PDA

View Full Version : Must Read


watermock
07-20-2004, 02:30 AM
What You Don’t Know About John Kerry
Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com
Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2004
With his win in Iowa, Sen. John Kerry could be on his way to the White House. But most Americans are unaware of the real Kerry.
Here are facts and quotations that reveal the character of the new Democrat leader.


Denouncing America with ‘Hanoi Jane’: Although Wesley Clark and others have attacked former front-runner Howard Dean as a draft-dodging ski bum, Kerry is far more complex than the simple war hero he portrays himself as.
He became a celebrated organizer for one of America's most extreme appeasement groups, Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He consorted with the likes of “Hanoi” Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark, Lyndon Johnson’s radical former attorney general.

He attended a seminar bankrolled by Fonda in Detroit in February 1971. Watching 125 self-proclaimed Vietnam veterans testify at a Howard Johnson’s about atrocities allegedly committed by U.S. forces, the man who would be president later said he found the accounts shocking and irrefutable.

Dubbed “The Winter Soldier Investigation,” the protest attracted minimal media attention, according to the Los Angeles Times, because Fonda insisted it be held in the remote Michigan city rather than the less “authentic” Washington, D.C.

Still, the event gave Kerry an idea for a protest that was sure to be a media smash, and he immediately set out to organize one of the most confrontational protests of the war.

Operation Dewey Canyon III began on April 18, 1971, when nearly 1,000 Vietnam veterans and people claiming to be veterans gathered on Washington’s Mall for what they called “a limited incursion into the country of Congress.”

The group staged mock firefights on the steps of the Capitol and Supreme Court and defied U.S. Park Police after the Department of Justice issued an injunction barring it from camping on the Mall.


Those evil American soldiers: Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971, Kerry claimed that U.S. soldiers had “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.”

‘We are not the best’: In his testimony, Kerry claimed there was no communist threat and said: “In 1970 at West Point Vice President Agnew said ‘some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse,’ and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam. But for us, as boys in Asia whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion, and hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country ….”
U.S. Veteran Dispatch noted in 1996: “Kerry's testimony, it should be noted, occurred while some of his fellow Vietnam veterans were known by the world to be enduring terrible suffering as prisoners of war in North Vietnamese prisons. Kerry was a supporter of the ‘People's Peace Treaty,’" a supposed ‘people's’ declaration to end the war, reportedly drawn up in communist East Germany. It included nine points, all of which were taken from Viet Cong peace proposals at the Paris peace talks as conditions for ending the war.”


Throw as I say, not as I do: On that same day he led members of VVAW in a protest during which they threw their medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol.
Kerry later admitted the medals he threw were not his. To this day they hang on the wall of his office.


Communist stooge: The communist Daily World delightedly published photos of him speaking to demonstrators and boasted that the marchers displayed a banner depicting a portrait of Communist Party leader Angela Davis, on record stating, “I am dedicated to the overthrow of your system of government and your society,” the New American recalled in May 2003.
“By frequently participating in VVAW’s demonstrations, Kerry found himself marching alongside what the Boston Herald Traveler identified as ‘revolutionary Communists.’ While noting that known Reds had openly organized these events, the December 12, 1971 Herald Traveler reported the presence of an ‘abundance of Vietcong flags, clenched fists raised in the air, and placards plainly bearing legends in support of China, Cuba, the USSR, North Korea and the Hanoi government.’"

Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry says: “As a national leader of VVAW, Kerry campaigned against the effort of the United States to contain the spread of Communism. He used the blood of servicemen still in the field for his own political advancement by claiming that their blood was being shed unnecessarily or in vain.

“Under Kerry's leadership, VVAW members mocked the uniform of United States soldiers by wearing tattered fatigues marked with pro-communist graffiti. They dishonored America by marching in demonstrations under the flag of the Viet Cong enemy.”

Sen. John McCain revealed that his North Vietnamese captors had used reports of Kerry-led protests to taunt him and his fellow prisoners. Retired General George S. Patton III angrily noted that Kerry’s actions had “given aid and comfort to the enemy.”

In recent years when Kerry has exploited the Vietnam Veterans Memorial for photo opportunities on Veterans Day, some veterans, still outraged by his betrayal, have turned their backs on him.



The book he doesn’t want you to see: When Kerry ran for election to the U.S. House of Representative in 1972, “he found it necessary to suppress reproduction of the cover picture appearing on his own book, The New Soldier. His political opponent pointed out that it depicted several unkempt youths crudely handling an American flag to mock the famous photo of the U.S. Marines at Iwo Jima,” according to Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry.
“Suddenly, copies of the book became unavailable and even disappeared from libraries. But the Lowell (Mass.) Sun said of the type of person shown on its cover: ‘These people spit on the flag, they burn the flag, they carry the flag upside down, [and] they all but wipe their noses with it in their efforts to show their contempt for everything it still stands for,’” the New American reported.

Even today it is hard to find this infamous photo and book.

watermock
07-20-2004, 02:36 AM
Sen. John McCain revealed that his North Vietnamese captors had used reports of Kerry-led protests to taunt him and his fellow prisoners. Retired General George S. Patton III angrily noted that Kerry’s actions had “given aid and comfort to the enemy.”

watermock
07-20-2004, 02:38 AM
These people spit on the flag, they burn the flag, they carry the flag upside down, [and] they all but wipe their noses with it in their efforts to show their contempt for everything it still stands for,’” the New American reported.

Even today it is hard to find this infamous photo and book.

This is our war hero.

Taco John
07-20-2004, 02:44 AM
Keep it out of the main forum.

Taco John
07-20-2004, 02:48 AM
And good Christ... What is it with all of these Bush supporters who want to criticize John Kerry's service record? Do they know nothing of Bush's service record? It's not exactly impressive.

Find something else to criticize Kerry over. Swing voters aren't going to buy any of this crap given the fact that Bush's service record is so questionable. You couldn't be wasting your breath any more...

watermock
07-20-2004, 03:01 AM
You seem rather scared with the truth.

Blueflame
07-20-2004, 03:14 AM
You seem rather scared with the truth.

Do you really consider NewsMax articles "the truth"?? :o :o :o

Rohirrim
07-20-2004, 06:30 AM
You seem rather scared with the truth.

Truth? Yeah, about 20% of that might be called truth. The rest is just muck for the brainless mulletheads to consume.

Rascal
07-20-2004, 06:43 AM
Truth? Yeah, about 20% of that might be called truth. The rest is just muck for the brainless mulletheads to consume.

You can substitutute that comment with about all the other sites you and your liberal friends use all the time.

Attack the message not the messenger.

Come on, don't be hypocrites. You guys have said it not me, now practice what you preach.

Rohirrim
07-20-2004, 07:28 AM
This stuff has been gone over with a fine tooth comb on this site in numerous threads. The "truth" and the "facts" are meaningless in the face of the hatred that so many on this site have for Kerry. It's a pointless exercise to continue. Believe what you want to believe.

football idiot
07-20-2004, 07:40 AM
this isn't an attack on Kerry's war record, which no doubt will be exploited for all it's worth. 3 purple hearts for minor flesh wounds, etc.

it's an attack on the young Kerry that joined a bunch of anti-American communists that marched around carrying Vietcong flags, while American soldiers were still held captive by the enemy.

maybe it's all crap, no doubt it's as biased a piece as Moore's film, but the fact is that Kerry went for war-hero to war-protester, but he doesnt' talk much about what he did after he got home from the war, who his friends were, or how he got started in politics.

Rascal
07-20-2004, 07:46 AM
This stuff has been gone over with a fine tooth comb on this site in numerous threads. The "truth" and the "facts" are meaningless in the face of the hatred that so many on this site have for Kerry. It's a pointless exercise to continue. Believe what you want to believe.

Substitute Bush for Kerry and yes you have it about right.

Hatred of so many with Kerry. Are you blind? There are about 3 Bush haters for every one of Kerry.

Captain_Poncho
07-20-2004, 07:54 AM
Kerry pulls his own book from shelves (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/2/prweb103472.htm)

Says a great deal to me about what he's ashamed of. Looks like this isn't just something Newsmax made up...

Rascal
07-20-2004, 08:10 AM
This really pisses me off. Every time I read about his actions when he got back ridiculing our troops sets me off. If you are a former soldier how can you vote for this man?

Rascal
07-20-2004, 08:12 AM
Kerry pulls his own book from shelves (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/2/prweb103472.htm)

Says a great deal to me about what he's ashamed of. Looks like this isn't just something Newsmax made up...

here is an excerpt from that source:

"But the reason why a former library book with no dust jacket and “slight wear" might fetch an asking price of over three hundred dollars is somewhat more complex.

The description in one of the Ebay listings reads, "Due to the controversial nature of the book, most copies were pulled off the shelves when Kerry decided to run for office making this book a rare find."

The seller of the first book stated that he is a Republican with an open mind and had got his copy signed at the Old Capitol mall in Iowa City when Kerry was campaigning there recently. But he had some reservations about the item he was selling. “I am a marine and do not care for the cover of the book,” he said. Because “what they are actually trying to do is mock the Iwo Jima flag raising done by the marines in the past.”

Iwo Jima is where nearly 7000 marines died in World War II. Six marines were forever immortalized in a photograph as they raised the American flag over the island. Only three of the six ever got to go home again.

The cover of "The New Soldier" features a group of long-haired men mimicking the famous photograph with an upside down flag.

We'll probably be seeing a lot more of this rare book in the coming months."

This really hacks me off. A presidential candidate with a book like this, wtf are we doing? We are willing to vote for a candidate that does this sort of stuff? This is sad.

watermock
07-20-2004, 08:37 AM
How classic.

Mock is attacked once again for telling the truth.

The "truth" and the "facts" are meaningless in the face of the hatred that so many on this site have for Kerry.

How amusing.

Rohirrim
07-20-2004, 09:08 AM
this isn't an attack on Kerry's war record, which no doubt will be exploited for all it's worth. 3 purple hearts for minor flesh wounds, etc.

it's an attack on the young Kerry that joined a bunch of anti-American communists that marched around carrying Vietcong flags, while American soldiers were still held captive by the enemy.

maybe it's all crap, no doubt it's as biased a piece as Moore's film, but the fact is that Kerry went for war-hero to war-protester, but he doesnt' talk much about what he did after he got home from the war, who his friends were, or how he got started in politics.

Trying to judge those times through the prism of these times is an impossible task. There are 58,000 American names on that Wall who died for a lie. There are now 900+ American names that will take their place on a new wall, for a new lie. And now, like then, there are many who rip into those who believe that then, as now, they should stand up and say that a lie is a lie is a lie - and that the emperor has no clothes. Attack the messenger. So what? The dead are still dead, and the lies are still lies.

Oh, BTW - they weren't communists, they were Americans (many of them veterans) who also wanted to fight lies, although I realize it's much easier to attack them when they are "them" and not "us."

Captain_Poncho
07-20-2004, 09:25 AM
There are 58,000 American names on that Wall who died for a lie.

They died not for a lie. They died moreover because we fought that war with one hand tied behind our backs.

Rohirrim
07-20-2004, 09:35 AM
They died not for a lie. They died moreover because we fought that war with one hand tied behind our backs.

I agree that the strategic thinking used in Vietnam was idiotic. That doesn't change the fact that the U.S. had no vital interest in the region and that a pack of misconceptions followed by lies (to cover up the original mistakes) put our troops on the ground there.

The difference between then and now? Then, the majority of Americans finally came around to see the light. Now? More than half still believe the lies.

Taco John
07-20-2004, 09:36 AM
It's pretty hard for me to get worked up over someone protesting a war that I've been taught since childhood that we shouldn't have been in, in the first place. Whether his medals were flesh wounds or not are immaterial to me. I respect his service just for the fact that he went over.

It's odd to me that Bush supporters would spend so much time attacking Kerry's record, and then turn around and feel no need to defend Bush's record.

