelligence officer. He served in numerous countries on three continents during twelve years on active duty and in the Reserves. A version of this column also appears in Tiempos del Mundo.

©2004 Paul Crespo



08-21-04, 04:31 PM
Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad <br />
<br />
Published: August 20, 2004 <br />
<br />
<br />
fter weeks of taking fire over veterans' accusations that he had lied about his...

08-21-04, 04:32 PM
Ms. Spaeth had been a communications official in the Reagan White House, where the president's aides had enough confidence in her to invite her to help prepare George Bush for his vice-presidential...

08-21-04, 04:32 PM
A damage report to Mr. Thurlow's boat shows that it received three bullet holes, suggesting enemy fire, and later intelligence reports indicate that one Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded, reaffirming the presence of an enemy. Mr. Thurlow said the boat was hit the day before. He also received a Bronze Star for the day, a fact left out of "Unfit for Command."


Asked about the award, Mr. Thurlow said that he did not recall what the citation said but that he believed it had commended him for saving the lives of sailors on a boat hit by a mine. If it did mention enemy fire, he said, that was based on Mr. Kerry's false reports. The actual citation, Mr. Thurlow said, was with an ex-wife with whom he no longer has contact, and he declined to authorize the Navy to release a copy. But a copy obtained by The New York Times indicates "enemy small arms," "automatic weapons fire" and "enemy bullets flying about him." The citation was first reported by The Washington Post on Thursday.

Standing Their Ground

As serious questions about its claims have arisen, the group has remained steadfast and adaptable.

This week, as its leaders spoke with reporters, they have focused primarily on the one allegation in the book that Mr. Kerry's campaign has not been able to put to rest: that he was not in Cambodia at Christmas in 1968, as he declared in a statement to the Senate in 1986. Even Mr. Brinkley, who has emerged as a defender of Mr. Kerry, said in an interview that it was unlikely that Mr. Kerry's Swift boat ventured into Cambodia at Christmas, though he said he believed that Mr. Kerry was probably there shortly afterward.

The group said it would introduce a new advertisement against Mr. Kerry on Friday. What drives the veterans, they acknowledge, is less what Mr. Kerry did during his time in Vietnam than what he said after. Their affidavits and their television commercial focus mostly on those antiwar statements. Most members of the group object to his using the word "atrocities" to describe what happened in Vietnam when he returned and became an antiwar activist. And they are offended, they say, by the gall of his running for president as a hero of that war.

"I went to university and was called a baby killer and a murderer because of guys like Kerry and what he was saying," said Van Odell, who appears in the first advertisement, accusing Mr. Kerry of lying to get his Bronze Star. "Not once did I participate in the atrocities he said were happening."

As Mr. Lonsdale explained it: "We won the battle. Kerry went home and lost the war for us.

"He called us rapers and killers and that's not true," he continued. "If he expects our loyalty, we should expect loyalty from him."



08-21-04, 04:33 PM
Dirty doings

Sen. John Kerry's numerous and inexplicable flip-flops are now common knowledge, but that hasn't stopped him from continually adding more to the list. His latest lob at the Bush campaign, in reference to questions about Mr. Kerry's military service in Vietnam raised by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, is that the president is hiding behind surrogates to do his "dirty work" for him. That claim, coming from Mr. Kerry's mouth, is a breathtaking flip-flop.
Ever since President Bush signed into law the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill in March 2002, which limited soft-money contributions to political parties, money has been finding other ways to influence politics. In this presidential campaign, donations now flow to independent 527 groups instead of to campaigns and parties, where they are turned into political advertisements. And it has been Mr. Kerry, not Mr. Bush, who has benefitted most handsomely from the change.

A quick look at the top politically active 527 groups tells us why. The top two 527 committees in terms of fundraising are Media Fund and America Coming Together, which have raised a combined total of $55,032,938. Both of those groups, of course, are dedicated to defeating Mr. Bush in November. Numbers three and four on the list, the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, have raised $30,310,503. Not surprisingly, the Service Employees send 89 percent of their contributions to Democrats, while the American Federation donates 98 percent. Moveon.org, a venomous anti-Bush group that once briefly displayed an ad comparing Bush to Hitler, comes in at number five, with receipts totaling $9,086,102. Then there is the New Democrat Network, which has raised $7,172,693. Finally, at number seven, is the Club for Growth, a group founded to elect fiscal conservatives. But it only raised $4,818,063, a tiny fraction of the amount that the other groups are using to pummel Mr. Bush.
Individual donors have also thrown their weight behind Mr. Kerry. Billionaire George Soros, for example, has poured $12.6 million thus far into various 527 groups seeking the defeat of Mr. Bush, including $2.5 million to Moveon.org and $5 million to America Coming Together. Peter Lewis, another prolific donor, has thrown $2,995,000 to America Coming Together and $2.5 million to Moveon.org. Stephen Bing, a controversial figure from Shangri-La Entertainment, has donated almost $7 million to America Coming Together and to the Media Fund. So when it comes to surrogates doing the "dirty work," Mr. Kerry's allies outraise Mr. Bush's hands down. But will Mr. Kerry condemn the "dirty work" of Moveon.org or America Coming Together? We won't hold our breath.
So Mr. Kerry's complaint about Mr. Bush hiding behind surrogates is yet another flip-flop. His policy seems to be that using surrogates to do the "dirty work" is alright, so long as their attacks aren't aimed at Democrats.



08-21-04, 06:13 PM
John Kerry, the more I realized that had he been a Marine platoon officer in Nam, we would have been thrown him overboard or left him out in the boonies...

My name is Cook Barela, and I approved this message...

08-21-04, 07:29 PM
The "Mother" of All House Parties
The East Bay for Kerry/MoveOn House party on December 7th combined the forces of two grass-roots organizations based in San Francisco East Bay Area. We had 200 guests eating, drinking, and watching the MoveOn Documentary “Uncovered” featuring Joseph Wilson and Rand Beers from the Kerry campaign.

When Teresa Heinz-Kerry arrived, she handed me a pin that read in the center: “Asses of Evil” with “Bush”, “Cheney”, “Rumsfeld” and “Ashcroft” surrounding it. She met, greeted and talked to a jam-packed room of Kerry supporters and others who came for the MoveOn documentary. Many were curious, others undecided, or belonging to other candidate camps.

Teresa talked about her life as the daughter of a physician in Africa, about life during a repressive regime, to life inside Washington DC, and a brief intimate glimpse into her courtship with John. She told a rapt crowd about how they met and their first date, and that he did not call again for six months, adding, “He was slow on the uptake”. Just as she was about to add more to the story, the phone rang. It was the Senator.

The synchronicity of this call was not lost on the crowd. We all laughed. John then spoke about the Medicare Bill recently signed by the president that effectively forces people into expensive HMO plans and prevents Medicare from using its formidable consumer base to drive the bulk purchase of expensive prescription drugs down. He also spoke about the recent Bush Thanksgiving visit to our military in Iraq, carrying a platter laden down with a fake turkey, smiling for a photo op.

People were hungry for the food we had prepared, but more so, hungry for John’s message of hope. After the call, Teresa took questions from the crowd. One of the questions was about grass-roots organizing, and the effect it had on the current presidential campaigns. Teresa responded that grass-roots has to happen at EVERY level, from the Internet, to canvassing and meeting people, to letter writing and phone calling. She reminded us that this was the way to connect with others and to get the message out.

A PBS producer working on a documentary on MoveOn interviewed Teresa. He asked, “Just as radio was for Roosevelt, and television was for Kennedy, the Internet has been defined as the new political grass-roots organizing tool for this era. What is your reaction to that?”

Teresa said, “The Internet is a great grass-roots organizing and political tool; but it is still an adjunct.” The producer asked her to clarify. Teresa responded, “Until EVERYONE has access to a computer and knows how to access the Internet, it will still be an adjunct political grassroots organizing tool”.

It was hard for Teresa to stay on schedule. The lovely voice of opera singer, Susan Gundunas was on hand to sing a few tunes, and that kept Teresa with us a while longer than expected. Before saying goodbye, she took with her some “Condoleezza Rice Crispies Bars” and “No Child Left Behind Chocolate Chip Cookies”, sold to generate donations to the cause. She left with a lilt to her step, a warm smile, and some new converts, some of whom were uncommitted and undecided, and some who were definitely committed, but came over to our camp. Because of her.

She gave us a bit of what she does best, connecting us as a community with her heart, compassion, and willingness to fight throughout all her life for the good of all of us. As her husband, John Kerry has throughout his life. Teresa completed the picture many people had unfinished about John Kerry. Now they know they have a “Real Deal”. From baking cookies, gathering food donations, staying up late cooking chicken wings, putting up artwork, and decorating that beautiful rambling modern home in the Oakland Hills, we at East Bay for Kerry did our job because we believe grass roots efforts include all of these finer, human details. We brought in more than 80 people to John’s birthday party the next night, bringing the room to capacity at 350 the following night

Thanks to Teresa, we kept the party going on, and she helped us here at East Bay for Kerry, throw the Mother of All House Parties.

Fe Bongolan - December 11, 2003
East Bay for Kerry - Berkeley, CA



08-21-04, 07:30 PM
Kerry's False Report Led to Media Assault, Swift Boat Vet Claims
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
August 19, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - A member of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has alleged that John Kerry's own report 35 years ago was the basis for the military records that the Washington Post used in an article Thursday seeking to discredit the veteran, Larry Thurlow.

At issue is whether Thurlow, Kerry and others were subjected to hostile gunfire on Vietnam's Bay Hap River on March 13, 1969, as military records obtained by the Washington Post indicate.

Thurlow currently asserts that there was no gunfire, a contradiction of the military records cited in the Washington Post article. The Post was not able to show the source of the information for the military records.

Thurlow believes Kerry wrote the after-action reports that served as the basis for the military records, including the ones applying to Thurlow. He told CNSNews.com that Kerry routinely asked to write the reports, which, Thurlow said, exaggerate and falsify Kerry's actions. He said an examination of those reports reveals that Kerry was often portrayed as a hero, when that wasn't necessarily the case.

"In all honesty, knowing John wasn't reliable and wasn't trustworthy, I didn't expect him to do this," Thurlow said. "If he wanted to embellish his own account a little bit, I could even live with that because a lot of people are that way."

Both Thurlow and Kerry were awarded the Bronze Star medal for their actions on the Bay Hap River.

Kerry's own account is that during the Bay Hap River incident, he rescued another veteran, Jim Rassmann, while coming under fire from the Viet Cong. Rassmann backs up Kerry's version of events. But Thurlow said the awards, including his own, may have been inappropriately handed out as a result of a false report filed by Kerry.

"We were never under hostile fire," Thurlow told CNSNews.com as he recalled the events of March 13, 1969. "And if that's something that has to happen for me to get that Bronze Star, then I have had it all these years under false pretenses. I'll be happy to return the thing. I don't want the thing under fraudulent circumstances."

As reported by the Washington Post, the Navy award recommendation of March 23, 1969, indicated that Thurlow and Kerry had been subjected to "small arms and automatic weapons fire" along the Bay Hap River. Thursday's article in the Post used that statement, included in Thurlow's military records, to contradict Thurlow's current claim that there was no gunfire.

"The hostile fire is based entirely on [Kerry's] report," Thurlow said. "My contention, both then and now, is that there was no hostile fire."

Thurlow continued: "I had no clue, though, that he was building the centerpiece of his run for the presidency on it. There's no way I could have. Despite the fact he was known to have told several people that he was going to be president of the United States when he grew up, anybody could say that. John, it turns out, was very serious."

A spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign didn't immediately return CNSNews.com's request for comment. But Kerry denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, of which Thurlow is a member, during a speech Thursday.

"They're a front for the Bush campaign," Kerry said. "And the fact that the president won't denounce what they're up to tells you everything that you need to know - he wants them to do his dirty work."

When asked about the personal attacks he's endured since coming forward, Thurlow expressed disappointment. He said he merely wants to the truth about Kerry to be documented.

"What they're trying to do is discredit us," Thurlow said of the Kerry campaign. "If they can make anyone think we're not factual and not telling the truth, they've won that round."

If he could go back to Vietnam and do anything over again, he said he wouldn't have allowed Kerry to write the after-action reports.

"Back then, John would actually volunteer to write them up," Thurlow said. "He wouldn't be the officer in tactical command very often because he was fairly junior in the sense of who had been in country the longest.

"Nobody wanted to write these things," he added. "You're already drained from hours out on whatever the situation was. You wanted to clean up, get something to eat and get some sleep. John would say, 'I'll write this up.' [We'd say], 'Go for it, John.'

Proving that Kerry falsified reports is difficult, Thurlow acknowledged. He said higher-ranking commanders often gave a rubber-stamp signature to the reports because they trusted their officers to be honest.

"We accepted, whoever did it, to do it accurately," Thurlow said. "I myself expected him to do the right thing. Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have even let him do it. But at that time, I was more than happy to let him do it. I know something now that I did not know then."

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewPolitics.asp?Page=\Politics\archive\200408\POL 20040819d.html


08-21-04, 10:41 PM
Vets against Kerry. Pure and simple.

My name is Sam Armstromg, and I approved this message.

Semper Fi y'all..

08-21-04, 11:04 PM
He keeps coming back to &quot; it's a Right wing conspiracy&quot; and that is getting old. Kerry has had all the time to answer the charges made by his fellow vets who served along side him but he keeps...

08-22-04, 12:17 AM
Who cares! He is full of it! G.W. 2004!

08-22-04, 07:33 AM
Good military sense

On Monday, President Bush announced long-expected plans to withdraw up to 70,000 U.S. troops, and nearly 100,000 employees, from Europe and Asia as part of the administration's troop realignment strategy. The initiative is enormous in scope, constituting the largest restructuring of deployed U.S. forces and personnel since the end of the Korean War, and will take as long as a decade to complete. Not only does the administration's policy, spearheaded by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld early in 2001, make good military sense, it highlights the shifting strategic concerns of the United States in the 21st century.
The major troop reductions will occur in both Germany and South Korea. With regards to Germany, the withdrawal is long overdue, considering that the U.S. presence was a direct result of the Soviet threat. While North Korea continues a dangerous and aggressive policy, the U.S. withdrawal will only comprise a third of the 37,000 troops stationed on the peninsula. More importantly, as the president emphasized in his announcement, the United States will increase its presence nearer to hot spots in the war on terror, while at the same time allowing more troops to return home.

So close to the election as it is, it didn't take long for the Democratic analysts to unleash criticism of the administration's plan. The substance of their arguments, however, was pretty thin. Retired general and former Democratic presidential candidate Wesley Clark said that the withdrawal will "significantly undermine U.S. national security," adding that the plan is "ill-conceived" and "politically motivated." We don't particularly agree with Mr. Clark's analysis, especially when we remember that as supreme allied commander of NATO forces, Mr. Clark also advised reducing U.S. troop levels in Germany. Nor are we impressed with former ambassador and current Kerry adviser Richard Holbrooke's prediction that the Germans are going to be "very unhappy." Both critics stressed that reducing our military commitment in such places as Germany and South Korea will diminish our diplomatic clout, as well as further alienate our allies.
But soldiers aren't diplomats, and while their presence can help sway a country's state of mind, the United States cannot continue to ask tens of thousands of its troops to continue playing a balancing act. The critics also forget the original intent of stationing the troops in Germany and South Korea — for defense, not diplomacy.
We doubt Messrs. Clark and Holbrooke take their own criticisms seriously. In the end, the administration's plan, as massive as it may be, is the bare minimum that any restructuring of U.S forces would allow. Given the 10-year timeframe, just more than 6,000 troops would be redeployed per year. Also, America's European bases will not be significantly altered, adding credence to Mr. Rumsfeld's vision of a more agile strike force, ready to deploy at a moment's notice. As Mr. Bush said, "The world has changed a great deal and our posture must change with it." German sensibilities notwithstanding, we applaud the change.



08-22-04, 07:35 AM
Kerry Will Abandon War on Terrorism
Posted March 1, 2004
By Kenneth R. Timmerman

The Democratic Party's presidential front-runner, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), has pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror, begin a dialogue with terrorist regimes and apologize for three-and-one-half years of mistakes by the Bush administration.

In a sweeping foreign-policy address to the Council on Foreign Relations in December, Kerry called the U.S. war on terror as conceived and led by President George W. Bush "the most arrogant, inept, reckless and ideological foreign policy in modern history." Kerry's remarks were widely praised by journalists. The Associated Press headlined its report on his speech, "Kerry Vows to Repair Foreign Relations." The Knight Ridder news service noted that the new focus on foreign policy "plays to Kerry's strength." None of the major U.S. dailies found Kerry's unusually strident language at all inappropriate. "Kerry Vows to Change U.S. Foreign Policy; Senator Describes Steps He Would Take as President," the Washington Post headlined ponderously.

Presidential contenders have criticized sitting presidents in times of war before, but what's unique today is that "it has become the rule, not the exception," says Michael Franc, vice president for government relations at the Heritage Foundation. "With a few notable exceptions, you have almost the entire Democratic Party hierarchy that opposes what Bush is doing in the most vitriolic and emotional terms."

Heritage presidential historian Lee Edwards called it "not a foreign-policy analysis but a polemical speech, filled with inflammatory rhetoric that is disturbing and beyond the pale. What this suggests is that Mr. Kerry wants to take us back to President [Bill] Clinton and his U.N.-led multilateral policies."

Kerry promised to spend the first 100 days of his administration traveling the world to denounce his predecessor, apologize for his "radically wrong" policy, and seek "cooperation and compromise" with friend and foe alike. Borrowing language normally reserved to characterize "rogue" states, Kerry said he would "go to the United Nations and travel to our traditional allies to affirm that the United States has rejoined the community of nations."

Perhaps frustrated that his radical departure from the war on terror was not getting much attention in the trenches of Democratic Party politics, Kerry ordered his campaign to mobilize grass-roots supporters to spread the word. In one e-mail message, obtained by Insight and confirmed as authentic by the Kerry camp, the senator's advisers enlisted overseas Democrats to launch a letter-writing and op-ed campaign denouncing the Bush foreign-policy record.

"'It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world," the message states. "America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others."

The e-mail succeeded beyond the wildest dream of Kerry's handlers - at least, so they tell Insight. It was immediately picked up by the Mehr news agency in Tehran, and appeared the next day on the front page of a leading hard-line daily there.

"I have no idea how they got hold of that letter, which was prepared for Democrats Abroad," Kerry's top foreign-policy aide, Rand Beers, tells Insight. "I scratched my head when I saw that. The only way they could have gotten it was if someone in Iran was with Democrats Abroad."

The hard-line, anti-American Tehran Times published the entire text of the seven-paragraph e-mail under a triumphant headline announcing that Kerry pledged to "repair damage if he wins election." By claiming that the Kerry campaign had sent the message directly to an Iranian news agency in Tehran, the paper indicated that the e-mail was a demonstration of Kerry's support for a murderous regime that even today tops the State Department's list of supporters of international terrorism.

According to dissident Ayatollah Mehdi Haeri, who fled Iran for Germany after being held for four years in a regime prison, Iran's hard-line clerics "fear President Bush." In an interview with Insight, Haeri says that President Bush's messages of support to pro-democracy forces inside Iran and his insistence that the Iranian regime abandon its nuclear-weapons program "have given these people the shivers. They think that if Bush is re-elected, they'll be gone. That's why they want to see Kerry elected."

The latest Bush message, released on Feb. 24, commented on the widely boycotted Iranian parliamentary elections that took place the week before. "I am very disappointed in the recently disputed parliamentary elections in Iran," President Bush said. "The disqualification of some 2,400 candidates by the unelected Guardian Council deprived many Iranians of the opportunity to freely choose their representatives. I join many in Iran and around the world in condemning the Iranian regime's efforts to stifle freedom of speech, including the closing of two leading reformist newspapers in the run-up to the election. Such measures undermine the rule of law and are clear attempts to deny the Iranian people's desire to freely choose their leaders. The United States supports the Iranian people's aspiration to live in freedom, enjoy their God-given rights and determine their own destiny."

The Kerry campaign released no statement on the widely discredited Iranian elections, reinforcing allegations from pro-democracy Iranian exiles in America that the junior senator from Massachusetts is working hand-in-glove with pro-regime advocates in the United States.

Kerry foreign-policy aide Beers tried to nuance the impression that Kerry was willing to seek new ties with the Tehran regime and forgive the Islamic republic for 25 years of terror that began by taking U.S. diplomats hostage in Tehran in 1979 and continues to this day with Iran's overt support and harboring of top al-Qaeda operatives. Just the day before the e-mail message was sent to the Mehr news agency, Beers told a foreign-policy forum in Washington that Kerry "is not saying that he is looking for better relations with Iran. He is looking for a dialogue with Iran. There are some issues on which we really need to sit down with the Iranians."

The word "dialogue" immediately gives comfort to hard-liners, says Ayatollah Haeri. While Beer's comments went unnoticed by the U.S. press, they were prominently featured by the official Islamic Republic News Agency in a Feb. 7 dispatch from Washington.

In an interview with Insight, Beers went even further. "We are prepared to talk to the Iranian government" of hard-line, anti-American clerics, he insisted. "While we realize we have major differences, there are areas that could form the basis for cooperation, such as working together to stop drug production in Afghanistan."

Beers has a special history in Washington. A longtime National Security Council aide who served President Clinton and was carried over by the Bush White House, he resigned as the war in Iraq began in March 2003. Just weeks later, he volunteered for the Kerry campaign. The Washington Post heralded him in a profile as "a lifelong bureaucrat" who was an "unlikely insurgent." Yet the Post acknowledged that he was a "registered Democrat" who by resigning at such a critical moment was "not just declaring that he's a Democrat. He's declaring that he's a Kerry Democrat, and the way he wants to make a difference in the world is to get his former boss [Bush] out of office."

Talking to Insight, Beers compares Kerry's proposal to begin talks with Iran to the senator's earlier advocacy of renewing relations with Vietnam after the Vietnam War: "No expectations, eyes wide open."

With Iran, which is known to be harboring top al-Qaeda operatives, Beers says "there is no way to have a deal without having the hard-liners as part of the dialogue. We are prepared to talk to the hard-line element" as part of an overall political dialogue with the Iranian regime.

The Kerry policy of seeking an accommodation with the regime is not new, says Patrick Clawson, the deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who has been tracking Iran policy for two decades. "Kerry's approach is that of many in Europe who think you must entice rogue regimes. Enticement only works if it is followed up with the notion that there would be a penalty if they didn't behave. I see nothing of that in Sen. Kerry's statements."

For Aryo Pirouznia, who chairs the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran, Kerry's offer to negotiate with hard-liners in the regime smacks of lunacy. "America is incredibly popular with the Iranian masses, so this is a grave mistake for a short-term benefit," Pirouznia says. "To the regime, this sends a message that America is willing to make a deal despite the blood of Americans who were murdered in Dhahran [Saudi Arabia] and are being killed today in Iraq by so-called foreign elements. And to Iranians, it shows that the old establishment may be back in power, a return to the Carter era."


08-22-04, 07:35 AM
Pirouznia's Texas-based support group, which worked closely with protesting students during the July 1999 uprising in Tehran, sent an open letter to Kerry on Feb. 19 noting that "millions of dollars" had been raised for the Democratic Party by Iranian-American political-action committees and fund-raisers with ties to the Tehran regime. "By sending such a message directly to the organs and the megaphones of the dictatorial Islamic regime, you have given them credibility, comfort and embraced this odious theocracy," Pirouznia says. "You have encouraged and emboldened a tyrannical regime to use this as propaganda and declare 'open season' on the freedom fighters in Iran."

Kenneth R. Timmerman is a senior writer for Insight.



08-22-04, 07:36 AM
Kerry flips on troop redeployment

Searching for coherent reasons to oppose the Bush foreign policy and deflect criticism of his many votes to slash the defense budget, John Kerry has come up with a new plan of attack: bashing the president's eminently sensible proposal to realign U.S. forces in the world, taking account of the fact that the Cold War ended 15 years ago.
In a speech Wednesday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Mr. Kerry blasted President Bush's plan to bring home as many as 70,000 troops from bases in Asia and Europe. "Why are we unilaterally withdrawing 12,000 troops from the Korean Peninsula at the very time we are negotiating with North Korea — a country that really has nuclear weapons? This is clearly the wrong signal to send at the wrong time," Mr. Kerry said.

Mr. Kerry hasn't always been so worried that troop reductions send the wrong signal. In 1990, he criticized the United States for keeping 300,000 troops in Germany to protect that country from the Soviets. The following year, he voted to slash the number of U.S. personnel in Europe by 30,000.
In January of this year, Mr. Kerry promised to be a president who "reduces the overall need for deployment of American forces in the globe — and I mean North Korea, Germany and the rest of the world." On April 14, Mr. Kerry said that the president should be "trying to find ways to reduce the overexposure, in a sense, of America's commitments." U.S. foreign policy, he added, should be trying to achieve "the reduction of the American presence" on the Korean Peninsula.
During an Aug. 1 appearance on ABC-TV's "This Week," moderator George Stephanopoulos asked Mr. Kerry if some troops would be home by the end of his first term. In response, Mr. Kerry — specifically mentioning Europe and the Korean Peninsula —said he would "have a significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops" abroad. He added that, so far as moving troops from these areas of the world was concerned, "there are great possibilities open to us."
So, why has Mr. Kerry moved from speaking favorably about reducing the number of American troop cuts less than three weeks ago to denouncing the president for actually trying to implement them? What tectonic geopolitical change has caused the senator to change his deeply held beliefs about troop withdrawals?
We suspect that the complaints result less from some extraordinary re-evaluation of the merits of the issue than the fact that Mr. Kerry, faced with the daunting challenge of trying to unseat an incumbent president, will search for any pretext to disagree with Mr. Bush. Perhaps he is an aficionado of that old Groucho Marx song: "Whatever it is, I'm against it."



