Skip to comments.Finance reform intensifies Kerry’s Vietnam scrutiny
Posted on 08/15/2004 1:47:35 AM PDT by Cincinatus' WifeEdited on 08/15/2004 3:53:45 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
You wanted campaign finance reform. You got campaign finance reform. McCain-Feingold promised to take the money out of politics.
If you believed that, you deserve what you got.
And what you got is an avalanche of money into politics this year as George Soros, Democratic big shots and, to a lesser extent, Republican money men (Republicans are slower on the uptake) get into the business of “independent” political expenditures.
(Excerpt) Read more at qctimes.com ...
And exposes it as a fraud.
***A passage from, Unfit for Command.
***On March 15, 2004, Admiral Hoffmann's telephone rang again. Once again, the caller was John Kerry. Kerry had clinched the Democratic nomination, and he knew that Hoffmann was organizing Swiftees to bring out the truth about him, his exaggerated military record, and his antiwar lies that had slandered his fellow veterans. Kerry made the admiral an offer: If you will back off and drop your efforts, I will ensure that my biography, Tour of Duty, which I know is unfair to you, will be changed to make it accurate in a revised edition. Here is my secretary's number - you can get me anytime.
The offer from the Democratic presidential candidate was an attempt to flatter Hoffmann, a warrior whose coin is not power or wealth, but honnor--an honor deeply impugned by Kerry's book. Hoffman, after all, is a wounded survivor of the amphibious assault at Wonson, Korea, where his minesweeper still lies below the frigid waters of Wonson Harbor. Kerry knew that winning Hoffmann over to his side would thwart the Swiftees' efforts to discredit him. Hoffmann told Kerry that he and the vast majority of his shipmates could never forgive him for his defamation of our Navy and other U.S. Armed Forces by his slanderous and undocumented accusations of unspeakable atrocities in Vietnam before the U.S. COngress in 1971, his leadership in the VVAW, and his association with the traitorous Jane Fonda and others of her ilk. Surprisingly, Kerry responded by simply saying that he "was expressing his conviction."
If Admiral Hoffmann were truly a butcher whose conduct "sickens" John Kerry to this day, an impression one could easily gain from reading Tour of Duty, then why did Kerry offer to change inaccuracies he knew were in Tour of Duty in exchange for Admiral Hoffmann and the Swiftees ceasing their activities? In emails on May 3, 2003, and on May 7, 2004,trying to dissuade Swiftees from joining Admiral Hoffmann, Wade Sanders referred to the group as "bitter drunks," something the sailors involved deeply resented. Moreover, Sanders referred to Joe Ponder, a seriously disabled Swiftee who cried when talking about Kerry's charges, as "a whining crybaby."*** - pages 68-69
...The Swift boat campaign will not affect swing voters....
Sorry Charles, it has.
New Video Rocks the Boat for John Kerry -- Vietnam Portrayal Casts Doubts Among Independents***More specifically, 27% of independents who either planned to vote, or were leaning toward voting for Kerry, indicated that they were no longer sure of voting for him after watching the video. ***
John Kerry has made his service in Vietnam the focal point of his campaign. His 20 years in the Senate have already been exposed as unremarkable already. Now we are finding out that the cornerstone of his Campaign is just another pack of lies, and John Kerry should face the same scrutiny as GWB did over his Texas ANG records
I hipped up my mother in law on the Swifties words and John O'Neill, she was on the fence and had been a lifelong Dem. (a NEA teacher for heaven's sake), guess where she is now! Voting for Bush! I'll do it with a dozen others, and everyone here should do the same. A few dozen!
I think Teraaaayza is just finding out some things she may never have known before, note their recent fight out west (he probably asked for too much allowance).
senserity=sincerity...........I've been up all night - sorry!
Disagree with my delusions? I'll sue you for slander!!!
Quite the track record for our democrat party and its magnificent candidates: overtly psychotic losers (Gore, possible Kerry), a serial sexual predator (Bill Clinton), a flaming incompetent (Carter), sociopathic lawyers (Edwards, the Clintons), or terminal mega-narcissists (all of the above).
Every aspect of Kerry's memories, utterances, and official "history" are completely fraudulent. He is a pitiful charlatan, absolutely pathetic, unfit for any office requiring moral character.
"kerry is going to feel that one in the morning"
I was thinking about that this morning. LIBERALS seem to put emotionally sick people at the top of their ticket (well in a lot of elected positions). It might make it easier for them to influence their decisions but they will always have the bimbo eruptions, etc. to deal with - but then they have gotten quite good at that, haven't they?
Well it certainly is strong support for the assertion that liberalism is a mental disorder.
***The Pathology of Liberalism
Without going into arcane psychological theory, I believe that underneath their sophisticated, educated, privileged pasts, they are people who, in the secret recesses
of their beings, hate themselves.
In fact, none of the screeching, splenetic hysterics of Democrats like Ted Kennedy, Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, spinmeister James Carville, Al Sharpton, or the more
passive-aggressive, curare-tipped-dart-throwers like Tom Daschle, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Clinton and John and Teresa themselves the list is endless can quite
square the bad feelings they have with the fabulously wealthy and privileged lives they live.
So, like all liberals, they project their bad feelings onto the people they really blame: the grown up conservatives who have high expectations, set rules, demand
accountability, anticipate results and dont tolerate excuses.
Unlike conservatives, who look to themselves when placing blame and finding solutions, liberals attribute to others what is wrong with themselves just as Kerry has
done over the course of his entire public life.
All this is a result of the pathological narcissism that characterizes leftist ideologues. Narcissism lies on the spectrum of other serious pathologies like borderline
personality and sociopathy, and is characterized by an overweening obsession with the self.
As journalist Eric Alan Beltt explains (http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/ebeltt_20040805.html) they are motivated by the desperate need to feel
good, superior in intelligence and morality, admired by peers (in academia, the legal profession, the news and entertainment media, elite social circles and other
venues where liberalism is rife) and to avoid ostracism. Their activism, Beltt says, is only relevant to them as long as it enhances their image and makes them feel good!
Its logical, Beltt says, that their hatred of President Bush is so ferocious. With a thriving economy, a newly free and sovereign Iraq (and Afghanistan) making large
steps towards democracy and stability, huge gains in the war against international terrorism, massive funding for the AIDS epidemic in Africa, and many other
wonderful accomplishments ... in the making, he says, youd think liberals would like the President. But they hate him with a passion [because] hes the
personification of their insignificance on the world stage, something that is intolerable to the fragile egos of narcissists. ***
Yo! Earth to Chuck. You get it wrong on permissive abortion. You get it wrong on this. The very ones who will be affected are the 'swing' voters.
You're a smart guy. But stick to what you know - and for gosh-sakes, speak up for yourself on that PBS show.
In both his testimony to congress in '71 and '86 he was trying to influence foreign policy...in the direction of the commies.
kerry was trying to effect foreign policy in his '86 speech to Congress. Does this not hold true of his '71 under oath testimony to Congress?
Why is this not brought out? Why are his meetings with the NVC representatives being ignored? That too is a dishonorable act, and probably illegal to boot.
Hmm..kerry's I've been to Paris and met with leaders sounds AWEFULLY familar! Now where have we heard that before..oh, the EU leaders and the Useless Nations security council.
Kerry spoke of meeting negotiators on Vietnam - Claimed US Was "Murdering" Vietnamese
Boston Globe ^ | 3/25/04 | Michael Kranish and Patrick Healy boston globe
WASHINGTON -- In a question-and-answer session before a Senate committee in 1971, John F. Kerry, who was a leading antiwar activist at the time, asserted that 200,000 Vietnamese per year were being "murdered by the United States of America" and said he had gone to the Paris and "talked with both delegations at the peace talks" and met with communist representatives.
Kerry, now the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, yesterday confirmed through a spokesman that he did go to Paris and talked privately with a leading communist representative. But the spokesman played down the extent of Kerry's role and said Kerry did not engage in negotiations.
Asked about the appropriateness of Kerry's saying that the United States had "murdered" 200,000 Vietnamese annually when the United States was at war, Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan said "Senator Kerry used a word he deems inappropriate."
Meehan said Kerry "never suggested or believed and absolutely rejects the idea that the word applied to service of the American soldiers in Vietnam." Meehan then declined to say to whom Kerry was referring when he said that the United States had murdered the Vietnamese; Kerry declined to be interviewed about the matter.
Kerry killed a Viet Cong fighter in an action his superiors deemed appropriate and for which he was awarded the Silver Star.
Kerry's speech before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 22, 1971, is one of the best-known moments of his life when he was involved in Vietnam Veterans Against the War. In that speech, Kerry asked: "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"
But the follow-up session of questions and answers, made public at the time in the official proceedings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has received little mainstream notice until now.
When Kerry was asked by committee chairman Senator J. William Fulbright how he proposed to end the war, the former Navy lieutenant said it should be ended immediately and mentioned his involvement in peace talks in Paris.
"I have been to Paris," Kerry said. "I have talked with both delegations at the peace talks, that is to say the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the Provisional Revolutionary Government and of all eight of Madam Binh's points . . . ."
The latter was a reference to a communist group based in South Vietnam. Historian Stanley Karnow, author of "Vietnam: A History," described the Provisional Revolutionary Government as "an arm of the North Vietnamese government." Madam Nguyen Thi Binh was a leader of the group and had a list of peace-talk points, including the suggestion that US prisoners of war would be released when American forces withdrew.
After their May 1970 marriage, Kerry traveled to Paris with his wife, Julia Thorne, on a private trip, Meehan said. Kerry did not go to Paris with the intention of meeting with participants in the peace talks or involving himself in the negotiations, Meehan added, saying that while there Kerry had his brief meeting with Binh, which included members of both delegations to the peace talks.
As Kerry runs for president, he is finding that many of his statements and activities over the last 33 years are drawing new attention. Last year, the Globe published White House transcripts of discussions about Kerry by President Nixon in the Oval Office. More recently, the Los Angeles Times focused on FBI surveillance reports, obtained by historian Gerald Nicosia, in which the FBI monitored meetings of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, a group that Kerry led in 1971.
Indeed, there may be a tie between Kerry's statement before the Senate committee and the interest of the FBI in his activities. One FBI report provided to the Globe by Nicosia shows that the government was monitoring whether Kerry planned to go to Paris again. Kerry was "planning to travel to Paris, France . . . for talks with North Vietnamese peace delegation," said the report, dated Nov. 11, 1971.
Kerry's Senate testimony spans about six pages in the committee publication, but the lesser-known question-and-answer session was another 24 pages. As he opened the latter session, Kerry said Nixon should declare a cease-fire and "accept a coalition regime which would represent all the political forces of the country which is in fact what a representative government is supposed to do and which is in fact what this government here in this country purports to do, and pull the troops out without losing one more American, and still further without losing the South Vietnamese."
Kerry then suggested that Congress should permit a special national referendum on ending the Vietnam War, leading Fulbright to remind Kerry that Congress "cannot directly under our system negotiate a cease-fire or anything of this kind. Under our constitutional system, we can advise the president." Kerry responded that, "I realize that full well as a study of political science. I realize that we cannot negotiate treaties, and I realize that even my visits in Paris, precedents had been set by Senator [Eugene] McCarthy and others, in a sense are on the borderline of private individuals negotiating, et cetera."
Kerry's statement dealt with the question of whether he was trying to negotiate in Paris as a private citizen and was thus on that "borderline" of what was allowable. A US law forbids citizens from negotiating with foreign governments on matters such as peace treaties. Meehan said Kerry was not negotiating.
"Senator Kerry had no role whatsoever in the Paris peace talks or negotiations," Meehan said in his statement. "He did not engage in any negotiations and did not attend any session of the talks. Prior to his Senate testimony, he went to Paris on a private trip, where he had one brief meeting with Madam Binh and others. In an effort to find facts, he learned the status of the peace talks from their point of view and about any progress in resolving the conflict, particularly as it related to the fate of the POWs."
Kerry's suggestion before the Senate committee that there be an immediate pullout led to questions about whether such a move would endanger the lives of South Vietnamese allies. Kerry responded that "this obviously is the most difficult question of all, but I think that at this point the United States is not really in a position to consider the happiness of those people as pertains to the army in our withdrawal." If the United States did not withdraw, Kerry said, then US bombing would continue, and "the war will continue. So what I am saying is that yes, there will be some recrimination but far, far less than the 200,000 a year who are murdered by the United States of America . . . ."
Meehan, asked to explain Kerry's comment, said: "During a very emotionally charged time in American history, Senator Kerry was testifying against a failed policy, which resulted in the killing of hundreds of thousands of people. That policy resulted in one of the highest civilian casualty rate in the history of war. In answering Senator [George D.] Aiken's question about the consequences of an American withdrawal and potential additional bloodbath, Senator Kerry used a word he deems inappropriate.
"Senator Kerry never suggested or believed and absolutely rejects the idea that the word applied to service of the American soldiers in Vietnam. While opposed to the failed policy, Senator Kerry insisted that Americans must never confuse the war with the warriors."
Kranish reported from Washington; Healy reported while traveling with Kerry. Kranish may be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org and Healy at email@example.com.
Version I of the Cambodia Story was told by Kerry in 1986 at a Senate committee hearing during a debate on U.S. policy toward Central America:
"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."
Version 2 of the Cambodia Story was written by John Kerry himself and published in the Boston Herald, October 14, 1979:
"I remember spending Christmas Eve of 1968 five miles across the Cambodian border being shot at by our South Vietnamese allies who were drunk and celebrating Christmas. The absurdity of almost killed by our own allies in a country in which President Nixon claimed there were no American troops was very real.""
Version 3 of the Cambodia Story was told by Kerry to Kevin Whitelaw, in "A Mission to Cambodia", by Kevin Whitelaw, May 08 2000, U. S. News and World Report:
"Sen. John Kerry made his first forays into Cambodia during the Vietnam War as a Navy lieutenant on clandestine missions to deliver weapons to anticommunist forces. When he returned last week, the mission was official, but dicey nonetheless. At the request of the United Nations, Kerry is trying to broker a compromise on how to try leaders of the former Khmer Rouge regime, whose late 1970s reign of terror claimed the lives of some 1.7 million Cambodians.
Version 4 of the Cambodia Story was released in a statement from Martin Meehan of the The Kerry Campaign:
In Meehan's statement Friday, the campaign said Kerry spent Christmas Eve 1968 in "the watery borders between Vietnam and Cambodia deep in enemy territory.
"In the early afternoon," the statement continues, "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."
It's anybody's guess what Version 5 will be, other than it will be one more whopper.
this is a disguised attack on the Swifties, and as such is crap
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.