SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (1554)3/23/2003 7:07:21 PM
From: PROLIFE  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
John Kerry: The Chameleon Senator
By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
October-December 1996 Issue

Despite the prayers and wishful thinking of POW/MIA families and Vietnam veteran activists, Sen. John Forbes Kerry, the "chameleon" senator from Massachusetts, was re-elected to the Senate in the
1996 election. Apparently Kerry's well publicized history as a longtime radical supporter of the Vietnamese communists and a recent flap about whether or not he is guilty of a war crime meant very little to the voters in Massachusetts.

Sen. Kerry, the "noble statesman" and "highly decorated Vietnam vet" of today, is a far cry from Kerry, the radical, hippie-like leader of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) in the early 1970s. After Kerry, as a Navy Lieutenant (junior grade) commanding a Swift boat in Vietnam, was awarded the
Silver he found it advantageous to quit the Navy, change the color of his politics and become a leader of VVAW. He went to work organizing opposition in America against the efforts of his former buddies still ducking communist bullets back in Vietnam. Kerry gained national attention in April 1971, when he testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, then chaired by Sen. J. William Fulbright (D-AR), who led opposition in the Congress against U.S. participation in the war. During the course of his testimony, Kerry stated that the United States had a definite obligation to make extensive economic reparations to the people of Vietnam.

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.

One of the provisions stated: "The Vietnamese pledge that as soon as the U.S. government publicly sets a date for total withdrawal [from Vietnam], they will enter discussion to secure the release of all American prisoners, including pilots captured while bombing North Vietnam." In other words, Kerry and his VVAW advocated the communist line to withdraw all U.S. troops from Vietnam first and then negotiate with Hanoi over the release of prisoners. Had the nine points of the "People's Peace Treaty" favored by Kerry been accepted by American negotiators, the United States would have totally lost all leverage to get the communists to release any POWs captured during the war years.

Kerry was fundamental in organizing antiwar activists to demonstrate in Washington, including the splattering of red paint, representing blood, on the Capitol steps. Several hundred of Kerry's VVAW demonstrators and supporters were allowed by Fulbright to jam into a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing in 1972 and to chant "Right on, brother!" as Sen. George McGovern (D-SD), then the only declared Democratic presidential candidate, accused U.S. troops of committing barbarisms in Vietnam.

Kerry became even more of a press celebrity during a highly publicized "anti-war" protest when he threw medals the press reported were his over a barricade and onto the steps of the Capitol. Kerry never mentioned that the medals he so gloriously tossed were not his own. The 1988 issue of Current Biography Yearbook explained: " . . . the ones he had discarded were not his own but had belonged to another veteran who asked him to make the gesture for him. When a 'Washington Post' reporter asked Kerry about the incident, he said: 'They're my medals. I'll do what I want with them. And there shouldn't be any expectations about them.'" Kerry's medals have reappeared, today hanging in his Senate office, now that it is "politically correct" for a U.S. Senator to be portrayed as a Vietnam War hero. Alas, so much for integrity.

Recently, Kerry became extremely defensive when David Warsh, an economics columnist for The Boston Globe, questioned the circumstances for which Kerry was awarded the Silver Star. Kerry, who was in a close re-election battle with Gov. William F. Weld, a Republican, quickly gathered his former crew from his Swift boat days to rebuff the "assault on his integrity."

According to the official citation accompanying the Silver Star for Kerry's actions on the waters of the Mekong Delta on February 28, 1969: "Kerry's craft received a B-40 rocket close aboard. Once again Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry ordered his units to charge the enemy positions. . . Patrol Craft Fast 94 then
beached in the center of the enemy positions and an enemy soldier sprang up from his position not ten feet from Patrol Craft 94 and fled. Without hesitation Lieutenant (j.g.) Kerry leaped ashore, pursued the man behind a hootch and killed him, capturing a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber." In an article printed in the October 21st and 28th 1996 edition of The New Yorker, Kerry was asked about the man he had killed.

"It was either going to be him or it was going to be us. It was that simple. I don't know why it wasn't us--I mean, to this day. He had a rocket pointed right at our boat. He stood up out of the hole, and none of us saw him until he was standing in front of us, aiming a rocket right at us, and, for whatever reason, he didn't pull the trigger--he turned and ran. He was shocked to see our boat right in front of him. If he'd pulled the trigger, we'd all be dead . . . I just won't talk about all of it. I don't and I can't. The things that probably really turn me I've never told anybody. Nobody would understand," Kerry said. In the column, Warsh quoted the Swift boat's former gunner, Tom Belodeau, as saying the Viet Cong soldier who Kerry chased "behind a hootch" and "finished off" actually had already been wounded by the gunner.

Warsh wrote that such a "coup de grace" would have been considered a war crime. Belodeau stood beside Kerry and said he'd been misquoted. He conceded that he had fired at and wounded the Viet Cong, but denied Kerry had simply executed the wounded Viet Cong. Dan Carr, a former Marine from Massachusetts, who served 14 months as a rifleman sloshing around in the humid jungles of I Corps, South Vietnam, questioned whether or not Kerry deserved a Silver Star for chasing and killing a lone, wounded, retreating Viet Cong. "Kerry is certainly showing some sensitivity there. Most people I knew in Vietnam were just trying to pull their time there and get the hell out. There were some, though, who actually used Vietnam to get their tickets punched. You know, to build their resumes for future endeavors," Carr said.

In 1991, the United States Senate created the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs to examine the possibility that U.S. POW/MIAs might still be held by the Vietnamese. As chairman of the Select Committee, Kerry proved himself to be a masterful chameleon portraying to the public at large what appeared to be an unbiased approach to resolving the POW/MIA issue. But, in reality, no one in the United States Senate pushed harder to bury the POW/MIA issue, the last obstacle preventing normalization of relations with Hanoi, than John Forbes Kerry. (Remember the middle name "Forbes").

In fact, his first act as chairman was to travel to Southeast Asia, where during a stopover in Bangkok, Thailand, he lectured the U.S. Chamber of Commerce there on the importance of lifting the trade embargo and normalizing relations with Vietnam. During the entire life of the Senate Select Committee, Kerry never missed a chance to propaganderize and distort the facts in favor of Hanoi.

Sydney H. Schanberg, associate editor and columnist for New York Newsday and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist veteran of the Indochina War whose book, The Death and Life of Dith Pran, became the subject of the Academy Award-winning film The Killing Fields, chronicled some of Kerry's more blatant pro-Hanoi biases in several of his columns.

In a Nov. 21, 1993 column, Schanberg wrote, "Highly credible information has been surfacing in recent days which indicates that the headlines you have been reading about a 'breakthrough' in Hanoi's cooperation on the POW/MIA issue are part of a carefully scripted performance. The apparent purpose is to move toward normalization of relations with Hanoi.

"Sen. John F. Kerry, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, is one of the key figures pushing for normalization. Kerry is currently on a visit to Vietnam where he has been doing two
things: (1) praising the Vietnamese effusively for granting access to their war archives and (2) telling the press that there's no believable evidence to back up the stories of live POWs still being held.
"Ironically, that very kind of live-POW evidence has been brought to Kerry's own committee on a regular basis over the past year, and he has repeatedly sought to impeach its value. Moreover, Kerry and his allies on the committee - such as Sens. John McCain, Nancy Kassebaum and Tom Daschle - have worked to block much of this evidence from being made public."

In December of 1992, not long after Kerry was quoted in the world press stating "President Bush should reward Vietnam within a month for its increased cooperation in accounting for American MIAs," Vietnam announced it had granted Colliers International, based in Boston, Massachusetts, a contract worth billions
designating Colliers International as the exclusive real estate agent representing Vietnam.

That deal alone put Colliers in a position to make tens of millions of dollars on the rush to upgrade Vietnam's ports, railroads, highways, government buildings, etc. C. Stewart Forbes, Chief Executive Officer of Colliers International, is Kerry's cousin. Kerry was portrayed in The New Yorker as a proud
Vietnam veteran and "war hero" who, as chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, dared to take on and defeat the "mendacious POW lobby."

In its 1993 final report, the Select Committee determined that live U.S. prisoners of war were left behind in the hands of the Vietnamese after the end of the war. The committee also claimed it found no "compelling" evidence proving the POWs remain alive today. Kerry's committee stopped there without answering three of the most profound questions of the entire Senate POW/MIA investigation: What happened to those U.S. prisoners of war who the Select Committee said were alive and in the hands of the Vietnamese but not released at the end of the war? If they are dead, where are their remains? Who is responsible for their deaths?

No doubt most of the Establishment press will continue to obscure from the public and themselves the raw truth about Kerry, the communist Vietnamese and the POW/MIA issue because it is politically convenient. There is also no doubt the POW/MIA families and Vietnam veteran activists know the truth and recognize Kerry for what he truly is--a traitor, hypocrite, liar and chameleon.



To: American Spirit who wrote (1554)3/24/2003 8:27:05 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Sen. Kerry Not Banking on His Wife's Fortune

Candidate to Do Own Fundraising in Effort to Win Democratic Presidential Nomination


By Thomas B. Edsall and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, March 24, 2003; Page A05

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) has effectively ruled out using any significant part of a family fortune estimated at $550 million in his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

The senator's wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, inherited the fortune from her first husband, Sen. H. John Heinz III (R-Pa.), after he died in a plane crash in 1991. Kerry and Heinz were married four years later, and her money has given Kerry -- at least on paper -- a potentially huge advantage in financing his campaigns.

"It would be a contradiction," Kerry said in an interview. "I said to people long ago and I held to this during my Senate campaign, I came to politics based on my own initiative and my own effort to raise money and that's the way I want to finish my life in politics. Teresa's money is Teresa's money and I've declaratively stated that."

Kerry's stand is a setback to Democratic strategists who have been privately arguing that Kerry should reject public financing of his campaign and the roughly $45 million spending limit that goes with it in order to be free to raise and spend unlimited amounts through the Democratic National Convention, assuming he is the party's nominee. These strategists argue that a candidate bound by the $45 million spending limit will be crushed by President Bush, who is expected to reject public money and raise as much as $250 million during the same period.

Once formally chosen at the July 2004 convention, the Democratic nominee is eligible for about $75 million in general election public subsidies.

A fear shared by many Democrats is that a candidate bound by the limit could well spend close to the $45 million by the end of February, when the nomination could be decided, and then face March, April, May, June and the first half of July with no cash while Bush blankets the airwaves with commercials. Three years ago, Bush was the first presidential candidate to reject public funds and win his party's nomination, raising a record $101 million.

Only candidates who agree to limit total spending are eligible for public subsidies. In primaries, the subsidy is in the form of a federal match of every contribution from an individual of $250 or less.

Kerry's comments are welcome news to his competitors for the Democratic nomination. They have been worried that Kerry would use the family fortune to strengthen his credentials as a candidate financially equipped to take on Bush's fundraising machine.

Some of Kerry's opponents have been researching his past endorsements of public financing and tough campaign finance laws in an effort to make a decision to privately finance his bid and reject public money as politically costly as possible. And strategists aligned with other campaigns have already been testing wisecracks over Teresa Heinz Kerry's money.

Earlier this year, for example, when Kerry began hiring high-profile and high-priced staff members, Steve Elmendorf, top consultant in the campaign of Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), told Roll Call newspaper: "It's a sign they are going to spend the ketchup money."

Kerry's staff had seemed to keep alive the possibility that he would funnel large sums into his campaign. "Obviously, Senator Kerry is a man of some significant wealth [who] could make, if he choose, a sizable investment in his presidential campaign," Kerry spokesman Robert Gibbs said last week.

Kerry said, however, that he could "put a certain amount into it, but when you talk about self-funding, could I do an entire campaign? The answer is profoundly no." Kerry said he has "reserved the right" to use the money to respond to a personal attack, but not to run a major portion of his own bid.

"I have run as an advocate of access to public life through legitimate fundraising, which means people participating. I've never advocated -- I've always thought it's wrong to have a United States Senate that's got more than 50 percent of it who are millionaires. . . . That's why I first ran a PAC-free race. My intention is to try to hold on to that."

None of the other candidates has resources approaching the $550 million value placed by Forbes magazine on Kerry and his wife's holdings, an amount that makes Kerry the richest member of Congress. Forbes did not break down how much of the money was brought into the marriage by Kerry and how much by his wife. But an examination of Kerry's financial disclosure statement and his own comments suggests that very little of the money would be available to Kerry to put in his campaign.

The disclosure statement reflects his wife's extensive holdings in Heinz family interests, including the T.F. Heinz Bond Fund, the H.J. Heinz III Marital Trust; the Heinz Family Commingled Bond Fund; the H.J. Heinz III Revocable Trust No. 1; the H.J. Heinz II Charitable & Family Trust; and the H.J. Heinz II Family Trust.

Campaign finance regulations attempt to limit candidates to spending their own money, and not the holdings of spouses. Federal Election Commission rules provide that when specific shares of a jointly held asset -- such as a trust fund -- are spelled out in detail, the candidate's spending is limited to the candidate's share of the joint asset.

When a couple has jointly held bank accounts or other assets that do not provide for specific divisions, the FEC assumes equal shares, and the candidate can use half the money.

Although the Kerry campaign declined to provide information about the trusts, it is unlikely that Kerry is named a beneficiary in financial instruments created by the Heinz family.

Money and assets that Teresa and John Kerry hold jointly that are not governed by trusts or other legal document specifying specific shares -- typically bank accounts, art or property -- can be treated as half-owned by the candidate. Lawyers said that if Teresa Heinz Kerry removed substantial sums from trusts and put the money into a jointly held bank account, other candidates would likely challenge the maneuver as an attempt to circumvent federal regulations.

Kerry has repeatedly described the majority of the $550 million as "Teresa's money," indicating that he does not have a direct claim on it. Kerry's financial disclosure statement does not detail the level of his or his wife's interests in the trusts. In addition, Kerry's report uses the least informative mechanism for describing the most valuable holdings.

For holdings worth more than $1 million, senators can place assets in various ranges of value: between $1 million and $5 million, $5 million to $25 million, $25 million to $50 million, and "over $50 million." Kerry instead chose to list all high-dollar holdings under the catch-all category, "over $1 million."

Altogether, the report lists 101 separate holdings worth more than $1 million.

Two other Democrats known for their fundraising prowess, Gephardt and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), have not ruled out rejecting public money if they think they can raise money to pay the heavy costs of campaigning in the rush of early primaries in January and February 2004.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company



To: American Spirit who wrote (1554)4/6/2003 8:21:02 PM
From: Glenn Petersen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Nice to see Kerry in step with the "moderates" of the Democratic Party: Barbara Streisand, Jesse Jackson, Ramsey Clark, Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore and John Conyers.

Message 18804259