Is John Kerry the New Democrat Golden Boy?
By Barbara Stock
January 26, 2004
The good citizens of Iowa handed Richard Gephardt a shocking loss and they put the oft-times raging Howard Dean into a nearly hysterical state. Iowa also presented Senator John Kerry with a huge surprise win. Kerry left Iowa for New Hampshire as the odds-on favorite to win the Democrat nomination.
Senator Kerry often speaks of his war record and his military service during the Vietnam war. No one doubts that he served and by most accounts, served well. Kerry was also awarded the distinctive honor of a Silver Star. But some questions linger.
The Silver Star is awarded to those who have exhibited ''gallantry in action'' while in combat with an enemy of the United States.
It's true that Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry was in combat. Indeed, his boat had been fired upon by the enemy. Kerry beached his boat and an enemy soldier broke and ran. Tom Belodeau, one of the boat's gunners, admitted this enemy soldier was wounded in the attack. Lt. Kerry then chased the wounded man behind a ''hootch'' where he ''finished him off.'' It was for this action that he was awarded the prestigious Silver Star.
There were some who felt this act was not deserving of such an honor. Dan Carr, a Marine who served 14 months in Vietnam, questioned whether such an honor should have been bestowed on a man who killed a retreating and wounded enemy soldier.
When young Kerry returned to the States, he began protesting against the Vietnam War. On April 23, 1971, Kerry testified before Congress about atrocities he had allegedly seen and heard about. He testified that American soldiers ''raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, [had] 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 stated there never was a communist threat in Vietnam.
He joined a group called ''Vietnam Vets against the War.'' This group eventually abandoned him because the members realized that he was using their cause as a platform for his own personal gain. He was making it appear as though American soldiers were out-of-control animals, rampaging across Vietnam torturing and killing for sport. This was not their message. They were protesting the war. They weren't accusing their fellow soldiers of being murderers and rapists. They had not seen any of the behavior Kerry stated he witnessed. One member remarked that Kerry seemed to be making it up to give people what they wanted to hear.
Recently, Senator Kerry gave a speech at a Vietnam War Memorial, and many of the veterans turned their backs to him and walked away. They saw him as the man who called them war criminals in his testimony before Congress. The man who received the Silver Star for killing a wounded, retreating enemy soldier, had accused them of hideous war crimes.
Michael Benge, a Viet Nam POW from 1968 to 1973, wants Americans to know that it was Kerry who blocked ''The Vietnam Human Rights Act.'' (HR-2833) Benge believes that action gave Hanoi the green light to ignore violations of human rights with the blessing of the United States.
Senator Kerry can often be heard making the statement that the Bush Administration is controlled solely by ''special interests.'' Of course, he is untouched by this disease that he says permeates the Republican Party.
The senator was the head of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs in 1992. He pushed vigorously to normalize relations with Vietnam. He visited Vietnam and praised them for being open and reported he was convinced they were not holding American POWs. Many families didn't believe him then and don't believe him now. But why would he be so anxious to normalize relations with the former enemy?
The answer is special interests and money. Collier's International, based in Boston, was immediately awarded the exclusive contract to rebuild Vietnam's infrastructure by the Vietnamese government. They made tens of millions of dollars from the contract. The chief executive officer of Collier's International was a man named C. Stewart Forbes. Interestingly, Senator Kerry's middle name is Forbes. There is a reason for that. C. Stewart Forbes is John Kerry's cousin.
The New Yorker Magazine touted Kerry as the senator who defeated the ''mendacious POW lobby.'' Yes, Kerry helped defeat those tenacious family members who wanted to know what happened to their missing loved ones. His strange bedfellow in this battle against POW families was none other than fellow Senator and former POW John McCain.
This committee's final report in 1993 was chilling. It determined that American POWs were left alive in Viet Nam after the war but felt none were still alive. It makes no attempt to identify those left behind, how they died, who killed them, and where their remains are located. They were abandoned in life and death.
Is Senator Kerry in full support of our intelligence gathering capabilities? His voting record indicates he is not.
