Saving John Kerry

Two pieces of conventional wisdom emerged from last week's election. (1) Republicans owe their victory to anti-gay marriage initiatives and a massive values divide; and (2) John Kerry was a lousy candidate. Both are wrong.

Writing in the Progressive, Matthew Rothschild complains that Kerry "never could give a decent speech." Since November 3, other Democrats have seconded this notion, and more. In Salon, Farhad Manjoo called Kerry "a pretty poor candidate"; Alexandra Pelosi went one further, pronouncing him "a terrible candidate." Mark Halperin laid nearly all of the blame for Tuesday's loss at Kerry's feet, saying, "John Kerry had a lot of problems too. ...the Kerry campaign, with a bad candidate, a worse candidate, was not good enough to win."

And even before the election, people like Mickey Kaus and Noam Scheiber dumped on him from the beginning of his candidacy until almost the very end. This caterwauling is silly and unfair to John Kerry.

Did John Kerry Run A Poor Campaign? Yes. Kerry never articulated where he stood on Iraq or, more importantly, how -- exactly -- he would be tougher than Bush in the war on terror. Every other issue -- from taxes to gay marriage -- is frosting. Had Kerry emulated John McCain's handling of his Vietnam record, taken a single position on Iraq, and come up with a single, detailed plan for combating terrorism, he might well have won.

Was Kerry A Bad Candidate? No. I have to assume that many of these critics never actually followed the candidate around, because close-up, Kerry was a pretty good candidate. I saw Kerry blow away crowds in New Hampshire. He gave a very good convention speech. He was excellent in the first presidential debate (but for the "global test" line, which haunted him afterwards). His day-to-day performance on the stump was also very fine -- I saw him handle tough questions from voters with aplomb; and when he was interacting with a crowd, his rich and haughty caricature disappeared completely.

And let's not forget his résumé: volunteered for service in Vietnam, saw combat, served as a prosecutor and then for two decades as a United States senator. In many ways, Kerry was a better candidate than Bush.

Was There A Better Democrat In The Field? Maybe. Dick Gephardt would have been a formidable opponent for President Bush -- and perhaps a better candidate than Kerry. But he's about it. Joe Lieberman had a better chance of winning the Republican nomination. Howard Dean would have been an unmitigated disaster. Ditto the not-ready-for-prime-time Wesley Clark, and the oddball Sharpton/Kucinich show.

And how about that John Edwards? If his performance as a vice presidential candidate is any indication, he might have been as bad for the Democrats as Dean. Edwards' only electoral victory came in his 1998 Senate race against a 70-year-old first-term senator. Then he lost every presidential primary save South Carolina, delivered a disappointing convention speech, was beaten in the vice presidential debate, and was an ineffective campaigner for Kerry down the stretch. His supposed strength was that he could connect with Southerners, but forget carrying his home state: Edwards couldn't even carry his home precinct. Never has so large a reputation been created by so little actual success.

Did Kerry Do Anything To Damage His Party Structurally? No. In fact, he did quite the opposite. At a time when all of the cultural tension was pulling Democrats toward the lefty fringe, Kerry, for the most part, resisted. A Howard Dean-style campaign -- based on isolationism and pacifism -- would have been truly disastrous for Democrats and might have realigned American politics for a generation.

Granted, Kerry didn't help the party as much as he could have by jettisoning the Michael Moore wing. Had he done so, he would have done for Democrats what George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole did for Republicans in the '90s by throwing Pat Buchanan overboard.

But that shouldn't overshadow Kerry's very real accomplishment: He stood his ground as anti-Americanism and knee-jerk pacifism roiled the base of the Democratic party. He prevented the main body of his party from giving in to the Moores, Deans, and MoveOns of the world. And in doing so, he has given them the chance to fight again another day.

There are a host of reasons John Kerry lost, and he bears his share of responsibility for the defeat. But the liberals heaping scorn on him today and insisting that because of him, their enterprise was doomed from the start, are looking for an easy alibi. They're doing a good man disservice. And they're not doing the Democratic party any favors going forward.

Jonathan V. Last is online editor of The Weekly Standard and runs the blog Galley Slaves.

I don't think Kerry intended to aid the VietCong. What would be the point in that?

The wives of the POWs will tell you.

and ex POW, Paul Galanti will tell you.

And the simple facts are shown, that he did in fact intend to aid the VietCong. He took their marching orders.

Hanoi directed Kerry

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41106

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

MISSION: IMPLAUSIBLE
Discovered papers:
Hanoi directed Kerry
Recovered Vietnam documents
'smoking gun' researchers claim

Posted: October 26, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore

The first documentary evidence that Vietnamese communists were directly steering John Kerry's group Vietnam Veterans Against the War has been discovered in a U.S. archive, according to a researcher who spoke with WorldNetDaily.

John Kerry testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1971.

One freshly unearthed document, captured by the U.S. from Vietnamese communists in 1971 and later translated, indicates the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese delegations to the Paris peace talks that year were used as the communications link to direct the activities of Kerry and other antiwar activists who attended.

Kerry insists he attended the talks only because he happened to be in France on his honeymoon and maintains he met with both sides. But previously revealed records indicate the future senator made two, and possibly three, trips to Paris to meet with Viet Cong leader Madame Nguyen Thi Binh then promote her plan's demand for U.S. surrender.

Jerome Corsi, a specialist on the Vietnam era, told WND the new discoveries are the "most remarkable documents I've seen in the entire history of the antiwar movement."

"We're not going to say he's an agent for Vietnamese communists, but it's the next thing to it," he said. "Whether he was consciously carrying out their direction or naively doing what they wanted, it amounted to the same thing – he advanced their cause."

Corsi, co-author of the Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth best-seller "Unfit for Command," and Scott Swett, who maintains the group's website, have posted a summary of the discovery on the website of Wintersoldier.com.

Corsi says the documents show how the North Vietnamese, the Viet Cong, the People's Coalition for Peace and Justice, the Communist Party of the USA and Kerry's VVAW worked closely together to achieve the Vietnamese communists' primary objective – the defeat of the U.S. in Vietnam.

"I think what we've discovered is a smoking gun," Corsi said. "We knew when we wrote 'Unfit for Command' that Kerry had met with Madame Binh and then promoted her peace plan.

"This document enables us to connect the dots," he emphasized. "We now have evidence Madame Binh was directing the antiwar movement ... and the person who implemented her strategy was John Kerry."

July 22, 1971, three weeks after the Paris talks, Kerry called on President Nixon to accept the plan at a press conference in which he surrounded himself with the families of POWs, a strategy outlined in the first document.

The two documents also connect the dots between the Vietnamese communists and the radical U.S. group People's Coalition for Peace and Justice through the person of Al Hubbard, a coordinating member of PCPJ and the executive director of VVAW while Kerry was its national spokesman.

"Al Hubbard and John Kerry were carrying out the predetermined agenda of the enemy in a coordinated fashion," Corsi said. "It's a level of collaboration that exceeded anything we had imagined."

'Return the medals'

The second document, captured by U.S. military forces in South Vietnam May 12, 1972, urges Vietnamese officials to promote the antiwar activities in the United States.

Significantly, the fifth paragraph makes it clear the Vietnamese communists were using, for propaganda purposes, a protest described as taking place April 19-22, 1971.

Kerry led Vietnam veterans in 1971 medal-toss protest.

This coincides with the well-known "Dewey Canyon III" protest in Washington, D.C., highlighted by Kerry's Senate Foreign Relations testimony charging American soldiers with war crimes.

The document's description of the protest includes the "return the medals" event in which Kerry and other VVAW members threw their war decorations toward the steps of the Capitol.

Why now?

Corsi told WND the documents have been authenticated with "100 percent certainty."

But why were they unearthed now, just one week before the Nov. 2 election?

Corsi insisted the timing was unintentional.

"It's truly one of those accidents of how things develop in research," he said. "We did not spring any surprise, we just found these documents, and even the archivist didn't know they were there."

Swift Boat Vets and POWs for Truth dispatched two researchers to Texas Tech University's Vietnam-era archive in Lubbock, which has more than 2 million documents, to "see if there was anything there," Corsi said.

Many of the documents are in Vietnamese and have not been translated yet.

The two documents were found in boxes containing papers from antiwar activities during 1971-72, but they also turned out to be posted in an Internet database, which enabled further verification, Corsi said.

First document

The first document is a "circular" outlining the Vietnamese regime's strategies to coordinate its propaganda effort with its orchestration of U.S. antiwar group activities.

The spontaneous antiwar movements in the US have received assistance and guidance from the friendly ((VC/NVN)) delegations at the Paris Peace Talks.

The phrases in double parentheses were added by U.S. translators for clarification. "VC" refers to the Viet Cong, while "NVN" is the North Vietnamese government.

Corsi and Swett point out that FBI files show Kerry returned to Paris to meet with the North Vietnamese delegation in August 1971 and planned a third trip in November.

Corsi emphasizes that before the discovery of this document, he and other researchers had no direct evidence that Hanoi actually was directing the antiwar movement to implement the regime's goals, although they assumed it to be the case based on other indications.

In her meeting with Kerry in Paris, Madame Binh instructed him on how he and the VVAW could "serve as Hanoi's surrogates in the United States," Corsi and Swett say. This included advancement of her seven-point peace plan forcing President Nixon to set a date to end the war and withdraw troops.

Hanoi cleverly constructed the plan so that the only barrier to release of American POWs was Nixon's unwillingness to set a withdrawal date.

But as Corsi and Swett emphasize, the plan amounted to a virtual surrender that included payment of reparations and an admission the U.S. was the aggressor in an immoral war against the communists.

The circular underscores the impact of the peace plan on U.S. activists, stating:

"The seven-point peace proposal ((of the SVN Provisional Revolutionary Government)) not only solved problems concerning the release of US prisoners but also motivated the people of all walks of life and even relatives of US pilots detained in NVN to participate in the antiwar movement.

Another section of the circular, again highlighting the interconnectedness of the Vietnamese communists, the U.S. antiwar movement and politics in the U.S. and South Vietnam, says Nixon and South Vietnamese leader Thieu are "very embarrassed because the seven-point peace proposal is supported by the [South Vietnamese] people's ((political struggle)) movement and the antiwar movements in the US. "

Therefore, the circular says, "all local areas, units, and branches must widely disseminate the seven-point peace proposal, step up the people's ((political struggle)) movements both in cities and rural areas, taking advantage of disturbances and dissensions in the enemy's forthcoming (RVN) Congressional and Presidential elections. They must coordinate more successfully with the antiwar movements in the US so as to isolate the Nixon-Thieu clique."

Second document

In addition to tying activities surrounding Kerry's 1971 protest to the direction of Vietnamese communists, the second document reveals the degree to which Hanoi worked with and through the People's Coalition for Peace and Justice.

Of the U.S. antiwar movements, the two most important ones are: The PCPJ ((the People's Committee for Peace and Justice)) and the NPAC ((National Peace Action Committee)). These two movements have gathered much strength and staged many demonstrations. The PCPJ is the most important. It maintains relations with us.

Corsi and Swett note the House Internal Securities Committee in its 1971 Annual Report described the PCPJ as an organization strongly controlled by U.S. communists.

"There is no question but what members of the Communist Party have provided a very strong degree of influence, even a guiding influence, in the evolution and formation of policies of the People's Coalition for Peace and Justice."

Corsi cites recently released FBI surveillance reports that establish a strong link between Kerry, Hubbard, the VVAW, the PCPJ and their trips to Paris to meet with Madame Binh.

Kerry shared the stage with Hubbard – who recruited Kerry into the group – during the Dewey Canyon III protest, and they appeared together on NBC's Meet the Press April 18, 1971. Hubbard claimed to have been a transport pilot wounded in combat, but the Department of Defense released documents showing he was neither a pilot nor an officer and had never served in Vietnam.

An FBI field surveillance report stamped Nov. 11, 1971, showed Kerry and Hubbard were planning to travel to Paris later that month to engage in talks with Vietnamese communist delegations. Other FBI reports clearly show the Communist Party of the USA was paying for Hubbard's trips to Paris, Corsi notes.

Another FBI report, dated Nov. 24, 1971, gives details of Hubbard's presentation to a VVAW meeting of the Executive and Steering committees in Kansas City, Mo., Nov. 12-15, 1971.

At that meeting, the VVAW considered and then rejected a plan to assassinate several pro-war U.S. Senators. Kerry is listed as present.

The FBI document shows communist coordination in Hubbard's trip to Paris.

[BLACK OUT] advised that Hubbard gave the following information regarding his Paris trip:
Two foreign groups, which are Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV) and Peoples Republic Government (PRG) (phonetic), invited representatives of the VVAW, Communist Party USA (CP USA), and a Left Wing group in Paris, to attend meeting of the above inviting groups in Paris. Hubbard advised he was elected to represent the VVAW. An unknown male was invited to represent the CP USA and an unknown individual was elected to represent the Left Wing group from Paris. He advised at the meeting that his trip was financed by CP USA.

Corsi and Swett cite an appeal letter written by Hubbard April 20, 1971, demonstrating the strong coordination between Vietnam Veterans Against the War and People's Coalition for Peace and Justice.

Addressed from the offices of the VVAW in Washington, D.C., the letter asks VVAW members to provide assistance to the PCPJ. It discusses several ways in which the two organizations have worked closely together:

This is an appeal for help for the Peoples Coalition for Peace and Justice. Over the past months the Peoples Coalition has supported the Vietnam Vets Against the War in many ways. The Coalition has made office space available at no charge, and permitted the use of all necessary office equipment such as mimeograph machines, stencil-making machines, folders and typewriters. They have loaned us cars, bullhorns, and public address equipment. Their staff has taken messages for us and joined fraternally in building our progress. Now we can return this support.
Saturday, April 24, the Coalition needs help collecting money and selling buttons at the great march and rally. Collectors and sellers must be energetic and determined. There will be security problems in taking large amounts of money to banks. The Coalition needs people power, hundreds of workers.
I earnestly hope that you will come forward to support our friends in this emergency.

Two days after Hubbard's letter was written, Kerry told Sen. William Fulbright's Foreign Relations Committee that American military in Vietnam were committing war crimes in the manner of Genghis Khan.

The event mentioned in the letter was PCPJ's massive April 24 demonstration in Washington that followed the VVAW's Dewey Canyon III protest.

Don't forget

This is a WorldNetDaily printer-friendly version of the article which follows.
To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41142

Thursday, October 28, 2004

MISSION: IMPLAUSIBLE
Another document
ties Kerry to Hanoi
3rd Vietnamese communist paper discovered in archive

Posted: October 28, 2004
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore

A third, newly discovered Vietnamese war document presents further indication Hanoi orchestrated John Kerry's promotion of the communist regime's 1971 plan calling for virtual U.S. surrender.

As WorldNetDaily reported Tuesday, two documents found in a U.S. archive over the weekend provide the first concrete evidence that Vietnamese communists were directing Kerry's antiwar group Vietnam Veterans Against the War.

New York Times photo of John Kerry's Washington press conference in 1971

One of the two documents, a "circular" captured by the U.S. in 1971 and later translated, indicates the Viet Cong and North Vietnamese delegations to the Paris peace talks that year were used as the communications link to direct the activities of Kerry and other antiwar activists who attended.

Now, a third document [pdf file] provides more context, showing that Kerry's July 22, 1971, press conference calling on President Nixon to accept the seven-point plan presented by Viet Cong leader Madame Nguyen Thi Binh was perfectly aligned with Hanoi's step-by-step agenda.

"If you look at the sequence of events, it would certainly seem Kerry was following a plan and was not just simply acting spontaneously," said Jerome Corsi, a specialist on the Vietnam-era antiwar movement and co-author of "Unfit for Command," the best-seller challenging Kerry's qualification to lead the nation.

At the subsequent press conference in Washington, Kerry surrounded himself with the families of POWs, a strategy espoused in the recovered communist circular.

The Kerry campaign has not responded to WND's request for a response to the discovery of the two documents.

The third document shows that when Madame Binh came to Paris in 1969 with the North Vietnamese delegation, Hanoi was directing its propaganda efforts toward winning the hearts and minds of South Vietnamese.

But the communist regime began to realize in 1970 and early 1971 that it could not defeat the U.S. militarily, and so the target of propaganda shifted to the antiwar movement in an attempt to erode resolve on the American homefront.

Then Hanoi launched a series of coordinated efforts, leading to Kerry's press conference.

"The series of dates and actions hardly look coincidental," said Corsi.

Vietnamese Communist Party leader Le Duc Tho delivered to Paris a plan promoted by John Kerry.

In the last week of June 1971, Le Duc Tho – the second most powerful communist leader, next to Ho Chi Minh – arrived in Paris as a special counsel to the Vietnamese delegations.

On July 1, closely on the heels of Le's arrival, Madame Binh delivered the seven-point plan to U.S. Ambassador David Bruce in Paris.

A New York Times report at that time specifically noted the plan came after Tho's arrival.

The plan was presented not through the head of the delegation, Xuan Thuy, but through the Viet Cong leader, Madame Binh, who first met with Kerry in the summer of 1970.

Twenty-one days later, Kerry was in Washington advancing Madame Binh's proposal, which would force President Nixon to set a date to end the war and withdraw troops. Hanoi cleverly constructed the plan so that the only barrier to release of American POWs was Nixon's unwillingness to set a withdrawal date, but it amounted to a virtual surrender that included payment of reparations and an admission the U.S. was the aggressor in an immoral war.

"When President Nixon got this peace plan, the White House didn't know what to do," Corsi said. "It was an entirely new initiative."

The White House sent Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to Paris July 12, and seven days later, the South Vietnamese submitted a counterproposal to enact a total cease-fire and put the issue of reunification to a nationwide vote.

"In the middle of these intense negotiations and posturing to Madame Binh's proposal, Kerry volunteered to hold a press conference advocating the Viet Cong leader's position," Corsi explained.

"He had no role to insert himself in this process," he asserted. "Nixon and Kissinger were trying to deal with a difficult negotiating situation."

In an article on the press conference, the New York Times noted POW families were upset because it appeared Kerry, who had dropped out of a bid for a seat in Congress, was motivated by his own political aspirations, using the event as a springboard to political office.

When Kerry began to introduce relatives of prisoners who stood beside him behind the microphones, he was met with the fierce objections of four wives of POWs in the audience.

The women shouted to Kerry, "That's a lie," and "What office are you going to run for next?"

The Times said one of the POW wives accused Kerry of "constantly using our own suffering and grief " for his political ambitions.

When asked if he planned to run again for political office, the Times reported Kerry replied only that "he was committed to political change and he would use whatever forum seemed best at the time."

The captured Vietnamese circular stated that previously, the dissent among U.S. military personnel largely existed only in the Army, but had expanded to the Air Force.

Kerry's use of Air Force POW families helped spread the dissent in a concerted way, Corsi maintained, getting the relatives to accept Binh's proposal and say, "Let's put an end to this."

The circular said the peace plan "not only solved problems concerning the release of U.S. prisoners but also motivated the people of all walks of life and even relatives of U.S. pilots detained in [North Vietnam] to participate in the antiwar movement."

"Kerry, by holding the press conference, supports the argument that the antiwar movement is behind this plan," Corsi said.

The media event, consistent with plans developed and delivered in Hanoi, was "designed to have maximum impact emotionally on the antiwar community in the U.S.," he emphasized.

Corsi said the Kerry campaign's silence on the new discovery of the documents mirrors its unwillingness to respond to the charges of "Unfit for Command" until it was obvious the presidential candidate was suffering political damage.

"The charges in the new documents have been out there for a full day," he pointed out. "Had the documents not been authentic, the Kerry camp would have been all over them, to discredit them."

Discovered documents: Hanoi directed Kerry

Art Moore is a news editor with WorldNetDaily.com.

Kerry was trying to make concessions with the enemy while there were still soldiers fighting who thought they had a chance of winning.

As we say up here in Garage Logic, "We Don't Know That!" That is just so much bilge water by Kerry and his Kool-Aid Drinkers. And you went on still further saying the following:

That is much more reasonable than calling Kerry a communist or pro-communist.

Oh really? What do you really know about the nation's "MOST LIBERAL" Senator from Massachussets? Not much I bet. Just how seriously do you take National Security anyways?

You probably can't handle the truth, as Jack Nicholson famously said. Note the following speculation.

Kerry's FBI File
By Gary W. Aldrich
March 1, 2004

I experienced something akin to humiliation when the President of the United States ordered subordinates to release his dental records to the public. President Bush acted in hopes of ending the ridiculous argument surrounding his National Guard service.

Nothing is sacred in today's politics of personal destruction - invented and perfected by the Democrats. Not even the number of fillings in George Bush's teeth.

Thus, Senator John Kerry and his followers "opened the door." It's only fair that many will now choose to walk through that door. No competent attorney would ever open a line of inquiry in the courtroom unless he knew how the same issue would impact his own client.

Democrats should not complain now if certain similar questions are asked of the good Senator.

In the debate about which man has given more to his country, no evidence has been more emotionally persuasive than Senator Kerry's own claims of war heroism. One basis for this assertion is that while serving in Vietnam, Kerry showed great courage in leaping off his boat to attack and kill a wounded North Vietnamese soldier.

Evidence suggests the Vietnamese soldier had previously been wounded by a 50-caliber round. Veteran friends of mine tell me if a person is hit by a 50-caliber round, it is highly unlikely they could continue to be a threat, because of the hydro-shock associated with the impact of the round. I am assured this is true regardless of where the enemy was hit.

I know from my own FBI training that certain high-powered rounds can destroy vital organs and blow away entire limbs - due to this same hydro-shock factor. Kerry's claims that he saved his fellow soldier's lives by taking the life of the wounded Vietnamese fighter now lie in reasonable doubt.

Also, Kerry's ardent fans clamor over the Purple Hearts he received for each of his several wounds. What is not widely known is that even a minor wound can qualify for a Purple Heart, and a combination of Purple Hearts can be the basis for reassignment to a safer post. Kerry did, in fact, take a safer post after accepting his war medals.

Other veterans tell me they didn't even put in for Purple Hearts, because they did not want to be transferred home unless they were seriously wounded. These veterans didn't want to leave their buddies behind just to seek the safety of distance from the battle.

In total, it appears Kerry was in-country less than five months. Yet some prisoners of war served more than seven years and had many serious wounds.

Today, Senator Kerry likes the political attention his medals afford him. However, during one protest, Kerry was seen tossing his precious medals over the White House fence.

Except now he says those were not actually his medals, but somebody else's medals he discarded. Another version has him tossing over just the ribbons. Which is it?

Anyone visiting his Senate office can see medals hung in a display case on the wall. Well, whose medals are in the display case? Are these Kerry's, or did he or a member of his staff buy a few similar medals at a local pawn shop?

Finally - in the biggest controversy of all - Senator John Kerry says he is a hero for standing up to power while protesting against the War in Vietnam. According to news reports, Kerry was protesting the war even as he served as a full-time member of the armed forces.

Did Kerry take leave-time to attend these rallies, or was he AWOL from his post while he traveled around protesting the war?

Did he only participate in peaceful war protests, or did he join the Hard-Left, anti-US, pro-Communistic cabal of Tom Hayden, Jane Fonda and other well-known Hard-Left, anti-US radicals?

I don't know the answers to these questions, but I do know where to find them. Every significant leader of any anti-war, anti-US protest from the 1960s has a large file sitting in a file drawer over at the FBI Headquarters.

The Bureau's headquarters is located at 9th street and Pennsylvania Avenue in downtown Washington, D.C. To get a copy of the FBI file, which would clear up this entire thing, Senator Kerry merely has to file a form. But HE must be the one to do it. Nobody else can get a copy - only John F. Kerry.

And, because it's a U.S. Senator asking, I am sure the FBI would find and copy the file in a hurry. Then, like President Bush, Senator Kerry could release his FBI file to the media. All questions would be answered. We could put the matter behind us and, as the Democrats are fond to say, "move on to real issues." Like what Kerry would do as president if we were attacked by terrorists.

Senator Kerry can also get a copy of his service records from the US Navy using the same kind of form. These naval records would clear up a lot of good questions about his military service in Vietnam.

Today I am announcing the formation of an exploratory committee to encourage and assist Senator John F. Kerry in the acquisition and distribution of these two files. In due course, we will send the appropriate forms to Senator Kerry to be filled out. Soon, following President Bush's lead, Senator Kerry can reveal to the mainstream media the various documents establishing the truth about his conduct.

Vietnam veterans and former FBI and intelligence bureau agents are invited to join our exploratory committee. These individuals have a real sense of the truth about Senator John F. Kerry, and the Vietnam veterans have a large stake in the argument.

We're calling our exploratory committee, "Americans for the Truth About Kerry".

--------------------

Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author.

POST-ELECTION UPDATE: Not only did John F. Kerry never yetsign the Form 180 to release his military records as demanded by the Swift Boat Veterans, but Kerry has also refused, actually stonewalled, all requests to release his salient FBI records at issue as well...the ones pertinent to whether he was, and still is, a communist.

Here is the last letter from Aldrich which Kerry blew off, as he did all others:

October 26, 2004

Senator John F. Kerry

304 Russell Bldg. Third Floor Washington D.C. 20510

Dear Sir,

As a long time employee of the federal government, I have confidence in the records that each government agency maintains. Many official federal records have formed the basis for legal decisions, major or minor. US courts find such records acceptable as evidence in criminal and civil trials, and, as evidence, these records are highly sought by parties of interest to major legal decisions. Obviously, such documents would be helpful in the determination of a citizen’s suitability to seek the highest office in the land.

During your lifetime, several federal agencies have kept detailed records related to your various careers and your antiwar activities which took place after your return from Vietnam, where you served in a combat role for approximately four months.

Legitimate and interested parties, including veterans groups, non-governmental interest groups (NGOs), and the mainstream media, want to review your federal records, but they cannot because you refuse to fully release them. Several groups and individuals have requested a review of your records since you began your campaign to win the presidency.

Among the various records are your medical records, your IRS records, your military records, and, perhaps most important of all, the records that only you can obtain which contain evidence the Federal Bureau of Investigation gathered as they investigated you under their statutory authority to investigate threats to our nation’s internal security.

Hundreds of these FBI investigations took place during the Sixties and Seventies, but not everyone investigated was guilty of threatening our nation’s internal security. However, unless your records are read by the voting public, only you and the FBI know what is hidden in your FBI files. And you know full well that the FBI is not empowered to disclose what is in your FBI files, regardless of how important such evidence may be.

On the other hand, there is no bar to the release of these documents, if you authorize the disclosure. In fact, many individuals – interested in putting certain controversies to rest – have obtained their own FBI files and then have allowed an interested third party to review them so as to end a conflict or controversy. You can do the same, and nearly 100,000 citizens are urging you to do so. If the whole of the American voting public knew these FBI files with your name on them existed, I am quite sure they would want to know what is contained within those file jackets.

The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty, a Fairfax-based foundation has obtained petitions from almost 100,000 individuals who agree that you should request your FBI files, and disclose them immediately. Only then would citizens know the full extent of your antiwar activities. If your activities were innocent and in the best interest of this nation, then the FBI records would certainly reveal your patriotism and your good intent.

I believe it is in your best interest to obtain, and then release these records whether or not you are successful in your bid for the presidency.

Be assured that citizens want to know all there is to know about presidential candidates. To my knowledge, no other candidate is withholding documents that may bear on their character and reputation, but if we learn that is the case, our organization will seek petitions from interested citizens so as to learn about those candidates’ pasts, as well.

Only when citizens are well informed can we expect to have elections that are truly legitimate. If candidates lie or withhold important information bearing on their character or their true loyalty to our nation, voters can be fooled into voting for the wrong persons.

I am certain because you are a long-serving US Senator you would agree that truth is the most important component to ensuring our nation’s future. Please move swiftly to enable the FBI to release your FBI files so that they may be completely reviewed prior to the election on November 2, 2004. All you have to do is sign a one-page form.

Very truly yours,

Gary W. Aldrich President
The Patrick Henry Center For Individual Liberty

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.