08-22-04, 08:46 AM
Veteran backs Kerry on Silver Star account
Published Sun, Aug 22, 2004

The Associated Press
CHICAGO (AP) - A Chicago Tribune editor who was on the Vietnam mission for which John Kerry received the Silver Star is backing up Kerry's account of the incident.
William Rood, 61, said he decided to break his silence about the Feb. 28, 1969, mission because reports by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are incorrect and darken the reputations of veterans who served with Kerry, according to a report in the Tribune's Sunday editions.

Rood, an editor on the Tribune's metropolitan desk, said the allegations that Kerry's accomplishments were overblown are untrue. Kerry came up with an attack strategy that was praised by their superiors, Rood said.

"The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but their version of events has splashed doubt on all of us," Rood said in a 1,700-word first-person account published in the newspaper. "It's gotten harder and harder for those of us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be untrue, especially when they come from people who were not there."

According to the Tribune, Rood's recollection of what happened that day in South Vietnam was backed by military documents, including his citation for a Bronze Star and a report written by then-Capt. Roy Hoffmann, who commanded his and Kerry's task force and is now a critic of the Democratic candidate.

The mission has become a focal point of a political and media firestorm fueled by the Swift Boat Veterans.

One of the group's leaders, John O'Neill, succeeded Kerry in command of a swift boat. O'Neill is co-author of the book "Unfit for Command," which accuses Kerry of lying about his wartime record and betraying comrades when he returned from Vietnam by alleging widespread atrocities by U.S. troops. The Swift Boat Veterans have repeated the accusations in TV ads.

The Kerry campaign filed a complaint Friday with the Federal Election Commission, alleging the Swift Boat Veterans are coordinating their ads with the Bush campaign. The Bush campaign has denied the claim but refused to condemn the book or the group's TV ads.

Rood wrote that Kerry recently contacted him and other crew members, requesting that they go public with their accounts of what happened that February day.

"I can't pretend those calls (from Kerry) had no effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this," Rood said. "What matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never again talk publicly about it."

Rood declined requests from a Tribune reporter to be interviewed. The Tribune's deputy managing editor for news, George de Lama, told The Associated Press on Saturday that Rood would not publicly discuss the issue.

When the Tribune asked O'Neill for his response to Rood's account, O'Neill argued that the former swift boat skipper's version of events is not substantially different from what appeared in his book.

A message left with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was not immediately returned Saturday.



08-22-04, 10:40 AM
John Kerry Doesn't Know His Own Mind
What does the senator believe about American troops abroad?
by William Kristol

THE PROBLEM with being an opportunist is that you can easily forget what you've recently said.

On Monday, during a speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, President Bush announced that he intends to modify the configuration of American forces in both South Korea and Europe. On Wednesday, Sen. Kerry, speaking before the same audience, sharply criticized the president's decision.

Appearing on ABC's This Week on August 1, however, Sen. Kerry responded to a question by host George Stephanopoulos on Iraq. Stephanopoulos asked Kerry whether, as president, he could "promise that American troops will be home by the end of your first term?" Kerry's answer:

I will have significant, enormous reduction in the level of troops. . . . I think we can significantly change the deployment of troops, not just there but elsewhere in the world. In the Korean peninsula perhaps, in Europe perhaps. There are great possibilities open to us. But this administration has very little imagination.

Apparently, Sen. Kerry wanted to appeal to the "get-the-boys-back-home" sentiment in the country when he spoke on This Week. Yesterday, addressing a convention of veterans, Kerry was busy burnishing his credentials as a hawk by suggesting that cutting our forces in Korea "is clearly the wrong signal to send" at this time.

Who knows what Sen. Kerry believes? Does Sen. Kerry even know?



08-22-04, 01:07 PM
The Cult of Kerry
Doug Giles (archive)

August 21, 2004 | Print | Send

Listening to the Democrats speak about John Kerry must be what it was like hearing Saint Peter describe Christ to his fishing buddies. Kerry can do no wrong. No matter what is written or said about the Senator, the Dems find no fault in the man. He’s perfect.

Just look at his website, JohnKerry.com. Why, he’s squeaky clean; he’s a truth telling war hero and good guy, with an impeccable public record who should replace that terrible rascal George W. Bush. Kerry, according to the Dems, is the savior of these United States.

End of discussion. Crown him with many crowns! Yeah, right.

According to the liberal-left, Kerry has never – no, NEVER - lied, prevaricated, exaggerated, or obfuscated. He has never flipped flopped. If he has done a 180 on an issue it is because he is evolving … transforming like a little butterfly. And we all know development is a complicated process, don’t we? Therefore, one must be understanding with Kerry during his miraculous presidential metamorphosis. He’s flowering. Be gentle.

Given the vast secularization of the left it’s touching to see such faith. Yes, the Democrats’ willingness to completely, implicitly trust, back, defend, go out on a limb for and stake their careers on this man is simply -- religious.

My question is: what kind of goofy grape Jim Jones juice do the Democrats and the Liberal media’s Axis of Drivel, drink to make them utterly and completely believe everything this guy says and never seriously question him, his war claims or his vacillating voting records?

Kerry has worked some serious voodoo on his backers, and he’s now trying to do it on us voters.

We are told, you see, that Saint John Kerry is immaculate, that we should believe what he and a smattering of others say about him during his Nam days, and that we should blow off his 20 year voting history. Just drink the [poisonous] grape juice and let him run the country.

Kum Ba Ya, My Senator, Kum ba ya.

The liberals want the masses to believe Kerry, make a Hegelian leap of faith, blow off all the massive accusations and empirical evidence … and embrace him. We can do this!

First, by just moving on from all that Swift Boat stuff. Geez, guys, Kerry said he’s telling the truth. Let it be. The carefully scripted, evasive half-answers and the New York Times’ tilted take is good enough for the Democrats. So, what’s the problem? I mean, who cares if 60 eyewitnesses, and a total of 254 combat mates, think Kerry is a grade “A” bulls**t artist? No need to check the facts: they’ve gotta be wrong, and Kerry’s obviously right. Drink the juice.

Now, repeat after me: it makes no difference that John-boy claimed until just last week that he spent Christmas Eve 1968 in Cambodia. It’s really just a bit of poor navigation that he was 55 miles away, deep in Vietnam, although he insisted on it every chance he got including on the Senate floor.

And it really, really doesn’t matter that he claimed Richard Nixon was the lying president at the time, although he still was waiting to be inaugurated. We all know that worse things have been said about Nixon, so you can’t blame the ever-so-honest, self-righteous John Forbes Kerry.

Anyway, those suspicious Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads were floated by rich Republicans – from Texas! friends of the Bush family!! - and we know how disreputable and discrediting that kind of activity is when a partisan guy with $200 thousand gives it to a 527 organization for smear ads. [Hey! Don’t anybody mention George Soros giving $10 million to MoveOn.org!] You know this grape juice is really pretty tasty.

Secondly, we all could move on and embrace Kerry if Ann Coulter would just chill on making a big deal out of Kerry bringing a movie camera with him to re-enact his purportedly heroic acts. Mariah Carey and Michael Jackson often have people around them filming their actions, so … what’s weird about Kerry doing it? You and I both know that if Sony digi-cams were around in Christ’s day, he’d have Bartholomew rolling on him while he was doing His gallant deeds. And they’d do several different takes until Bart got it right. More funky juice, please.

Thirdly, we could move on and embrace Kerry if we would all back off the major television outlets for not carrying detailed coverage of the Swifties’ best-selling book, Unfit for Command, which is #1 on Amazon, in it’s fifth printing with Regnery, and yet very difficult to find at major bookstores in liberal cities. Look, Tailgunner Joe … TV news shows are busy with other things. The Olympics are being played. Hello! And in addition to the games we really must see the documentary about how the male Olympian overcame chronic jock itch, an overbearing mother with a mustache and a penchant for prancing around in stiletto heels, to become the great athlete he is. Yes, we need more of this stuff. Hours of it. Uh… excuse me… my goofy grape Nehi is running a little low.

Fourthly, we could all move on and climb into Kerry’s boat by believing John, who from now on, is going to go medieval against those terrorists. Kerry has promised us that he can be a mean guy to bad people and that he will do whatever it takes to secure us at home and abroad. We need to believe him and not let little things bother us. Things like this wanna be JFK skipping out on 78% of 49 hearings while he served on the Senate intelligence committee.

We shouldn’t flinch over Kerry’s proposal just after the first [1993] attack on the World Trade Center to slash $7.5 billion from our intelligence budget. And who can fault Kerry for voting 12 times between 1990 and 2003 against higher pay for America's hardworking volunteer military?

Can it really be a sticking point with people if our two Johns, Kerry and Edwards, are two of only four US Senators who voted for the use of force resolution against Iraq and against the $87 billion funding bill for our troops there and in Afghanistan? What harm is there in voting against extra money for body armor for soldiers and against increased combat pay for troops? You can still be tough on terrorists, right?

We must not judge Kerry based on what he has done ... only on what he says he will do. Kerry, like Francis Dolarhyde, is becoming and it’s not fair to equate him with what he was. Come on, people. Do what the Dems do. Throw your hands up in the air and say, “Oh well … whatever”. Give me more goofy grape because I like-a da juice.

Fifthly, we can really embrace Kerry very easily: simply believe that he means it when he says he’ll cut the middle classes’ taxes. All we have to do is forget he’s voted 98 times for tax increases totaling more than $2.3 trillion and voted at least 126 times against tax cuts totaling more than $5.3 trillion. Just believe Kerry even though he’s voted 73 times to reduce the size of a tax cut, 67 times for smaller tax cuts and 11 times against repealing tax hikes … and even when he voted for Bill Clinton’s largest tax increase in U.S. history! If Kerry says he’s not going to tax us, just be cool …close your eyes ... and keep the grape juice flowing.

And lastly, we can all join the Kerry cult, by buying into his take on abortion: life begins at conception but the woman has the right to snuff that life out. Maybe it’s not so nice, but it’s no big deal continuing the greatest holocaust to ever hit our planet -- murdering unborn children. On that one, altar boy, make wacky Welch's a double.

My ClashPoint is this: Kerry’s crowd is so blinded by anti-Bush frothing fervor they have completely lost their objectivity and have halo-ed this cat. No, no, no, John Kerry’s not a liar. His voting record doesn’t contradict his newfound convictions … and the king is not naked. It’s OK, cuz … O.J. is innocent, and Scott Peterson didn’t kill Laci and their baby. Oh, and Britney Spears can sing, and Andy Dick is a thespian.

Kerry’s cult may see a glow around their do-no-wrong golden boy’s head but I don’t think it’s a halo. It’s probably methane gas from the fetid fecal fumes that are steaming off his body.

No Jim Jones juice for me, thank you.

©2004 Doug Giles



08-22-04, 06:41 PM
I have always said before and I will say it again I want to hear from the men that where actually there, and guess what we are!Now we"ll see whos lieing or dieing in this matter of the swift boat veterans.

08-23-04, 07:13 AM
Apocalypse Kerry

John Kerry took the floor of the United States Senate on March 27, 1986, and delivered a dramatic oration indicting the foreign policy of the Reagan Administration. As is his habit, Kerry drew on his Vietnam war experience in explaining his opposition to the policy.

"I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia," he said. "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."

To emphasize the importance of this incident to his subsequent political development, Kerry asserted: "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."

The story of his 1968 Christmas in Cambodia is one that Kerry has told on many occasions over the years. He invoked the story in 1979 in the course of his review of the movie "Apocalypse Now" for the Boston Herald. Most recently, Kerry told the story—with remarkable embellishments involving a CIA man who gave him his "lucky hat"—last year on separate occasions to reporters Laura Blumenfeld of the Washington Post and Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe.

Certain elements of Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story were incredible on their face. Kerry attributed responsibility for his illegal 1968 mission to Richard Nixon, despite the fact that Lyndon Johnson was president at the time. The Khmer Rouge who allegedly shot at Kerry during his "secret" mission did not take the field until 1972.

Moreover, there is no record that Swift boats—the type of boat under Kerry's command—were ever used for secret missions in Cambodia. Their size and noise make them unlikely candidates for such missions in any event. Indeed, the authorized biographer of Kerry's Vietnam service—historian Douglas Brinkley in his book Tour of Duty—omits any mention of such a covert cross-border mission to Cambodia at any time during Kerry's service.

Over the past few weeks, the Christmas in Cambodia tale, a keystone of John Kerry's Vietnam autobiography, has been revealed to be fraudulent. On Christmas 1968, Kerry was docked at Sa Dec, 50 miles from Cambodia in an area from which the Cambodian border was in fact inaccessible.

Last week, after the falsity of Kerry's account became public, the Kerry campaign issued a statement "correcting" the story. According to the Kerry campaign, the mission referred to took place in January 1969 when Kerry "inadvertently or responsibly" crossed the border into Cambodia. However, three of Kerry's Swift boat crewmates have denied entering Cambodia at any time, and no one has corroborated Kerry's claim.

The suggestion that Kerry may have "inadvertently" strayed into Cambodia—leaving aside whether that was even possible—constitutes a complete retreat from the point of Kerry's original story: that he lost his faith in government because the President lied about having sent American troops into Cambodia. And, of course, it contradicts his story about ferrying a CIA man to Cambodia.

Given the attention lavished on President Bush's service in the Air National Guard earlier this year, we thought that newspapers such as the Washington Post and the New York Times would want to devote comparable attention to John Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story. We also thought they would want to consider what the falsity of Kerry's story might have to tell us about the uses to which Kerry is putting his Vietnam service in the current presidential campaign.

To date, however, we have been wrong. Neither the influential mainstream newspapers nor the broadcast television networks have reported the meltdown of Kerry's Christmas in Cambodia story. Only readers of Internet weblogs such as ours have stayed on top of the exposure of Kerry's tall tale. Or on the Kerry campaign's lame efforts to resurrect a version of the story that contradicts what Kerry has said for the past 25 years, but allows Kerry to continue using his Vietnam experiences, real and imagined, for his own political purposes.

Whatever the reason—and we have our suspicions—when it comes to scrutiny of Senator Kerry's veracity, the mainstream media are saluting, but they are decidedly not reporting for duty.



08-23-04, 08:44 AM
Stretching the Truth
Aug 23, 2004, 03:20

Truth, they say, is the first casualty of war, and so it often is with political campaigns.
In what many observers, including Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., believe is emerging as one of the most vile political contests in history, the campaigns of President Bush and his Democratic rival John Kerry are stretching generally accepted boundaries of what's considered the truth to its very limits in the hunt for votes.

Most of the criticism has centered on the Bush campaign's effort to render Kerry unelectable by selectively pulling phrases uttered by the Massachusetts senator and citing them out of context to show he isn't tough enough to fight the war on terror.

"Only four years ago, Bush promised to 'change the tone' of our politics _ and now this," said Kerry spokesman Chad Clanton. "No wonder he's lost credibility."

The Bush campaign, meanwhile, has poked at various Kerry statements, including the claim made Thursday that the president is using an independent group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, to perform his "dirty work" in criticizing Kerry's military service in Vietnam.

"Senator Kerry knows that his latest attack is false and baseless," said Scott McClellan, the president's press secretary.

The Bush-Kerry showdown certainly doesn't mark the first time political foes have stretched the truth to fit their own reality. But the echo chamber created by the advent of the 24/7 news cycle provides these questionable claims with stronger legs, often rendering them difficult to refute.

Take statements made by Vice President Dick Cheney earlier this month when he ridiculed Kerry for stating he would wage the war in terrorism with more "sensitivity" than what's being demonstrated by the current administration.

"America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive," Cheney told supporters in Dayton, Ohio. "A 'sensitive war' will not destroy the evil men who killed 3,000 Americans and who seek the chemical, nuclear and biological weapons to kill hundreds of thousands more."

Cheney was referring to a statement Kerry made in a speech to the Unity convention of minority journalists on Aug. 12. The precise Kerry statement was: "I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."

Kerry was talking about treating the nation's allies in a more sensitive manner, the campaign said, not its enemies.

"Alienating allies makes it harder to hunt terrorists and bring them to justice," said Kerry spokesman Phil Singer. "If Dick Cheney learned this lesson instead of spending his time distorting John Kerry's words, this country would be a safer place."

Ironically, given Cheney's statement, Bush had previously stated a need to treat the nation's allies with sensitivity. And remarkably, on the same day Kerry was addressing minority journalists, Cheney appeared on a radio talk show hosted by Hugh Hewitt. This exchange occurred:

Hewitt: "Will the Najaf offensive continue until that city is subdued even if that means a siege of the Imam Ali shrine?"

Cheney: "Well, from the standpoint of the shrine, obviously it is a sensitive area, and we are very much aware of its sensitivity."

Another example involves the president. On Aug. 9, after some chiding from Bush, Kerry told reporters during a visit to the Grand Canyon in Arizona that, "knowing what we know now," he still would vote to authorize the president to go to war in Iraq.

"Yes, I would have voted for the authority," Kerry said. "I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

Bush promoted that as an endorsement of his actions.

"Now, almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq, and seven months after switching positions to declare himself the anti-war candidate, my opponent has found a new nuance," Bush told supporters in Hedgesville, W.Va., on Tuesday.

Despite the absence of weapons of mass destruction, Bush said, "knowing everything we know today, he would have voted to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein from power. I want to thank the senator for clearing that up."

But there is no evidence of Kerry ever "switching positions" on the vote. And as Kerry notes, voting to authorize the president to go to war is not the same as supporting the manner in which the president utilizes the authority.

At that same Grand Canyon event, Kerry said, "Why did we rush to war without a plan to win the peace? Why did you (Bush) rush to war on faulty intelligence and not do the hard work necessary to give America the truth? Why did he mislead America about how he would go to war?"

The Kerry campaign isn't an innocent babe when it comes to efforts to mislead. On Aug. 18, the Democrats issued a press release with the headline, "Reality Check: Cheney Argued for Kerry's Position," hinting that the vice president joined Kerry in opposing the military deployment plan supported by Bush that will eventually reduce troops in the Korean Peninsula.

"Dick Cheney had it right when he said that reducing forces in Korea when they had nuclear weapons was the wrong move at the wrong time," said Mark Kitchens of the Kerry campaign.

The campaign then produced three Cheney quotes expressing a desire to remain in South Korea because of the nuclear threat in North Korea.

Two of the cited remarks were delivered in November 1991 -- almost 13 years ago -- when Cheney was defense secretary under former President George H.W. Bush. The most recent statement was from May 22, 1992.

(E-mail Bill Straub at StraubB@shns.com or visit www.shns.com.)



08-23-04, 02:17 PM
John Kerry is Definitely “Unfit for Command” <br />
<br />
August 23, 2004 <br />
<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />
by Justin Darr <br />

08-24-04, 07:06 AM
McCain Advice for Kerry

August 23, 2004

by Bruce Walker


Almost twenty years ago, Senator John McCain was involved with four other United States senators in a scandal commonly called the Keating Five. Senator John McCain was a conservative Republican from Arizona, but this particular brouhaha stretched across partisan, ideological and geographical lines.

Senators Cranston (D-California), DeConcini (D-Arizona), Riegle (D-Michigan) and Glenn (D-Ohio) were the other four members of the Keating Five. None of those four are in the United States Senate today. Senator John McCain, by contrast, came close to winning the Republican presidential nomination in 2000 and was offered the vice-presidential nomination by the Democrat presidential nominee in 2004.

Two of the Keating Five were traditional American heroes. Senator McCain, of course, endured years of torture as a POW in Vietnam and yet emerged unbroken. That heroism, however, is not what saved the political career of Senator McCain.

John Glenn was also a traditional American hero. As a popular senator from Ohio, a large Republican leaning state which it would be very handy for any Democrat to carry in a presidential election, Glenn could have wound up in the White House, except for the Keating Five Scandal.

Why did John McCain do right that John Glenn and the other three Democrat senators did wrong? McCain confronted the Keating Five accusations directly. Senator McCain would answer any reporter’s question at any time at any length about his possible misconduct regarding Keating Five.

Whatever conservatives think about Senator McCain - and we ought to think well of him: his voting record is conservative and his courage under torture undeniable - the Senator did not dodge or evade the problems which Keating Five presented him. Senator McCain put himself in the hot seat. He did not hide behind surrogates or pretend that the accusations against him did not merit notice.

If John Glenn failed to do what John McCain did, then what John Kerry is doing right now is worse than any of the four Democrats involved in Keating Five and incomparably worse than what Senator McCain did. He is acting like a medieval noble who need not answer the rabble. That did not end up working well in France and it has never worked well in America.

Senator McCain should remind the American people - the Republican Convention would be an excellent time to do so - of how he handled a political story which threatened to destroy his credibility with the America people, and then he should suggest that Senator Kerry do the same. Senator McCain took questions from hostile reporters, from partisan reporters who opposed him, from anyone who wanted to know anything about what his role was in that scandal.

The political strategy was magnificent. When McCain ran in 2000, no one raised Keating Five as a problem, even when it appeared that McCain might actually win the Republican nomination. More important, the example of candor and humility in public officials which his conduct demonstrated was - and is - proof of American politics should work, when it works best.

Senator McCain can make this suggestion without in any way saying that he does not believe his Senate colleague. He can also note that the people raising these issues are brave, wounded veterans of Vietnam like both senators. Whatever the merits of the Swift Boats for Truth accusers, surely they have earned to right to make the accusations.

Men like Kerry and McCain received great benefits politically from their service in Vietnam, while these men did not profit off their service to America. There is nothing wrong, nothing unfriendly, with Senator McCain reminding Senator Kerry that everyone who served in Vietnam, not just those with successful political careers, have a right to raise questions about what happened there. Isn’t that, in fact, just how John Kerry built his political career - by raising questions about what officers and soldiers did in Vietnam?

If Senator Kerry finds the timing inconvenient, then Senator McCain might remind him that he did not choose the timing of Keating Five. It chose him. What Senator McCain did choose was how to handle that cloud over his political career, and tell Senator Kerry that if he wants the trust of the America people, then he should earn it by opening himself up to hostile questions and giving answers until the questions stop.

It will not happen, of course. Kerry is as isolated, insulated and immune to ordinary people that the notion of actually exposing himself to a rabble of reporters, particularly one that included opposition reporters, would simply never occur to Kerry, who wishes a coronation rather than an election. But that should stop McCain from reminding Kerry and America of what real guts looks like.

Bruce Walker



08-24-04, 07:07 AM
Did Navy Lt. Kerry violate The UCMJ? <br />
August 23rd, 2004 <br />
<br />
<br />
The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is a federal law, enacted by Congress. Its provisions are contained in United States Code,...

08-24-04, 07:47 AM
Kerry's Curiously Edited Website

August 23, 2004

by Kevin McCullough

John Kerry addressed the Veterans of Foreign Wars this last Wednesday. Noteworthy of the speech was the fact that significant numbers in the hall stood with their backs to him as he addressed them. Noteworthy also was the less than overwhelming reception he was given. His speech was a bit of a rehash of his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention.

Like a typical Kerry speech much of it was largely forgettable.

There were however a handful of items I thought very useful andI aired them on my show and planned on writing this column about them. Because I wished to specifically quote his exact words I went to the Kerry website tolook at the transcript of the speech. The only problem was - much of what appeared had been altered, and significant passages of things Kerry said were missing.

Because I had the audio it was easy enough for me to go pull out what I felt was the most egregious quote of the day.

"Let me make this clear...for 35 years I have stood up, and fought, and kept faith with my fellow veterans...as President I will stand with you to complete that mission."

I played this quote on the show and allowed folks to react to it.

I also allowed them to hear part of that "35 year history" and his "standing with, and fighting for, and keeping faith with" his fellow veterans - from 1971.

"Yes, I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed..."

What kind of atrocities did he mean? Also from 1971...

"The country doesn't know it yet, but it has created a monster, a monster in the form of millions of men who have been taught to deal and to trade in violence, and who are given the chance to die for the biggest nothing in history..."

"…They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape 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."

Kerry, standing before the VFW, tried to rationalize some of these more radical statements away. The veterans were not buying it. But the astounding aspect of all of this is that Kerry's website is scared to put up his exact comments.

Just before the quote I highlighted Kerry also talked in a rather awkward way about his term of service, and he awkwardly tried to mask his anti-soldier activism he carried out upon his return home. The whole explanation was so odd I half expected him to break into telling his “Christmas in Cambodia” story as a way of diverting attention from it.

On the website version of the Kerry speech there is no reference to his passage on his "uncomfortable time" after returning from Vietnam. And as for the quote of "standing up, fighting for, and keeping faith with his fellow veterans" it is also missing. (Much like many of the military records he now refuses to release that would answer other claims of people like the Swift Boat Vets.)