In 1994/95, Kerry proposed a bill to gut $1.5 billion from intelligence and freeze spending for two major intelligence programs--the National Foreign Intelligence Program and Tactical Intelligence Program. (S. 1826) That bill did not make it to a vote, but the language was retooled, the amount dropped to $1 billion, and it was finally defeated as S. Amendment 1452 to H.R. 3759. (S. 1826, Introduced 2/3/94)
He voted to cut 80 million from the FBI budget. (HR-2076)
In 1997, Kerry felt there that were no threats to the United States. This prompted him to place this statement in the Congressional Record: ''Now that the [Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as Government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary?'' (Congressional Record, 5/1/97, p. S3891)
Twelve days after 9/11, Senator Kerry had the nerve to make this statement: ''And the tragedy is, at the moment, that the single most important weapon for the United States of America is intelligence. ...we are weakest, frankly, in that particular area. So it's going to take us time to be able to build up here to do this properly.'' (CBS's ''Face the Nation,'' 9/23/01)
After spending years trying to lay waste to our intelligence capabilities, succeeding at times, and failing at times, he now preaches about how our intelligence community was negligent.
In ''Golden Boy--Part Two,'' his abysmal record on supporting the military will be covered.
posted on 01/28/2004 3:33:33 PM PST
by Nix 2
(http://www.warroom.com QUINN AND ROSE from 6-10 AM-104.7 FM in da Burgh&WWVA AM)
To: Nix 2
You should post this on its on thread. I did a search on FR and did not find it. Do you still have the link to the article? I think this should get a LOT more coverage.
To: Nix 2; hotpotato
I think this will have legs too!
If he becomes the candidate, you can bet I'll be MAILING this to the headquarters of every VET Organization there is!
To: Nix 2
Bumping post 8!
To: Nix 2; dighton; hchutch
When young Kerry returned to the States, he began protesting against the Vietnam War. On April 23, 1971, Kerry testified before Congress about atrocities he had allegedly seen and heard about.
My post on The Many Faces of John Kerry is germane.
Under military law, what was the duty of an officer -- Kerry, for example -- if he possessed such information?
It is the affirmative duty, under both the UCMJ and under the basic strictures of human decency, of any service member--commissioned, warrant, or noncommissioned officer AND non-rate enlisted person alike--to report any such action to higher authority if he witnesses any such action, or has reasonable cause to believe that such an action was committed.
If Kerry had real reason to believe this, then he is guilty of several serious felonies under the UCMJ, and can conceivably be recalled to active duty to stand court-martial.
"Following his investigation of the My Lai massacre for the Army, Lieutenant General William R. Peers and his investigative team made highly unusual and largely unprecedented recommendations. The Peers Commission proposed that charges also be preferred against a number of American staff officers, including the division chief of staff, the brigade operations officer, the task force operations and intelligence officers, and the division chaplain...
"One of the conclusions Peers drew following his My Lai investigation was that there was widespread failure to report suspected war crimes and civilian casualties, despite numerous directives and standing operating procedures (SOPs) requiring such reports. Even more damning was the conclusion that individuals within the task force headquarters took affirmative steps to conceal the massacre, including falsifying logs by changing the locations where civilians were reportedly killed. A staff officer involved in concealing a war crime may be prosecuted as an accessory after the fact in violation of Article 78, for misprison of a serious offense in violation of Article 134, or for dereliction of duty in violation of Article 92."
From "Staff Officer Responsibility for War Crimes,", LTC Michael J. Davidson, USA, published in the Mar/April 2001 issue of Military Review, the professional journal of the US Army Command & General Staff College. The full article is available at this link to the Military Review Website.
Do we really want to elect a President who could be readily indicted and convicted of war crimes by the very same International Criminal Court he would order the State Department to operate under?
posted on 01/29/2004 9:04:12 AM PST
("Would you mind not shooting at the thermonuclear weapons?" -- Maj. Vic Deakins, USAF)
To: Nix 2
"In 1997, Kerry felt there that were no threats to the United States. This prompted him to place this statement in the Congressional Record: ''Now that the [Cold War] struggle is over, why is it that our vast intelligence apparatus continues to grow even as Government resources for new and essential priorities fall far short of what is necessary?'' (Congressional Record, 5/1/97, p. S3891)"
I have been reading online, and wanted to honestly offer you at least ONE spot on this post where you may be taking things out of context. If you follow the link below, and search 1997 Records for pages S3891 AND S3892, you will see that Kerry's message was not at all what you have implied.
As you see, he is actually talking about streamlining and coordinating existing intelligence groups so that they can work more in synch.
"Every bureaucrascy seeks to increase the superiority of the professionally informed by keeping their knowledge and interventions secret. Bureaucratic administration always tends to be an administration of 'secret sessions' in so far as it can, it hides its knowledge and action from criticism."
His speech has examples, much like 9/11, where lack of coordination due to excessive bureaucracy lost the US its edge.
He was not, as seems to be implied, attempting to hack off an arm of intelligence for no good reason. This one sentence is presented far from its context.
Please follow the link and see for yourself.
posted on 06/04/2004 4:14:37 PM PDT
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson