continued....
Subject: Re: [#210185] usvetdsp.com
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and
others Oct. 9, 1998
>
>
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
>
> - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
>
> "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
>
> - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
>
>
>
> "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction
in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
>
> "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
>
> He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." -
>
> Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
>
>
>
> "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass
destruction is real." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
>
>
>
> SO NOW THESE SAME DEMOCRATS SAY PRESIDENT BUSH LIED--THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR UNNECESSARILY!
usvetdsp.com
>
>
> > Senator Covered Up Evidence of P.O.W.'s Left Behind
> > When John Kerry's Courage Went M.I.A.
> > by Sydney H. Schanberg
> > February 24th, 2004 1:00 PM
> >
> > Senator John Kerry, a decorated battle veteran, was courageous as a navy
> > lieutenant in the Vietnam War. But he was not so courageous more than
two
> > decades later, when he covered up voluminous evidence that a significant
> > number of live American prisoners-perhaps hundreds-were never
acknowledged
> > or returned after the war-ending treaty was signed in January 1973.
> >
> > The Massachusetts senator, now seeking the presidency, carried out this
> > subterfuge a little over a decade ago- shredding documents, suppressing
> > testimony, and sanitizing the committee's final report-when he was
> chairman
> > of the Senate Select Committee on P.O.W./ M.I.A. Affairs.
> >
> > Over the years, an abundance of evidence had come to light that the
North
> > Vietnamese, while returning 591 U.S. prisoners of war after the treaty
> > signing, had held back many others as future bargaining chips for the $4
> > billion or more in war reparations that the Nixon administration had
> > pledged. Hanoi didn't trust Washington to fulfill its pro-mise without
> > pressure. Similarly, Washington didn't trust Hanoi to return all the
> > prisoners and carry out all the treaty provisions. The mistrust on both
> > sides was merited. Hanoi held back prisoners and the U.S. provided no
> > reconstruction funds.
> >
> > The stated purpose of the special Senate committee-which convened in mid
> > 1991 and concluded in January 1993-was to investigate the evidence about
> > prisoners who were never returned and find out what happened to the
> missing
> > men. Committee chair Kerry's larger and different goal, though never
> stated
> > publicly, emerged over time: He wanted to clear a path to normalization
of
> > relations with Hanoi. In any other context, that would have been an
> > honorable goal. But getting at the truth of the unaccounted for P.O.W.'s
> and
> > M.I.A.'s (Missing In Action) was the main obstacle to normalization-and
> > therefore in conflict with his real intent and plan of action.
> >
> > Kerry denied back then that he disguised his real goal, contending that
he
> > supported normalization only as a way to learn more about the missing
men.
> > But almost nothing has emerged about these prisoners since diplomatic
and
> > economic relations were restored in 1995, and thus it would appear-as
most
> > realists expected-that Kerry's explanation was hollow. He has also denied in the past the allegations of a cover-up, either by the Pentagon or himself.
> > Asked for comment on this article, the Kerry campaign sent a quote from the
> > senator: "In the end, I think what we can take pride in is that we put
> > together the most significant, most thorough, most exhaustive accounting for
> > missing and former P.O.W.'s in the history of human warfare."
> >
> > What was the body of evidence that prisoners were held back? A short list would include more than 1,600 firsthand sightings of live U.S. prisoners; nearly 14,000 secondhand reports; numerous intercepted Communist radio messages from within Vietnam and Laos about American prisoners being moved
> > by their captors from one site to another; a series of satellite photos that continued into the 1990s showing clear prisoner rescue signals carved into
> > the ground in Laos and Vietnam, all labeled inconclusive by the Pentagon;
> > multiple reports about unacknowledged prisoners from North Vietnamese informants working for U.S. intelligence agencies, all ignored or declared
> > unreliable; persistent complaints by senior U.S. intelligence officials (some of them made publicly) that live-prisoner evidence was being suppressed; and clear proof that the Pentagon and other keepers of the
> > "secret" destroyed a variety of files over the years to keep the P.O.W./M.I.A. families and the public from finding out and possibly setting off a major public outcry.
> >
> > The resignation of Colonel Millard Peck in 1991, the first year of the Kerry
> > committee's tenure, was one of many vivid landmarks in this saga's history.
> > Peck had been the head of the Pentagon's P.O.W./M.I.A. office for only eight months when he resigned in disgust. In his damning departure statement, he
> > wrote: "The mind-set to 'debunk' is alive and well. It is held at all levels
> > . . . Practically all analysis is directed to finding fault with the source.
> > Rarely has there been any effective, active follow-through on any of the
> > sightings . . . The sad fact is that . . . a cover-up may be in progress.
> > The entire charade does not appear to be an honest effort and may never have been."
> >
> > Finally, Peck said: "From what I have witnessed, it appears that any soldier
> > left in Vietnam, even inadvertently, was in fact abandoned years ago, and that the farce that is being played is no more than political legerdemain
> > done with 'smoke and mirrors' to stall the issue until it dies a natural death."
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----
> >
> > What did Kerry do in furtherance of the cover-up? An overview would
> include
> > the following: He allied himself with those carrying it out by treating the
> > Pentagon and other prisoner debunkers as partners in the investigation instead of the targets they were supposed to be. In short, he did their
> > bidding. When Defense Department officials were coming to testify, Kerry would have his staff director, Frances Zwenig, meet with them to "script"
> > the hearings-as detailed in an internal Zwenig memo leaked by others. Zwenig
also advised North Vietnamese officials on how to state their case.
Further, Kerry never pushed or put up a fight to get key government documents unclassified; he just rolled over, no matter how obvious it was that the documents contained confirming data about prisoners. Moreover, after
pro- mising to turn over all committee records to the National Archives when
the panel concluded its work, the senator destroyedcrucial intelligence information the staff had gathered-to to keep the documents from becoming public. He refused to subpoena past presidents and other key witnesses.
> >
> > When revelatory sworn testimony was given to the committee by President Reagan's national security adviser, Richard Allen-about a credible proposal
> > from Hanoi in 1981 to return more than 50 prisoners for a $4 billion ransom-Kerry had that testimony taken in a closed door interview, not a public hearing. But word leaked out and a few weeks later, Allen sent a
> > letter to the committee, not under oath, recanting his testimony, saying his memory had played tricks on him. Kerry never did any probe into Allen's
> > original, detailed account, and instead accepted his recantation as gospel truth.
> >
> > A Secret Service agent then working at the White House, John Syphrit, told committee staffers he had overheard part of a conversation about the Hanoi
> > proposal for ransom. He said he was willing to testify but feared reprisal
> > from his Treasury Department superiors and would need to be subpoenaed so
> > that his appearance could not be regarded as voluntary. Kerry refused to
> > subpoena him. Syphrit told me that four men were involved in that
> > conversation-Reagan, Allen, Vice President George H.W. Bush, and CIA
> > director William Casey. I wrote the story for Newsday.
> >
> > The final Kerry report brushed off the entire episode like unsightly
dust.
> > It said: "The committee found no credible evidence of any such [ransom]
> > offer being made."
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----
> >
> > A newcomer to this subject matter might reasonably ask why there was no great public outrage, no sustained headlines, no national demand for investigations, no penalties imposed on those who had hidden, and were
> still hiding, the truth. The simple, overarching explanation was that most
> > Americans wanted to put Vietnam behind them as fast as possible. Theywanted to forget this failed war, not deal with its truths or consequences. The press suffered from the same ostrich syndrome; no major media organization
> > ever carried out an in-depth investigation by a reporting team into the prisoner issue. When prisoner stories did get into the press, they would have a one-day life span, never to be followed up on. When three secretaries
> > of defense from the Vietnam era-James Schlesinger, Melvin Laird, and Elliot Richardson-testified before the Kerry committee, under oath, that
> > intelligence they received at the time convinced them that numbers of unacknowledged prisoners were being held by the Communists, the story
was reported by the press just that once and then dropped. The New York Times
> > put the story on page one but never pursued it further to explore the obvious ramifications.
> >
> > At that public hearing on September 21, 1992, toward the end of
> > Schlesinger's testimony, the former defense secretary, who earlier had
> been
> > CIA chief, was asked a simple question: "In your view, did we leave men
> > behind?"
> >
> > He replied: "I think that as of now, I can come to no other conclusion."
> >
> > He was asked to explain why Nixon would have accepted leaving men
behind.
> He
> > said: "One must assume that we had concluded that the bargaining position of the United States . . . was quite weak. We were anxious to get our troops
> > out and we were not going to roil the waters . . . "
> >
> > Another example of a story not pursued occurred at the Paris peace talks.
> > The North Vietnamese failed to provide a list of the prisoners until the treaty was signed. Afterward, when they turned over the list, U.S.
> > intelligence officials were taken aback by how many believed prisoners were
> > not included. The Vietnamese were returning only nine men from Laos. American records showed that more than 300 were probably being held. A story about this stunning gap, by New York Times Pentagon reporter John W. Finney,
> > appeared on the paper's front page on February 2, 1973. The story said: "Officials emphasized that the United States would be seeking clarification
> > . . . " No meaningful explanation was ever provided by the Vietnamese or by
> > the Laotian Communist guerrillas, the Pathet Lao, who were satellites of Hanoi.
> >
> > As a bombshell story for the media, particularly the Washington press corps,
> > it was there for the taking. But there were no takers.
I was drawn to the P.O.W. issue because of my reporting years for The New York Times during the Vietnam War, where I came to believe that our soldiers were being misled and disserved by our government. After the war,
military people who knew me and others who knew my work brought me information about live sightings of P.O.W.'s still in captivity and other evidence about
their existence. When the Kerry committee was announced (I was by then a columnist at Newsday), I thought the senator-having himself become disillusioned about the Vietnam War, and eventually an advocate against it-might really be
committed to digging out the truth. This was wishful thinking.
> > In the committee's early days, Kerry had given encouraging indications
of being a committed investigator. He said he had "leads" to the existence of
P.O.W.'s still in captivity. He said the number of these likely survivors was more than 100 and that this was the minimum. But in a very short time, he stopped saying such things and morphed his role into one of full
> alliance with the executive branch, the Pentagon, and other Washington hierarchies, joining their long-running effort to obscure and deny that a significant
> > number of live American prisoners had not been returned. As many as 700 withheld P.O.W.'s were cited in credible intelligence documents, including a speech by a senior North Vietnamese general that was discovered in
Soviet archives by an American scholar.
> >
> > Here are details of a few of the specific steps Kerry took to hide evidence about these P.O.W.'s.
> >
> > He gave orders to his committee staff to shred crucial intelligence documents. The shredding stopped only when some intelligence staffers staged a protest. Some wrote internal memos calling for a criminal investigation.
One such memo-from John F. McCreary, a lawyer and staff intelligence analyst-reported that the committee's chief counsel, J. William Codinha, a
longtime Kerry friend, "ridiculed the staff members" and said, "Who's the injured party?" When staffers cited "the 2,494 families of the unaccounted-for U.S. servicemen, among others," the McCreary memo continued,
> > Codinha said: "Who's going to tell them? It's classified."
> >
> > Kerry defended the shredding by saying the documents weren't originals,
> only
> > copies-but the staff's fear was that with the destruction of the copies,
> the
> > information would never get into the public domain, which it didn't.
Kerry
> > had promised the staff that all documents acquired and prepared by the
> > committee would be turned over to the National Archives at the committee's expiration. This didn't happen. Both the staff and independent researchers reported that many critical documents were withheld.
> >
> > Another protest memo from the staff reported: "An internal Department of Defense Memorandum identifies Frances Zwenig [Kerry's staff director] as the conduit to the Department of Defense for the acquisition of sensitive
and restricted information from this Committee . . . lines of investigation have been seriously compromised by leaks" to the Pentagon and "other agencies of the executive branch." It also said the Zwenig leaks were "endangering
the lives and livelihood of two witnesses."
> >
> > A number of staffers became increasingly upset about Kerry's close relationship with the Department of Defense, which was supposed to be under examination. (Dick Cheney was then defense secretary.) It had become
clear
> > that Kerry, Zwenig, and others close to the chairman, such as Senatorjohn McCain of Arizona, a dominant committee member, had gotten cozy with the officials and agencies supposedly being probed for obscuring P.O.W.
> > information over the years. Committee hearings, for example, were being orchestrated to suit the examinees, who were receiving lists of potential questions in advance. Another internal memo from the period, by a staffer
> > who requested anonymity, said: "Speaking for the other investigators, I can
> > say we are sick and tired of this investigation being controlled by those we are supposedly investigating."
> >
> > The Kerry investigative technique was equally soft in many other critical ways. He rejected all suggestions that the committee require former presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush to testify. All were
> in the Oval Office during the Vietnam era and its aftermath. They had information critical to the committee, for each president was carefully and regularly briefed by his national security adviser and others about
P.O.W.
> > developments. It was a huge issue at that time.
> >
> > Kerry also refused to subpoena the Nixon office tapes (yes, the Watergate
> > tapes) from the early months of 1973 when the P.O.W.'s were an intense subject because of the peace talks and the prisoner return that followed.
> > (Nixon had rejected committee requests to provide the tapes voluntarily.)
> > Information had seeped out for years that during the Paris talks and afterward, Nixon had been briefed in detail by then national security advisor Brent Scowcroft and others about the existence of P.O.W.'s whom
> > Hanoi was not admitting to. Nixon, distracted by Watergate, apparently decided it was crucial to get out of the Vietnam mess immediately, even if it cost those lives. Maybe he thought there would be other chances down
> the road to bring these men back. So he approved the peace treaty and on March 29, 1973, the day the last of the 591 acknowledged prisoners were released in Hanoi, Nixon announced on national television: "All of our American
> > P.O.W.'s are on their way home."
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ----
> >
> > The Kerry committee's final report, issued in January 1993, delivered the ultimate insult to history. The 1,223-page document said there was "no compelling evidence that proves" there is anyone still in captivity. As for
> > the primary investigative question -what happened to the men left behind in 1973-the report conceded only that there is "evidence . . . that indicates the possibility of survival, at least for a small number" of prisoners 31
> > years ago, after Hanoi released the 591 P.O.W.'s it had admitted to.
> > With these word games, the committee report buried the issue-and the men.
> >
> > The huge document contained no findings about what happened to the supposedly "small number." If they were no longer alive, then how did they die? Were they executed when ransom offers were rejected by Washington?
> >
> > Kerry now slides past all the radio messages, satellite photos, live sightings, and boxes of intelligence documents-all the evidence. In his comments for this piece, this candidate for the presidency said: "No
> nation has gone to the lengths that we did to account for their dead. None-ever in history."
> >
> > Of the so-called "possibility" of a "small number" of men left behind, the committee report went on to say that if this did happen, the men were not "knowingly abandoned," just "shunted aside." How do you put that on a
gravestone?
> >
In the end, the fact that Senator Kerry covered up crucial evidence as committee chairman didn't seem to bother too many Massachusetts voters
when he came up for re-election-or the recent voters in primary states. So I wouldn't predict it will be much of an issue in the presidential election
come November. It seems there is no constituency in America for missing
Vietnam P.O.W.'s except for their families and some veterans of that war.
> >
> > A year after he issued the committee report, on the night of January 26, 1994, Kerry was on the Senate floor pushing through a resolution calling on
> > President Clinton to lift the 19-year-old trade embargo against Vietnam.In the debate, Kerry belittled the opposition, saying that those who still believed in abandoned P.O.W.'s were perpetrating a hoax. "This process,"
> he declaimed, "has been led by a certain number of charlatans and exploiters, and we should not allow fiction to cloud what we are trying to do here."
> >
> > Kerry's resolution passed, by a vote of 62 to 38. Sadly for him, the passage of ten thousand resolutions cannot make up for wants in a man's character.
> >
> > villagevoice.com
> >
> > Sen. Kerry's dead letter
> > On the theory that the best defense is a good offense, Sen. John Kerry, in an open letter to President Bush, tried to intimidate the president into not raising the senator's defense and foreign policy voting record as an
issue during the campaign. He told the president to stop questioning his "commitment to the defense of our country ... [or ]the patriotism of Democrats who question the direction of our nation." Then, using one of
> the reddest herrings ever drawn across the public's collective political olfactory sense, he averred: "I'd like to know what it is Republicans who didn't serve in Vietnam have against those of us who did." One searches
in vain for a sincere syllable in that flagrant decoy. Of course, Republicans - both the leaders and the rank and le -have nothing against (and a lot in favor of) Vietnam veterans. Moreover, three decades ago, Republicans overwhelmingly continued to support both that
war and our soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen and coast guarders long after
many top Democratic Party leaders and their rank and file had cut and
run.
> > Mr. Kerry's accusation against Republicans constitutes McCarthyism of the first water, and should be shunned and condemned by responsible citizens and news organizations.
> > But at the tactical heart of the senator's canny open letter is the effort to conflate in the public mind his patriotism with his judgment. Of course the president and his advocates are not questioning Mr. Kerry's patriotism
or commitment to our national security. But they are questioning his
> > judgment and wisdom as measured by his public words and votes over his public career.
> > American foreign policy has been hotly disputed throughout our history.
> > Overwhelmingly, however, it has not been a dispute between patriots and traitors, but between different patriotic visions of how to maintain our
> > liberty and safety in a dangerous world.
> > Isolationism and internationalism in the 1930s were both sincere, patriotic theories of national defense. But internationalism proved the wiser (and inevitable) policy.
> > During the latter years of the Cold War, peace through disarmament and peace through rearmament were both patriotic visions. But Ronald Reagan's rearmament strategy proved the wiser in the judgment of history. It is completely legitimate for President Bush's campaign to cite Mr. Kerry's voting record and public words in an attempt to prove that the senator's military and foreign policy judgments of the last 30 years have been unwise and unrealistic. Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam is a credit to him as a man. But it cannot be used as a shield to protect him from a fair assessment of his judgment
and wisdom as a statesman. It is sad to see him attempt to so use it.
> >
> > washtimes.com
> > John Kerry, the Sunshine Soldier
> > By Joel Mowbray
> > FrontPageMagazine.com | February 24, 2004
> >
> > After the media tore into President Bush's 30-year-old National Guard record
like a rabid pit bull into a bacon-scented postman, Democrats have been licking their chops in anticipation of highlighting John Kerry's decorated service during the same time period.
> >
> > A new web site that launched yesterday (Monday, January 23), however, should
give Democrats more than a moment's pause-and is likely just the opening salvo in exposing the truth about the outlandish actions of Kerry and his comrades as part of an anti-war group known as Vietnam Veterans Against
the War.
> >
Created by the conservative Free Republic Network, WinterSoldier.com
seems to contain the most comprehensive compilation of Kerry's words and deeds shortly after returning to America more than three decades ago. (It can also
be found at JohnKerryforPresident.info.)
> >
The new site is named after the event that helped raise Kerry to prominence in 1971. The Winter Soldier Investigation, as it was called, was held in Detroit from January 31 to February 2-with financial backing from Hanoi
Hannah herself, Jane Fonda, according to an historian cited on the web site-where over 100 veterans testified about the most horrendous war crimes imaginable happening every day.
> >
> > John Kerry was an instant celebrity, and the group behind the three-day conference, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), certainly served his
political ambitions well. But if the wealth of information found at WinterSoldier.com gains any traction, Kerry's past could come back to haunt him.
> >
> > Although it is not the most user-friendly site, WinterSoldier.com carries
everything from charges leveled at the original Detroit event to excerpts
from historians' books that are quite damning to Kerry and VVAW.
> >
> > But the bulk of the research for the site, done largely by Free Republic Director Scott Swett, comes from a book authored by John Kerry and the VVAW,
> > "The New Soldier." Since the out-of-print book is almost impossible to find-Free Republic spent over $400 to obtain its copy-most people will have
> > to rely on the new web site to fully appreciate just how radical VVAW and Kerry were.
> >
> > VVAW was a media favorite: war veterans who were anti-war. Quite a sales pitch. But the more realistic characterization would have been Americans
> who were anti-American. (Literally, too: One of the documents at WinterSoldier.com is the minutes of a VVAW executive meeting where members
decided to take down American flags from all VVAW offices.)
> >
> > Their goal was not just to sour Americans on the Vietnam war, but to
make
> > them hate America and American soldiers.
> >
> > Hence the Winter Soldier Investigation.
> >
> > The three-day circus featured tales of the most sadistic forms of
torture,
> > including genital mutilation and gang rape, and wanton mass murder of
> > innocent civilians. In the words of Kerry three months later to the
Senate
> > Foreign Relations Committee, "These were not isolated incidents but
crimes
> > committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at
all
> > levels of command."
> >
> > In other words, Kerry and VVAW claimed that almost unprecedented war
> crimes
> > were not simply rampant, but committed as a matter of U.S. policy.
> >
> > One of the most shocking quotes comes from Kerry himself, admitting that
> he
> > had committed war crimes in Vietnam, then shrugging that off as merely a
> > matter of following orders. Following orders, however, does not absolve
> > someone of guilt for committing war crimes. Which begs the question:
will
> > Kerry be willing to discuss the details of the war crimes he admits
> > committing?
> >
> > Though not quite proof of a war crime, WinterSoldier.com has two flyers
> for
> > a September 1971 event listing both Kerry and the former Mrs. Ted Turner as
speakers. Though that issue makes for media fodder, it is far from the most appalling piece of evidence on the new site.
Also under the "documents" section at WinterSoldier.com is a
particularly incendiary VVAW flyer with the screaming, all-caps headline, "A U.S. INFANTRY COMPANY JUST CAME THROUGH HERE!" Just below, the top line reads, "If you had been Vietnamese--" and it is followed by eight lines of increasingly inflammatory charges. Each line begins with "We might have" and then finishes with such doozies as "burned your house," "shot your dog,"
> > "shot you," and "raped your wife and daughter."
> >
> > Some will excuse VVAW's actions and hyperbolic rhetoric as necessary tactics or as the work of people understandably disillusioned by an embittering
> war experience. But there is evidence suggesting that many of the atrocitie s routinely touted by VVAW were, well, made up.
> >
> > An excerpt of historian Guenter Lewy's book According to America posted
on
> > WinterSoldier.com discusses the results of a government investigation
that
> > attempted to corroborate the claims made at the VVAW event in Detroit.
The
> > investigators couldn't.
> >
> > According to Lewy, the VVAW had told its members not to cooperate with
the
> > government inquiry-a probe that was initiated by Sen. Mark Hatfield of
> > Oregon in order to verify gruesome claims made at the VVAW-sponsored
> event.
> > The historian also notes that government inspectors found veterans whose
> > names had been used by people testifying in Detroit that were not
actually
> > there.
> >
> > In other words, some of the "witnesses" in Detroit were impostors,
> > tarnishing the names of real soldiers.
> >
> > It appears that Kerry was also something of an impostor. During a
massive
> > rally in front of the U.S. Capitol, a number of veterans threw their
> medals
> > over a high-wire fence. One was Kerry. Or at least so it appeared.
> >
> > Under a section called "Busted by the historians" is an excerpt from
> Stolen
> > Valor by B. G. Burkett, Glenna Whitley. Money quote: "But years later,
> after
his election to the Senate, Kerry's medals turned up on the wall of his Capitol Hill office. When a reporter noticed them, Kerry admitted that the medals he had thrown that day were not his."
Since Kerry's comrades seem so eager to judge President Bush's character by whether or not he fulfilled a handful of National Guard obligations, the door may already have been opened to attacks on the Democratic front runner' s own conduct from those days.
> >
> > Voters could have plenty of versions of Kerry from which to choose: the communist sympathizer who gleefully defamed America and millions of American soldiers, the war hero too cowardly to throw away his own medals, or the anti-war activist who was so eager to claim he had committed war crimes.
> > frontpagemagazine.com |
