Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is John Kerry the new Democrat Golden Boy?
Opinion Editorials ^ | 1-24-04 | Barbara J. Stock

Posted on 01/25/2004 7:15:41 AM PST by SJackson

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 any 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.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2004; johnkerry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last
To: uncbob
Lot of medals in Vietnam were of the political type to officers who needed them for promotion...That was told to me by Green Berets and other veterans of that war... I had mentioned to one that Tom Ridge won the Bronze star and he said it is meaningless without a Purple Heart... Unfortunately it cheapens the medals for those that rightly deserved them

I don't know the circumstances of Tom Ridge's medal, but remember the Bronze Star is legitimately awarded for meritorious service. When combat heroism is involved, it comes with a V (Valor).

41 posted on 01/25/2004 10:28:38 AM PST by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
I've no problems with Kerry in the RVN, it's back here he has problems. Even if you accept his actions as legitimate protest (I don't), the circumstances of his break with the Viet Vets against the war is unclear to me.

They claim he was using them for self promotion, and they threw him out.

I believe he claims he quit after discovering they were "antiAmerican". That took him three months?

Lots of baggage, but I'm not sure it's an issue that will resonate. As you put it, his Treachery of the worst sort, to comrades as well as country seems to be accepted as honorable protest by far too many.

42 posted on 01/25/2004 10:39:45 AM PST by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RiflemanSharpe; HankReardon
Jobs won't help the dems in 04, we're early in an expansion and the numbers will continue to get better. The deficit, an issue, but their solution is raising taxes, which won't fly. 2008, after 7 or 8 years of the Reagan-Bush-Bush (that's how they'll play it), they may well have an issue, particularly if GWB doesn't hold the line on spending and reform social security.
43 posted on 01/25/2004 10:50:29 AM PST by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: RiflemanSharpe
deficit schmeficit.

1/2 the morons in this country don't know the difference btw deficit and debt
44 posted on 01/25/2004 10:53:17 AM PST by petercooper (Dean is done!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: BigLittle
who are the 2 ladies in the pic?
45 posted on 01/25/2004 10:53:52 AM PST by petercooper (Dean is done!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: petercooper
deficit schmeficit.

1/2 the morons in this country don't know the difference btw deficit and debt

That is one of the thing that will help them. All they have to say is look at this huger number, and then point the finger and assign blaim.
46 posted on 01/25/2004 10:56:06 AM PST by RiflemanSharpe (An American for a more socially and fiscally conservation America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
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.

This is the first we are hearing of this? If a Republican did this, he would be labeled a War Criminal!
47 posted on 01/25/2004 10:56:13 AM PST by Democratshavenobrains
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RiflemanSharpe
I guess you're right - it's sad ignorant people get vote and cancel out our votes.
48 posted on 01/25/2004 10:58:11 AM PST by petercooper (Dean is done!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Democratshavenobrains
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...This is the first we are hearing of this? If a Republican did this, he would be labeled a War Criminal!

Likely not, but he's got plenty of baggage from that era, I don't think questioning his Silver Star is the best place to start.

49 posted on 01/25/2004 10:59:44 AM PST by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

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.

 

Portion of John Kerry remarks on NBC's "Meet the Press" May 6, 2001:
Excerpt   (Audiotape, April 18, 1971):


MR. CROSBY NOYES (Washington Evening Star): Mr. Kerry, you said at one time or
another that you think our policies in Vietnam are tantamount to genocide
and that the responsibility lies at all chains of command over there. Do
you consider that you personally as a Naval officer committed atrocities in
Vietnam or crimes punishable by law in this country?


KERRY: There are all kinds of atrocities, and I would have to say that,
yes, yes,
I committed the same kind of atrocities

 

"Golden Boy" indeed.