I mean, whatever. It doesn't matter to me. I'm a libertarian who is voting against Bush either way. Not because of either guy's service record, but because I think that in this crucial point in our nation's history, we need a president who is at least capable of thinking on his feet.

So meaninglessly attack Kerry's service record all you want. But when you talk about what the truth is, don't forget that the truth is that Bush isn't a guy who has demonstrated that he is a guy who is capable of thinking on his feet.

It seems to me that actual combat experience might actually come in handy for something like that... But who can say for sure?

What I can say for sure is that I don't believe our democracy can support another four years of the kind of neglect it has endured since Bush took office, and I, for one, am looking forward to my ballot to make sure that young Bush goes the same way as his pappy.

I'm looking forward to the day when Republicans put a real conservative in the seat. One who believes in spending cuts before tax cuts, and works feverishly to present the case to the United States Congress... and not the United Nations, before going to war. I'm tired of seeing our "conservatives" legitimize the UN. Both Bushes have given the UN more legitimacy than they could have ever dreamed of from American Administrations.

Captain_Poncho
07-20-2004, 09:55 AM
I agree that the strategic thinking used in Vietnam was idiotic. That doesn't change the fact that the U.S. had no vital interest in the region and that a pack of misconceptions followed by lies (to cover up the original mistakes) put our troops on the ground there.

You're right in that we didn't really have an interest whatsoever in that region. Stopping the spread of communism turns out to not be such a big deal, in hindsight (Reagan almost single-handedly took care of that later). The fact remains that had we decided to actually fight like we are capable, with all the ammo in our bag, we would have easily won in about half the time.

The difference between then and now? Then, the majority of Americans finally came around to see the light. Now? More than half still believe the lies.

And this is where I think you're just letting a leftist bent skew your reasoning. There have been zero lies. Zero. We've certainly screwed up on intelligence, but that's a far cry from telling outright lies.

Let me ask you this: If Bush knew for a fact there were not going to be WMDs to be found in Iraq (which is something everyone from Clinton to France and the UN believed), why would he go in anyway, knowing he'd wind up with egg on his face when none were found? It doesn't make any sense.

All the conspiracy theories paint Bush as an evil genius, bent on lining his oil buddies' pockets. So wouldn't this evil genius have the foresight to actually at least PLANT some WMDs, thus easily diffusing the oncoming controversy?

Captain_Poncho
07-20-2004, 09:58 AM
It's pretty hard for me to get worked up over someone protesting a war that I've been taught since childhood that we shouldn't have been in, in the first place.

Which just means you got taught someone's opinion as opposed to being taught just the facts. And then you embraced the opinion you were fed as a youngster.

Taco John
07-20-2004, 10:02 AM
You're right in that we didn't really have an interest whatsoever in that region. Stopping the spread of communism turns out to not be such a big deal, in hindsight (Reagan almost single-handedly took care of that later). The fact remains that had we decided to actually fight like we are capable, with all the ammo in our bag, we would have easily won in about half the time.


It's interesting, because I believe that about this war, which I believe Rumsfeld has mismanaged, and should have honorably (or dishonorably, as it were) stepped down long ago and let someone else handle it.

I can't believe he thumbed his nose at the Powell doctrine, and went in undermanned. I don't think we'd have nearly as much trouble containing the situation if we weren't undermanned over there.


And this is where I think you're just letting a leftist bent skew your reasoning. There have been zero lies. Zero. We've certainly screwed up on intelligence, but that's a far cry from telling outright lies.

:kiddingme

The first thing that's sacrificed at war time is the truth. I can't believe anybody would even try to claim "Zero" lies.

Wow.




All the conspiracy theories paint Bush as an evil genius, bent on lining his oil buddies' pockets. So wouldn't this evil genius have the foresight to actually at least PLANT some WMDs, thus easily diffusing the oncoming controversy?


I don't know a single conspiracy theory that paints Bush as an evil genius. All the ones I've ever heard paint him as a puppet being strung by someone else.

Which would answer this question:

Let me ask you this: If Bush knew for a fact there were not going to be WMDs to be found in Iraq (which is something everyone from Clinton to France and the UN believed), why would he go in anyway, knowing he'd wind up with egg on his face when none were found? It doesn't make any sense.

Taco John
07-20-2004, 10:05 AM
Which just means you got taught someone's opinion as opposed to being taught just the facts. And then you embraced the opinion you were fed as a youngster.



Then I'm an open book. If what I was taught since childhood was wrong, and we had a legitimate purpose for being in Vietnam for our national interest that was worth sacrificing 58,000 of our own troops, I welcome you to correct the misconception.

I've never had anyone try to justify our presence in Vietnam... From liberal to conservative. No one has ever tried. All I've heard from both sides is that it was somewhere we never belonged in the first place.

I welcome you to be the first conservative to ever try to justify that war to me.

Captain_Poncho
07-20-2004, 10:21 AM
The first thing that's sacrificed at war time is the truth. I can't believe anybody would even try to claim "Zero" lies.

Wow.

Point them out specifically to me then, Taco. Since you know what they were and all.

I don't know a single conspiracy theory that paints Bush as an evil genius.

Then you haven't been reading your own board very often.

All the ones I've ever heard paint him as a puppet being strung by someone else. Which would answer this question:

And what great theories they are.

So what you're trying to assert is that since Bush is just a puppet, the handlers that own him aren't smart enough to plant WMDs to keep their puppet from looking bad, thus lowering their chances to keep their Manchurian Candidate in office for anoher term?

Do you know how riproaringly stupid that is?

Wow.

Captain_Poncho
07-20-2004, 10:24 AM
Then I'm an open book. If what I was taught since childhood was wrong, and we had a legitimate purpose for being in Vietnam for our national interest that was worth sacrificing 58,000 of our own troops, I welcome you to correct the misconception.

I've never had anyone try to justify our presence in Vietnam... From liberal to conservative. No one has ever tried. All I've heard from both sides is that it was somewhere we never belonged in the first place.

I welcome you to be the first conservative to ever try to justify that war to me.

You just don't quite get it, do you?

I never justified the war. But you sure seem to hint that I'm trying.

What I said was, since you seem to need a repeat, that you simply embraced the opinions of your teachers from your youth. Not uncommon, but you'd think a grown man would be able to use something else besides "my teachers said when I was in school..." as foundation.

Taco John
07-20-2004, 10:29 AM
My teachers. My relatives. Everyone I know. Including you, now.

Aparently, everybody I know feels that we shouldn't have been over there.

I'm not sure what your point was, given the outcome of it. I think you were trying to say I should listen to more than my teachers on the subject, but then when offered an open door to give me your opinion on it, you say that I don't quite get it, and then refuse to offer said differing opinion.

I guess you're right. I don't quite get it.

What was it that you were trying for me to get, again?

Rohirrim
07-20-2004, 10:32 AM
When does the warping of facts to reach a specific conclusion become lies? I don't know. Gray area.

So a guy sells me a car and a week later it blows up. He told me it had no major problems. Now he says that he knew the oil pump was shot - but he didn't consider that "major." Did he lie?

Taco John
07-20-2004, 10:37 AM
Point them out specifically to me then, Taco. Since you know what they were and all.


Well... Someone lied about weapons of mass destruction. Someone who obviously wnated in the region pretty badly. Hell, I bought on. Apparently, it was all a lie.



Then you haven't been reading your own board very often.

Indeed. I typically stay away from the politics threads over here. I'm suprised that anyone would paint Bush as a genius anything.


And what great theories they are.

So what you're trying to assert is that since Bush is just a puppet, the handlers that own him aren't smart enough to plant WMDs to keep their puppet from looking bad, thus lowering their chances to keep their Manchurian Candidate in office for anoher term?

I have no idea the logistics that would go into planting weapons of mass destruction in such a way that it wouldn't be noticed by our enemies' (France, Russia, China, et al) spy cams. Seems like doing something like that would require a hell of an operation. I can't imagine it would be an easy task. I doubt such a plan would even be possible. How would you plant that kind of evidence and make it believable?