So in a bold-face attempt to deceive the veterans he was speaking in front of he tells them "he has kept faith with them", even though after his mere four months in Vietnam he immediately turned on them accusing thousands - even millions of atrocities.

And in an attempt to completely deceive those who read his speech on his campaign website he deletes all the references to such controversial and bold face lies all together.

Since the Swift Boat Vets have substantively documented outright lies that Kerry has told over 4 decades, like his "Christmas in Cambodia", or the fact that there was no hostile fire when Kerry received medical treatment for his first purple heart, (and in fact the wound was the equivalent of a splinter and self inflicted from his own use of a grenade launcher) it will be imperative from this point hence to double check everything Kerry does say on the campaign trail.

On Brit Hume’s broadcast earlier this week Swift Boat author John O’Neill said this, “John Kerry knows that history will treat him kindly – because he is the one who writes it.”

So keep those recordings handy. Most likely the "transcripts" of what he says will end up curiously edited for posterity by the time he publishes them and the audio record may be the only true record of what John “Flapjack” Kerry has actually said.

Kevin McCullough



08-24-04, 12:19 PM
Kerry bid to make Bush 'goat' for 9/11 seen risky <br />
<br />
<br />
By Charles Hurt <br />
<br />
<br />
Sen. John Kerry's presidential campaign is belittling President Bush for his immediate reaction to...

08-24-04, 02:22 PM
Press Release Source: GQ

John Kerry Has a Beer With GQ, Reveals His Admiration for Charlize Theron, the Connection Between Marlon Brando and the Contras, and Why His Years As a Bachelor Were Not So Great
Monday August 16, 12:52 pm ET

NEW YORK, Aug. 16 /PRNewswire/ -- In the September 2004 issue of GQ, Senator John Kerry sits down with the magazine's deputy editor Michael Hainey, who bellies up to the bar with the contender and dares him to show some personality. Kerry reveals his favorite sports heroes and actresses, his greatest athletic moment, and gives advice on what to look for in a woman. In the interview, "A Beer with John Kerry," Kerry says he loves GQ and always has it around the house. Highlights of the interview include:

On the sexiest film actress of all time: "I think Charlize Theron is pretty extraordinary ... Catherine Zeta-Jones ... and Marilyn Monroe. I thought she was funny. Complicated. And obviously very attractive, very beautiful."

Kerry tells Hainey that he had a telephone relationship with Marlon Brando in 1985 and 1986, during the contras: "He took a huge interest in it. And he would call me. He was always asking questions. And he'd give me advice. I took his advice on a couple of angles. A couple of points."

On what it was like when he was the "Bachelor Senator": "Those were not good days ... I think if you ask anyone, Bob Kerrey, or anyone who's been single on Capitol Hill, you'll find it's no fun ... That's not a good world, and everyone wants a piece of you, and all I can say is thank God I found Teresa."

Kerry gives Hainey advice on what to look for in a woman, reflecting on what he looked for in his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry: "Look for what gets your heart. Someone who excites you, turns you on. It's a quality of character. It's a kind of presentation. Sense of womanhood. Full woman. Confident. It's a woman who loves being a woman. Who wears her womanhood. Who knows how to flirt and have fun. Smart. Confident. Has a sense of self. Strong. And obviously sexy and saucy and challenging."

Kerry says that Teresa has changed him for the better, and opened him up: "[A]fter my first marriage, I was like a lot of people who had a relationship that doesn't work -- you want to make sure that the next one does. And you're a little gun-shy and apprehensive and nervous. And Teresa gave me a sense of confidence about relationships that filled that ... I'm confident about a lot of things, but I'm not somebody who's blind to human frailty and to the need for humility. We all have our flaws. And Teresa, you know, gave me just a great sort of strong, clear commitment to who I am. So you know, she loved me. And I think that kind of love is very compelling."

On his frustration with how Teresa is characterized: "It's very unfair. She's not defined by her money. She's not defined by her surname. She's defined by what she thinks. Who she is. Where her heart is. What her gut is. And by the things she does with all of that. She spent years as a mom, like every other mom in America, taking care of her kids. She wasn't spoiled. She didn't have nannies up the kazoo, things like that. She cooked for her kids, she took care of her kids, she raised her kids, and you know, she works really hard. And after her husband, her first husband, was killed, she took on enormous responsibilities. She is really phenomenally capable. She's a great leader and thinker."

On how Republicans have painted him more the protester than the warrior: "I think it's just pathetic. It indicates how craven they are. You know, in the dark of night I might call them some names, but I just think it's kind of stupid. I really do ... And I think it hurts them."

When Hainey says that Kerry is more the son of George Bush Senior than W is, Kerry responds: "I like Junior, but I like the senior Bush enormously. A very decent, thoughtful guy. And I have great respect for him."

On his sports heroes: "Bobby Orr, Jaromir Jagr, Wayne Gretzky. DiMaggio. I wore number 7 because of [Phil Esposito]. I have a photograph, it's one of my most prized possessions, me with Phil Esposito in a charity game. And he wrote me, 'Keep your head up and your stick on the ice.' I like that." Kerry also includes on his list Greg LeMond, Lance Armstrong, Bruce Jenner, and Frank Shorter.

Kerry says he loves competition, loves the feeling of it, throwing the lacrosse ball around, and talks about his greatest athletic moment: "A hat trick as a senior in the Harvard-Yale soccer game ... I think I got down on my knees and hit the ground."

The fictional character Kerry most identifies with: "There's a little Huck Finn in me; there's a little Tom Sawyer in me ... I like the adventure ... I like Conor Larkin [from Trinity] too. He stood for something. Fought for it. Fell in love. Took risks for his principles and values."

And while Kerry won't say whether he thinks the Stones or the Beatles are the better band, his favorites Stones songs include: ""Brown Sugar," "Jumpin' Jack Flash," "Satisfaction," and "Little Red Rooster." Kerry says he loves every Beatles song and the Abby Road album and the White Album.

On Bob Dylan: "I love Dylan. He's brilliant. I mean, I can name any number of his songs that I love, but you know, 'Lay across my big brass bed' -- 'Lay, Lady, Lay.'"

On having prostate cancer and mortality: "You know, there's not much that scares me. So I'm not worried about things -- certainly not dying, because too many of my friends did. And so I think it empowers you to go out and tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. Bush and Cheney don't understand that. That's one of the things I think is most lacking in their stewardship of our country."

When Hainey reminds Kerry of an encounter they had a year and a half ago, where Hainey felt that Kerry had brushed him off, Kerry says: "I think there are times when you fight for a little bit of privacy zone. I value personal time. I enjoy conversation. I love to sit and talk. But I don't like to feel a lack of control over my life ... I fight that a bit -- being 'on' all the time. I think anybody who's thoughtful fights that a little bit. And sometimes you say, okay, my mind's not in it today. I want a break ... You obviously can't [do that in a campaign]. And that's one of the learning curves. You realize, wait a minute, I've accepted responsibility and that is to always be available."

Michael Hainey's interview, "A Beer with John Kerry," appears in the September 2004 issue of GQ, on newsstands nationwide Tuesday, August 24, 2004. GQ is the leading men's general-interest magazine and part of Conde Nast Publications, Inc.

Source: GQ



08-24-04, 10:44 PM
Kerry defends military record

NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

08-24) 18:30 PDT PHILADELPHIA (AP) --

Democrat John Kerry defended his Vietnam War record Tuesday night from accusations that he didn't deserve his medals and invited voters to judge his 1970s anti-war activism as an indication of the "kind of president I'm going to be."

Kerry, speaking at a fund-raiser that the campaign said raised $1.7 million for the Democratic Party, said criticism of his decorated service in Vietnam has "become so petty it's almost pathetic in a way."

Kerry has been reaching out to fellow soldiers for help battling the fallout from a group of veterans who accuse him of lying about his record. Robert "Friar Tuck" Brant, a member of the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, said Kerry called him Sunday night and asked if he was aware of the group's activities.

"I said, `I am one, John,"' said Brant, who had appeared at a news conference announcing the group in May. "There was a moment of hesitation and he said, `I appreciate your honesty.' He said, `Well, why are you?"'

Brant said he told Kerry he was most upset about Kerry's protests after returning from the war, when he accused soldiers of committing atrocities. "I said, `You know that's not true,"' Brant said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. "That's been simmering in me about 35 years."

Brant said Kerry said he didn't mean everyone in the war was involved in the atrocities. The Massachusetts senator also offered to meet to discuss their differences, Brant said. He said he declined, saying, "I know what I know."

At the fund-raiser, Kerry defended his anti-war activism as "an act of conscience."

"You can judge my character, incidentally, by that," Kerry said. "Because when the time for moral crisis existed in this country, I wasn't taking care of myself, I was taking care of public policy. I was taking care of things that made a difference to the life of this nation. You may not have agreed with me, but I stood up and was counted and that's the kind of president I'm going to be."

Brant, who like Kerry was skipper of a Navy swift boat patrolling the Mekong Delta in 1968-1969 and now lives in Virginia, said he did not witness any of the incidents that led to Kerry winning medals. Others in the swift boat group have appeared in a television ad questioning whether Kerry lied to get them.

Kerry said he earned his three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and a Silver Star under the process set up by the Navy "and I'm proud of them and I'm proud of my service and I'm proud that I stood up against the war when I came home because it was the right thing to do."

Kerry also struck back at people who criticize him for trying to glorify only four months of service in Vietnam.

"I was there longer than that, number one," he said. "Number two, I served two tours. Number three, they thought enough of my service to make me aide to an admiral."

Kerry served six months aboard the USS Gridley, which supported aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Tonkin, before a four-month tour in the Mekong Delta that repeatedly brought him close to gunfire. After Kerry got three Purple Hearts for injuries from enemy fire, he was reassigned out of the combat zone and got his requested assignment to be a personal aide to an admiral in New York.

Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, introducing Kerry at the fund-raiser, said by watching the group's ads, "you'd think this was a 1962 or a 1976 presidential election."

"If you want this election to be decided on the Vietnam War, then I ask you one question: Who served this country better during the Vietnam War, John Kerry or George Bush?" Rendell said.

Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam war, and did not see combat. Democrats have questioned whether he always showed up for duty.

During a speech earlier Tuesday at Cooper Union in New York, Kerry sought to turn the campaign debate to issues on which he thinks he can win -- and away from questions about his Vietnam service. He also tried to paint Bush as the candidate who has been dishonest.

"My duty, as I understand it, is to be a president and commander in chief who finds the truth and tells the truth instead of misleading the American people," Kerry said to 850 invited supporters in the city where Republicans will nominate Bush for re-election next week. "My duty is to be a president who tells the truth instead of hiding behind front groups, saying anything and doing anything to avoid the real issues that matter like jobs, health care and the war in Iraq."

Kerry spoke a day after Bush criticized attack ads run by outside groups -- known as 527s because of an IRS code provision -- including the commercials being aired by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Kerry has said the veterans group is a front for the president's re-election campaign. The Bush campaign denies any coordination.

Kerry's campaign will go on the air in Nevada, New Mexico and Pennsylvania on Wednesday with a commercial responding to a new ad there by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

"The Bush campaign and its allies have turned to the tactics of fear and smear because they can't talk about jobs, health care, energy independence and rebuilding our alliances," Kerry said.

Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt said Kerry's attempt to declare himself a victim of negative ads is "stunning hypocrisy." He said, "His campaign has hid behind and benefited from $63 million in attack ads by shadowy 527 groups."

On the Net:
Kerry campaign: www.johnkerry.com

Bush campaign: www.georgewbush.com



08-24-04, 10:49 PM
Kerry’s Scariest Choice <br />
Joan Swirsky <br />
Tuesday, Aug. 24, 2004 <br />
After less than a year of campaigning, John Kerry has already given the American public a chilling preview of the misguided choices he...

08-24-04, 10:49 PM
An April '01 memo from the director of security, Joe Lawless, of the Massachusetts Port Authority, citing terrorist ties to Logan Airport and the need to address known vulnerabilities there. <br />
<br />

08-25-04, 02:06 AM
Man i cant believe his own wife said that, time to DIVORCE that brood she aint learned to stand by her man..... (notice 2 country songs in them sentences)

08-25-04, 09:06 AM
Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry



08-25-04, 09:47 AM
Swimming through the Spin

An oldie but a goody...
Looks like these ladies had Kerry pegged a long time before others did.



08-25-04, 11:37 AM
Here We Go Again! <br />
August 25, 2004 <br />
<br />
<br />
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- <br />
by Edward Daley ...

08-25-04, 04:24 PM
Diary refutes Kerry claim <br />
<br />
<br />
By Stephen Dinan and Charles Hurt <br />
<br />
<br />
John Kerry's own wartime journal is raising questions about whether he deserved the first of three Purple...

08-25-04, 04:24 PM
Fast Swift boat U-turn <br />
<br />
<br />
By Jack Kelly <br />
<br />
<br />
When John Kerry went postal last week, the major media's preferred strategy for dealing with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — to ignore them — went...

08-25-04, 06:30 PM
Cleland Tries to Deliver Letter to Bush

Wed Aug 25, 2:50 PM ET

By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

CRAWFORD, Texas - Former Democratic Sen. Max Cleland tried to deliver a letter protesting ads challenging John Kerry (news - web sites)'s Vietnam service to President Bush (news - web sites) at his Texas ranch Wednesday, but neither a Secret Service official nor a state trooper would take it.

The former Georgia senator, a triple amputee who fought in Vietnam, was carrying a letter from nine Senate Democrats who wrote Bush that "you owe a special duty" to condemn attacks on Kerry's military service.

"The question is where is George Bush (news - web sites)'s honor, the question is where is his shame to attack a fellow veteran who has distinguished himself in combat?" Cleland asked. "Regardless of the political combat involved, it's disgraceful."

Encountering a permanent roadblock to Bush's ranch, Cleland left without turning over the letter to anyone.

"I have a letter signed by nine members of the U.S. Senate, all of whom have served honorably and I'd like to hand it to a responsible officer here on the gate," Cleland said as he tried to deliver it to security personnel at the roadblock. He accused a member of the president's security detail of trying to evade him.

"I am just going to return the letter and make sure it gets in the mail," Cleland said as he returned to his car.

In their letter, the senators said, "This administration must not tacitly comply with unfounded accusations which have suddenly appeared 35 years after the fact, and serve to denigrate the service of a true American patriot."

A Texas state official and Vietnam veteran, Jerry Patterson, said someone from the Bush campaign contacted him Wednesday morning and asked him if he would travel to the ranch, welcome Cleland to Texas and accept the former senator's letter to Bush.

"I tried to accept that letter and he would not give it to me," said Patterson. "He would not face me. He kept rolling away from me. He's quite mobile."

Patterson, who spoke with the president on the phone, said the campaign asked him to give Cleland a letter for Kerry written by the Bush campaign and signed by Patterson and seven other veterans.

"You can't have it both ways," the letter said. "You can't build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up."

On Monday, the president said the group's anti-Kerry advertising should stop, but he refused to denounce it.

"The moment of truth came and went for President Bush to condemn these ads, and he still could not bring himself to do the right thing," Cleland said in a statement.

The senators signing the letter to Bush included Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Ernest "Fritz" Hollings of South Carolina, Tom Harkin of Iowa, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Tom Carper of Delaware and Jon Corzine and Frank Lautenberg, both of New Jersey.



08-25-04, 06:31 PM
John Kerry: Unfit. Period.

August 26, 2004

by Jim Manion


Both Democrats and Republicans are in agreement on at least one thing: We are at war. The Democratic Nominee for President voted to give President Bush the authority to to wage war with Iraq. Candidate Kerry has recently noted that if he had to do it all over again, he still would have voted in favor of the authorization. In a time of war, a nation must pull together or be pulled apart. The following article appeared in the Sunday, February 8 edition of the Tehran Times:

Kerry Says He Will Repair Damage If He Wins Election

WASHINGTON (Mehr News Agency) -- The office of Senator John Kerry, the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential primary in the U.S., sent the Mehr News Agency an e-email saying that Kerry will try to repair the damage done by the incumbent president if he wins the election. The text of the e-mail follows. As Americans who have lived and worked extensively overseas, we have personally witnessed the high regard with which people around the world have historically viewed the United States. Sadly, we are also painfully aware of how the actions and the attitudes demonstrated by the U.S. government over the past three years have threatened the goodwill earned by presidents of both parties over many decades and put many of our international relationships at risk. It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world. America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others. We are convinced that John Kerry is the candidate best qualified to meet this challenge. Senator Kerry has the diplomatic skill and temperament as well as a lifetime of accomplishments in field of international affairs. He believes that collaboration with other countries is crucial to efforts to win the war on terror and make America safer. An understanding of global affairs is essential in these times, and central to this campaign Kerry has the experience and the understanding necessary to successfully restore the United States to its position of respect within the community of nations. He has the judgment and vision necessary to assure that the United States fulfills a leadership role in meeting the challenges we face throughout the world. The current Administration's policies of unilateralism and rejection of important international initiatives, from the Kyoto Accords to the Biological Weapons Convention, have alienated much of the world and squandered remarkable reserves of support after 9/11. This climate of hostility affects us all, but most especially impacts those who reside overseas. Disappointment with current U.S. leadership is widespread, extending not just to the corridors of power and politics, but to the man and woman on the street as well.
We believe John Kerry is the Democrat who can go toe-to-toe against the current Administration on national security and defense issues. We also remain convinced that John Kerry has the best chance of beating the incumbent in November, and putting America on a new course that will lead to a safer, more secure, and more stable world.
Kerry's e-mail was such a big hit in Tehran, the identical article ran in the Tehran Times on March 8th, April 8th and May 8th. These days, it appears that John Kerry has almost achieved rock star status in the Islamic Republic.

Senator Kerry's communication with the Islamic regime was preceded by a trial balloon issued by his Campaign Staff.

On the previous day, Rand Beers, the Kerry Campaign's hench-minion for the coordination of national security issues, was quoted in the Tehran Times noting Kerry's desire to "thaw relations with Iran". Again, the story, under the headline "Senator Kerry Would Seek Direct Talks With Iran: Adviser", was apparently such a hit that it ran again on March 7. Mr. Beers was quoted just last month about the need to begin talks with the Iranian Government, including those in the hard-liner-death-to-the-Great-Satan camp.

On March 1of 2004, Insight Magazine reported that 3 of Kerry's top fundraisers were Iranian Americans who had been active in pushing for "dramatic" changes in US policy toward Iran. As of the date of the article, the trio supporting a pro Islamic Republic in Iran had raised between $200,000 and $300,000 for the Kerry Campaign. It is likely that in the past 5 months that number has increased. Since the article was based on information from Kerry's own Campaign reports, those funds were undoubtedly raised before the release of Kerry's aid and comfort letter to Iran.

These developments are disturbing on many levels. First, Kerry has been a member of the United States Senate for the last 20 years. During Kerry's tenure in the US Senate, the United States has had no diplomatic relations with Iran. Relations with Iran were severed 25 years ago after the US Embassy in Tehran was stormed and its US citizen occupants kidnapped for 444 days during the remainder of the Carter Presidency. The hostages were released when Ronald Reagan was sworn into office. Communicating with a government with which the US has no diplomatic relations is some serious stuff, even if it is via an electronic "wink" delivered by e-mail.

In addition, the timing of the hostages' release ought to give some clue as to the effectiveness of dialogue with sponsors of terror. Iran knew that Ronald Reagan was no Jimmy Carter, and rather than see what Reagan had in store, they set the hostages free.

Second, during Kerry's term in the Senate, he has been privy to classified information on Iran for the last 25 years. As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee during the 8 years from the beginning of 1993 through 2000, Kerry had access to top secret information concerning terrorist activities worldwide and on the links between Iran and Islamic terror. None of us common citizens are privy to that level of information, but we do have access to what the government releases to the press. Even at the unclassified level, the links between Iran and Islamic terror are undeniable.

Third, how could a man of Kerry's experience not foresee the potential impact this February e-mail would have? Less than 2 weeks after hailing Kerry's e-mail in the Iranian press, the Iranian Government closed reformist newspapers calling for democratic reforms in the Islamic Government and barred 2500 reformist candidates from participating in the upcoming "elections" in Iran. It would be very difficult to dismiss the timing as coincidental. Since February 8, the Iranians have boldly defied the demand of the rest of the world that they cease their nuclear development program; have informed the world that they fully intend to develop nuclear weapons; have shipped missiles to Hezbollah; have secured new and highly accurate guidance systems for their long range missiles from China; have threatened the US with preemptive strikes; and have sent troops and supplies to further the resistance against US troops in Iraq.

Finally, most disturbing is Kerry's vote to authorize war in Iraq while voting against funding to support our troops in Iraq. Kerry, along with John Edwards, were among a small group of 12 Senators voting against this spending authorization. He votes in favor of sending our troops in harms way, then against supplying them with body armor and other battlefield necessities that would improve their chances of survival. While undoubtedly having past and present information that Iran is trying to kill US soldiers through its clandestine participation with the terrorist and opposition groups in Iraq.

Kerry's betrayal of US troops by his vote against basic battlefield supplies is shadowed by his his open communication with Terror Central which no doubt emboldened Iran to step up its efforts to solidify its position as an unquestionable leader in the field of state-sponsored terrorism. Iranians participating in killing and wounding US troops in Iraq. Iran is supplying arms and supplies to terror and opposition groups in Iraq that are killing and wounding our troops there.

Then what, pray tell, is the motivation behind Kerry's course of conduct?

The leopard cannot change its spots, nor the tiger its stripes. A glimpse into the past gives us some very real insight into his present day motives.

In the early 1970's, Kerry betrayed his fellow soldiers and sailors by his rhetoric in branding them as a collective group of war criminals. His actions were instrumental in the US losing that war, with testimony coming from a decorated veteran in the very Halls of Congress. Ho Chi Minh himself could not have planned and executed a more effective attack.

And we now know that despite Kerry's insistence that he volunteered for service in Vietnam, it was the denial of his request for a deferment to study in France that lead to his heroic entry into the fray. A note for the record: had Kerry been drafted based on his disqualification for a deferment, he would have been, gasp, marshaled into the military as an enlisted man. Where most of those who served in Vietnam entered the fray. Going in as a Naval Officer would grant the small pleasures worthy of a member of the Forbes clan, albeit a red-headed step-child whose family could not find the time nor the resources to allow him to continue his lessons on the art of surrender.


08-25-04, 06:31 PM
The testimony Kerry freely and voluntarily gave was the same testimony that the North Vietnamese attempted to extract, through torture and death, from our POW's. Kerry's fellow declarants were a group that included a quorum of professional protestors who had never served in Vietnam. Yet that did not dissuade the admitted war criminal. Kerry even today states that he was right, despite the light of history showing that these were isolated incidents among the honorable troops serving 10,000 miles from home.

Under torture, threat of death and even death, our POW's rarely cracked, and certainly never provided the kind of indictments against the US and its armed forces that Kerry made following his abbreviated tour in Vietnam. They were men of honor, and they knew what the North Vietnamese were seeking was simply not true. After Kerry's coming out party, the torture rendered by their captors was escalated.

No one tortured Kerry into giving his testimony. He did so freely without coercion of any kind. It wasn't offered to save Kerry's life or the life of someone else. It wasn't to avoid pain, suffering or death. It was not honorable.

It was, however, instrumental in launching a 30 year stint as a career politician, providing a platform that made John Kerry into an overnight public figure. And while his condemnation of the US did not play well in all parts of the country, it was music to the ears of those residing in the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts. The rest of the country, his comrades, and our POW's be damned. This was an opportunity to provide him with JKF-like exposure, and he took it.

So protective gear for the young men and women who Kerry voted to send into combat is really secondary to being able to claim that he did cast at least one vote against the War in Iraq. Lending support to one of the biggest state sponsors of terror in the world, which right now is actively participating in actions inflicting casualties among our soldiers and sailors, is necessary collateral damage in garnering the support of the Europeans and those within his own party who are willing to be force-fed tripe under the mantra "anything but Bush".

Kerry is the consummate political chameleon, able to change positions in order to make him appear in the most favorable light. The trigger for the color change is what is best for to further John Kerry's aspirations at the time. The color that best appeals to the aligned domestic and foreign interests, those that will usher him into the White House, is the color he will display. When mercenary political calculations are combined with money, the color changes accelerate. Adjusted for inflation, 300,000 U.S. Dollars must equal the standard price of betrayal set at 30 pieces of silver 2000 years ago.

John Kerry is a true master in the art of political camouflage (definitely a French word). Those medals that he spat upon and discarded 30 some years ago are the same ones he proudly displays today. Not an inconsistent position at all, if you understand Kerry's motivation. His sense of self is paramount above all else. His color will reflect the Machiavellian hue appropriate to the moment, despite the fact that it may be to the detriment of the best interests of this Country. And, despite the fact that his changes of color and shape have pulled us apart. We are a nation polarized and at odds with one another. But the psyche of this nation takes a back seat to the cold reptilian political ambitions of the Democratic Nominee. Collateral damage.

So there we have our motive.

Kerry is the same person he was 30 plus years ago, Just older, a little wiser, much richer, and possessing a bigger bag of tricks courtesy of his pet special interest groups. It is just that today, his modus operandi can lead to the deaths of untold US citizens, whereas 30 years ago, it merely ruined the lives of untold numbers of the living.

A position of leadership is by far the hardest job on the planet. But conversely, it is also the most rewarding, if performed effectively. Chameleons and other reptiles cannot lead, nor can they follow. Their purpose in life is self preservation and self enrichment.

JFK would not approve, but Ho Chi Minh would surely be proud.

Jim Manion



08-25-04, 07:35 PM
and so it goes... <br />
<br />
From the Washington Wrap, 8/25/04 <br />
<br />
<br />
Kerry Talking Funny: John Kerry’s campaign theme of the week is the economy but it has been Vietnam and his Comedy Channel appearance...

08-25-04, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by CMyr
and so it goes...

From the Washington Wrap, 8/25/04

"Well, I was there for longer than that number one," said Kerry. "Number two, I served two tours. Number three, they thought enough of my service to make me aide to an admiral," Kerry continued as he became more passionate in his defense of his service.

Two tours of Vietnam?

This guy steps on it every time he opens his mouth.

His first tour was five weeks off the coast of Vietnam where the ship he was in was not even close enough to shore to be visible from Nam's Annamight Mountains (sp). It's not in his record that he was in Nam and no one else that served on that ship during that time claim to have served in Nam.

In his so called “second tour “He served one month training and 3 months or about six times out on patrol and caused so much grieve the other members of his unit and officers wanted him gone, they even suggested that he leave since he already had his third Purple heart. And, where did he serve? At Cam Rahm Bay, where Marines went to for R&R.

I probably got shot at more often while taking a dump then Kerry did "in his three months" of being forced to do his duty, which he complaint of doing everytime.

Oh, he was a real leader...all right, that's why many of his swiftee boat members changed so often, many did not want to go out with him, he was reckless, then and remains so today.

I would vote for a draft dodger, Clinton and Al Gore before I would vote for Kerry.

At least Clinton tried to cover his lies, Kerry puts in himself for a Purple Heart, then four days later writes in his own journal that he had yet to experience enemy contact, but he had already written that the day he got his first Purple Heart was the scariest day of his life. No incoming and the guy pees in his pants.

Yet, he hadn't been under fire, according to his own writings. He panicked and popped off an M79 in front of his boat and got hit with his own shrapnel. Oh, we need him as our leader alright.

Oh, sorry I just nuked New York, by pushing the red button in my briefcase...

08-26-04, 07:17 AM
Former POWs to launch anti-Kerry Website

WASHINGTON, Aug. 24 (UPI) -- Former Vietnam POWs, including Medal of Honor recipients, are attacking John Kerry's anti-war activism in a new Website and documentary, sources said Tuesday.

The Website slated to appear as early as Thursday night or Friday is Stolenhonor.com and will feature not only the former prisoners of North Vietnam's infamous Hanoi Hilton prison complex, but also family members of former prisoners relating how anti-war activity by Kerry and other Vietnam Veterans Against the War affected their lives.

"This is going to be the POW story. They are going to talk about the documentary coming out soon and will tell the story about how John Kerry betrayed the POWs, fellow Vietnam veterans and his country," former POW Ken Cordier said.

Cordier told UPI's Richard Tomkins a documentary film was in the works on Kerry and his anti-war activism and could be posted on the site, as well as on television or other venues, by Labor Day.

"It will be like Farenheit 9/11 but it won't be a pack of lies," he said.

Funding behind the two ventures was not immediately clear.

Kerry, following his service in Vietnam, became a prominent anti-war activist and testified before a Senate committee about alleged atrocities. The ex-POWs say those unsubstantiated allegations were used by the North Vietnamese to sap their morale.

Copyright 2004 by United Press International.
All rights reserved.



08-26-04, 07:18 AM
Letter From MOH Recipient Col. Bud Day -

The following is a letter to Joe Scarborough and John O'Neil from Medal of Honor Recipient and former POW Colonel Bud Day.

Dear Joe: The major issue in the Swiftboat stories is, and always has been, what John Kerry did in 1971 after he returned from Vietnam.
Kerry cast a long dark shadow over all Vietnam Veterans with his outright perjury before the Senate concerning atrocities in Vietnam. His stories to the Senate committee were absolute lies.. fabrications.. perjury.. fantasies, with NO substance. That dark shadow has defamed the entire Vietnam War veteran population, and gave "Aid and Comfort" to our enemies..the Vietnamese Communists. Kerry's stories were outright fabrications, and were intended for political gain with the radical left..McGovern, Teddy and Bobby Kennedy followers, Jane Fonda, Tom Hayden, and the radical left who fantasized that George McGovern was going to be elected in 1972. Little wonder that returning soldiers from Vietnam were spit upon and castigated as "baby killers". A returned war hero said so.
Kerry cut a dashing figure as a war hero, lots of medals, and returned home because of multiple war wounds..even a silver star. His Senate testimony confirmed what every hippie had been chanting on the streets.."Hey hey LBJ..How many kids did you kill today"????? He obviously was running for political office in 1971.
Until Lt. John O' Neil, himself a Swifboat commander, spoke out before the 1972 elections against Kerry's outright deceptions, there was no one from the Swiftboat scene that could contradict Kerry's self serving lies.
I was a POW of the Vietnamese in Hanoi in 1971, and I am aware that the testimony of John Kerry, the actions of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, and the radical left; all caused the commies to conclude that if they hung on..they would win. North Vietnamese General Bui Tin commented that every day the Communist leadership listened to world news over the radio to follow the growth of the anti-war movement. Visits to Hanoi by Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark gave them confidence to hold in the face of battlefield reverses. The guts of it was that propaganda from the anti-war group was part of their combat strategy.
While the Commies were hanging on, innumerable U.S. Soldiers, Sailors, Marines and Air Foce 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 crediblity. 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 liason 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- USA Attorney 1949-2004



08-26-04, 07:19 AM
Pesky Citizens Will Not Shut Up!
Gary Aldrich (archive)

August 25, 2004 | Print | Send

Patrick Henry and George Mason knew what they were doing when they insisted that the Constitution must have citizens’ rights spelled out in black and white. They refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. For their stand, the other founders, who believed citizens should have only the barest participation in political affairs, vilified them. But Henry, Mason, and others knew the time would come when Big Government and all who enjoy the crumbs of power and money would try to shush those citizens who want to express opinions about the political process.

That would include the right to reveal important truths regarding those candidates desiring to lead us, and at a time and a place of the citizens’ choosing.

George W. Bush has said that the Swift Boat Veterans, brought together under the legal umbrella of a 527 non-profit foundation, shouldn’t use their free association to express a truth most important to them. The Bush campaign has suffered some pretty outrageous allegations made by 527’s, but the law allows it. So what if it’s “messy?”

Moreover, I have read the Constitution from front to back and cannot find language anywhere that says political parties and their process of finding candidates and sending out political messages are the only way to introduce voters to political candidates.

Frankly, the existing political process that the “establishment” prefers and protects does a lousy job of telling us the truth about who wants to run our lives and protect us from dangers, foreign and domestic. Part of the blame must go to the liberal, biased media.

While establishment politicians have been busy nurturing their political fortunes, the mainstream media has drifted drastically to the Left. Now the ability to get a conservative message out there has become most difficult. Even if you factor in the Internet, Fox News Channel, and powerful talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, these conservative outlets comprise only a small percentage of the whole.

While America takes its time catching up to those like Bernard Goldberg and Ann Coulter, who discovered and reported a leftist media bias, the establishment continues to behave as if there is an even playing field and insists only professional players are welcome.

Four years of a conservative agenda, passed into law by Congress then signed into law by a president, would be proof that a corner has been turned. But the last time we saw a dramatic turn in a conservative direction was in 1994 with Newt Gingrich’s 10-point Contract With America. Do government hacks and professional political operatives actually believe that ordinary citizens have nothing better to do than to perform a “neighborhood watch” on our political system?

The grassroots are active because they are convinced that the current party leadership cannot get the job done.

Neighborhoods have watchers for the same reason that the political process is alive with citizen activists. The police cannot do a proper job of preventing crime while the current political process cannot do a proper job of answering the citizens’ demands for a smarter, cheaper, more honest, and more effective government. That’s why citizens need to be involved and that’s why the Swift Boat Veterans’ truth is so sorely needed right now.

Kerry has held himself out as a war hero and suggests he should be elected on that basis alone. He has not talked about his brilliance in college, because there was no brilliance. He has not bragged about setting up and running a large business, because he has never paid a payroll. He has not spoken about his years in the U.S. Senate because there is nothing to talk about – name a single important piece of legislation that bears his name. Recall a single important matter that included Senator Kerry as a participant. Recall a single leadership position he has achieved in the U.S. Senate.

Can’t find any achievements and leadership qualities suggesting Senator Kerry is White House material? How about his anti-war, anti-American activities after he returned from Vietnam? That would satisfy his political base of pacifists and those who blame America first. Otherwise, all Kerry has to offer is his short tour in Vietnam which happened more than thirty years ago.

Having used the only experience of his lifetime that might remotely qualify him as president, other than he is not George W. Bush, Kerry now wants to shut the mouths of anybody who disagrees with his version of what happened in Vietnam. This is not France, where they confiscate books unfavorable to the political elite. So, regardless of the power of the political parties, the mainstream media, and the political establishment, there is no law that can silence the Swift Boat Veterans who despise Kerry’s dishonest opportunism and want to tell America what they know.

Establishment politicians on both sides of the aisle are annoyed that ordinary groups of citizens can impact their carefully crafted election scenarios. They have become spoiled, petulant, and powerful. They don’t like surprises, and, yes, there is a brotherhood of political operatives who hang together regardless of party. Finally, there isn’t a single political operative who, upon election defeat of their candidate, will admit they were wrong about anything. Recall that President George H.W. Bush remarked after his defeat, “I got good advice, and I got bad advice, and I took the bad advice.”

I believe it is the establishment that needs to adjust to the playing field, which still includes citizens’ rights to participate in the political process. The establishment would have it otherwise, but at least this time around citizens still possess some rights.

Gary Aldrich is president and founder of The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, a Townhall.com member group.



08-26-04, 08:18 AM
If Kerry Can't Handle the &quot;Swiftees,&quot; How's He Going to Handle the Terrorists? <br />
By Debbie Daniel <br />
August 25, 2004 <br />
<br />
I've had more people chastise me for defending George Bush. They say they should...

08-26-04, 11:16 AM
Swift boat's hits <br />
<br />
<br />
By Donald Lambro <br />
<br />
<br />
There is no weaker position in presidential campaign politics than playing defense, and John Kerry has been on the defensive now for more than two weeks. ...

08-26-04, 08:57 PM
Wounds Opened Anew as Vietnam Resurfaces
The New York Times
Aug. 26, 2004

Many of them are bent and broken, grayer and wider. Some carry shrapnel from a step too far, an ambush replayed over and over. All carry memories. And now as the debate over service 35 years ago in a war that will not entirely fade roils the presidential campaign, Vietnam veterans wonder if they are doomed to take the arguments that divided a nation to their graves.

"It really upsets me, pitting one Vietnam veteran against another," said Frank Stephens, 55, of Granite Falls, Wash., who received a Purple Heart after being wounded during his Army tour in Vietnam in 1969. "I feel like the politicians are using us. They just won't let that war go."

For the more than 2.5 million veterans who served in Vietnam from 1965 through 1973, the clash over Senator John Kerry's service on a Navy Swift boat moves them into a new phase of their evolving place in the national consciousness. After being called both baby killers and heroes, they now feel like something else: political footballs.

"I thought Vietnam was over a few years ago, but apparently not," said Bruce Iverson, 58, an Air Force veteran of the war, who drives a bus in Portland, Me.

They profess to be brothers, and in veterans halls around the country the men who fought in Vietnam emphasized their common bonds and a view that most of the country may never understand them. But the advertisements by one group of veterans attacking the war record of Mr. Kerry, advertisements that are closely tied to supporters of President Bush, have reopened wounds about class and service and frayed some of the unifying threads.

"We didn't see any rich boys out there, not any at all, and if they were they had cushy jobs," said Ambrose D'Arpino, a 57-year-old former Air Force medic from Arizona who said Mr. Bush should not be criticizing Mr. Kerry because the president did not serve in Vietnam. Mr. D'Arpino was touring the Vietnam Veterans Memorial in Washington, which has carved on it the names of the 58,245 Americans who died in the war.

The Swift boat advertisements have infuriated Mr. D'Arpino, who said the candidates should focus on the issues of the day. It is a sentiment expressed by many veterans.

"Kerry earned medals,'' said Curtis Hamilton, an Army veteran from Maine who served in the mid-1980's. "Bush didn't. Who cares?"

In Oregon, a group of veterans held a rally on Monday to protest statements made against Mr. Kerry in an affidavit by one veteran, Alfred French, who is a deputy district attorney in Clackamas County, near Portland. Veterans said Mr. French's criticism of Mr. Kerry's war record, which he later told The Oregonian newspaper was based on the accounts of others, had inflamed old divisions.

"This Swift boat stuff is making life very, very difficult for Vietnam veterans, no matter who they support for president," said Colleen Helmstetter, who served with the Army Nurse Corps in Vietnam in 1970 and '71. Ms. Helmstetter, of Gresham, Ore., turned out with other veterans for the Monday protest. "Will this wound ever go away?"

The hurt and divisions have always been there, veterans said, but they come and go, often set off by a cultural event or a campaign.

"This new stuff from the Swift boat opponents of Kerry does not surprise me," said Charlie Brown, of Seattle, who was an Air Force medic in Vietnam and 1967 and 1968. "There was a right and a left among guys in Vietnam back in the 60's. And there's a right and a left now."

It is unclear how the advertisements will affect the vote of the nation's 26.5 million veterans. Mr. Kerry had hoped his war record would help him to make significant inroads with a group that tends to vote Republican. A poll by CBS News last week showed a drop in veteran support for Mr. Kerry, but the margin of sampling error in that poll, plus or minus eight percentage points, of the small number of veterans sampled, 144, was too large to give a true picture of veterans' sentiment, other pollsters said. But interviews with veterans across the country found a hard-edged cynicism about both Mr. Kerry's using his Vietnam service to advance his candidacy and Mr. Bush for his ties to a group that has renewed some of the divisions of a long-gone war.

None of the veterans interviewed said the challenge by the anti-Kerry group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, had changed their minds on the election. But a handful said the attacks were making them rethink support for Mr. Bush.

"I'm a Republican - I voted for Bush last time - but I may go to Kerry this year," said Ron Ostrander, who served in the Army from 1966 to 1969 and lives in Vancouver, Wash. "To me, it's irrelevant whether Kerry's boat went into international waters or not, or how he got his medals. The fact that he served and did his duty - don't try to take that away from him."

Ralph Bozella, a 55-year-old veteran who lives in Longmont, Colo., said the more he followed the Swift boat controversy, the more he drifted into Mr. Kerry's camp.

"I feel like what they did to attack his record is an affront to all veterans," said Mr. Bozella, who was an infantry soldier in Vietnam in 1971. "When you honor one veteran, you honor all veterans, so when you disgrace one veteran, you disgrace all veterans, especially a Vietnam veteran."

A Navy veteran and Republican who voted for Mr. Bush in 2000, Mike Weiss of Portland, Me., said Mr. Bush should denounce the attack advertisements.

"It's very sad for me," said Mr. Weiss. "I'm not surprised, but I think Bush is playing a dangerous game, and I think he's turning a lot of people off, myself included."

Whether the candidates saw combat or not, few veterans interviewed said it made much difference.

"We all tried to get into the Air National Guard," said Gary Franklin, a supporter of Mr. Bush who did two tours of duty as an Air Force sergeant from 1969 through 1972. "Bush was smart. Who wants to get shot?"

Mr. Franklin was wounded in the leg while serving on a medical evacuation helicopter, which he said was "like a big metro bus with a blade atop it." He said it did not bother him that Mr. Kerry later protested the war, and he said American soldiers had committed atrocities.

"He earned that right to protest," said Mr. Franklin, who sat chain-smoking outside the veterans hospital in Seattle. "He didn't have to go over there, but he did. And not many of us guys came back and said, 'Hey, let's go to war.' "

But he does not like Mr. Kerry's using his Vietnam service as a central theme of his campaign.

"My biggest beef with Kerry is that he's dragging us Vietnam vets through the political campaign to show that he has a good military background compared to Bush," Mr. Franklin said.

Another Bush supporter, Bill Bentley, who spent 23 months in Vietnam, on two tours, said he could not forgive Mr. Kerry for speaking against the war. A resident of Gulf Breeze, Fla., Mr. Bentley said the recent dust-up over Mr. Kerry's service reignited the anger he felt toward veterans who opposed the war.

"He came back and spoke before the Senate and said we were all baby killers," said Mr. Bentley. "It's only about 10 years ago that we Vietnam vets were able to come out of the closet and realized we didn't need to be ashamed for serving our country."

While closing ranks against outside criticism, some veterans said Mr. Kerry's service record became fair game for attacks by other veterans because he played it up in the campaign. "If Kerry brings it out, then he's got to face the consequences," said Charles E. Nichols, 57, who lives in Matteson, Ill.

A retired Marine Corps veteran with two Purple Hearts, one for getting shot in the knee, the other for taking a bullet in the shoulder, Mr. Nichols would like to see the campaign focus on other issues.

"I truly think it's a big waste of the public's time," said Mr. Nichols. "They're trying to discredit him, taking our minds off the issues."

Mr. Stephens, the former Army specialist from Granite Falls who was wounded with shrapnel from a land mine, described himself as independent. He had never harbored any bitterness toward his fellow baby boomers who did not serve, but the Swift boat controversy has made him rethink his feelings toward people like Vice President Dick Cheney, who avoided the draft by college deferments, he said.

"The vice president said he had 'other priorities,' " said Mr. Stephens, gesturing toward his war wound. "Didn't we all."


08-27-04, 07:23 AM
Kerry's defense(less) posture

While Sen. John Kerry continues his attempt to demonstrate his presidential bona fides by concentrating virtually exclusively on his four-month tour of duty in Vietnam in the late 1960s, it is instructive to examine the potentially destructive role he has played on the national-security front during his two decades in the Senate. Perhaps no issue offers more evidence of Mr. Kerry's foreign-policy follies than the matter of defending the American homeland against ballistic missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear warheads.

The issue is particularly timely given that the first ground-based missile interceptor was installed on July 22 in an underground silo at a missile-defense complex at Fort Greely, Alaska. With Mr. Kerry's presidential fixation mired in the jungles of Vietnam, President Bush has just taken a huge step to confront the certain dangers of the 21st century. If voters are seeking evidence of visionary presidential leadership, they need look no further than Fort Greely.
Make no mistake: The initial deployment of that missile interceptor, which soon will be followed by others in Alaska and at Vandenberg Air Force Base in California during the first phase of a planned robust missile-defense system, represents a historic moment in military affairs. If Mr. Kerry had his way, President Reagan's vision of defense against nuclear ballistic-missile attack would have been destroyed in its infancy. As a freshman senator in 1985, Mr. Kerry sponsored an amendment to slash spending for Mr. Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). As the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, his budget proposal has promised to "reduc[e] total expenditures on missile defense."
In an era of worldwide proliferation of ballistic-missile and nuclear-weapons technology, now is not the time to slash missile-defense's $10 billion annual budget. That modest amount represents less than one-half of 1 percent of total federal spending and less than 2.5 percent of defense spending, which will be less than 4 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) next year. That's well below the 9 percent of GDP commanded by defense during the administration of Mr. Kerry's hero, John F. Kennedy.
In fact, Mr. Kerry always has vigorously opposed missile defense. In 1985, he sponsored an amendment that would have slashed the spending authorization for SDI by more than 50 percent. The Congressional Quarterly (CQ) 1985 almanac reports that Mr. Kerry's amendment "would have denied all funds for 11 projects within the [SDI] program." CQ added: "Like most of the liberal SDI critics, Kerry insisted such a defense never would work."
Fortunately, the vast majority of his colleagues from both sides of the aisle soundly repudiated Mr. Kerry. In a bipartisan vote, the Senate overwhelmingly rejected Mr. Kerry's destructive amendment. The vote was 78-21. Current Democratic senators who opposed Mr. Kerry in 1985 include then-Minority Leader Robert Byrd, Joe Biden (now the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee), Carl Levin (now the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee), Jay Rockefeller (now the vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence), Max Baucus, Frank Lautenberg and Chris Dodd. Even then-Sen. Al Gore voted against Mr. Kerry's amendment, as did Republican Sen. John Heinz.
Sen. John Kerry was wrong on missile defense in 1985, and he is wrong today.



08-27-04, 07:24 AM
Kerry, Bush on same page militarily <br />
Minor differences pale in comparison to their similarities <br />
By James Sterngold <br />
<br />
Sen. John Kerry was dodging verbal mud balls about his Vietnam record last week...

08-27-04, 07:25 AM
'Trying to acquire Purple Hearts'

By Martin L. Fackler

John Kerry has presented his Vietnam record as his major qualification to be president of the United States. It is, therefore, the duty of the American public to scrutinize that record carefully. And it is the duty of candidate John Kerry to facilitate that scrutiny. If all the senator's claims about his four months in Vietnam are factual, it would be to his great advantage to facilitate such scrutiny.
Before we get to his record in Vietnam, however, we should examine the widespread misconception about how he got to Vietnam. The oft-repeated claim that Mr. Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam misleads: He apparently volunteered only after the draft deferment he had applied for was turned down — thus allowing him to choose service in the Navy to avoid being drafted into the Army.

I served as a combat surgeon in DaNang, (U.S. Naval Support Hospital) from Dec. 10, 1967, through Dec. 11, 1968. While there, I evaluated and treated hundreds of severely wounded combatants.
During my year in DaNang, a few combatants urged me to verify small abrasions as "wounds" so they could get a Purple Heart. Each freely admitted trying to acquire Purple Hearts as rapidly as possible to take advantage of the policy allowing those with three Purple Hearts to apply to leave Vietnam early. I refused them. But some went shopping for another opinion. Unfortunately, we had some antiwar physicians in Vietnam who were happy to become accomplices in these frauds. Most with valid Purple Hearts didn't need to apply to leave Vietnam: The seriousness of their wounds demanded it.
Lt. John Kerry's collecting three Purple Hearts within 100 days — all for wounds too minor to require hospitalization — recalls the distasteful memories of having to deal with those few miscreants in DaNang. More disturbing is the revelation that crewmen on Mr. Kerry's boat denied they had received any gunfire from shore at the time when Lt. Kerry claimed such gunfire had caused his wound. The doctor who disapproved Lt. Kerry's application for his first Purple Heart for that wound agreed that the tiny metal splinter sticking in the skin of his arm was inconsistent with enemy gunfire from shore. His crewmates claimed that Lt. Kerry, himself, had fired a grenade launcher from the boat striking a rock on the nearby shore — and his wound was from a metal splinter from the grenade that ricocheted back, striking him in the arm.
Is there any way we can determine who was telling the truth about this first Purple Heart? Yes, there is. The type of wound can reveal much about the weapon that caused it. The tiny sliver of metal and its very superficial penetration is typical of fragments from explosive devices — like grenades. It would not have resulted from the most likely gunfire from shore — small arms rifle fire. The AK 47 rifle, used by the enemy, fires a 30-caliber bullet, which is 50 times or more as heavy as the sliver of metal sticking in Lt. Kerry's skin. Such a bullet would have passed through any part of his body it struck, and certainly no part of it would have remained sticking in his skin.
In the absence of the medical records that Mr. Kerry apparently declines to make public, the only details we have about his second and third Purple Hearts are that he also based them on wounds too minor to require hospitalization. My reason for refusing to verify insignificant wounds as the basis for a Purple Heart was the regulation covering Purple Heart awards. In Part B, Paragraph 2, of the Army Purple Heart Regulation (600-8-22 of 25 February 1995), we find "the wound for which the award is made must have required treatment by a medical officer."
Dr. Louis Letson was entirely correct in turning down Lt. Kerry's first Purple Heart — even if the wound had been the result of enemy action. Can there be any doubt that the tiny metal sliver could have been removed easily, and safely, by a Navy corpsman? It certainly did not "require" treatment by a medical officer (an MD).
Purple Hearts are not supposed to be awarded for self-inflicted wounds, nor for wounds too minor to require treatment by a physician. So where and how did Lt. Kerry eventually obtain a Purple Heart for his first wound? Nobody seems to know. Only his medical records will tell — and the American public needs that information to evaluate candidate Kerry's qualifications and candor.
The highly unlikely occurrence of being wounded three times within 100 days, in the very beginning of a tour of duty, and all three wounds being so minor that none required hospitalization, would seem sufficient cause for further investigation.Addingthe inconsistencies surrounding Lt. Kerry's first Purple Heart should make mandatory a thorough scrutiny of his medical records by someone highly qualified to interpret military medical records, and familiar with the regulations on the qualifications for the Purple Heart Medal, to determine if the wounds for which Lt. Kerry was awarded the Purple Heart Medal were serious enough to "require" treatment by a medical officer, as called for by the Purple Heart regulation.
Mr. Kerry has made his Vietnam War record the centerpiece of his campaign. This demands a thorough objective evaluation of his medical records to determine if the three Purple Hearts that allowed him to leave Vietnam after only four months of duty were justified. This evaluation needs to be done before the election.

Dr. Martin L. Fackler served as a combat surgeon in Vietman in 1968. A fellow of both the American College of Surgeons and the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, he also is an author, expert witness and lecturer on wound ballistics and surgery, and former director of the Wound Ballistics Laboratory at Presidio.



08-27-04, 08:03 AM
Veterans dispatched with dueling letters

By Bill Sammon

Bush and Kerry campaign managers yesterday dispatched dueling Vietnam veterans to deliver letters demanding that the other side stop using the Vietnam war, now more than 30 years in the past, as a campaign weapon.
The duel began when Max Cleland, the former Democratic senator from Georgia, tried to deliver a letter to President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. But Mr. Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, never got within sight of the president's house. Access was blocked by a permanent barrier manned by a Secret Service agent and a Texas state trooper. Neither would accept the letter.

Mr. Cleland held an impromptu press conference to accuse the president of orchestrating a series of TV commercials by the independent "527" group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, criticizing Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic candidate.
"These scurrilous attacks on John Kerry's credibility in war, his courage, his valor are false, and George Bush is behind it," he told reporters.
At the conclusion of the press conference, Jerry Patterson, a Vietnam veteran, tried to accept Mr. Cleland's letter on behalf of the president, but Mr. Cleland would not relinquish it.
Nor would Mr. Cleland accept a letter from Mr. Patterson, signed by several Republican veterans of the Vietnam war, accusing Mr. Kerry of employing a double standard on the issue of the Vietnam war.
"You can't have it both ways," said the letter, which was signed by Mr. Patterson and Vietnam veterans including Reps. Duncan Hunter and Randy "Duke" Cunningham of California. "You can't build your convention and much of your campaign around your service in Vietnam, and then try to say that only those veterans who agree with you have a right to speak up.
"There is no double standard for our right to free speech. We all earned it."
In another development, Benjamin Ginsberg, a lawyer for the Bush campaign, quit the campaign after it was revealed that he was providing legal advice to the Swift Boat group.
He noted that his counterparts at the Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee were not resigning, despite their ties to third-party groups that have aired $63 million in anti-Bush commercials.
"Unfortunately, this campaign has seen a stunning double standard emerge between the media's focus on the activities of 527s aligned with John Kerry and those opposed to him," Mr. Ginsberg wrote to the president.
Robert Bauer, a lawyer who represents America Coming Together, a third-party group producing TV commercials attacking Mr. Bush, has done legal work for both Mr. Kerry and the Democratic National Committee.
Republicans complain as well that the Kerry campaign hired Zach Exley from MoveOn.org, which has posted commercials on its Internet site comparing the president to Hitler.
A Democratic aide said there was a distinction, that unlike the Bush campaign the Kerry campaign had not said there was no connection to the third-party groups, known as 527s because of their designation in the tax code.
"We've been upfront from the get-go about what role Bob Bauer played," he said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "And when Zach Exley came over here, it was no secret. It wasn't like he snuck in the middle of the night and popped up at a desk."
Mr. Ginsberg is the second Bush official to resign since Saturday after a connection with the Swift Boat Veterans was disclosed. Ken Cordier, a retired Air Force colonel, was dismissed from his volunteer position in the Bush campaign after he appeared in a Swift Boat commercial.
The Cleland letter, which was signed by nine Democratic senators, called on the president to "specifically condemn" the Swift Boat ads. The president had already done that, along with all others produced by 527 groups, on Monday.
Asked which commercials should be suspended, the president replied: "That ad, every other ad. I don't think we ought to have 527s. I can't be more plain about it."
Mr. Cleland insisted yesterday that the president "did not denounce that ad" to his satisfaction. White House press secretary Scott McClellan dismissed Mr. Cleland's visit as a "stunt" aimed at diverting attention from Mr. Kerry's "out-of-the-mainstream record and out-of-the-mainstream views."
"Senator Kerry says he wants to talk about the issues. Today's political stunt is an interesting way of showing it," Mr. McClellan said. "If Senator Kerry was interested in focusing on the issues, he would join the president in calling for a stop to all these ads by these shadowy groups."



08-27-04, 09:18 AM

August 25, 2004

Admitted War Criminal Cries Foul

Ann Coulter

There are several methods of evaluating the claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, 254 of whom have signed a letter saying John Kerry is not fit to be commander in chief.

There is the Bill O'Reilly method, which is to abandon independent thinking and simply come out in the middle, irrespective of where the two sides are. In response to Newt Gingrich's remark that the Swift Boat Veterans' independent ads were "the conservative movement's answer to Michael Moore," O'Reilly said, "I don't want either of them."

In Nazi Germany, O'Reilly would have condemned both Hitler's death camps and the Warsaw ghetto uprising. In Bill O'Reilly's world, King Solomon would have actually cut the disputed baby in half.

The O'Reilly method of analysis works well about once a century. The last time was when Hitler invaded Russia in 1941.

Then there is the Chris Matthews method, which is to decide in advance that the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are the lowest form of human life imaginable and then publicly excoriate them for consuming oxygen.

Matthews employs a logical calculus known as "begging the question," which goes something like this:

1. John Kerry claims to be a great war hero.

2. Maybe so, but legitimate questions have been raised about his combat record.

3. How can you say that about a great war hero like John Kerry?

When John O'Neill, author of "Unfit for Command," went on "Hardball," Matthews accused O'Neill of being a Republican operative and demanded that O'Neill detail for "Hardball's" six remaining viewers his voting history for the past 20 years in mind-numbing detail. (Completely destroying his case against Kerry, in 1988, O'Neill voted for George Herbert Walker Bush!) Apparently voting for a Republican presidential candidate 15 years ago is a credibility-destroyer, whereas being a former member of the White House staff under Jimmy Carter, as Chris Matthews is, enhances one's credibility.

Normally an interview on a newly released book consists of the author being asked questions about his book and the author answering the questions. With O'Neill, Matthews interviewed himself.

Also, erstwhile war protester John Hurley was interviewed along with O'Neill about "Unfit for Command." The fact that Hurley (1) didn't write the book, and (2) is a paid Kerry campaign worker raises no credibility issues. A colleague of Kerry's in Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hurley's contribution to the interview about a book he didn't write consisted of his piping in periodically with insightful comments about O'Neill, such as "his book and his organization is built on lies and distortions."

O'Neill's contribution to a discussion about his own book consisted mostly of meaningless sentence fragments:

O'Neill: I don't believe that ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: Well, I'm not here to ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: I think he is millions of steps behind, because he went over ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: His first Purple ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: Well, the first ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: You're right. I'm saying ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: Well, wait just a second. What you've done is ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

O'Neill: First of all ... (MATTHEWS INTERRUPTION)

Finally, O'Neill proposed that he be allowed to answer questions and Matthews erupted with an indignant speech notable mostly for being slightly longer than anything O'Neill ever got to say:

Matthews: "One of the oldest tricks on this show is for somebody to come on the show after talking for 20 minutes and say they haven't had the chance to talk. I'll be glad to clock you, John, on how many minutes you spoke on the show. So don't try that old trick. It is a particularly conservative trick, OK? So let's move on here."

Let's review the transcript!

Total words by book author John O'Neill: approximately 1,150. (Complete sentences devoid of Matthews interruptions: about 2.)

Total words by paid Kerry flack Hurley: approximately 950.

Total words by Matthews, excluding host prattle ("Welcome back to 'Hardball'!"): approximately 2,290.

At least Matthews didn't physically throw O'Neill off his set as he did Michelle Malkin a few nights later while she tried in vain to discuss her new book. The lion-hearted Matthews reserves that level of rudeness only for girls.. (Now that I think about it, compared to the average Democrat male, maybe John Kerry is manly.)

In lieu of the O'Reilly method (randomly coming out in "the middle" of every issue) or the Matthews method (deciding, ab initio, that any criticism of Kerry could come only from bottom-feeding, politically motivated *****s), there is still another method of evaluating the evidence, which is to evaluate the evidence.

For starters, 254 swiftboat veterans say Kerry is a fraud; 14 say he's a hero. Partisan considerations aside, which would be more difficult to do: Get 14 liars to keep a secret, or get 254 liars to do so? As a student of recent history, I defer to any registered Democrat on this question.

Of course, the 14 in Kerry's camp are not necessarily lying, being bribed, or hoping for a position in the Kerry administration – possibilities the media will never raise, I note. But we're talking about 35-year-old memories here; 254 memories to 14 memories is what we used to call "evidence."

Why don't we just give both sides some swiftboats, a few machine guns and lots of ammo, put them on a river somewhere, and let them settle this whole thing like gentlemen once and for all?


08-27-04, 11:51 AM
War 'Brother' denies
Kerry bought loyalty
Vet in new swiftboat ad claims crew mate
confessed in phone call to change of heart

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

By Art Moore
© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

In an interview with WorldNetDaily, "Band of Brothers" member James Wasser flatly denied he told a former swiftboat crew mate that he had always despised their skipper John Kerry but "came around" after a persuasive, private meeting with the senator at the beginning of the presidential campaign.

John Kerry in An Thoi, Vietnam, Feb, 28, 1969, after presentation of his Silver Star. Crew from left is Del Sandusky, Kerry, Gene Thorson, Thomas Belodeau. Kneeling from left, Mike Medeiros, Fred Short.

Gunner's mate Steve Gardner, featured in the latest Swift Boat Veterans for Truth television ad challenging Kerry's war record, has been claiming on numerous TV and radio talk shows in the past month that Wasser made that statement to him in a telephone conversation in early March.

Gardner told WND he got Wasser's number from Boston Globe reporter Michael Kranish and called his old war colleague after 35 years of separation.

Recalling the conversation, Gardner, paraphrasing, says he told Wasser, "The John Kerry I know is not the John Kerry you guys are talking about. How can you campaign for him after despising the ground he walked on?"

Gardner, 56, of Clover, S.C., has speculated it's possible the men were bought off somehow, but, whatever the case, he thinks Kerry used his powers of persuasion to bring them to a glowing, positive view diametrically opposed to the one they held in Vietnam.

He claims Wasser's reply was something like this: "I felt the same way you did, buddy, but after John sat us down and talked with us for awhile, we came around to his way of thinking."

Wasser, reached at his home in St. Anne, Ill., says he has heard Gardner make the claim on the radio and, while acknowledging the phone call took place, strongly denies he said he had flip-flopped.

"That's abolutely, g-- d---ed false, and that's as nice as I can put it." Wasser said.

He said he still respects Gardner as a "Vietnam crew mate brother," but "I will absolutely refute that statement. It is absolutely false."

Asked to respond after hearing Wasser's denial for the first time, Gardner replied, "It was just a conversation between he and I, and he sure said it."

"I actually would have expected him to say, 'Well that's kind of what we said,'" continued Gardner. "But now, quite obviously, he's enmeshed with what's going on."

He added: "It's really a shame for those guys to allow John Kerry to get into their heads that bad."

Gardner and Wasser, a radarman, both served on Kerry's PCF [Patrol Craft Fast] - 44 for about six weeks, from December 1968 through January 1969, with Gardner serving slightly longer.

Gardner is the only one of 10 former crew members -- Kerry commanded five on each boat -- to reject the presidential candidate's plea to campaign for him. The other men on PCF-44 were Boatswain's Mates Drew Whitlow and Stephen Hatch and Petty Officer Bill Zaladonis. Gardner says he stays in regular touch with Zaladonis and contends he now is neutral toward the campaign, wanting to stay out of it.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has 254 of Kerry's former colleagues in Vietnam -- including every officer who served in the chain of command above him -- who contend the senator is unfit to be commander in chief.

Wasser refers to the group challenging Kerry's record as "Swift Boat Sailors for George Bush."

"I was there 24/7 with John Kerry," he said. "What they are doing tears me up, because it's deceiving veterans."

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth spokesman John O'Neill, who took over Kerry's second boat, is "just trying to sell books," Wasser insisted, referring to "Unfit for Command," which will be listed No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list in September.

"If I seem passionate, I absolutely am," said Wasser. "What they are doing is wrong."

Gardner commented: "When it's all said and done, he and I are still shipmates. I feel sorry that he let his personal integrity be used that way."

Democratic delegate

Wasser, an electrician, said his first face-to-face reunion with Kerry, after 34 years, was March 19, 2003, at a fund-raiser in Chicago. Wasser said his wife made the initial contact with the Kerry campaign, asking when the candidate would be in town.

Since then, the veteran says, he has been an unpaid member of the campaign, which flies him to different venues, mostly in the Midwest, for rallies and fund-raisers.

Today, he will be in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, with Vietnam veteran and former Sen. Max Cleland and another of Kerry's former crew mates, Gene Thorson.

Wasser was a delegate to the Democratic convention earlier this month and was given the honor of reading off the state's list of delegates during the roll call.

For us or against us

Gardner said soon after his March phone conversation with Wasser he received a call from John Hurley, national coordinator of Veterans for John Kerry.

Hurley, according to Gardner, asked him to join the campaign.

"We really want you to come, we'll fly a plane to Charlotte and pick you up," Gardner recalls Hurley saying.

Gardner declined and remembers Hurley replying: "If you are not for us, you are against us."

Gardner responded: "Let me say this in terms you can understand. You are absolutely right."

He concluded the short conversation, saying "You guys just need to leave me the h--- alone and do your thing."

Later, Gardner said, he thought to himself, "If I don't speak out about this, I will hate myself for the rest of my life."

His first public statement came unintentionally, he said, when Douglas Brinkley, author of the authorized Kerry war biography "Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War," talked to him in a phone conversation he thought was off the record.

Brinkley put Gardner's thoughts in a March 9 article for Time magazine online, "The Tenth Brother" in which he got a story "sharply different from what the other nine crew members have had to say."

Gardner said he thought Brinkley, who spoke with him for two hours, simply was checking facts he had gathered in compiling his book, which relied heavily on Kerry's personal war journals.

Brinkley claims he had tried hard to track down Gardner during his research for the book, but Gardner is skeptical, noting the Globe's Kranish was able to reach him easily.

In the Time story, Brinkley writes: "A disappointed Wasser gave me Gardner's telephone numbers, reminding me that PCF-44 gunner's mate was nicknamed 'The Wild Man' by his crewmates for his hair-trigger penchant for firing M-60s into the mangrove thicket. 'Let me know what you find out,' Wasser told me. 'I'm having trouble understanding where he's coming from."

After that article, Gardner said he felt "trashed" and vulnerable, until he got a call from Adm. Roy Hoffman, the organizer of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

He said, recalls Gardner, "Gunner, do you know who this is? This is Admiral Roy Hoffman."

"Yes sir," Gardner replied.

Hoffman told him: "We're well aware of what you're doing out there, we're putting things together, just hang on."

Now Gardner appears in the new swiftboat vets' television ad, accusing Kerry of falsely claiming to have spent Christmas in Cambodia in 1968.

"If I had been by my lonesome, I would have been history six months ago," he said. "Nobody would have listened to me as a gunner's mates, until officers stepped forward and said, 'This has got to stop.'"

In the ad, Gardner refers to the claim Kerry has made for 35 years, including from the Senate floor in a 1986 speech in which he said, "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting in a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by Vietnamese and Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States tell the American people I was not there; the troops were not in Cambodia. I have the memory which is seared – seared – in me. … "

Gardner says:

"I spent more time on John Kerry's boat than any other crew member. John Kerry has not been honest. He has been deceitful.
"John Kerry claims he spent Christmas in Cambodia in 1968, and that is categorically a lie. Not in December, not in January, we were never in Cambodia on a secret mission, ever."

Like the Kerry campaign's official line, Wasser now concedes that they were not in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, but very close to the border.

Wasser points out he has no first-hand knowledge, but says Kerry was involved in a later operation into Cambodia with another boat, involving the transport of Navy Seals.

Wasser said he was not aware, until more recently, of Kerry's contention they were in Cambodia, when he learned of the references made in the Senate and in the senator's war journals, first revealed by Brinkley's book.

But he is not disturbed by Kerry's revision of the story, emphasizing we were "very close," with "Cambodia on the left bank and Vietnam on the right bank."

"I just looked at those things as sometimes you do get mixed up," he said. "That's what I look at."



08-27-04, 11:52 AM
Another Kerry whopper?
Recalls hearing of '68 Martin Luther King murder while in Vietnam

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

© 2004 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Speaking at a Martin Luther King Day celebration last year, presidential candidate John F. Kerry told a Virginia audience that he remembered hearing the tragic news of the assassination while serving in Vietnam – though he did not begin his four-month tour of duty for at least seven months after the shooting.

"I remember well April 1968, I was serving in Vietnam, a place of violence," Kerry told the assembled, according to a report by Fox News Channel's Brit Hume. "When the news reports brought home to me and my crewmates the violence back home and the tragic news that one of the bullets flying that terrible spring took the life of Dr. King."

The date of King's assassination was April 4, 1968. However, Kerry was not yet serving in Vietnam, but aboard the Navy frigate USS Gridley. According to Kerry's campaign website it was not until Nov. 17, 1968, that he reported for duty in Vietnam.

In March of this year, Kerry authored a column in the New York Times that alluded to his recollections of King's death.

"Nineteen-sixty-eight was a year unlike any other I have known," he wrote. "I was 24 years old, a newly minted naval officer in a convoy headed for the Gulf of Tonkin."

He mentioned learning of the death in Vietnam of a friend, the surprise election results from New Hampshire that resulted in Lyndon Johnson's decision not to seek re-election as president. He mentioned in that column that he was off the coast of Vietnam at the time.

"Weeks later we heard of the death of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., assassinated while campaigning for justice in America," he wrote. "We knew that cities across the country had exploded in riots and much of Washington itself was in flames. There was war all around us and war at home."

Kerry has often referred to his yearlong tour of duty on the USS Gridley as his first tour of Vietnam, even though the frigate only approached the coast in the Gulf of Tonkin.



08-27-04, 03:24 PM
a. The Vietnam Service Medal (VSM) was established by Executive Order 11231, 8 July 1965. It is awarded to all members of the Armed Forces of the United States serving in Vietnam and contiguous waters or airspace thereover, after 3 July 1965 through 28 March 1973. Members of the Armed Forces of the United States in Thailand, Laos, or Cambodia, or the airspace thereover, during the same period and serving in direct support of operations in Vietnam are also eligible for this award.

b. To qualify for award of the VSM an individual must meet one of the following qualifications:

(1) Be attached to or regularly serve for 1 or more days with an organization participating in or directly supporting military operations.

(2) Be attached to or regularly serve for 1 or more days aboard a Naval vessel directly supporting military operations.

(3) Actually participate as a crewmember in one or more aerial flights into airspace above Vietnam and contiguous waters directly supporting military operations.

(4) Serve on temporary duty for 30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive days in Vietnam or contiguous areas, except that time limit may be waived for personnel participating in actual combat operations.

If we are going to follow The Swift Boat Veteran's standards, there's a lot of veterans that need to return thier Vietnam Service Medal. Good luck with that O'Neill

08-27-04, 03:25 PM
CHAPTER 6 <br />
<br />
&quot;Lt. Kerry returned home from the war to make some outrageous statements and allegations. Numerous criminal acts in violations of the law of war...

08-27-04, 03:25 PM
The contrast with John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address was clear: <br />
<br />
&quot;Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support...

08-27-04, 03:26 PM
The critical political goal was to demonstrate that the atrocities described were a direct result of U.S. military policy, not random acts of meaningless or unauthorized cruelty. This was consistent...

08-27-04, 03:27 PM
In 1970, joining the VVAW took little more effort than just showing up. Anyone with a beard, a scraggly uniform, and enough make-do information about the military and Vietnam--information readily...

08-27-04, 03:28 PM
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth React

The Swift Boat veterans who came to Washington, D.C., on May 4, 2004, to hold a press conference opposing John Kerry's presidential bid were strongly opposed, even after some thirty-five years, to Kerry's antiwar statements:

I served with these guys. I went on missions with them, and these men served honorably. Up and down the chain of command there was no acquiescence to atrocities. It was not condoned, it did not happen, and it was not reported to me verbally or in writing by any of these men including Lieutenant (jg) Kerry.

In 1971*72, for almost eighteen months, he stood before the television audiences and claimed that the five hundred thousand men and women in Vietnam, and in combat, were all villains--there were no heroes. In 2004, one hero from the Vietnam War has appeared, running for president of the United States and commander in chief. It just galls one to think about it. --Captain George Elliott, USN (retired)

I was in An Thoi from June of `68 to June of `69, covering the whole period that John Kerry was there. I operated in every river, in every canal, and every off-shore patrol area in the 4th Corps area, from Cambodia all the way around to the Bo De River. I never saw, even heard of all these so-called atrocities and things that we were supposed to have done.This is not true. We're not standing for it. We want to set the record straight. --William Shumadine

In 1971, when John Kerry spoke out to America, labeling all Vietnam veterans as thugs and murderers, I was shocked and almost brought to my knees because even though I had served at the same time and in the same unit, I had never witnessed or participated in any of the events that the senator had accused us of. I strongly believe that the statements made by the senator were not only false and inaccurate, but extremely harmful to the United States' efforts in Southeast Asia and the rest of the world. Tragically, some veterans, scorned by the antiwar movement and their allies, retreated to a life of despair and suicide. Two of my crew mates were among them. For that there is no forgiveness. --Richard O'Mara

I served in Vietnam as a boat officer from June of 1968 to July of 1969. My service was three months in Coastal Division 13 out of Cat Lo, and nine months with Coastal Division 11 based in An Thoi. John Kerry was in An Thoi the same time I was. I am here today to express the anger I have harbored for over thirty-three years, about being accused with my fellow shipmates of war atrocities. All I can say is that when I leave here today, I'm going down to the Wall to tell my two crew members it's not true, and that they and the other forty-nine Swiftees who are on the Wall were then and are still now the best. --Robert Brant

We look at Vietnam. After all these years, it is still languishing in isolated poverty and helplessness and tyranny. This is John Kerry's legacy. I deeply resent John Kerry's using his Swift Boat experience, and his betrayal of those who fought there, as a stepping-stone to his political ambitions. --Bernard Wolff

Back to 1971

In the question-and-answer exchange following his prepared statement to the Fulbright Committee, Senator George Aiken of Vermont asked John Kerry what would happen in South Vietnam if America withdrew from the war:

Mr. KERRY:...But I think, having done what we have done to that country, we have an obligation to offer sanctuary to the perhaps 2,000, 3,000 people who might face, and obviously they would, we understand that, might face political assassination or something else. But my feeling is that those 3,000 who may have to leave that country--

Senator AIKEN: I think your 3,000 estimate might be a little low because we had to help 800,000 find sanctuary from North Vietnam after the French lost at Dien Bien Phu.

In 1975, when North Vietnam took over the South, a mass exodus began. Those fearing political repression or fearing for their lives desperately sought to leave the country. An estimated 1.5 to 2 million people set out by sea on anything that would float, risking starvation or drowning. Over a quarter of a million were simply lost at sea. Others were murdered, raped, tortured by pirates. The refugees headed for Thailand, Malaysia, Hong Kong, and the Philippines. As late as 1997, thousands remained in refugee camps scattered across Asia, awaiting naturalization or, even worse, repatriation. If John Kerry and his antiwar associates were correct, if the Vietnamese comprehended no fundamental difference between freedom and Communism, why did so many risk death?

After their victory, the Communists established a network of nearly one hundred "reeducation camps," political prisons in which they incarcerated indefinitely a wide range of former enemies--officials of the South Vietnamese government; bureaucrats and educators; intellectuals, including writers, reporters, and religious leaders; anyone whom the Vietnamese communists considered dangerous because they had supported or worked with the United States to stop the advance of Communism in Indochina. Estimates of the number of people put through these camps range from half a million to nearly one million.

Subsequent to establishing their hold on South Vietnam, the Vietnamese Communists turned their aggressive armies toward Laos, Cambodia, and Thailand, and ethnic minorities were not safe within Vietnam. In the years since 1975, the Vietnamese Communists have waged war on the Montagnards, the Christian mountain people who dared to fight with the United States against Ho Chi Minh.

Yet nowhere in the public record is there any evidence that John Kerry has ever admitted his estimate was wrong--that only three thousand people would have to be relocated to protect them in the event of a communist victory in Vietnam.

Toi Dang, a Vietnamese sailor who served with Kerry and O'Neill in Coastal Division 11 on An Thoi (and in its South Vietnamese successor) from January 1969 until April 1975, remembers the horror of the North Vietnamese takeover. Dang was able to escape to the United States, shorn of his family, heritage, and country. The nineteen people in his unit were all placed in reeducation camps and disappeared forever. His wife's uncle was taken to a camp on the Chinese border where the only allowed tools were bomb fragments. Without food or medicine, almost everyone in the camp soon died. One naval officer from An Thoi was executed for shooing a chicken from his small garden. The Vietnamese sailors of An Thoi--Swift brothers to this day--have a special memory of John Kerry and his testimony. In Dang's words: "His testimony was all lies. He is a brother only to other liars--not to my Swift brothers."


08-27-04, 05:23 PM
Kerry dispute revives memory of Mekong Delta war

By Richard Pyle
2:01 a.m. August 24, 2004

NEW YORK – The controversy over the Vietnam war record of Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has trained a fresh light on one of that conflict's lesser-known episodes – the operations of America's "Brown Water Navy" in rivers, canals and mangrove swamps of the Mekong Delta.

As commander of a 50-foot, heavily armed "swift boat," Kerry operated in a murky corner of the war. The enemy was not the North Vietnamese army but South Vietnam's homegrown insurgency: the Viet Cong. The missions were nighttime ambushes – intercepting sampans loaded with smuggled arms and carrying teams of SEALs and Green Berets on clandestine reconnaissance sorties into Cambodia.

"Essentially, the mission was to bait the Viet Cong," says Joseph Muharsky, 57, a swift boat radarman who served in a different crew on Boat 94 – John Kerry's boat – in early 1969. As for interdicting supplies, "we probably achieved that mission to some extent 7/16and 3/8 stopped a lot of the flow of arms, but on a larger scale it may not have done a lot of good," he said.

The operations were dangerous. On swift boats operating from An Thoi, near the Cambodian border, 82 percent of crew members were killed or wounded in 1968, said Muharsky, now a heating contractor in Mentor, Ohio.

"The boats had no armor – the aluminum skin wouldn't even stop a .22 caliber bullet," he said.

The Mekong Delta is where the war began. Tabletop-flat, nourished by alluvial deposits of the Mekong River's 3,000-mile journey from Tibet, the region is Indochina's rice basket. Its unmatched fertility helped to spur 600 years of southward migration and wars, ending with Vietnam's 17th century annexation of what had been part of Cambodia's Khmer empire.

The delta landscape was legendary as a sanctuary for renegades and pirates. "The delta was always Vietnam's wild west," says Carl Robinson, a one-time U.S. aid worker and journalist who is married to a delta native and now runs an Australia-based Vietnam tour business. "Being far from centralized power, the southerners have always been more individualistic, even anarchistic. Truly this is a frontier sort of society."

The delta also gave birth in the 1950s to the National Liberation Front, or Viet Cong. The communist movement came to world attention in January 1963, when its black-pajama clad guerrillas defeated a South Vietnamese attack at the village of Ap Bac, shooting down five U.S. support helicopters.

Even after the communists' 1968 Tet Offensive, which helped turn U.S. opinion against the war, delta warfare remained low-key: by day, grenades tossed into bridge guardposts from passing motorcycles; by night, Viet Cong squads visiting villages to spread propaganda and kidnap or kill Saigon sympathizers.

The response was a village "pacification" program, also known as "winning hearts and minds," coupled with a U.S.-run counterinsurgency program called Phoenix. The purpose of Phoenix was to "neutralize" the Viet Cong by eliminating its leaders. At least 20,000 of them were killed between 1966 and 1973 – most of them in the delta where the Viet Cong remained most active.

Some areas were designated "free fire zones," meaning U.S. forces did not require command clearance to fire on suspected enemy locations. That, combined with the sheer firepower they employed, contributed to many unintended civilian casualties.

The arrival of U.S. combat forces in Vietnam 1965 signaled a shift from guerrilla warfare to set-piece battles with North Vietnamese regulars in central and northern South Vietnam. But in the delta, it remained a waterborne war.

By 1968 the "Brown Water Navy" consisted of swift boats, helicopters, small outboard patrol craft and armored troop barges. The swift boats could make 32 knots with their twin 500-horsepower diesel engines and carried a crew of six and an array of .50 caliber machine guns, grenade launchers and other armament.

Their main purpose was to stop the movement into the delta of enemy supplies brought from North Vietnam.

As to whether the swift boats ever crossed into Cambodia at a time when that country was off limits to U.S. forces, "I wouldn't know if I did or not," Muharsky said. "There was no sign at the border reading 'Cambodia.'"

Richard Pyle covered the Vietnam War for The Associated Press for five years.



08-27-04, 06:48 PM
Open Letter from Michael Moore to President George W. Bush

8/27/2004 3:47:00 PM


To: National Desk

Contact: Mark Benoit, 917-399-6953 or sachs@kensunshineconsultants.com

WASHINGTON, Aug. 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following is an open letter from Michael Moore to President George W. Bush:

August 26, 2004

It Takes Real Courage to Desert Your Post and Then Attack a Wounded Vet

Dear Mr. Bush,

I know you and I have had our differences in the past, and I realize I am the one who started this whole mess about "who did what" during Vietnam when I brought up that "deserter" nonsense back in January. But I have to hand it to you on what you have uncovered about John Kerry and his record in Vietnam. Kerry has tried to pass himself off as a war hero, but thanks to you and your friends, we now know the truth.

First of all, thank you for pointing out to all of us that Mr. Kerry was never struck by a BULLET. It was only SHRAPNEL that entered his body! I did not know that! Hell, what's the big deal about a bunch of large, sharp, metal shards ripping open your flesh? That happens to all of us! In my opinion, if you want a Purple Heart, you'd better be hit by a bullet -- with your name on it!

Secondly, thank you for sending Bob Dole out there and letting us know that Mr. Kerry, though wounded three times, actually "never spilled blood." When you are in the debates with Kerry, turn to him and say, "Dammit, Mr. Kerry, next time you want a Purple Heart, you better spill some American red blood! And I don't mean a few specks like those on O.J.'s socks -- we want to see a good pint or two of blood for each medal. In fact, I would have preferred that you had bled profusely, a big geyser of blood spewing out of your neck or something!" Then throw this one at him: "Senator Kerry, over 58,000 brave Americans gave their lives in Vietnam -- but YOU didn't. You only got WOUNDED! What do you have to say for yourself???" Lay that one on him and he won't know what to do.

And thanks, also, Mr. Bush, for exposing the fact that Mr. Kerry might have actually WOUNDED HIMSELF in order to get those shiny medals. Of course he did! How could the Viet Cong have hit him -- he was on a SWIFT boat! He was going too fast to be hit by enemy fire. He tried to blow himself up three different times just so he could go home and run for president someday. It's all so easy to see, now, what he was up to.

What would we do without you, Mr. Bush? Criticize you as we might, when it comes to pointing out other men's military records, there is no one who can touch your prowess. In 2000, you let out the rumor that your opponent John McCain might be "nuts" from the 5 years he spent in a POW camp. Then, in the 2002 elections, your team compared triple-amputee Sen. Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden, and that cost him the election. And now you are having the same impact on war hero John Kerry. Since you (oops, I mean "The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth!") started running those ads, Kerry's poll numbers have dropped (with veterans, he has lost 18 points in the last few weeks).

Some people have said, "Who are you, Mr. Bush, to attack these brave men considering you yourself have never seen combat -- in fact, you actively sought to avoid it." What your critics fail to understand is that even though your dad got you into a unit that would never be sent to Vietnam -- and even though you didn't show up for Guard duty for at least a year -- at least you were still IN FAVOR of the Vietnam War! Cowards like Clinton felt it was more important to be consistent (he opposed the war, thus he refused to go) than to be patriotic and two-faced.

The reason that I think you know so much about other men's war wounds is because, during your time in the Texas Air National Guard, you suffered so many of them yourself. Consider the paper cut you received on September 22,1972, while stationed in Alabama, working on a Senate campaign for your dad's friend (when you were supposed to be on the Guard base). A campaign brochure appeared from nowhere, ambushing your right index finger, and blood trickled out onto your brand new argyle sweater.

Then there was the incident with the Crazy Glue when your fraternity brothers visited you one weekend at the base and glued your lips together while you were "passed out." Though initially considered "friendly fire," it was later ruled that you suffered severe post traumatic stress disorder from the assault and required certain medicinal attention -- which, it seems, was provided by those same fraternity brethren.

But nothing matched your heroism when, on July 2, 1969, you sustained a massive head injury when enemy combatants from another Guard unit dropped a keg of Coors on your head during a reconnaissance mission at a nearby all-girls college. Fortunately, the cool, smooth fluids that poured out of the keg were exactly what was needed to revive you.

That you never got a Purple Heart for any of these incidents is a shame. I can fully appreciate your anger at Senator Kerry for the three he received. I mean, Kerry was a man of privilege, he could have gotten out just like you. Instead, he thinks he's going to gain points with the American people bragging about how he was getting shot at every day in the Mekong Delta. Ha! Is that the best he can do? Hell, I hear gunfire every night outside my apartment window! If he thinks he is going to impress anyone with the fact that he volunteered to go when he could have spent the Vietnam years on the family yacht, he should think again. That only shows how stupid he was! True-blue Americans want a president who knows how to pull strings and work the system and get away with doing as little work as possible!

So, to make it up to you, I have written some new ads you can use on TV. People will soon tire of the swift boat veterans and you are going to need some fresh, punchier material. Feel free to use any of these:

ANNOUNCER: "When the bullets were flying all around him in Vietnam, what did John Kerry do? He said he leaned over the boat and 'pulled a man out of the river.' But, as we all know, men don't live in the river -- fish do. John Kerry knows how to tell a big fish tale. What he won't tell you is that when the enemy was shooting at him, he ducked. Do you want a president who will duck? Vote Bush."

ANNOUNCER: "Mr. Kerry's biggest supporter, Sen. Max Cleland, claims to have lost two legs and an arm in Vietnam. But he still has one arm! How did that happen? One word: Cowardice. When duty called, he was unwilling to give his last limb. Is that the type of selfishness you want hanging out in the White House? We think not. Vote for the man who would be willing to give America his right frontal lobe. Vote Bush."

Hope these help, Mr. Bush. And remember, when the American death toll in Iraq hits 1,000 during the Republican convention, be sure to question whether those who died really did indeed "die" -- or were they just trying to get their faces on CNN's nightly tribute to fallen heroes? The sixteen who've died so far this week were probably working hand in hand with the Kerry campaign to ruin your good time in New York. Stay consistent, sir, and always, ALWAYS question the veracity of anyone who risks their life for this country. It's the least they deserve.


Michael Moore Mmflint@aol.com http://www.michaelmoore.com

PS. George, I know you said you don't read the newspaper, but USA Today has given me credentials to the Republican convention to write a guest column each day next week (Tues.-Fri.). If you don't want to read it, you and I will be in the same building so maybe I could come by and read it to you? Lemme know.

http://usnewswire.com -0- /U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/ 08/27 15:47

Copyright 2004, U.S. Newswire




08-28-04, 01:40 AM
August 27, 2004 <br />
Four Months inVietnam <br />
Or how to misdirect public attention. <br />
by Bruce Thornton <br />
Private Papers <br />
Everyone knows magicians use misdirection to make their illusions work. While one...

08-28-04, 01:42 AM
August 27, 2004, 12:53 p.m. <br />
A Tangled Web <br />
Kerry’s defenders have to reckon with history — and the facts. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
My piece on Kerry and the Swift-boat veterans generated some 200 e-mails, a far...

08-28-04, 07:29 AM
Listening Again to Lt. John Kerry on Vietnam

Web Extra Aug. 27, 2004 -- The first time I heard the words "John Kerry" and "president" at the same time was the spring of 1971. John Forbes Kerry, 27 years old, a Yalie, a Navy vet wearing battle ribbons on a rumpled Army fatigue shirt, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that he could not support the war in which he and other veterans had risked their lives and killed Vietnamese.

"Thirty years from now," he told a rapt audience, "when our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say 'Vietnam' and not mean a desert, not a filthy, obscene memory, but mean instead the place where America finally turned, and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning."

"I wish John Kerry was running for president," said my mother as we watched. She was a staunch Chicago Democrat. "He's got a JFK accent. JFK hair."

"He's got JFK's initials," said my Aunt Chris, an equally stalwart Illinois Republican.

(The speech has audible Kennedy accents. Adam Walinsky, who had been Robert Kennedy's most acclaimed speechwriter, lent John Kerry advice. But he did not write the speech, as Richard Nixon's White House operatives suggested.)

Thirty-three years later, John Forbes Kerry is running for president. The testimony you can hear here ignited his political career.

But just as obviously, it still infuriates some Vietnam veterans who believe that young John Kerry veered from protest into slander when he told senators he had heard other vets confess that "they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, (and) taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power..." Some veterans still blame John Kerry's testimony for lending credibility to a caricature of Vietnam veterans as lunatic baby-killers.

Before he became the presidential nominee, many Democrats enthusiastically compared John Kerry's honored military service with President Bush's spotty record with the Texas Air National Guard. The scene of John Kerry and his old shipmates sailing into the wind across the Charles River toward the Democratic convention in Boston was a photo-op to make Karl Rove grind his teeth.

But the young man who once testified, "(W)e are ashamed of and hated what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia... We wish that a merciful God could wipe away our own memories of that service," made his war record the metaphorical heart of his acceptance speech. Is John Kerry a mature man who is finally reconciled to his memories? Or is he a striving politician who now has the chance to make use of his past?

Interestingly, a number of John Kerry's supporters now say they wish he would denounce this administration's war in Iraq as powerfully as he once condemned the war in Vietnam. "(H)ow do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam?" he so hauntingly asked senators in 1971. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" Does Senator Kerry think the Iraq war was immoral -- or merely mishandled?

Many Americans believe the American public turned against the war in Vietnam in the wake of John Kerry's testimony and scores of protest marches. Millions certainly did. All of the music, films, and popular icons of the time that we know, from John Lennon (in his rumpled fatigues), to the doctors on M*A*S*H (in their rumpled olive drabs) certainly shore up the impression that America had turned, in John Kerry's phrase.

But American voters elected Richard Nixon in 1968 and 1972 -- the second time overwhelmingly, over a peace candidate, George McGovern, who had been a decorated WWII combat bomber pilot. Whatever their qualms and anguish, the majority of American voters supported the war in Vietnam until U.S. troops departed in 1975.

I doubt that John Kerry, who has scrapped his way to three senate terms in Massachusetts's rambunctious politics, has forgotten that fact. To hear his testimony from 1971 might help us see both the young vet who knew how to motivate men, and the aspiring politician who knows how to speak the language of his time.

NPR's Scott Simon is host of Weekend Edition Saturday.

Hear John Kerry's 1971 Statement Before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Plus Excerpts of Further Testimony...Click link...then go to top of page


08-28-04, 07:30 AM
Kerry's Quagmire <br />
Mark Alexander (archive) <br />
<br />
<br />
August 27, 2004 | Print | Send <br />
<br />
<br />
&quot;Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions,...

08-28-04, 07:30 AM
Kerry would revisit ambush locations for reenacting combat scenes where he would portray the hero, catching it all on film. Kerry would take movies of himself walking around in combat gear, sometimes dressed as an infantryman walking resolutely through the terrain. He even filmed mock interviews of himself narrating his exploits. A joke circulated among Swiftees was that Kerry left Vietnam early not because he received three Purple Hearts, but because he'd recorded enough film of himself to take home for his planned political campaigns.

Indeed, a few years back, Kerry's hometown paper, The Boston Globe (far left of The New York Times) noted his Vietnam self-portraits "reveal something indelible about the man who shot them -- the...young man...so focused on his future ambitions that he would reenact the moment for film. It is as if he had cast himself in the sequel to the experience of his hero, John F. Kennedy, on the PT-109."

Indeed he had. Thomas Vallely, one of Kerry's closest political advisers, said in an interview last year, "John was thinking Camelot when he shot that film, absolutely."

Seared into memory, or just pan-fried:

There is plenty of additional evidence of Kerry's Vietnam fabrications, like his claimed exploits in Cambodia. "I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies.... The absurdity of almost being killed by our own allies in a country in which president Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real." Of course, Kerry was, by all accounts, never anywhere near Cambodia, and Nixon wasn't even president in 1968. So much for that "memory that was seared, seared" into him.

The Kerry record is replete with examples of such "seared memories." For example, this past MLK Day, Kerry told a captive audience, "I remember well April, 1968 -- I was serving in Vietnam -- a place of violence -- when the news reports [of King's murder] reached me and my shipmates." Kerry wasn't even in Vietnam until November, 1968.

Aid and comfort to the enemy:

When Kerry returned stateside, he dedicated himself to slandering American military personnel still fighting -- and captive -- in Vietnam. In his 1971 congressional testimony, he claimed,

[American military personnel in Vietnam] personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, [blew] 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 in addition to...the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

After his testimony, he told the media, "There are all kinds of atrocities and I would have to say that, yes, yes, I committed the same kind of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers have committed...."

The consequences of Kerry's anti-American actions in 1971 were far-reaching. An upcoming documentary, "Stolen Honor," includes devastating testimony from former POWs about how Kerry's testimony was "thrown in their faces" as they were tortured by their captors. Or, as POW Paul Galanti says in a devastating new Swiftees' ad, "Kerry gave the enemy for free what we...took torture to try to avoid saying."

Enter the Swiftvets:

In his victory speech after the New Hampshire primary, Kerry said, "I pledge that those who wore the uniform of the United States of America will have a voice and a champion in the Oval Office." (Of course, they do now!) However, Kerry is trying to silence "those who wore the uniform of the United States of America" who are challenging his record. Kerry was able to muster 14 swift boat vets who support him. On the other hand, there are 254 swift boat veterans who say Kerry is a fraud and is "Unfit for Command." Do the math!

The pundits think the Swiftees will disappear in September, after the Republican convention. We think they will remain a factor until Kerry sets his military record straight -- which he won't.

It should be noted that The Patriot's position on Kerry's account of his service in Vietnam is tempered by the fact that our staff and National Advisory Committee rosters include many military veterans -- some of whom were decorated Vietnam vets and one of whom spent seven years as Ho Chi's guest in the Hanoi Hilton after his F-105 was shot down. He was subjected to all manner of torture while Kerry was busy accusing his "fellow veterans" of war crimes and meeting with VC Communists in Paris.

In every case, our colleagues, who came home with Purple Hearts, also brought home injuries that left them, in most cases, badly scarred and mutilated; some will limp to their grave. They don't wear those medals on their lapels and don't ask for privileged parking spaces. They love their nation and served their countrymen with dignity, humility and honor. They are, in short, great American Patriots.

John Kerry, on the other hand, is, at best, a phony and fraud. At worst, he is a traitor. Not only is he "Unfit for Command," but he should be prosecuted for "providing aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war" and disqualified for public office.

Please join more than 125,000 of your fellow Patriots who have already signed a letter asking that Kerry by held accountable for his actions. The Patriot will release this letter to the media in September, and though there would obviously be no action on this prosecution prior to Kerry's defeat in November (yes, we are confident he will be defeated), we believe he is not fit to serve in the Senate and should be removed. To sign the letter, visit http://patriotpetitions.us/kerry/

Quote of the week...

"[T]hree Purple Hearts? I mean, the first one whether he ought to have a Purple Heart. He got two in one day -- [Kerry] never bled that I know of. They were all superficial wounds. As far as I know, he never spent one day in the hospital, I don't think he draws any disability pay. He doesn't have any disability. And he's boasting about three Purple Hearts, when you think of some of the people who really got shot up in Vietnam.... Maybe he should apologize to all the other two-and-a-half million veterans who served. He wasn't the only one who was in Vietnam. I think Senator Kerry needs to talk about his Senate record, which is pretty thin. That's probably why he's talking about his war record, which is pretty confused."
--Retired Senator Bob Dole, who was severely wounded in action with the 10th Mountain Division in Italy during WW II

Mark Alexander is Executive Editor and Publisher of The Federalist Patriot, a Townhall.com member group.



08-28-04, 07:31 AM
www.suntimes.com <br />
<br />
<br />
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-lips27.html <br />
<br />
Plot thickens after checking records <br />
<br />
August 27, 2004 <br />
<br />

08-28-04, 10:14 AM
Stop talking about Vietnam and start talking about Iraq
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist | August 27, 2004

In Hollywood, Florida, a distraught father set himself on fire when US Marines came to tell him his son was killed in combat in Iraq. But the candidates running for president of the United States do not want to talk about the war that this month took the life of 20-year-old Alexander Arredondo in Najaf. They prefer to talk about a war that killed young Americans in Vietnam more than 30 years ago.

That's American politics.

The ongoing conflict in Iraq has killed nearly 1000 American soldiers, wounded 12,000 more, and killed and maimed thousands of Iraqis. But the candidates running for president wrangle over decades-old service records, rather than focus on the war that dominates today's news.

That's American political debate.

John Kerry, a Vietnam war hero, wants to be a Iraq war hero and so does George W. Bush. Neither one wants to be a peace hero.

That's considered a sign of American weakness.

At this point in the race for the White House, voters know who did what 30 years ago during the Vietnam war era. John Kerry volunteered to serve, was decorated for bravery and returned home to oppose that war. George W. Bush served in the Texas Air National Guard and cannot prove he always reported for duty.

Bush's reluctance to focus on Iraq is obvious. Acknowledging a war without clear end or mission is worse than acknowledging the privilege and connections that got him in the National Guard and, once there, protected him from scrutiny. Any personal embarrassment that comes with review of his past military file is preferable to the national embarrassment that comes with review of his ongoing war.

Kerry's reluctance is rooted in a misguided belief that the four-and-a-half month-long slice of his life in Vietnam is so compelling, he can sidestep the current conflict. He is worried that criticizing Bush's war makes him sound weak to non-liberal voters. And he is boxed in by his vote authorizing war and a series of statements offering different explanations for the vote.

But the controversy stirred by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth demonstrates the inherent political risk of banking an entire presidential campaign on a war that still turns baby-boomers against each other and will always divide them from the World War II generation. After two weeks of rope-a-dope about medals and Purple Hearts, the anti-Kerry veterans are coming in for the real punch. Kerry's testimony about what happened in Vietnam probably represents the most truthful utterances of his public life. At the same time, his testimony was self-serving and hurtful to others who served honorably.

Self-serving truth has its rewards and its punishments. Now, it's payback time.

It remains to be seen if Kerry underestimated the depth of veteran bitterness and its ability to influence a broad swath of voters in 2004. At the very least, this fight with fellow veterans makes him look like another divider rather than the uniter the country desires. Yet, uniting is what Kerry says he wants to do. Articulating how remains a challenge.

Today's Democrats are so afraid of sounding like last century's peaceniks, they cannot feel the 21st century desire for freedom from daily headlines about death and destruction in Iraq. Democrats talk about winning over "NASCAR moms" as if these women represent some strange breed of American female. They are mothers whose sons and daughters often look first to the military for a step up the socio-economic ladder. And no parent, no matter how patriotic, wishes to put their child in a war zone rather than a peace zone.

The most recent Los Angeles Times poll puts Bush slightly ahead of Kerry, 49 percent to 46 percent, for the first time this year. The poll showed that attacks by Vietnam veterans criticizing his combat performance and antiwar protests are undercutting some of Kerry's support.

But part of the shift away from Kerry also lies in these polling statistics: 58 percent of those surveyed said they knew a fair amount about the general policies Kerry would pursue; but 4 out of 10 said they knew not much, or nothing at all. Seventy percent said they had a good idea what policies Bush would pursue.

It's time to stop talking about Vietnam and start talking about Iraq.

Voters don't know what either candidate would do next in Iraq after taking the oath of office, besides hope the insurgents take their fight somewhere else.

Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/08/27/stop_talking_about_vietnam_and_start_talking_about _iraq?mode=PF


08-28-04, 01:55 PM
For a Top 'Swiftie,' This One's Personal
John O'Neill, a key architect of the anti-Kerry veterans group, has loathed Kerry since they both returned from Vietnam.

By Scott Gold, Times Staff Writer

HOUSTON — Thirty-three years ago, fresh from combat in Vietnam, John O'Neill parted his hair neatly, put on his only suit, stared into a television camera and made it clear how much he detested John Kerry. Not Democrats. Not liberals. John Kerry.

"This man," O'Neill said during a 1971 debate with Kerry on "The Dick Cavett Show," "has attempted the murder of the reputations of 2.5 million of us, including the 55,000 dead in Vietnam."

President Nixon had recruited O'Neill to counter Kerry, who had come home from Vietnam convinced that the war was a military and moral mistake. Much of the nation was starting to agree with that assessment, and in O'Neill, Nixon found an articulate spokesman for his policies.

Today, O'Neill, a high-dollar attorney in Houston with two grown children and an admirable golf handicap, is back on the national stage. After disappearing from the public eye for three decades, he has emerged as a chief architect of an attack on the military credentials of Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee.

The effort has had a surprising effect on the campaign; a Los Angeles Times poll this week showed that O'Neill's organization, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, has eroded Kerry's support by questioning whether he deserved his war medals.

The Swift boat group has run ads that claim Kerry lied about the military service that earned him several combat medals. Numerous questions have been raised about the group's honesty and credibility. O'Neill, who has been accused of inconsistencies, has acted as a spokesman for the group, provided it with critical legal advice and written a book about Kerry titled "Unfit for Command."

In an hourlong interview this week, the 58-year-old O'Neill sought to distance himself from the Republican Party operatives and partisans who have been linked to the campaign against Kerry. Wearing a monogrammed shirt, he spoke in his firm's swank, 18th-floor offices overlooking City Hall and decorated with paintings of Venice, Italy.

He portrayed himself as a political independent — a Reagan Democrat, he said, if he had to have a label. Although he typically supports GOP candidates, he says, he voted for Democrat Al Gore in 2000. And although the "Swifties" have agreed to focus on Kerry and not to discuss President Bush, O'Neill made it clear he is no great fan of the president, whom he has described to several friends as an "empty suit."

He has become, effectively, a single-issue voter in this election, akin to an otherwise liberal Roman Catholic who cannot bring himself to vote for a pro-choice candidate. O'Neill's single issue is simple: He despises Kerry. Whether Bush benefits from the campaign, he said, is a distant concern.

"I know everybody thinks politics is the most important thing in the world," O'Neill said. "But it's not."

After Kerry returned from Vietnam, he famously asked a Senate committee: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" His purpose, Kerry said then and says today, was to call for an end to the war, not to indict those who fought it.

O'Neill, however, felt that Kerry had impugned the integrity of every soldier who had fought in Southeast Asia. The son of a Navy admiral and the grandson of a naval academy instructor, O'Neill had been taught since he was young to support U.S. troops — no matter who sent them to fight, no matter the circumstances of the war. Kerry, he said, violated an unspoken military creed.

O'Neill had been asked to publicly resurrect those concerns several times during Kerry's rise to prominence, but he had always declined, saying that it wasn't worth revisiting a painful period of his life to intervene in a Senate race. But when it became clear that Kerry had become a serious contender for the presidency, O'Neill was persuaded to speak up because he "couldn't stomach" the idea of Kerry being commander in chief.

O'Neill said he believed, in hindsight, that legitimate questions were raised about the war. He said that some who voiced concerns — such as Al Gore Sr., a Tennessee senator who jeopardized his career by announcing his opposition — were brave and even patriotic. But O'Neill did not believe Kerry was brave. He said Kerry was an opportunist who used Vietnam to advance his political ambitions.

"I've lived a happy life, sure, but at least 15 of my friends died there," O'Neill said. "What I'm dealing with is a set of values that are above and beyond politics. And if following the truth — coming forward — elects Bush, we can accept that."

Some of O'Neill's closest friends are among those who question his crusade. But they say it is merely a reflection of his tenacity.

"He develops legal lockjaw," said Gerry Birnberg, a prominent Houston lawyer, a friend of 20 years and the chairman of the Harris County Democratic Party. "All of this relates entirely and exclusively to his personal feeling of outrage — with which I do not agree at all — about Kerry's opposition to the war. That indelibly and irreversibly formed his image of Kerry. It is an image that he cannot and will not get over."

O'Neill has many connections to GOP politics. He was invited to speak at the 1972 Republican convention in support of Nixon. Bush's father unsuccessfully nominated O'Neill for a judgeship. One of his law partners was Bush's general counsel when Bush was governor of Texas.

But his record is more complex than those of some of the others backing the Swift boat campaign. In this year's election, O'Neill said, his choice among all the candidates, regardless of party, would have been Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.), who is now Kerry's running mate.

Although O'Neill's firm has close to ties to the oil and gas industries, he has worked largely as a plaintiff's lawyer — taking cases on behalf of people allegedly wronged by big companies.

He once represented a group of elderly and disabled hot dog vendors — in a company called Hot Diggity Dog — who said they had been wrongfully shut down by superstores. In 2001, he won a $429-million judgment on behalf of investors who fell victim to an elaborate securities fraud.

"The idea that anybody is telling John O'Neill what to do or what to say — nothing could be farther from the truth," said David K. Bissinger, a partner at O'Neill's firm. "He doesn't follow any particular ideology. If he thinks the law is being broken, or if he thinks there is a miscarriage of justice, John is there."

Others see nothing noble about O'Neill's campaign.

The Kerry camp has pointed to inaccuracies in O'Neill's book and inconsistencies in statements he has made over the years. O'Neill, for instance, wrote that Kerry lied when he said he was in Cambodia as part of a secret war linked to Vietnam. No Americans were in Cambodia, O'Neill has said. But O'Neill told Nixon in 1971 that he was also "in Cambodia."

O'Neill said his statements have remained consistent, that he was speaking in general terms to Nixon and meant that he was near Cambodia, not across the border. The Kerry campaign's accusations, however, have left some in Texas wondering whether O'Neill is as independent as he claims.

"I just think it is sad that we have people who served together in Vietnam — maybe not next to each other, but together — trashing each other," said U.S. Rep. Gene Green, a Houston Democrat. "I don't think it's good for the country."

If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives



08-28-04, 07:38 PM
Flip flops and other lies <br />
August 28th, 2004 <br />
<br />
<br />
&quot;Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth,&quot; Franklin D. Roosevelt once said. He might have been talking about John Kerry's tale of his 1968...

08-29-04, 08:36 AM
Swift Boat Leader: Kerry Worried About Ads <br />
Friday, August 27, 2004 <br />
By Major Garrett <br />
<br />
WASHINGTON — The day before John Kerry (search) wrapped up the Democratic nomination for the presidency, he...

08-29-04, 08:36 AM
Kerry citation a 'total mystery' to ex-Navy chief

August 28, 2004


Former Navy Secretary John Lehman has no idea where a Silver Star citation displayed on Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's campaign Web site came from, he said Friday. The citation appears over Lehman's signature.

"It is a total mystery to me. I never saw it. I never signed it. I never approved it. And the additional language it contains was not written by me," he said.

The additional language varied from the two previous citations, signed first by Adm. Elmo Zumwalt and then Adm. John Hyland, which themselves differ. The new material added in the Lehman citation reads in part: "By his brave actions, bold initiative, and unwavering devotion to duty, Lieutenant (jg) Kerry reflected great credit upon himself...."

Asked how the citation could have been executed over his signature without his knowledge, Lehman said: "I have no idea. I can only imagine they were signed by an autopen." The autopen is a device often used in the routine execution of executive documents in government.

Kerry senior adviser Michael Meehan could not be reached for comment on Kerry's records.

Thomas Lipscomb is chairman of the Center for the Digital Future in New York.



08-29-04, 09:08 AM
Four months in Vietnam won't cut it
Ben Shapiro (archive)

August 4, 2004

John Kerry served in Vietnam.

And I couldn't care less.

I was born in 1984, over eight years after the end of the Vietnam War. The fact that John Kerry served in the Navy on a swift boat for four months means little to me, beyond the fact that I'm grateful for the service of any veteran -- even if that service was clearly an excuse to bulk up a resume.

John Kerry was anti-war before he ever set foot in Vietnam, so the idea that he became pacifistic only after seeing the horrors of war is baloney. In 1966, two years before Kerry entered the Gulf of Tonkin, he told his graduating class at Yale that "The United States must, I think, bring itself to understand that the policy of intervention that was right for Western Europe does not and cannot find the same application to the rest of the world."

In any case, I'm far more concerned with John Kerry's record since he got back to the United States. His record starts with stabbing in the back American soldiers who were still under fire. In 1971, he told Congress that American military members "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, (blew) 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 ... "

Hilariously, Kerry has attempted to build his 2004 presidential campaign on the idea that he was a famous war hero. Kerry infamously intoned upon reaching the stage at the Democratic National Convention: "I'm John Kerry, and I'm reporting for duty." In his nomination acceptance speech, Kerry referred to his Vietnam service no fewer than eight times. He didn't refer to his 1971 testimony before Congress once.

But the fact remains that had Kerry not defamed American troops, he would be an obscure war veteran, not a presidential candidate. To ignore this essential element of Kerry's history is to overlook his opportunism. If experiencing enemy fire makes you a better president, being a selfish mercenary surely makes you a worse one.

Despite his encouragement to judge him by his record, during his acceptance speech, Kerry completely overlooked his tenure as Massachusetts lieutenant governor under Michael Dukakis. He explicitly mentioned his Senate service a grand total of one time and even then only mentioned three policies he pursued. This is a man obviously attempting to escape his record -- which is why he can only point to his four months of service in Vietnam.

Kerry believes Americans are children who will accept platitudes over substance, who will overlook 30 years of radical liberalism in favor of four months in Vietnam. We are not. Whether "help is on the way" or whether Kerry is campaigning for "a stronger America," Americans want real policy solutions, not tired one-liners. And merely hearkening back to Vietnam, when candidate Kerry led men into combat -- men whom he would later slander -- won't do the trick. Those voters within my general age range especially refuse to look back years before our births to find the last recorded example of Kerry's honorability.

It's much easier and much more accurate to examine Kerry's actions in the past few years. In fact, let's simply scrutinize the key point in Kerry's acceptance speech: "I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: The United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to."

The idea that elective war must be denounced is absurd. Yet Kerry reiterated this ridiculous idea, stating: "Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response."

Apparently, Kerry believes that only a direct attack on the United States justifies war, which would invalidate every major American military action since 1900 aside from World War II in the Pacific sphere and the Afghanistan war. In John Kerry's world, Americans have to die in Los Angeles or New York or Chicago or Washington, D.C., before the American military can defang the monster.

That solution is unacceptable. John Kerry can talk all he likes about avoiding military engagements around the world. But fighting abroad is certainly a better solution than watching as more American buildings become smoking rubble -- or standing by as millions die from the effects of a biological or dirty-bomb attack. No amount of posturing about service in Vietnam can justify Kerry's lack of a pre-emptive strategy. And I'm not willing to risk that a President John Kerry would prevent such an attack, just because he spent four months on a swift boat.

©2004 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

08-29-04, 01:05 PM
'V' for valor or Kerry's version? <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Of the many charges against John Kerry's Vietnam record made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the Kerry campaign has managed to keep Mr. Kerry's Silver...

08-30-04, 07:09 AM
Fighting a Phony War <br />
Is the real aim of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to divert attention from Iraq?WEB EXCLUSIVE <br />
By Eleanor Clift <br />
Newsweek <br />
Updated: 3:51 p.m. ET Aug. 27, 2004Aug. 20 - The...

08-30-04, 07:09 AM
How would liberals have responded to Pearl Harbor?

By Mona Charen - 08/29/04
In their new bestseller, "Can America Survive?" Ben Stein and Phil DeMuth begin with a pointed contrast between the America of today and that of 1942. One starts the section with trepidation, since such comparisons are overdone and usually strained. But the authors handle it deftly. The result is a quite devastating insight into the liberal mind.

Imagine, Stein and DeMuth write (I paraphrase), that it is 1942. The United States has been brutally attacked at Pearl Harbor. Nazi Germany has declared war on us. The enemy is making progress on several fronts around the globe. At home, President Roosevelt "is attempting to rally the nation and fight back against the aggressors."

Now imagine, they continue, "that on college campuses, the main focal point of student rallies is whether or not the United States is acting in a racist manner by fighting back against the Japanese in the Pacific. ... Consciousness-raising sessions are held to explore the sensitivities of the Japanese and the Germans — to examine what in the American way of life might have been hurtful to those people, forcing them to turn to Nazism and imperialism and to fire upon the Americans who have ‘shamed' them.

"Every day newspapers bring a flood of articles about the Americans killed that day in the fighting, and a mass of hand-wringing about whether or not the men and women who died did so to promote a hidden agenda of Roosevelt's."

If modern liberals had been around in 1942, that is precisely the way things would have been, and it's sobering to reflect that if the nation had been so disposed during that dangerous time, the outcome of World War II might have been different.

This book is especially apt at this moment, because the man aspiring to unseat George W. Bush had such a large hand in making American liberalism what it is today. Some have dismissed the swift boat veterans controversy as a distraction. We've heard that Vietnam is as remote from the consciousness of Generation X and other young voters as the Alamo or Omaha Beach. Perhaps. But: a) young people need to learn their history; and b) Kerry's role as a war protester was quite simply dishonorable. He should not be permitted to pass himself off as the loyal soldier once again "reporting for duty."

Let's be clear. There was nothing dishonorable about opposing the war in Vietnam or any other war. But Kerry became the front man for Vietnam Veterans Against the War. With his New England wealth and Yale degree, he leant considerable prestige to that otherwise less-than-savory organization. And he used that influence not just to urge an early end to the war, but to defame and libel the other 2.7 million men who served in Vietnam.

His April 1971 testimony reveals a true modern liberal, impatient with the old benevolent view of America. "We rationalized destroying villages in order to save them," Kerry declared repeating the cliche (of doubtful authenticity) originated by reporter Peter Arnett. "We saw American lose her sense of morality as she accepted very coolly a My Lai and refused to give up the image of American soldiers who hand out chocolate bars and chewing gum. We learned the meaning of free fire zones, shooting anything that moves, and we watched while America placed a cheapness on the lives of Orientals."

Kerry has never repudiated that testimony (the more lurid parts accused Americans of cutting off limbs, randomly shooting at civilians, razing villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan and more). That is John Kerry's America. It is a land of racists; a nation that can "coolly" accept war crimes; a nation that has long since ceased to hand out candy bars.

Kerry's allies in the Democratic Party and in the press are today presenting an identical image of American soldiers to the world. They have reveled in images from Abu Ghraib and highlighted accusations of harsh treatment at Guantanamo. They've wildly exaggerated threats to civil liberties at home, while indulging in open speculation about the Bush administration's vulgar motives for taking the nation to war. As for the good American force is doing for the world and for us, you won't hear of it from the Democrats.

John Kerry played a leading role in curdling this country's self-image and, in a long senate career, he has rarely voted to defend the country. His salute is insulting.

Mona Charen is a nationally distributed columnist.



08-30-04, 07:11 AM

Since its publication in 1971, John Kerry's book "The New Soldier" has acquired almost legendary status. Rumors abound of political operatives scrambling to locate and suppress stray copies during Kerry's House campaign in 1972. Copies now sell on Ebay for upwards of $750!

John F. Kerry has made his Vietnam service the cornerstone of his campaign for President. But he has said virtually nothing about what he did when he came home. His activities and statements at the time painted our veterans with an undeserved bloody brush. Many believe that the activities of John Kerry, Jane Fonda and others actually prolonged the war, resulting in the unnecessary deaths of hundreds of our soldiers, and thousands of Vietnamese.

Before you decide how to vote in the forthcoming election, I urge you to consider all the information you can find in order to make an informed decision. To make this book widely available, I am providing completely FREE access to a PDF version.The PDF version does not include photos, but does include all of the text of the original book. You can read it, print it, send a copy to others, or save a copy to your PC. You will need the Adobe Acrobat Reader, also free, to display this book.

I am doing this as a private citizen at my own expense. Unlike those who are trying to profit from the demand for this information, I am making this available absolutely free to anyone who wants it. I strongly believe this information is of great importance in the forthcoming Presidential election and deserves to be widely distributed.

James B.Davis, Concerned Citizen


Click here to read, print or save a copy of The New Soldier



08-30-04, 07:12 AM
Forum: Kerry's strategic misspeak
From the Commentary section
It seems Sen. John Kerry made a strategic error in so strongly emphasizing his Vietnam service in his convention speech accepting the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
One wonders how a lawmaker who so vehemently opposed the war after returning home, and accused fellow U.S. troops of atrocities, could wrap himself in the flag and almost brag about his own conduct in that same war. He called the war and the people fighting it immoral, then bragged he fought there valorously and honorably.
One wonders how a seasoned senator running for the presidency and constantly trying to focus voters' attention on important current issues could blindly, willingly, intentionally reopen the wounds of Vietnam. For many, America's many mistakes in Vietnam make that chapter of U.S. foreign policy the most disgraceful and failed in our nation's history.
First, Mr. Kerry should have been well aware that a number of veterans for decades have emotionally deplored his brief, almost blood-free yet medal-bedecked time in Vietnam. Those same veterans also detest the scathing war-crimes accusations he made when he returned to the States.
Mr. Kerry's antiwar statements vastly exceeded political opposition to his country's policies. He besmirched the reputations of all Americans who served, including the 55,000 killed, hundreds of thousands wounded, the prisoners, and a group we Americans often overlook: the South Vietnamese.
Say what you will about the often-corrupt South Vietnam government. During America's long involvement, Vietnam's people suffered almost immeasurable loss of life, property, fortune and family. And they were fighting for their freedom.
After America's withdrawal and the subjugation of the South by the communists, many more died at the hands of the oppressors or were incarcerated for years of "re-education."
South Vietnamese people scattered into Laos, Cambodia and by boat to countless other destinations such as Singapore, Hong Kong and the Philippines. Nobody knows how many were lost at sea, raped or killed by pirates or people they encountered. But the numbers are staggering.
More than 2.5 million Vietnamese successfully settled in other countries, about 1.7 million here in the United States. A relatively modern South Vietnam suddenly became a backward communist nightmare for its people and economy. America, for the most part, looked away.

Expanded election coverage in the Insider

The Vietnamese in America today, almost all of them brave survivors and refugees, are silent about Mr. Kerry. Most Vietnamese here won't share their opinions on the debate even in quiet, casual conversation: They love America and don't want to get embroiled in our mystifying political circus.
In confidence, almost all Vietnamese Americans express wonder that any citizen could support a political candidate who so recklessly accused his own nation's fighting forces of international war crimes. Nor can the refugees understand how a U.S. veteran of Vietnam War could return home and almost immediately tell the Senate and anyone who would listen that the lives of the South Vietnamese were not worth saving.
By opposing the war, Mr. Kerry inferred it would be OK to abandon a county seeking freedom and democracy and a people America had pledged to save from communism.
One Vietnamese refugee in America told me his father rented a TV so the family could watch an example of American determination, commitment and scientific achievement on July 20, 1969. After Neil Armstrong started walking on the moon, that Vietnamese father told his children and extended family: "See: Americans have the money and technology to walk on the moon even while they fight to save us here in Vietnam. How can they fail in this war?"
Many Vietnamese shared this unprecedented confidence in American excellence and dedication. They were wrong.
Mr. Kerry missed all the lessons of war, foreign policy and commitment. U.S. commitment costs lives -- not just American lives but those of people we support. When America supports an ally, an entire region is involved, with potential half-century reverberations across vast swaths of the globe. Witness today's Korea, Japan and NATO: Many of these situations are rooted in American support, commitment and determination.
What is important for American voters now is not what Mr. Kerry may or may not have done in Vietnam. We need to examine what he said after he came back and the basis and motivations and repercussions for his doing so. We should discuss what Mr. Kerry's record on Vietnam indicates about the future likely actions of a President Kerry?
One wonders if Mr. Kerry, if elected president, would ever consider a Vietnamlike withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq?
Quietly, privately, South Vietnamese refugees in the U.S. can tell you how they feel about Mr. Kerry, his actions, his integrity and his character. Their opinions won't make you feel proud.

Retired U.S. Navy officer and defense consultant.

Forum: Kerry's strategic misspeak


Phantom Blooper
08-30-04, 07:38 AM
Every mornin' on the Hill you could see him arrive.
Standing six-foot-four, weighing one-twenty-five
Kinda' scrawny at the shoulders and lacking a spine
And when he spoke at all, it was mainly to whine
(Big John, Big John) Big Bad John

Nobody seems to know what's in John's soul
His 'beliefs' are based on the latest poll
'Though he'll say what it takes to get your votes
It's the leftist agenda that he really promotes - Big John.

Some one said he came from Boston town
Where he joined the Navy and gained renown
'Earning' three purple hearts and one bronze star
The home folks said, "This boy will go far"
(Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John)

Then came a day back in '71
When he renounced all the medals that he had won
Then turned against his country and his Navy friends
And sold them out for his own selfish ends (Big John)

He appeared before Congress and on left-wing talk shows
Giving aid and comfort to America's foes
It was clear to see whose side he was on
Some say he helped cause the fall of Saigon - Big John
(Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John)

He claims to be for the working poor
Yet he owns 5 mansions from shore to shore
He never had to work a day in his life
'cause he learned it helps to have a wealthy wife ! - Big John

Now he wants to be our next President
and Commander-in-chief of those he resents:
The American soldiers who fight and die
To give him the freedom to tell us his lies
(Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John)

Thousands have sacrificed their young lives
To help ensure that our nation survives
A vote for Kerry is a slap in the face
To all the brave soldiers that he's disgraced
(Big John, Big John) Big Bad John (Big John)

-- Author unknown but give him a hand !

08-30-04, 09:25 AM

08-30-04, 12:24 PM
Ghosts of Vietnam

By Harlan Ullman

Vietnam was a quagmire. Now, old ghosts from that quagmire are haunting Sen. John Kerry. His antiwar stance and testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1971, in which he alleged gross war crimes and atrocities in Vietnam, riled many veterans then and continues to do so today. And, in this presidential campaign, Mr. Kerry's valor and integrity have beenchallenged with a vengeance.
That Mr. Kerryhas madeVietnam a central part of his campaign justifies close examination of his record. However, there is a clear line between tough questioning, including whether Mr. Kerry went too far in exploiting the war, and that of critics who are distorting or lying about events in efforts "to set the record straight" or are being used as political foils to discredit the senator.

Former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole accused Mr. Kerry of "flip-flopping" by having first opposed the war and now using it in his run for the White House. Mr. Dole, himself badly wounded in World War II, pointedly noted that all Purple Hearts were not equal — all fair points. But those who cross the line by crying fire in a crowded theater, to use Justice Holmes' metaphor, are not responsible. Too many enemies of Mr. Kerry, as well as President Bush, are crying fire.
In full disclosure, I admire John Kerry and occasionally advise him. We briefly met in Boston in the 1970s when I was at graduate school. I also was in the first batch of swift boat skippers sent to Vietnam, where I served in 1966 and 1967. I had direct knowledge of how he won his Silver Star from the very distinguished officer who awarded it to him — Adm. Bud Zumwalt. Since fair questioning of the senator's record will turn on his antiwar stance and at least his first Purple Heart, let's take a closer look.
All wars are dirty, even when journalists are embedded into combat units. Vietnam was especially dirty. Let us not forget that the enemy was tough, brave and ruthless. A key measure of success and often the basis for awarding medals was the infamous (and usually inflated) body count and rules of engagement that authorized "free fire zones," which in essence granted licenses to kill based on intelligence that was never perfect. The shocking fact was that we expended far more ordnance in Southeast Asia than in World War II. One macabre result was that the troops cynically defined a Viet Cong as any "dead Vietnamese."
Then there was Operation Phoenix, a CIA-run program of "targeted assassinations" of Viet Cong. Tens of thousands of Vietnamese were killed, surely some of whom were innocent and were victims of vendetta or erroneous identification. As someone who observed a few of those operations, there were excesses.
I also spent more time than I wished in or near My Lai on the Cape Batangan peninsula when William Calley was probably still in high school. It was a bad and dangerous place then with the enemy largely invisible. The subsequent massacre was unconscionable. But it does not take a Freud to understand why it happened. Finally, 58,000 Americans and who knows how many Vietnamese were killed and to what purpose? In the broadest sense and in retrospect, that was the real atrocity, something Mr. Kerry understoodwellbefore America finally left Vietnam in 1975.
With full deference to former Sens. Dole and Max Cleland, who lost three limbs in Vietnam, all Purple Hearts are not equal. During my Vietnam tour, I dimly recall the response of one of our sailors winning the Purple Heart when asked by the awarding officer where he had been shot. The sailor held up an arm and pointed to a band aid covering a small wound.
But malicious attacks against both Messrs. Kerry and Bush do greater damage to America than the candidates. Imagine how Osama bin Laden views this. The fact is that either Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry will lead the nation, a nation that is at war in Iraq, Afghanistan and against jihadist extremists. The economy is threatened by deficits, debts and liabilities. Making either candidate less credible for reasons of malice will not make his job easier.
So, what to do? Many will never forgive Mr. Kerry's 1971 antiwar stance or believe his war record. Obviously, they should not vote for him. More importantly, Mr. Kerry's responsible critics, including the president, should tell those who are crying fire to shut up.
John, like fellow war hero John McCain, must put Vietnam behind him. He needs to concentrate on the issues and his policy differences with Mr. Bush that will convince voters he will be the better president. Otherwise, the ghosts of Vietnam will impose double jeopardy on the nation, something — given the gravity of the dangers we face — America can ill afford.

Harlan Ullman is a columnist for The Washington Times. He served in swift boats in Vietnam in 1966 and 1967 in more than 150 operations and missions.



08-30-04, 12:25 PM
The war-torn soul of John Kerry
From biographer Douglas Brinkley's Tour of Duty: John Kerry and the Vietnam War, we get this powerful portrait of young John Kerry's anguish, quoting a lengthy letter he wrote to his sweetheart (pp. 82-83; boldface mine):

Judy Darling,
There are so many ways this letter could become a bitter diatribe and go rumbling off into irrational nothings.... I feel so bitter and angry and everywhere around me there is nothing but violence and war and gross insensitivity. I am really very frightened to be honest because when the news [of the combat death of his college friend, Dick Pershing] sunk in I had no alternatives but to carry on in the face of trivia that forced me to build a horrible protective screen around myself....

The world I'm a part of out there is so very different from anything you, I, or our close friends can imagine. It's fitted with primitive survial, with destruction of an endless dying seemingly pointless nature and forces one to grow up in a fast — no holds barred fashion. In the small time I have been gone, does it seem strange to say that I feel as though I have seen several years experience go by.... No matter [where] one is — no matter what job — you do not and cannot forget that you are at war and that the enemy is ever present — that anyone could at some time for the same stupid irrational something that stole Persh be gone tomorrow.

You can practically hear the mortar rounds shriek overhead Kerry's foxhole, can't you? Everything around him "is nothing but violence and war" — "endless dying," the enemy "ever present."

Except that this letter was written in Febuary 1968, while Kerry was an ensign aboard the missile cruiser U.S.S. Gridley as it plied the dangerous waters of war-torn Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. The Gridley was still almost 6000 miles and many weeks away from the waters offshore of Vietnam. Certainly Kerry already knew that once there, he would remain aboard that large ship, on which his own risk of death or injury through combat would be essentially nill. (During its entire service, the Gridley had only one combat fatality, Petty Officer William J. Duggan, who was killed while aboard a helicopter flying a search and rescue mission in 1967. Kerry flew no such missions.)

I have no doubt that young Kerry felt genuine grief at the report of his college friend's combat death — certainly everyone who knew and loved Dick Pershing felt that. Sadly, there were many deaths to mourn. Nor do I mock or denigrate the notion that serving aboard the Gridley was important and patriotic. [Update: And as a veteran of the Gridley aptly pointed out in my comments below, there were very real noncombat dangers in that service, as in much of military life even during peacetime.]

But what's striking — and yes, what I frankly do mock — is the incredible self-aggrandizement and exaggeration of this letter. Brinkley reports this with a straight face and, seemingly, a completely tin ear.

On to Kerry's shore patrol duties when the Gridley was at Subic Bay Naval Base in the Philippines. This came after a brief patrol in which, as Brinkley reports, "[every] day that the Gridley patrolled the Gulf of Tonkin an enemy attack was remotely possible." (That would be from the North Vietnamese Navy's combined battleships-and-aircraft-carriers task force, one presumes.) At Subic, Kerry had Shore Patrol duty. But even in that duty, Kerry and his biographer must find the seeds of Candidate Kerry's future greatness and nobility (page 88):

Kerry was both amused and surprised by the squalid life of this liberty city. His "beat" was the bars and brothels part of town.... On [one] occasion he came upon a woman passed out on the floor of a bar, a sailor standing above her muttering, "Please don't let her die," over and over. Kerry felt for her pulse and tried to bring her back to consciousness. He succeeded.
Well, damn! He woke up a drunk bar girl, isn't that worth another Bronze Star at least?

Later Brinkley writes breathlessly of the Gridley's return to Vietnamese waters, where Kerry came "only forty miles away" from "North Vietnam's treacherous Haiphong." Now, again, I'm not suggesting this was trivial duty or that the Gridley should have turned off its radar and sonar and sent all its crew to bed drunk around 11pm. But of this duty, we find Kerry writing to his parents (page 94-95):

The Viet Cong have tremendously increased their counter batteries along the coast and there is not a ship on the shore bombardment that does not encounter opposition. Most of the shore effort is down south — in the I Corps area where Persh was killed.
I guess that must've been pretty much exactly like The Guns of Navarrone, wasn't it?

A couple of Brinkley's short passages about Kerry's service aboard the Gridley do resonate, so to speak — if not in ways Brinkley may have intended. From page 84, describing the Gridley's voyage from Long Beach to Honolulu:

Every few days while at sea he would write an 800-word vignette about World War II battles that he would then read over the intercom in his best Edward R. Murrow stentorian tones.
And from page 86:

One time [Ensign Kerry] was directing helicopters during an exercise from the Combat Information Center. [Robert E.] Jack, who was the watch officer that day, said, "Captain Harper (who had been listening to the radio chatter on the bridge) burst into CIC and asked me who was that person talking to the helos with the great voice. So, I guess the skipper did at least give John a compliment on one occasion."
Too bad Kerry didn't have a chance to tell his shipmates about "Jeng-jhis" Khan, but I think we can all be sure that both his vignettes about naval history and his instructions to the helo pilots must have been "seared — seared" into their memories nonetheless.

Kerry's service aboard the Gridley has drawn almost no attention in the current SwiftVets controversy, and he's rarely mentioned it during his campaign — even though he spent three times as long assigned to that ship as he did in the Swiftees. It's well worth your time to read the reactions to the chapter from ToD about his Gridley time from those who served with him then on the Gridley's website. You'll find comments there detailing more of Kerry's consistent self-aggrandizement and exaggeration as reported by Brinkley in ToD — Kerry claiming responsibility for "motivating 400 swabbies," when his actual responsibilities were for 30, for instance. The Gridley's website home page has a very understandable reaction:

When questioned about [the relative lack of reporting in his biographical materials about Kerry's greater time aboard the Gridley], Kerry told Douglas Brinkley that "nothing much of note happened during his tour aboard the vessel." So much for us!
I say again: I do not mock or belittle Kerry's service aboard the Gridley. It's something he should be very proud of — even if it wasn't the stuff of which Hollywood movies are made. There are a whole lot more vets (and friends and family of vets) whose military service has resembled Kerry's aboard the Gridley, and can you not imagine how positively they'd have reacted if, instead of ignoring his time there, Kerry had made that service at least some small part of the balloons-lights-and-magic routine at the Democratic National Convention?

Instead, the only way he's used his Gridley service in his campaign has been as a basis for claiming that he served "two tours in Vietnam." If anyone's mocking and belittling the Gridley, it's John Forbes Kerry.



08-30-04, 02:01 PM
The more I realize that this guy would push the panic button is our enemy actually shot at him.

He would be nuking all sorts of people and would want the news stations there to film him while he pushes the button.

He is not only a coward and liar and does not deserve those medals; he is also a self-serving, self-glorying idiot.

But he would argue not a normal idiot but a smart one. DuH!

"I voted for the war, before I voted against it. "

I volunteered for Vietnam after I tried to get out of it and then the government transferred me into a combat zone, so I went but I didn't ask to go so I asked to get out and they let me. The Navy is nice for doing that for me, so I must have done something right.

I got shot in the butt when destroying rice left for the enemy, the shrapnel got me right at the same spot in my butt that a few hours later a mine blast across the river blew up and I got shrapnel in the very same spot. So, of course I asked for my third Purple Heart.

I was wounded by enemy fire when I got my first Purple Heart, well it was really my own grenade that, that shrapnel came from. But I was wounded.

I married wealthy women because I loved her, before I married my second wife because she wasn't crazy like my first wife and she was wealthier.

What ever you are for, I will support it, because I believe the same way.

Sure I'm a religious man, I'm a believer and go to church on Sunday unless the priest won't let me take communion, because its against our religion for me to support killing babies but then I just go to another Catholic church where they don't ask.

I think he belongs right up there with Baghdad BOB

The two should get their own comedy hour.

08-30-04, 04:50 PM
Member of swift boat crew defends Kerry

By JOHN SULLIVAN of the Tribune’s staff
Published Monday, August 30, 2004
A veteran who served with John Kerry in Vietnam spoke yesterday in Columbia to defend his former skipper’s war record against a national group trying to debunk its legitimacy.

Gene Thorson, a crew member of the swift boat Kerry commanded, addressed a group of about 40 veterans and their families yesterday at the veterans memorial in front of the Boone County Courthouse. Local veterans working for the Kerry-Edwards presidential campaign sponsored the event.
If there were Kerry opponents, none spoke up during the event.

Thorson, who served from February to April of 1969 with Kerry in Vietnam, has been working on Kerry’s campaign for two years, he said. "We have to come out here and explain what’s going on because the other side has to dirty the street."

Thorson, a 58-year-old stone mason from Iowa, defended Kerry’s actions as commander of PCF-94. On March 13, 1969, Kerry and his crew joined a five-boat flotilla to insert pro-government forces in Viet Cong-controlled villages along the Bay Hap River.

Military records depict a battle in which Kerry saved Jim Rassman, a passenger and Special Forces officer who fell overboard during the attack. Kerry received a Bronze Star for bravery and his third Purple Heart for an injury to his arm.

A political group of former swift boat skippers calling themselves Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has attacked Kerry’s accounts of that day. Fueled by anger over Kerry’s anti-war protests after serving in Vietnam, the group asserts Kerry’s boat did not receive heavy fire and Kerry exaggerated the extent of his injuries to earn honors.

Thorson contends his crew did come under attack from gunfire and rockets and Kerry sustained significant injuries. He criticized Kerry’s detractors, specifically retired commander George Elliot and retired Adm. Roy Hoffmann, who served as Kerry’s superiors in Vietnam. Both men gave Kerry "excellent reports" for his service during the war.

"It’s sad when you congratulate him with one hand and stab him in the back with the other," Thorson said. "You’re going to have to decide for yourself who you’re going to believe. You’re going to believe them or me, who was with him that same day?"

Bryan Fitzpatrick, 54, a disabled Vietnam War veteran, who came with his wife, Ann, to listen to Thorson, said he believed it possible for war accounts of former soldiers to differ. He considered the claims of the swift boat veterans against Kerry motivated by politics.

"It’s the lowest form of politics to attack a vet’s record," Ann Fitzpatrick said.

Columbia resident Jack Timmons, 73, a veteran of the Korean War, said he believes Kerry’s attackers are lying. "I don’t have the patience to discuss it with someone who doesn’t see it as I do," he said.

Not all local veterans believe Kerry deserved his war honors. Columbia resident Carl Smith, a former Marine who received a Purple Heart for wounds in Vietnam, said this morning in an interview he believed Kerry fabricated his war record. Smith, who called himself a Democrat, said he doubted Kerry’s injuries were severe enough to merit three Purple Hearts.

"To get a Purple Heart, you had to bleed. You had to be treated. From what I can see from the records I read, Mr. Kerry made all this up," he said.

Smith said he didn’t believe the accounts of Thorson or the other fellow crew members who are now working on his campaign.

"Kerry didn’t have contact with these people until his campaign started," he said. "It’s kind of like groupies in a band; they’re just trying to benefit from association with the man."

Reach John Sullivan at (573) 815-1731 or jsullivan@tribmail.com.



08-30-04, 04:52 PM
Tuesday, August 17, 2004
Kerry's Belodeau eulogy: Yet another version of the Rassman rescue, and screaming up the river "50 yards from Cambodia" in the dead of night
Among young Lt. Kerry's crew on PCF 94 was the late Thomas M. Belodeau, who died in 1997. Without a trace of snark or sarcasm, I begin this post by saying that I mourn Mr. Belodeau's death, and I honor his service to his country. What follows does not discredit him in any way. An unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of the current SwiftVets vs. Kerry controversy, however, is that we cannot dig through the factual record of Sen. Kerry's Vietnam service — which as even his supporters recognize, Sen. Kerry himself has chosen to make "the seminal character issue of his presidential campaign" — without discussing at least briefly some of our other veterans, like Mr. Belodeau, who've since passed away.

Mr. Belodeau's description of the event in which Sen. Kerry won his Silver Star was the genesis of Boston Globe reporter David Warsh's column during Sen. Kerry's 1996 re-election campaign that essentially accused Sen. Kerry of being a war criminal. Many — including some who are now part of the SwiftVets' efforts — objected to what they thought was Warsh's cheap shot, and it appears that Mr. Belodeau actively assisted Sen. Kerry in rebutting that accusation, to the credit of them both.

It is unsurprising, then — and again to Sen. Kerry's credit — that reporter Mike Barnicle would write of him, just before the Democratic National Convention in Boston last month:

But John Kerry can cry. And listen. And see pain. All of that and more because of an element of his personality that he is often reluctant to display: He knows what it’s like to be afraid, to be vulnerable, to, quite literally, be wounded.
Part of him went to war and never came back. That portion occasionally reappears at odd, sometimes sad events: the funeral of Tommy Belodeau, a decent, solid, hard-working guy who was part of Kerry’s Swift Boat crew in Vietnam and had a difficult life after the war. Kerry could barely keep his composure giving the eulogy the day Belodeau was buried a few years ago; at small dinners where Kerry is surrounded by other veterans, men who have a shared friendship now due to a shared horror from the past. Intimacy and the alliance of combat can indeed expose his soul.

So, too, it is to Sen. Kerry's genuine credit that — as one of my commenters, Patrick R. Sullivan, pointed out on an earlier post, and as reader Alexandra H. Mulkern emailed me with a helpful link — Sen. Kerry spoke, quite eloquently, at Mr. Belodeau's funeral. Only a ghoul would begrudge the tiny expense to the public fisc from Sen. Kerry's gracious gesture on January 28, 1998, in inserting into the Congressional Record a written version of the eulogy (.pdf files: first page, second page; or you can access the entry directly through the link-unfriendly search engine at the Congressional Record website) that Sen. Kerry delivered on behalf of Mr. Belodeau on November 10, 1997. It was altogether fitting and proper that he do so. Sen. Kerry was writing to honor a departed friend and brother whose "steady hand and courageous heart" helped keep young Lt. Kerry alive. "How do you say goodbye to a man who shared the most challenging and terrifying moments of your life?" Surely, at a minimum, one writes such a goodbye only with great care and attention to detail.

Like so many of Sen. Kerry's other written and oral recollections of his Vietnam service, however, this one contains discrepancies that are hard to reconcile. In it, among those "most challenging and terrifying moments" of their lives, Sen. Kerry recounts what clearly seem to be the same incidents out of which young Lt. Kerry was awarded his Silver Star and his Bronze Star. With regard to the latter:

There was the time we were carrying special forces up a river and a mine exploded under our boat sending it 2 feet into the air. We were receiving incoming rocket and small arms fire and Tommy was returning fire with his M-60 machine gun when it literally broke apart in his hands. He was left holding the pieces unable to fire back while one of the Green Berets walked along the edge of the boat to get Tommy another M-60. As he was doing so, the boat made a high speed turn to starboard and the Green Beret kept going — straight into the river. The entire time while the boat went back to get the Green Beret, Tommy was without a machine gun or a weapon of any kind, but all the time he was hurling the greatest single string of Lowell-Chelmsford curses ever heard at the Viet Cong. He literally had swear words with tracers on them!
The "Green Beret" in question almost certainly must have been Mr. Rassmann. In this account, however, Mr. Rassmann is not sitting and eating a chocolate chip cookie when he's thrown into the river, but rather moving to get Mr. Belodeau another weapon when a "high speed turn" caused him to fall overboard. This version only mentions one mine, which is consistent with the recollection of the SwiftVets who've described the episode from their perspectives on the other boats in formation with PCF 93; but this story has the single mine exploding under Sen. Kerry's boat. And indeed, in this version, enough time had passed between the single mine explosion and the loss of Mr. Rassmann overboard that Mr. Belodeau's M-60 had time to "[break] apart in his hands." Thus, this version events as told in Mr. Belodeau's eulogy fits none of the other published accounts from any of the participants, including Sen. Kerry as he's told of these events on other occasions, orally and in writing.

And then there's Cambodia, again (boldface added):

I cannot adequately convey or describe to you the measure of this man at war — standing in his peak tank in the bow, screaming up a river in the dead of night, no moon, 50 yards from Cambodia literally bouncing off the river bank, waiting for a mine to go off or a rocket to explode — and always steady, always dependable, always there for the rest of the crew.
I do not doubt that Mr. Belodeau deserved all the praise Sen. Kerry rendered in his eulogy. And yet, I find myself asking the same question that Sen. Kerry ascribed to Mr. Belodeau in what was, no doubt, one of the eulogy's deft, lighter moments:

As many of you know, he was not a man of many words. So he'd just give you a look. And the look would tell it all — fierce determination; rollicking good fun; profound sadness. I know you can see his expression for any mood he had. My favorite look of all was his bemused, "What the hell does the skipper think he's doing now?"
But I ask that question with utmost gravity, and without a trace of bemusement.



Phantom Blooper
08-30-04, 08:34 PM
Did you hear that John Kerry made a surprise visit to the Olympics? He was only there 40 minutes, but he came away with 6 medals


08-30-04, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Phantom Blooper
Did you hear that John Kerry made a surprise visit to the Olympics? He was only there 40 minutes, but he came away with 6 medals


Good one...

08-31-04, 04:39 AM
Swift Boat Veterans Expose Something New

August 30, 2004

by Kevin McCullough

Something struck me today that jolted my thinking on the whole Swift Boat Veterans issue. As I was reading the reports of John Kerry sending campaign staff to Crawford to ask President Bush to denounce the ads put out by 527 something just smacked me in the face.

Over most of the campaign year John Kerry has not faced much adversity. From the media pre-ordaining him as "the" candidate earlier in the year, to his sudden and swift winning of the nomination, to his further coronation experience at his nominating convention - things have pretty much gone his way.

The Swift Boat Vets have exposed something that I think is far more damaging about Kerry than they realized at the time.

Vietnam – blah, blah, blah - you hear the two sides go at it and so it goes...

But last Thursday John Kerry gave the Vets the legitimacy they were looking for by acknowledging them, beginning to call them names, and claiming they were dishonest. This is where I believe the “Swiftees” have done us all a favor in exposing John Kerry.

They exposed him and his lack of leadership skills in how he handles a crisis.

And what we are beginning to see is ugly.

His party threatens to sue television stations carrying the ads. Then they shift to apply pressure to Regnery Publishers to recall the book - UNFIT FOR COMMAND. Then they go after bookstores who were selling it. Then they label ALL Swift Vets liars and go on television to try to debate the guys. (And for what it’s worth Kerry's surrogate - John Hurley - has looked absolutely pathetic...)

Then out of desperation Kerry begins trying to secretly arrange meetings with the Swift Vets - which they only expose him on. And when all of these attempts make no impact - he sends goons to Crawford, Texas to protest outside Bush's private residence.

They were delivering a letter that sounded like a piglet which had finally been caught in the County Fair “pig grab” rather than a serious complaint in this political season.

“The crying, the whining, the moaning – oh my.”

And that’s when it began to hit me like a ton of bricks.

John Kerry is so afraid of conflict, of criticism, of anyone who disagrees with him or points out his in accuracies – this man would never survive six months in face of the genuine problems he would have to deal with in the White House.

I can just see it. Every single time there is a negative press report out about him – “President Kerry” would feel compelled to go on every single cable TV talk show to “denounce the smears”.

Anybody remember how President Bush responded when groups spent $65 million dollars morphing him into Adolph Hitler?

So my question on is simple. I ask you to fill in the blank.

"From watching John Kerry handle the campaign crisis posed by the controversy of the Swift Boat Vets...(_________)...is what I have learned about John Kerry's leadership."

Knowing that the Presidency is not something where one can survive long with ultra thin skin, I want to know how what voter’s impressions are on how you believe John Kerry would react in face of true crisis.

Listeners to my radio show seem to believe that Kerry had a resemblance to a 3 year old toddler who though he wanted to be the tough guy in the room - was in all actuality the first one to run for mommy's skirts should another kid look at him funny.

I believe that this is OUTSTANDING analysis of exactly how he responds...

Remember Iowa - Kerry is Dr. Bravado: "BRING IT ON!"

Remember Illinois - Kerry is Dr. Stealth: "These guys are the biggest bunch of liars..."

Remember Boston - Kerry is Dr. Soldier: "Reporting for duty..."

All of those occurred when his world was looking up - no crisis - no real challenge.

Remember last Thursday - Kerry turns into is Dr. Crybaby: "Tell them to stop picking on me..."

All the debate about what happened in Vietnam aside...the Swift Boat Vets have exposed the fact that in a crisis Dr. "Bring it On" - is really Lieutenant Clueless Junior Grade.

And realizing what the mullahs in Iran or the dictator in North Korea wish to do to us...America does not need a child who plays victim "Reporting for duty".

Kevin McCullough



08-31-04, 04:40 AM
GOP assails Kerry as convention begins <br />
8/30/2004, 7:12 p.m. ET <br />
By DAVID ESPO <br />
The Associated Press <br />
<br />
NEW YORK (AP) — Republicans belittled Democratic Sen. John Kerry as a shift-in-the-wind...

08-31-04, 04:41 AM

August 30, 2004 -- Sen. John McCain will salute President Bush tonight for making "this world a better, safer, freer place" in the wake of the 9/11 attacks "that shook us from our complacency."
"No American alive today will ever forget what happened" on Sept. 11, 2001, the maverick Arizona Republican will say, claiming it as "the moment when the hinge of history swung toward a new era."

McCain will hail his 2000 Republican primary foe as a leader "who has not flinched from the hard choices," according to speech excerpts released yesterday.

"He will not yield. And neither will we."

The former Vietnam POW will also salute American troops, saying, "It's an honor to live in a country that is so well and so bravely defended by such patriots. May God bless them, the living and the fallen."

And in a defiant taunt to terrorists, McCain will say, "What our enemies have sought to destroy is beyond their reach. It cannot be taken from us. It can only be surrendered."

McCain will share the limelight with former Mayor Rudy Giuliani tonight in evoking the tragedy and triumphs of 9/11.

Prior to his prime-time speech, McCain is expected to have a lunch meeting with Mayor Bloomberg, another GOP moderate.

Meanwhile, McCain said yesterday it will take an act of Congress or the courts to muzzle the anti-John Kerry veterans who have rocked the presidential campaign.

"I'm not even sure a specific denunciation by President Bush would stop them," said McCain.

"The only thing that will stop these things is a court order or legislatively."

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have launched ads and collaborated on the best-selling book "Unfit for Command," slamming Kerry's military service.

Their claims have become the campaign's bombshell X-factor, with nearly half of all voters now believing Kerry lied or exaggerated his war record, according to a recent poll.

"I've never seen anything like it in the 22 years I've been active in politics," McCain told CBS's "Face the Nation" yesterday.

"I wanted President Bush to condemn the ads specifically, but if we can get the Democrats to join us — and I hope they will — we will force these [outside groups] not to be banned, but to live under the same rules that everybody else does."

Bush said recently that Kerry's Vietnam valor was "more heroic" than his own National Guard service, and has issued a blanket denunciation of all outside political groups.



08-31-04, 08:48 AM
Lies About Vietnam
by Jeffrey T. Kuhner
Posted Apr 26, 2004

In his presidential campaign, John Kerry is using his distinguished Vietnam War record to bolster his credentials on national security. Furthermore, his subsequent opposition to the Vietnam War now serves as a basis for his criticism of President Bush's conduct of the war in Iraq. The presumptive Democratic nominee is convinced that the Middle East threatens to become another "Vietnam-like" quagmire.

The myth about the supposed "tragic legacy" of Vietnam has been at the core of the liberal worldview since the 1960s. This is a false and dangerous idea that even today undermines our resolve to stay the course in Iraq. The underlying assumption of Mr. Kerry and his liberal allies in the media is that the conflict in Southeast Asia was a strategic defeat and national humiliation for the United States; it was a colossal error in which nearly 60,000 Americans lost their lives for an unwinnable and immoral war.

"We saw America lose her sense of morality," Mr. Kerry said in his 1971 testimony before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

However, fighting the war in Vietnam was not a mistake; abandoning the war was our mistake. The withdrawal of American power from the region resulted in the imposition of a Marxist-Leninist police state upon the people of Vietnam.

The communist regime committed numerous atrocities. Over 200,000 South Vietnamese military and government officials were deported to slave labor camps, where many of them were systematically starved to death. Also, several million Vietnamese -- urban capitalists, non-communists, human rights dissidents, priests and monks -- were sent to uncultivated, usually barren areas in the countryside, called New Economic Zones (NEZ). It is not known how many citizens perished in the NEZ's, but most of the deportees considered their assignment to be a death sentence.

Furthermore, Hanoi unleashed a massive campaign of ethnic cleansing against the country's minorities. During the 1970s, nearly 1.5 million ethnic Chinese were expelled and their property and businesses confiscated. Vietnam's hill tribes were nearly wiped out. The most famous victims were the Hmong, who faced savage retribution for having fought with the United States during the war. Using chemical and biological weapons, Hanoi deliberately targeted innocent civilians. Entire villages were destroyed.

Moreover, Red Vietnam waged wars of aggression against its neighbors. In 1979, Vietnamese troops invaded Cambodia, installing a brutal puppet dictatorship in Phnom Penh. The Marxist regime of the odious Heng Samrin launched a terror famine against small farmers that led to the deaths of 700,000 Cambodians.

It has been over 30 years since the communist takeover of Vietnam. Yet it is remarkable how little the country has changed since U.S. forces pulled out. Vietnam remains mired in poverty, corruption and government repression. The country's per capita income is little more than one-tenth that of nearby Thailand.

Seeking to join the modern societies of Asia, Hanoi has abandoned economic collectivism in favor of "Market Leninism" -- the attempt to fuse capitalist reforms with authoritarian rule. The irony is that this is very similar to the kind of socio-economic model that South Vietnam possessed prior to 1975. It is obscene that countless Vietnamese have been sacrificed in order for the country to return to the level of development it had reached 30 years ago.

Liberals, however, continue to insist that the anti-war movement in the United States was correct in opposing American intervention in Southeast Asia. This demonstrates the moral obtuseness at the heart of modern liberalism. The communist victory in Vietnam resulted not only in the slaughter of millions of innocent Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, ethnic Chinese and Hmong, but in the savage conquest of Cambodia and Laos, the establishment of an extensive system of concentration camps and the subjection of an entire generation to the miseries of Marxist rule. Rather than being an unjust war, America's fight in Vietnam was one of the most just in history.

Nor did U.S. troops sacrifice their lives for a "mistake." The struggle in Southeast Asia was integral to the larger battle against Soviet communism. Scholars now claim that Marxist-Leninism was responsible for the mass murder of over 100 million people. The war demonstrated to Moscow and its proxies around the world that the United States was willing to sacrifice immense blood and treasure to curtail the spread of totalitarianism. This was pivotal to America's victory in the Cold War.

Nazi propagandist, Joseph Goebbels, proclaimed that if a statement is repeated often enough, even if it is a lie, it will be eventually accepted as true. This axiom is especially pertinent with regards to the conflict in Indo-China. We were right to have fought in Vietnam. It's about time someone told Mr. Kerry.
Mr. Kuhner is communications director at the Ripon Society and editor of the Ripon Forum. He is also a contributing writer for the Commentary Page at The Washington Times.



08-31-04, 10:56 AM
Kerry should run for President in Vietnam - he'd probably win!!!

At least it would get the TRAITOR jane fonda loving goofy looking junior grade ******* SOB out of the U. S.

Vietnam Veteran Against kerry