50 posted on 01/25/2004 11:00:13 AM PST by ancient_geezer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
To look at the deficit truthfully it must be considered with the size of the economy. Just throwing the deficit numbers out there like the Democrats do, does not tell the whole story. Bush said the deficit can be brought down in 5 years by staying the course of economic growth and restrained growth in the federal government. I agree.
51 posted on 01/25/2004 11:02:50 AM PST by HankReardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: HankReardon
Clinton ran the surpluses expected in the late stages of an expansion. GWB inherited the deficits of a contraction, complicated by post 9/11 defense spending, normal. But by virtually everyones projections (I know, all unreliable) we'll still be running a deficit of $200 billion or so in 08.

On a secular basis we're well out of balance, running a large net deficit over multiple cycles which will intensify as ss transfer payments increase in a couple decades. "Bringing it down" isn't enough. Maybe taxing the "guest workers" will solve it, but I'm not optimistic.

The deficit will be an issue in the future.

52 posted on 01/25/2004 11:11:19 AM PST by SJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: alrea
You are absolutely right. Great work, Clinton Justice Dept.
53 posted on 01/25/2004 11:12:37 AM PST by georgia peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
The deficit will be an issue in the future.


For many deficits are an issue now. And it iis one of the few that the dems have that they can bash GWB on with the independent voters.
54 posted on 01/25/2004 11:13:21 AM PST by RiflemanSharpe (An American for a more socially and fiscally conservation America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: noutopia
How did he get that big head up Jane Fondas butt?

You're assuming she is normal in that part of the anatomy, and hasn't, er, become shopworn from misuse.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

55 posted on 01/25/2004 12:13:48 PM PST by Criminal Number 18F
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Cutting and downsizing governments at all levels is the right answer. Do not tax more, tax less. Surpluses are dangerous because career government people are successful when they expand and grow their business, government is their business, a surplus budget enables them to do this. That's why the local and state budgets were in the red when the recession hit, they grew their budgets through the 90's and when the revenue stream decreased they all screamed we have to raise taxes now! And they did! What idocy! The boom is here, it's time to put the pressure on them to lower taxes or the budgets will grow again. Some racket, huh?
56 posted on 01/25/2004 12:14:44 PM PST by HankReardon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: HankReardon
government is their business

pretty low risk bizness to be in. it never shrinks. your job is always safe.

can we all get one? can we?

57 posted on 01/25/2004 1:13:45 PM PST by alrea (let's go back to when liberalism meant freedom from central authority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
taxing the "guest workers"

bump

58 posted on 01/25/2004 1:14:54 PM PST by alrea (let's go back to when liberalism meant freedom from central authority)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: RiflemanSharpe
A Kerry and Edwards ticket could be quite formidable, particularly if the hammer jobs and the deficit.

A B.B.C. programme this afternoon suggested that this was the Dems best chance of beating Bush. I agree, and it seems to be getting more likely. They balance each other in several ways, and giving them credit where it's due, they have both pulled off strong campaign gains in recent weeks. The first lesson of politics is never underestimate your opponent, the G.O.P. can (and should) ignore Dean, learn that they can about Kerry and Edwards, and be prepared to fight hard if this is the Democrat ticket.
59 posted on 01/25/2004 1:20:27 PM PST by tjwmason (A voice from Merry England.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dictatorMA
You're right about the press being on Kerry's side. This morning on one of the news shows Kerry was gassing on about Bush being "divisive" instead of bringing people together and later the show had clips of Bush promising to bring people together. As if to say, "see, see, Kerry is right, Bush hasn't kept his promises". It was egregiously biased.

The thing is, Kerry has no charisma. Zip, none. Go to his webpage and he admits it, declaring he has less charisma than John McCain. So the media has to help out and make Kerry look like he could be Presidential in the real world - other than in his mind.

Kerry has that grim look and he talks a grim talk and he oozes a grim spirit. It'll be grim for the United States if the media successfully foists him on the American people.
60 posted on 01/25/2004 2:02:58 PM PST by Sabatier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson