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 : The TRUTH About John Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (476)3/1/2004 7:00:18 AM
From: tonto  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1483
 
Edwards did an excellent job yesterday. He has some fat that is not needed in his proposal, but he is the smartest one in the group. His problem is that he is running out of time.



To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (476)3/1/2004 11:22:16 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1483
 
John Kerry's Bright Shining Lie by Patrick J. Buchanan
Posted Feb 27, 2004

"I fought against Richard Nixon's war," John Kerry roared the night of his breakthrough in the Iowa caucuses.

"Nixon's War" has become a signature slur of Kerry's campaign to win the office Nixon held when Kerry was rubbishing Vietnam and the behavior in battle of the American soldiers who fought there.

In April of 1971, I was in the White House when Vietnam Veterans Against the War camped out on the mall, cursed the Nixon Administration, and threw their medals over the fence. John Kerry spent that week with friends in Georgetown and testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

What he told Sen. William Fulbright's (D.-Ark.) committee and NBC's "Meet the Press" was that America was engaged in genocide, that he and his warrior comrades had perpetrated atrocities, that their officers knew and approved of it, that our leaders were "war criminals."

Liberalism's War

Kerry told the Senate that 150 honorably discharged veterans, many of them highly decorated, had "testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia . . . on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command." As Kerry"s lurid depiction ran:

"[T]hey had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wire from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam. . . ."

Kerry has lately backed away from the more sensational of these charges. Yet still he calls it "Nixon's War."

This is slander. This is scape-goating. This is a bright shining lie by a man who showed bravery in battle but lacks the moral courage to tell the truth. This was not Nixon's War. It was Liberalism's War, the war into which The Best and Brightest of the New Frontier plunged this country. It was the war the liberals began, but could not win. Ousted from power, they turned in rage and resentment against Nixon when it appeared in 1973 he had ended the war in success and brought our troops and POWs home in honor.

That is why the Left had to bring him down. They could not abide the notion that Nixon succeeded in a war they had declared that America should never have fought and could not win.

What is the true history of that war?

When Nixon left the vice presidency on Jan. 20, 1961, there were 600 U.S. advisers in Vietnam and no U.S. war.

On Nov. 22, 1963, the day Kennedy died, there were 16,000 U.S. advisers in Vietnam, 25 times as many as were there when Ike and Nixon had left.

Only weeks earlier, Kennedy had approved of the coup that had led to the murder of President Diem, and massive U.S. involvement.

In 1964 Barry Goldwater demanded, "Why Not Victory?" To which LBJ replied, "Americans boys ought not to be doing the fighting that Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves."

But LBJ had already planned an escalation. In August of 1964 came the Tonkin Gulf incident between U.S. destroyers and North Vietnamese gunboats. A Democratic House voted 416 to 0 and a Democratic Senate 88 to 2 to authorize LBJ to take us into war.

That November, Johnson carried 61% of the vote. Democrats added to their strength in both houses of Congress. Liberals dominated this capital, its media, its culture, as they had not since FDR.

For all eight years of the Kennedy-Johnson tenure, more and more U.S. troops poured into Vietnam. When Nixon took office in 1969, some 525,000 U.S. troops were in Vietnam or on the way, and 35,000 had died. Kerry was first wounded in the Mekong while LBJ was still President.

How, then, can Kerry call it "Nixon's War"?

By the end of his first year, Nixon had reduced U.S. forces in Vietnam by scores of thousands. Yet as he was bringing the men and boys home and trying to save South Vietnam from a bloodbath, the liberal establishment that had marched us into Vietnam began to blame Nixon for Vietnam.

In October and November of 1969, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators surrounded the White House. Airborne troops were in the basement of the EOB.

Wrote the Washington Post's David Broder: "The men and the movement that broke Lyndon Johnson's authority in 1968 are out to break Richard M. Nixon in 1969. The likelihood is great that they will succeed again."

But Nixon did not break. He called on the Great Silent Majority to stand with him for "peace with honor." And the people did stand by him.

In April 1970 Nixon ordered the enemy sanctuaries in Cambodia, from which U.S. troops were being attacked, cleaned out. Two months after the incursion, U.S. casualties fell by 50%. In the spring of 1972, when Hanoi refused to negotiate in good faith, Nixon mined Haiphong and bombed Hanoi. When Hanoi began to renege on its commitments made in Paris, Nixon ordered the Christmas bombing.

From his first day in office, Nixon was determined to end the division of his country and bring the troops home, but not in defeat or disgrace. He put his presidency on the line to give South Vietnam a fighting chance for freedom from the evil regime Ho Chi Minh had created in the North. If Kerry thinks what Nixon did was a war crime, let him ask John McCain what he felt when he heard the bombs falling on the Hanoi rail yards.

In his testimony to the Fulbright Committee, Kerry declared that, "to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom . . . is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy."

Tell that to the families of the South Vietnamese executed in the thousands and sent in the tens of thousands to the "reeducation camps" when Saigon fell. Tell that to the families of the million Cambodians who perished in the Killing Fields.

Why has Kerry never acknowledged he was wrong? Why has he never apologized for having been a fool and for having slandered the memory of the 58,000 Americans who died to prevent these horrors?

Vietnam was not only the "noble cause" Ronald Reagan declared it to be. It was a winnable war. And Richard Nixon did not lose it. He sacrificed his presidency to end it with honor for the Americans who had fought and with freedom for the South Vietnamese for whom they had fought. Nixon tried, and, yes, he failed.

But it was the American Left and the movement an ambitious John Kerry joined, after he came home, that poured down a sewer everything for which 58,000 Americans gave their lives.

For the truth about Vietnam is this. That war was not lost in Asia. U.S. soldiers did not lose a single battle. That war was lost in the United States. Who lost Vietnam? That question still sticks in the craw of this country and it shall until this generation passes away.

In their hearts the American people know the answer. This war was lost by a national establishment that plunged us into it, could not win or end it, broke and ran, and sabotaged Nixon's effort to end it with honor. These were the guilty men.

The greatest of the war crimes was not committed in Vietnam. It was committed here, in this city, when Congress, prodded and pushed by Nixon-haters, tied his hands, restricted U.S. bombing, slashed military aid to the South, leaving our ally at the mercy of invading armies from the North supplied by Moscow and Beijing. These are the people who bear moral responsibility for the loss of Vietnam, the horrors that followed, and the holocaust in Cambodia.

What John Kerry did in Vietnam was honorable. What he did after that war--sliming the troops as mad dogs and war criminals--was disgraceful and dishonorable, and contributed to the loss of Vietnam and the humiliation of our country.

Truth be told, many leftists welcomed America's defeat. Some ran to New York to welcome the Hanoi delegation to the UN. Others marched under Viet Cong flags in demonstrations and were welcomed as they chanted their mocking slogan, "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is going to win!" It was not only Jane Fonda who was guilty of treason in that time.

As for Richard Nixon, whatever his sins, he was a patriot who loved his country and her soldiers, and did his damnedest to bring her fighting men home with the honor they deserved. Ask the POWs.



To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (476)3/1/2004 11:24:11 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 1483
 
humaneventsonline.com



To: Ann Corrigan who wrote (476)3/1/2004 11:47:02 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1483
 
Edwards swings hard at Kerry in debate
By Anne E. Kornblut, Globe Staff, 3/1/2004

NEW YORK -- Senator John Edwards, shelving his courtly manner two days before the critical Super Tuesday contests, challenged front-runner John F. Kerry on his trade and fiscal policies during the Democratic debate yesterday -- part of the underdog's late effort to close opinion poll gaps that predict his across-the-board defeat in 10 states tomorrow.

Edwards accused Kerry of peddling the "same old Washington talk that people have been listening to for decades," prompting Kerry to say that Edwards has also been in the Senate the last five years. "That seems to me to be in Washington, D.C.," Kerry snapped.

Even as some Democrats continued to hope for a ticket with the top two candidates on it, the pair's relationship appeared increasingly frayed during the hour-long debate, with Edwards calling Kerry's descriptions of his views "dead wrong" and adamantly denying he had gone easy on Kerry to put himself in line for the vice presidential slot.

"Oh, no. Oh, no, no, no," Edwards said when asked about running for second place. "Far from it."

The debate, the second involving the pared-down field, gave the four candidates an opportunity to touch on the sensitive cultural and religious issues certain to play a major role in the election against President Bush. The moderators, from the CBS network, its local affiliate, and The New York Times, also took the participants through foreign policy issues, including, for the first time, Haiti, where earlier in the day onetime US-backed President Jean-Bertrand Aristide resigned.

Kerry and Edwards accused the Bush administration of getting involved in Haiti too late, a position they echoed when asked about North Korea.

"He's late, as usual," Kerry said, referring to Bush's response in Haiti. "I never would have allowed it to get out of control the way it did. This administration empowered the insurgents," who have violently taken control of the country over the last few days.

Kerry and Edwards restated their opposition to gay marriage, though they support legal rights for gays under civil unions.

"I've been to the wedding of somebody who has gotten married who's gay," Kerry said.

Kerry spokeswoman Stephanie Cutter said he attended the commitment ceremony of the son of Chad Gifford, Kerry's longtime friend and chairman and chief executive of FleetBoston Financial Corp. Rufus Gifford and Russell Bennett exchanged vows on Nantucket in August 2002.

At another point, the candidates, including Ohio Representative Dennis J. Kucinich and the Rev. Al Sharpton, were asked to share what they "believe in." Kerry replied: "I believe in God. And I believe in the power of redemption, and the capacity of individual human beings to be able to make a difference, because, as President Kennedy said, `Here on Earth, God's work must truly be our own.' "

But Kerry's response was more halting when asked whether he believed that God is on America's side -- something Bush asserts in the war on terrorism.

"I believe in God, but I don't believe the way President Bush does," Kerry said. "We pray God is on our side and we pray hard."

As in past debates, the candidates, especially Kerry, tried to lob their attacks at Bush. But the tone was more contentious than in the past, not only among the candidates but between the candidates and the moderators. Sharpton, who has not won any states, grew especially irritated at what he sensed was the panel's focus on the two top candidates. At one point, when Times correspondent Elisabeth Bumiller interrupted Kerry's explanation of his spending priorities, Kerry shot back, "No, I insist on being able to finish."

"I want to ask a really important question," Bumiller said.

"This is important," Kerry retorted.

Then Sharpton jumped in. "If we're going to have a discussion just between two -- in your arrogance, you can try that, but that's one of the reasons we're going to have delegates, so that you can't just limit the discussion," he said. "And I think that your attempt to do this is blatant, and I'm going to call you out on it because I'm not going to sit here and be window dressing."

"Well, I'm not going to be addressed like this," Bumiller said.

"Well then let all of us speak," Sharpton replied.

But the biggest development appeared to be Edwards's willingness to take on Kerry, who has won all but two of the states that have held primary contests.

Though Edwards has made politeness and optimism the trademark of his campaign, he sounded far more serious, even aggressive, throughout the debate. He said he would carry on in the campaign even if he does not win any of the 10 states with elections tomorrow.

The pressure is clearly on the North Carolina senator to perform well this week to keep up support for his remaining in the race.

At a campaign event in Brooklyn immediately after the debate, Edwards varied slightly from his usual stump speech line about running a positive campaign. "There are differences between us," Edwards said, "and the voters deserve to know those differences." He traveled to Albany and Manhattan yesterday and will be in Ohio during the day today.

Kerry, who plans to watch the returns tomorrow in Florida, drew immediate fire from the Republican National Committee for several of his responses -- especially his dismissal of a rating by the National Journal publication that placed him first among liberals in the Senate. Kerry called the rating a "laughable characterization." At another point, after Edwards cited a story in the Washington Post asserting Kerry would keep the country in deficit, Kerry walked through the specifics of his plan, denying the charge.

"I think John would have learned by now not to believe everything he reads in a newspaper," Kerry said. "And he should do his homework because the fact is that what's printed in the Washington Post today is inaccurate."

Information from the Associated Press was used in this report