John ("Benedict?") Kerry

Special to FreeRepublic ^ | February 9, 2004 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Congressman Billybob]

We begin with what this column does not charge. I do not question John Kerry's patriotism. I do strongly question both his intelligence and his ethics. There are many aspects of John Kerry's career which should be reviewed during his campaign for President. I've previously covered my personal knowledge of him. Here, I’ll skip all other questions except his capacities as a military officer then, and his capacity to be the Commander in Chief today.

To understand the two sides of this modern citizen-soldier, it’s worthwhile to reexamine the two sides of the career of General Benedict Arnold.

The Battle of Saratoga was not a single battle at a single place, but a series of engagements at different places over several days. Major General Benedict Arnold played a critical role in two of those. In the first, he led 1,000 militia who stopped the advance of General Burgoyne's second column along the Mohawk River. He returned by 7 October, 1777, to the Hudson River site of the main battle against General Burgoyne. Arnold led the assault against the redoubt held by German soldiers, broke the British lines, and was seriously wounded in the leg.

Burgoyne retreated. Days later, surrounded, outnumbered, and cut off from supplies or reenforcement, Burgoyne surrendered. This was a critical battle that saved the American Revolution. Had Burgoyne succeeded in driving south to New York City (held by the British), he would have split both the state and the nation, trapping the American armies in New England. As the website www.americanrevolution.com correctly says, “Had he died there [of his wound], posterity would have known few names brighter than that of Benedict Arnold.”

At the Saratoga National Historic Park there’s a monument that displays only a boot. It is a memorial to the bravery and skill of Arnold in that battle, and of the injuries he suffered in his final, successful assault against the center of the British lines.

Two years later, General Arnold married a woman who was a British sympathizer, and he was placed in command of Philadelphia, where he came in contact with some wealthy families who favored the British. He'd had many quarrels with subordinates and superiors and he'd developed a taste for luxuries he could not afford. He was slated to take command of the garrison at West Point on the Hudson. He contacted the British about betraying that garrison in return for a substantial cash payment and rank and pay in the British military. His British contact was Major John Andre.

Andre went behind American lines in civilian clothes to complete the negotiations with Arnold. On his return toward British lines, Andre was captured by two American soldiers who questioned and searched him. They found documents outlining Arnold's planned treachery. Andre was tried by a military tribunal before General Washington. (This was the first American instance of such trials under the Law of War. Similar trials have been conducted in most American wars, and the latest of these are about to take place in Guantanamo, Cuba.) Andre was convicted, and sentenced to hang. Washington offered to free Andre in exchange for Arnold, who had fled to British lines. The British refused that offer. Andre was hanged. Benedict Arnold escaped to Britain, and his name entered the English language as a synonym for “traitor.”

Had Arnold succeeded in betraying the garrison at West Point, the Hudson River would have been opened for a British attack from the south. That might have accomplished the same destruction of the American cause as Burgoyne's attack from the north had threatened two years before.

Although most Americans today know that Arnold was a traitor, his attempted betrayal took nothing away from his real achievements in the Battle of Saratoga, that saved the Revolution from defeat.

We turn now to the military changes of heart of Lt. John Kerry between his service in Vietnam and his later actions as a civilian. His later actions do not meet the constitutional definition of treason, and I make no suggestion to the contrary. They DO raise serious questions about his intelligence and integrity.

On 23 April, 1971, John Kerry testified under oath before Congress that Americans in Vietnam 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, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.” Before his testimony was over, he said, “We all did it.” When he testified, he was wearing his medals which he later claimed to have thrown over a fence in protest. The story of the medals has changed several times over the years. Suffice to say, those medals now grace the walls of his Senate offices, and also grace the rhetoric of his campaign speeches as he runs for President.

While Kerry confessed to no war crimes personally, his testimony was based on a meeting in Detroit where a number of men who claimed they were veterans (though some were not; and some who were, were not in service where and when they claimed). Both the Detroit meeting and the testimony before Congress were events staged by Vietnam Veterans Against the War, of which John Kerry was a national leader.

Any such actions by members of the American military are crimes that should be prosecuted. Witness the trial of Lt. Calley over the My Lai massacre. It is a separate offense under the US Military Code for any officer or soldier who has knowledge of any such actions, not to report them to their commanding officers. None of the crimes which John Kerry ascribed to “all” of his fellow members of the US military were ever reported to commanding officers, or resulted in trials of anyone involved.

Most recently in his “victory” statement in the State of Washington, after winning five of seven Democrat primaries last week, Kerry began by mentioning his service in Vietnam. He went on to thank veterans for supporting him, and to encourage veterans to be part of his campaigns in the remaining states, and presumably in the general election in November. It’s beyond me how any American veteran who served honorably, especially those who served in Vietnam, can support Kerry after his statements under oath that “all” who served there committed acts that are war crimes.

But this column is not written solely for veterans, and especially those from Vietnam. And it is not concerned solely with events that happened more than thirty years ago. The world is a perilous place today, especially for Americans. With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that peril has existed for more than a decade. The attacks on 11 September, 2001, did not change the nature of that peril. It only forced all Americans to recognize it, in no uncertain terms, with a blood price paid by civilians and police and firefighters. So a critical question in the presidential election of 2004 is which of the two candidates (who are almost certainly George Bush and John Kerry) are better equipped to command the diplomatic and military capacities of America in dealing with that peril, which takes many forms and exists in as many as fifty nations around the world, as well as at home.

John Kerry voted for both of the declarations of war which Congress passed as required by the Constitution, and which President Bush used in committing American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Yes, there were two declarations concerning Iraq, in 2001 and 2002. More than two years ago, I wrote an article for United Press International which pointed out that the authorization of “military force” contained in the original Patriot Act, days after 11 September, used almost the same language that Congress adopted two centuries ago to authorize President Jefferson to deal with the Barbary Pirates.)

If John Kerry were as educated and logical as he claims to be, he would have recognized that his two votes for declarations of war were exactly what they said they were. He would therefore recognize that he voted to approve war, and would not utter in public the obviously false statement that he “voted for the resolutions,” but he did not intend “to authorize war.”

But Kerry's current inadequacies are deeper and more dangerous than that. He claims that the current military actions are “unilateral” whereas they are obviously “multinational.” In using the latter mantra, he actually means -- as he sometimes says -- that we should not go to war without the approval of the United Nations. The history of the United Nations in using military force to solve deadly international problems is perfect. The UN has failed in every such instance, with the only question being how many thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of people will pay with their lives for the latest failure of the UN.

One of the earliest and most massive failures of the UN now haunts the world in a more serious way, fifty years after the initial failure. That is the bloodthirsty regime in North Korea, which now has nuclear weapons and can be expected at some time to export those weapons and the missiles to carry them, just as North Korea has exported every prior weapons system it has developed, to whomever would pay the cash price for them.

I've written before about the UN, so I’ll be very brief now. Between Ambassadors who represent nations that are dictatorships (nearly an absolute majority in the General Assembly) and those whose international ethics are governed by the ability to make money from dealing with dictatorships, a majority of the Assembly voters and several of the veto votes on the Security Council are held by nations which will never vote for decisive action against dictatorships. The eloquent and ineffective appeal of Haile Selassie of Ethiopia to the League of Nations when Italy invaded his country, could easily be repeated by leaders of every nation or people who are being slaughtered by others, on the watch of the UN. And such modern appeals would be equally fruitless.

And yet it is this unbroken history of failure to which Kerry, as President, would yoke the diplomatic and military abilities of the United States to defend its own citizens. Again, a man who was acting with a knowledge of history – and honesty in understanding the import of past failures – would never suggest that the President of the United States should deliberately disable his most basic duty: to defend the citizens of the United States, subject to the Constitution which requires Congress to speak first by majority decision. Nothing in either the Constitution, nor in the Charter of the United Nations, requires a President of the United States to seek the approval of any other body than Congress, in defending the lives of Americans from attack.

