John Kerry : Threat of Communism Is Exaggerated

To John Kerry, any threat to the United States is an exaggeration. He said so about terrorism in a debate last month, and little has apparently changed in his understanding of the nature of foreign threats to this country over the course of three decades.

During his infamous Senate testimony in 1971, young John F(onda) Kerry shows the same dismissive tone about the threat of communism. Read the excerpts below:

...It is my opinion that the United States is still reacting in very much the 1945 mood and postwar cold-war period when we reacted to the forces which were at work in World War II and came out of it with this paranoia about the Russians and how the world was going to be divided up between the super powers, and the foreign policy of John Foster Dulles which was responsible for the created of the SEATO treaty, which was, in fact, a direct reaction to this so-called Communist monolith. And I think we are reacting under cold-war precepts which are no longer applicable.

I say that because so long as we have the kind of strike force we have, and I am not party to the secret statistics which you gentlemen have here, but as long as we have the ones which we of the public know we have, I think we have a strike force of such capability and I think we have a strike force simply in our Polaris submarines, in the 62 or some Polaris submarines, which are constantly roaming around under the sea. And I know as a Navy man that underwater detection is the hardest kind in the world, and they have not perfected it, that we have the ability to destroy the human race. Why do we have to, therefore, consider and keep considering threats?

Therefore, I think it is ridiculous to assume we have to play this power game based on total warfare. I think there will be guerrilla wars and I think we must have a capability to fight those. And we may have to fight them somewhere based on legitimate threats, but we must learn, in this country, how to define those threats and that is what I would say to the question of world peace. I think it is bogus, totally artificial. There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands.

Do we want to elect a Chief Executive who has consistently disaplayed a lack of understanding of Communism and Terrorism, the last two great ideological enemies of the United States?

Check the Newsweek article by Michael Isikoff: Cash and Kerry

The gift: He rails against big donors, but he knows the drill. Just ask Johnny Chung

Raking it in: Kerry has few qualms about working big donors
By Michael Isikoff Newsweek

Feb. 9 issue - John Kerry needed cash, and soon. In July 1996 the Massachusetts senator was locked in a tough re-election fight, so he was more than happy to help when he heard that a generous potential contributor wanted to visit his Capitol Hill office. The donor was Johnny Chung, a glad-handing Taiwanese- American entrepreneur. Chung brought along some friends, including a Hong Kong businesswoman named Liu Chaoying.

Told that Liu was interested in getting one of her companies listed on the U.S. Stock Exchange, Kerry's aides immediately faxed over a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The next day, Liu and Chung were ushered into a private briefing with a senior SEC official. Within weeks, Chung returned the favor: On Sept. 9 he threw Kerry a fund- raiser at a Beverly Hills hotel, raking in $10,000 for the senator's re-election campaign.

In a 30-year career untainted by scandal, Kerry's encounter with Chung and Liu would turn into a political embarrassment. Federal investigators later discovered that Liu was in fact a lieutenant colonel in China's People's Liberation Army and vice president of a Chinese-government-owned aerospace firm. And Chung, who visited the Clinton White House 49 times, went on to become a central figure in the foreign- money scandals of 1996. Chung eventually pleaded guilty to funneling $28,000 in illegal contributions to the campaigns of Bill Clinton and Kerry. According to bank records and Chung's congressional testimony, the contributions came out of $300,000 in overseas wire transfers sent on orders from the chief of Chinese military intelligence—and routed through a Hong Kong bank account controlled by Liu.

There was never any suggestion that Kerry knew about the dubious origins of Chung's largesse. Still, the appearance that the senator had played a cynical cash- for-favors game forced him to play damage control. In January 1998 he told the Boston Herald that the timing of the SEC meeting and the subsequent fund-raiser was "totally coincidental" and "entirely staff driven." He said the Beverly Hills event had been set up by a professional fund-raiser, and that he had never even met Chung until the night of the event. But congressional documents obtained by NEWSWEEK seem to tell a different story. "Dear Johnny, It was a great pleasure to have met you last week," Kerry told Chung in a handwritten note dated July 31, 1996. "Barbara [a Kerry fund-raiser] told me of your willingness to help me with my campaign... It means a lot to have someone like you on my team as I face the toughest race of my career." That same day the Kerry fund-raiser faxed a memo to Chung that read, in part: "The following are two ways in which you can be helpful to John." No. 1 was "Host an event in L.A. on Saturday, Sept. 9th." (A Kerry spokesman acknowledged that the senator may have met with Chung prior to the fund-raiser, but not in his Senate office.)

Taking the Battle to the Decision Belt

The stakes in the Democratic race may be highest in the close-call states of 2000, where the winner could tip the scales red or blue this fall. Bush’s margin of victory in these battleground states in the 2000 election was only 5.6%. A road map to the must-win territories:

• THE WEST • THE MIDWEST • THE NORTHEAST • THE SOUTH

THE WEST

Washington Winner in 2000 election - Gore Margin of victory in 2000 election - 5.6% Dean has the edge, but Kerry just sent 12 more staffers. His military experience bodes well on bases in Tacoma, and his alternative-energy stance appeals to environmentalists.

Oregon Winner in 2000 election - Gore Margin of victory in 2000 election - 0.4% A May 18 primary leaves the state quiet for now. Dean supporters are crossing the border north to whip up support in Washington

Nevada Winner in 2000 election - Bush Margin of victory in 2000 election - 3.5% Kerry and Clark earned points by opposing controversial nuclear-waste dump. Edwards seems out of step to locals.

New Mexico Winner in 2000 election – Gore Margin of victory in 2000 election - .06% Dean reaped the benefits of powerhouse Gov. Bill Richardson’s praise, along with his efforts to turn out Latino voters. Clark has made inroads and is polling a close second.

On the campaign trail, Kerry routinely attacks the president for his ties to big-dollar donors. Kerry championed campaign-finance reform, and refused money from corporate or labor political-action committees. But in some ways, he has played the Washington money game as aggressively as the Republicans he scolds. Over the years, reports the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, Kerry has raised more than $30 million for his Senate campaigns. A good portion has come from industries with an interest in the committees on which Kerry has a seat— including more than $3 million from financial firms (Kerry serves on the Senate Finance Committee). Kerry insists he is meticulous about avoiding any conflicts. "If these interests are giving money in hopes of buying influence with the senator, well, they should save their money because it won't work," says Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter.

• John Kerry on the South "I think the person who has to worry about coming down and campaigning in the South is President George Bush."

Though he has shunned PAC donations, which are limited to $5,000 apiece, the senator in 2001 formed a fund-raising group called the Citizen Soldier Fund, which brought in more than $1.2 million in unregulated "soft money." Kerry pledged he would limit individual donations to $10,000. But in late 2002, just before new federal laws banning soft money took effect, Kerry quietly lifted the ceiling and took all the cash he could get. In the month before the election, the fund raised nearly $879,000—including $27,500 from wireless telecom firms such as T-Mobile, AT&T and Verizon. That same month, Kerry cosponsored a bill to overturn a judge's ruling and permit the wireless firms to bid on billions of dollars' worth of wireless airwaves. Kerry aide Cutter says it's a "stretch" to draw any connection between the two events.

Why did Kerry abandon his own rules about contribution limits? "This was just before the election, and it was clear the Democrats needed all their resources to fight the Bush money machine," Cutter says. Kerry spread the windfall strategically. More than a third of the fund's contributions went to just three states critical to a senator plotting a run for the White House: Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Today that certainly seems like money well spent. Now, after a tough, expensive fight to the front, Kerry once again finds himself scrambling to find new sources of cash. He has personally urged more than a dozen top supporters to raise $100,000 each before the Feb. 3 primaries. As the money rolls in, he'll likely be taking a hard look not just at the numbers on the checks—but at the signatures, too.

"Communism was an unsustainable, government-directed plan-based economic system without any potential for innovation because it lacked a proper incentive structure. Given that communism collapsed generally out of its inability to transition...We just needed to wait it out"

Bullcrap! After our setback in Vietnam, the Soviet Union engaged in one of its most expansionist programs since the end of WWII...invading 10 countries from 1974 to 1979 (AEI statistic). From N. Africa to the Mid-East (Afghanistan) to Central and S. America, the Soviets hand their hands in everyone's pie. While I will concede that Communism, in general, doesn't bode well for a growing and prosperous economy, the Soviets didn't simply rely on their economic system to support their government. They used their expansionism to set up proxy governments that in turn, would be in debt/provide booty, to the Soviet Union. The only thing that stopped them from succeeding and collecting on those debts, was Reagan's aggressive interventionism.

If the Soviets had succeeded in setting up these proxy governments, unhindered, they would have had new trading partners that would've coelesced to form an economic bloc (similar, but larger than the Tripartite Pact prior WWII) that would've supported each other, especially the Soviet Union. Fortunately, from Grenada to N. Africa to Nicaragua, Afghanistan, etc., Reagan met the Soviets head on with insurgents of his own.

Afghanistan was especially important, as this was to be the Soviets backdoor into the Mid-East and their wealth of oil. This also explains the Soviets overwhelming support for Saddam as they got more involved in the Iran/Iraq war in an attempt to further destabilze the region. Heck, by 1972 the Soviets had over 15,000 troops in Egypt, training their forces in what was a mutual freindship pact. A closer look shows that had the Soviets been successful in the Mid-East, they would've had enormous amounts of wealth at their disposal.

While the "closed" economic system of Communism is doomed to failure, the Soviets had "opened-up" their system through expansionism and allies who would've helped support the survival of the Soviet Union for some time to come. The Soviet system collapsed becasue they were forced at every turn to expend more resources and men because Reagan confronted them at every oppurtunity. Reagan made them spend more because he built up our military, forcing them to do the same. If not for this intervention the Soviets would have spent much less and established new trading partners that would've helped the Soviet Union recover and further prosper. Sorry... the Soviet Union was still a threat and Reagan was directly responsible for its failure.

Pitchforkl: "Communism was an unsustainable, government-directed plan-based economic system without any potential for innovation because it lacked a proper incentive structure. Given that communism collapsed generally out of its inability to transition...We just needed to wait it out"

Absoultely remarkable! Pitchfork's assertions demonstrated a startlingly ignorant position (identical to the modern Clinton-Liberal), breath-taking in its degree of divorce from reality. Pitchfork really should read the Venona Papers, and Peter Schweitzer's books "Victory (1993)" and "Reagan's War (2003)" not to mention 'The Big Black Book of Communism' or the books by the defectors. Suvorov, Sokolovsky, etc. And I note further that his contentions alleging the 'heavy industry' superiority of communism...are also debatable. Indeed, easily refuted. Apparently he is completely unaware of the truly massive industrial 'life-line' the U.S. gave the Russians during WW-II. Even the History Channel has concurred. The Soviets would have been defeated by the Nazi's but for that immense life-line. Notice how you never hear about the Russian's foreign debt to the U.S. anymore... Any rate, FOUR STARS for your detailed repudiation of the Pitchfork contention:

Bullcrap! After our setback in Vietnam, the Soviet Union engaged in one of its most expansionist programs since the end of WWII...invading 10 countries from 1974 to 1979 (AEI statistic). From N. Africa to the Mid-East (Afghanistan) to Central and S. America, the Soviets hand their hands in everyone's pie. While I will concede that Communism, in general, doesn't bode well for a growing and prosperous economy, the Soviets didn't simply rely on their economic system to support their government. They used their expansionism to set up proxy governments that in turn, would be in debt/provide booty, to the Soviet Union. The only thing that stopped them from succeeding and collecting on those debts, was Reagan's aggressive interventionism. If the Soviets had succeeded in setting up these proxy governments, unhindered, they would have had new trading partners that would've coelesced to form an economic bloc (similar, but larger than the Tripartite Pact prior WWII) that would've supported each other, especially the Soviet Union. Fortunately, from Grenada to N. Africa to Nicaragua, Afghanistan, etc., Reagan met the Soviets head on with insurgents of his own. Afghanistan was especially important, as this was to be the Soviets backdoor into the Mid-East and their wealth of oil. This also explains the Soviets overwhelming support for Saddam as they got more involved in the Iran/Iraq war in an attempt to further destabilze the region. Heck, by 1972 the Soviets had over 15,000 troops in Egypt, training their forces in what was a mutual freindship pact. A closer look shows that had the Soviets been successful in the Mid-East, they would've had enormous amounts of wealth at their disposal. While the "closed" economic system of Communism is doomed to failure, the Soviets had "opened-up" their system through expansionism and allies who would've helped support the survival of the Soviet Union for some time to come. The Soviet system collapsed becasue they were forced at every turn to expend more resources and men because Reagan confronted them at every oppurtunity. Reagan made them spend more because he built up our military, forcing them to do the same. If not for this intervention the Soviets would have spent much less and established new trading partners that would've helped the Soviet Union recover and further prosper. Sorry... the Soviet Union was still a threat and Reagan was directly responsible for its failure.

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.