I debated John Kerry at Yale, back when he was a sophomore and I a senior. His thinking and debating characteristics haven’t changed in the intervening years. When he has reached a conclusion, he doesn’t allow either facts or logic to influence him at all. And anyone who says today that we should leave the fate of America in the hands of the UN in general, or France and Germany in particular, lacks both the knowledge and the integrity to serve as Commander in Chief of the American military.

On this all-important question, John Kerry showed his colors early in the Vietnam matters described above. He has also shown his colors late, in his recent statements that he didn't mean it when he voted for the Iraq war, and his insistence on his own particular brand of “multilateral” use of military force. His definition of “multinational” actually means giving enemies of American interests a veto over decisions that belong properly and solely to the President and the Congress.

As I said at the beginning, I do not question John Kerry's patriotism. But many times in many ways, Presidents have led the nation into disasters, not because they were intent on harming the nation (in short, traitors), but because they lacked either the understanding or integrity to do what the current crisis called for. Foolishness, rather than malice, explains most bad decisions whether personal or national. The reason is simple: malice is rare, but fools are commonplace.

Can someone who graduated from Yale be a “fool”? In the objective sense of being too dumb to understand complex issues, the answer is a resounding no. There was a time in the dim mists of history when the admissions policy of Yale could be described with only slight exaggeration thusly: “If the body's warm and the check is good, he's in.” But that didn’t apply when I got there. And I got there before John Kerry and George Bush. (And before Bill and Hillary Clinton, for that matter.) No, Yale hasn’t graduated any objective fools in the last century or so. But it does both graduate, and retain on its faculty, individuals who are situational fools.

These are people who blind themselves by ideology, or by occasionally by lust for wealth or power, to the lessons of history. John Kerry is one of those. He is deliberately ignorant of the history of the US, the history of other nations, the history of warfare, and especially the history of the UN and before that of the League of Nations. He is a situational fool, and as such he should never get near the White House without a visitor's pass.

Would Kerry’s honorable service in Vietnam qualify him for the job of President? In part. But his career since then demonstrates the contrary on the issue of the safety of American citizens in a perilous world. Whatever Kerry's qualities as a peacetime leader (I have not addressed those), he has disqualified himself as a wartime leader. He is “unfit” for the promotion he seeks. And American soldiers and civilians will die in much greater numbers than before, if he talks his way into that promotion.

- 30 -

About the Author: John Armor is an author and columnist on politics and history. He currently has an Exploratory Committee to run for Congress.

- 30 -

©) 2004, Congressman Billybob & John Armor. All rights reserved.

[Congressman Billybob]

Since John Kerry just one two more Democrat primaries and seems headed for the Party's nomination for President, thought I should get this column out early. Like it or not, American voters better start taking a serious look at John Kerry.

As Tom Lehrer used to say, "I have one here." Let me know what you think.

[Torie]

Hey, are you actually running for congress or not, and if you are, are you running as a Pubbie or an indie? DC Political has you down as an indie, and your website says you are unsure about running. Are you Hamlet or what?

[the invisib1e hand]

a real tragedy.

[Enterprise]

"And American soldiers and civilians will die in much greater numbers than before, if he talks his way into that promotion."

I thought that a lot of citizens and soldiers would die because of the Clinton Presidency. I missed the mark a bit, because Clinton was lucky. The deaths started 9/11/01 because his leadership ultimately led to disaster, as the article discussed. I believe with all my might that Kerry would also be disastrous for this nation. My statement to others is that we are one more Democrat President away from extinction as a nation, and Kerry is the perfect candidate.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Excellent!

More on John Kerry and the Demonic Rats relative to the WMD claims:

Some serious reading:

PRESIDENT CLINTON VIDEO, December 16, 1998 Sadaam has nuclear arms, poison gas/bio weapons.

Statement of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV - On the Iraq Resolution - October 10, 2002

Remarks of Senator John Kerry on Iraq | October 09, 2002 |

Larry Elder: Were we misled? (about Iraq's WMD)

I need to add the Master list on Kerry:

John Kerry- some selected, informative links... compiled by Backhoe

[jmstein7]

BUMP!

[the invisib1e hand]

Suffice to say, those medals now grace the walls of his Senate offices, and also grace the rhetoric of his campaign speeches as he runs for President.

great point. who has less integrity than someone who insists on having it both ways: "the war was unjust, but I was a hero in it"?

[secretagent]

On 23 April, 1971, John Kerry testified under oath before Congress that Americans in Vietnam 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, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.” Before his testimony was over, he said, “We all did it.”

Everyone knows that a few Americans committed war crimes.

But John Kerry said that most American soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam.

Pound that point over and over.

[Mike Darancette]

“We all did it.”

Kerry got the Silver Star for killing a wounded and unarmed enemy soldier behind a building.

[the invisib1e hand]

sounds like he said "all" did.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Kerry is part of the Flap over WMD's:

Dispel the "Imminence" Myth - What YOU Can Do Right Now! (please CLICK HERE)

[ambrose]

bump for later.

[jocon307]

Excellent, really excellent. So, where do I have to live to vote for you? I am thinking of moving in the not too distant future.

[PhilDragoo]

And anyone who says today that we should leave the fate of America in the hands of the UN in general, or France and Germany in particular, lacks both the knowledge and the integrity to serve as Commander in Chief of the American military.

In the Senate debate itself, Kerry, rather than embarass Vietnam by demanding the truth, launched a highly publicized diversionary investigation of the POW/MIA families and activists, who were demanding an honest accounting.

Kerry labeled them "professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists, and dime-store Rambos" who were only involved in the POW/MIA issue for money.

Pictured above, Sen. John Kerry in Hanoi seated under a bust of Communist Vietnam's deceased leader, Ho Chi Minh.

C. Stewart Forbes, Chief Executive Officer of Colliers International (Kerry's cousin), was awarded a contract worth billions designating Colliers International as the exclusive real estate agent representing Vietnam.

Kerry actively promoted the Communist agenda in 1971 with his vicious slander of our fighting men.

In 1993 he obstructed POW investigations to expedite normalization--

--and the subsequent enrichment of his family fortune.

He belongs, not in the Oval Office, but at the bottom of a garbage can.

[the invisib1e hand]

C. Stewart Forbes, Chief Executive Officer of Colliers International (Kerry's cousin), was awarded a contract worth billions designating Colliers International as the exclusive real estate agent representing Vietnam.

this piques my interest in Kerry's life before VietNam... what are the odds the whole 'hero' thing is a sham?

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

ping!

[nopardons]

I think it's a brilliant, well thought out and executed column. It's something that RNC should use.

Good luck in your run, should you decided to do so.

[Congressman Billybob]

In answer to your questions: 1. I am a registered Republican and would run as that. Any source that says otherwise is wrong. 2. As the "Important Notice" on page one of my website says, I've done my homework and have a clear idea of the minimum cost of a competent campaign in 2004.

I've read the histories of thousands of "hopeless" candidates for Congress -- who filed, who "ran," but who were obvious road kill from the get-go. I have zero intention of doing that myself, which involves self-deception first, and secondly, deception of the people asked to support the effort.

That's why I stated exactly what I am doing and why, in plain English, on page one of my website. That isn't Hamlet-like. That's Patton-like. Know what you need and make sure it's there BEFORE you go into battle. Read my battle plan and see if it makes sense to you.

Cordially,]

John / Billybob

[secretagent]

sounds like he said "all" did

Yes. Hard to believe.

I'd like to see Bush force Kerry to confront those words.

I don't believe most American soldiers committed war crimes in Vietnam, and I don't believe most Americans believe that.

Bush can win with this one, if he chooses.

[Congressman Billybob]

Enjoyed your comment, but your offer to move in order to vote for me is a bit much. LOL. I'm in Western Carolina, the triangle of NC in the Blue Ridge Mountains that is under Tennessee on any national maps. It's a highly rural district with only one major city in or near it.

The people here are highly independent and suspicious of government. The book and movie "Cold Mountain" tells the truth about people hereabouts at the time of the Civil War. In many respects that portrait of a people is still accurate, today.

Please visit my website, read what you care to, and it you still think I ought to be in Congress, please sign up and do what you can. It will be deeply appreciated.

Cordially,

John / Billybob

[Torie]

Good luck, but I note that nowhere on your campaign website do you suggest that the issue is whether or not to run against Taylor for the Pubbie nomination, or indeed that you are a Republican. Thus my question, which was preciptated in particular by the DCPolitical website. Maybe he was confused as well. But then he also is a lawyer. Lawyers, lawyers, everywhere.

[PhilDragoo]

Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry also reports:

In 1991, the United States Senate created the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs to examine the possibility that U.S. POW/MIAs might still be held by the Vietnamese.

As chairman of the Select Committee, Kerry proved himself to be a masterful chameleon portraying to the public at large what appeared to be an unbiased approach to resolving the POW/MIA issue.

But, in reality, no one in the United States Senate pushed harder to bury the POW/MIA issue, the last obstacle preventing normalization of relations with Hanoi, than John Forbes Kerry.

In fact, his first act as chairman was to travel to Southeast Asia, where during a stopover in Bangkok, Thailand, he lectured the U.S. Chamber of Commerce there on the importance of lifting the trade embargo and normalizing relations with Vietnam.

During the entire life of the Senate Select Committee, Kerry never missed a chance to propaganderize and distort the facts in favor of Hanoi.

A further discussion of awards at MILITARY AWARDS: EARNED OR NOT, WAS THE CRITERIA MET?

Surely any American who joined Jane Fonda in slandering our fighting men in 1971 is only a war hero to the North Vietnamese Communists.

[T'wit]

Well done. I think the reference to Benedict Arnold is apt. Arnold's courage was not to be questioned. As I recall, he returned to fight hard against us as a British officer. His loyalty and judgment were the qualities that blackened his name to history.

John Kerry's leftist activities likewise call both his loyalty and judgment into question. His actions, I agree, did not meet the legal standard of treason. But there is no question that the so-called anti-war movement gave real aid and comfort to the enemy. It had secret ties to the enemy, it got secret funding from the enemy, and some of its inner circle took orders from the enemy.

As a leader of that enemy "fifth column" in this country, Kerry was disloyal to his country and to every American who served honorably in Vietnam. His supporters say he saved American lives in Vietnam. But how many American lives did John Kerry's disloyalty cost?

[stylin19a]

John Kerry - loved LBJ's war, hated Nixon's war. Course he didn't hate the war until after he got buried in his first attempt in getting elected.

[Congressman Billybob]

I won't push the label "Republican" until after the primary. Two factors apply here: Charlie Taylor, 6-term incumbent, is well-wired in the Repub establishment. He is less wired to "causual" Republicans. And he has no "street creds" as they say, with the 14% of the District who are registered independents (and they can vote in either primary on election day).

In every meeting I attend, I speak with equal clarity about what I believe and what I intend, as I have written on FreeRepublic for the last six years. So no one has the slightest doubt that I am a staunch conservative, with a particular hot button that the Supreme Court MUST obey the Constitution. I'm just using my best judgment to find and gain the 50,000 votes I estimate will be the winning number in the primary. Does that make sense?

John / Billybob

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

So no one has the slightest doubt that I am a staunch conservative, with a particular hot button that the Supreme Court MUST obey the Constitution.

That would almost be a lock for my vote!

[neverdem]

BTTT, I want all Americans to know this tale of woe.

[CyberAnt]

I agree with you, and my tagline confirms that.

[CyberAnt]

Thanks for posting this.

[GailA]

btt

[neverdem]

I want all Viet-Nam veterans to know how Kerry called them all war criminals.

[Keith in Iowa]

Good article. I wish my local paper would print it.

[WOSG]

Well said. And the correct history on Saratoga is indeed apt. gen'l Arnold was a war hero before he was a traitor, and Saratoga was the critical battle in the revolutionary war.

A Krauthammer column came down a bit different. He is usually excellent and he is perhaps right that in war-time records will be used in this current war-time
environment to show credibility in national security.

Yet Kerry is a special case.
Kerry has often used his 4 months in Vietnam as a prop in his 35 political career to tear down our military, not build it up.

Forst consider: Once Kerry's Vietnam record is examined more closely, quite a different picture will emerge. He only served four months in Vietnam as a Swift boat CO (Dec - March) and initiated a request to leave Vietnam a scant four days after receiving his third "wound." The approval was granted because of an administrative rule that permitted thrice-wounded personnel to request reassignment. Three very minor wounds in four months plus a Silver Star and Bronze Star for separate actions. Makes one wonder. He was also given an early out to run for Congress. Kerry got a leave to go home from Vietnam early so he could be active in politics.

1. In 1971, John Kerry was a leader of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War protest group. Kerry testified to Congress that Americans in Vietnam 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, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam."
He said, "We all did it."

He accused fellow veterans of being war criminals, but this awful charge was based on trumped on stories. In his book "Stolen Valor," B.G. Burkett points out that Mr. Kerry liberally used phony veterans to testify to atrocities they could not possibly have committed.

Kerry publicly supported Hanoi's position to use our POWs as a bargaining chip in negotiations for a peace agreement. Kerry threw what appeared to be his medals over a fence in front of the Capitol building in protest, on camera of course, but was caught in his lie years later when his medals turned up displayed on his office wall.


2. Kerry consistently helped The Hanoi regime. One example was preventing the Vietnam Human Rights Act (HR2833) from coming to a vote in the Senate, claiming human rights would deteriorate as a result. His actions sent a clear signal to Hanoi that Congress cares little about the human rights for which so many Americans fought and died.

3. Kerry voted against the first Gulf War. Without that successful war, we would not have removed Saddam Hussein from Kuwait, and we would not have found out how close he was to nuclear weapons and stopped that program.
It may well have led to Saddam's Iraqi regime as a nuclear power and effectively controlling the world's oil supply.

4. In 1995, Senator Kerry voted to freeze defense spending for seven years, cutting over $34 billion from the defense budget.

5. Kerry supported in the 1980s the nuclear freeze , the cause-of-the-moment of the disarmament left.

6. Kerry has fought against intelligence services budgets.

7. The worst behavior we wait for last: Kerry has insisted that we need to 'win the peace' in Iraq, but when the time came to support the funding for the occupation, Kerry voted no, even though he voted yes on the original war authorization. In other words he voted against finishing what he voted to start. And he did this for the worst of reasons: To get some anti-iraq-war 'credibility' against primary opponent Howard Dean. Kerry, to put it bluntly, put politics over patriotism.

The list goes on.

Which is it? Does Kerry think Vietnam was a shameful military exercise or something to be proud of? Does he think his service of 4 months in Vietnam means he will protect our nation better?

What of the 35 years of tearing at our national security institutions, defaming our military, voting against military budgets, and being wobbly on matters of defense and security?



In Bush we have a man who served more time in actual service, albeit as a homeland-based jet pilot, and who got an honorable discharge with 5+ years of service. He never made a big deal of that service, but he has been leading as commander-in-chief these past 4 years. And he has made the tough choices to win the war-on-terror and act agressively against threats. In the end, it was his call to go into Afghanistan and Iraq - with willing allies, but not constrained or hamstrung by grovelling for consensus. Bush has stood up for our national secuirty. Whether you like all his decisions or not, he has been a true leader, and he doesnt need to show off medals he once claimed to throw away to prove it.

Who really is the one who went AWOL?

[WOSG]

"I want all Viet-Nam veterans to know how Kerry called them all war criminals."

Try a letter to the editor to tell them.

[backhoe]

Cross-link:

-John Kerry- some selected, informative links...--

[Mike Darancette]

Kerry voted no, even though he voted yes on the original war authorization ...

When questioned about his authorization vote, Kerry stated it was only to create a talking point and that he now repudiates that vote because action was actually taken. If (God forfend) he becomes President what type of message will that send to America's enemies.

[neverdem]

"Try a letter to the editor to tell them"

I tried to reason. I'm wasting my time.

[shamusotoole]

I too wonder what a serious vetting of the Kerry medals would unearth. 5 major awards in 5 months of Swift Boat service. Smacks of "gun-decking" to me.

He was also the person making the awards requests, being the Officer present. The ONLY Officer present, I'll guess.

I wonder what his shipmates might say today. After all, they still had to complete their tours after "Pretty Boy" left. Were any of them wounded at the same time as he, or was he the only one in the line of fire?

Bogus awards happened to Lyndon Johnson and Joseph McCarthy and a host of others during WW II to add luster to the politically ambitious. Kerry was politically ambitious. And though it does not necessarily follow that he has an undeserved award, he had both motive and opportunity.

[I got the rope]

BTTT.

[RaceBannon]

You stole my yagline!!!

[RaceBannon]

TAGLINE!

A YAGLINE is an early morning fat finger alert!

uhbooy...

[the invisib1e hand]

if this account is accurate, it suggests that his motive was to enhance someone-in-particular's financial position, and that would be, in my book, an abuse of office.

I suspect there is more to this hero than he is putting on the table.

[ChadGore]

KerryNotASoldier_1.jpg
KerryNotASoldier_2.jpg(61K)
KerryNotASoldier_3.jpg(60K)
KerryNotASoldier_4.jpg(60K)
KerryNotASoldier_4.jpg(59K)

In 1971 George W. Bush was wearing the uniform with pride, serving his country, and supporting the troops.

In that same year, 1971, Kerry was desecrating our flag, called our troops baby killers, and was openly siding with our enemy.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

'JOHN KERRY = Enemy of Vietnam Vets'


http://www.TheAlamoFILM.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1320

.

[NormsRevenge]

BUMP and Good Luck!!!

[neverdem]

Ronnie, thanks for the link.

Kerry is becoming the proverbial poster boy for the term "useful idiot". I think the irony of the contradictions is becoming rather rich.

[neverdem]

BTTT, your tagline is pretty sharp.

[neverdem]

He was also the person making the awards requests, being the Officer present. The ONLY Officer present, I'll guess.

I wonder what his shipmates might say today. After all, they still had to complete their tours after "Pretty Boy" left. Were any of them wounded at the same time as he, or was he the only one in the line of fire?

For some reason, I think we'll find out. BTTT

[Congressman Billybob]

I felt honored when Rush Limbaugh used the word "brilliant" about my writing. I feel honored that you, as one of the able and knowledgeable citizens of FreeRepublic, used the same term about my latest column.

It's not easy to sit down every week and find something unique and worthwhile to say. It's almost as difficult as "teaching a pig to sing," to write with excellence. That's why I seldom rise to that level.

Thank you again.

Cordially,

John / Billybob

[Congressman Billybob]

Hello, my smart and able friend,

Nope, I didn't steal your "yagline." I wrote my column before I saw that you had changed your yagline from "Bigger and more dangerous than you." LOL.

Cordially,

John / Billybob