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 : Hanoi john Should Be Court Martialed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (431)3/8/2004 11:12:41 PM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 681
 
I suspect GHWB's investment in the Carlyle Group is widely exaggerated.

In Houston, rich Saudis are taken care of.

At the Medical Center perhaps.



To: American Spirit who wrote (431)3/8/2004 11:16:26 PM
From: PROLIFE  Respond to of 681
 
North Korea Likes Kerry - Does That Say Something?

The North Korean state-run media is supporting John Kerry for U.S. President, hoping that he will be soft on communism. Their deferential treatment of him has included playing up polls showing he could defeat Bush and broadcasting his speeches throughout North Korea on Radio Pyongyang.



Iranian leaders like Senator John Kerry. Does that say something?

North Korea likes Senator John Kerry. Does that say something?

According to Financial Times’ Andrew Ward in Seoul and James Harding in Washington, North Korean media is taking quite ambitiously and kindly to Kerry for United States President. How very interesting for those of us who champion George W. Bush for US President.

"North Korea Warms to Kerry Presidency Bid" headlines the Financial Times piece.

North Korea smilingly regards Kerry as soft on global terrorism. He’s an easy catch when it comes to living with those doing nuclear build-ups. He’s not going to be aggressive like GWB when it comes to protecting the planet from killers international.

North Korea sees Kerry as an idealist who is more pliable for playing with. He’s more gullible, in other words.

Therefore, it’s with "reverential reporting" that North Korea’s media gives center stage coverage to Kerry. He’s become a favorite for headlines, even to the extent of his speeches being plastered throughout. His oratory has made it big time on Radio Pyongyang. His rhetoric has come into its own through the Korea Central News Agency, "the official mouthpiece of Mr. Kim’s communist regime.

Does that say something?

Around the world, those regimes that are into clandestine activities, seeking to do in democracy planting and further their own global control agendas are becoming willing fans of Kerry and Team. They are unabashedly broadcasting their applause for his winning the presidency come November.

With such friends on America’s side, why fear the future? Right?

Kerry links with Jane Fonda once again. Vietnam Vets are up in arms about his playing hero while exploiting them as criminals, accusing them of setting loose atrocities numerous. And now North Korea sees him as a kiss-up major.

North Koreans think that Kerry is right-on when "pledging to adopt a more ‘sincere attitude’ toward North Korea if elected."

Again, I repeat, does this say something important or does this say something important?

intellectualconservative.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (431)3/9/2004 3:15:06 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 681
 
hey assh*le... fooled mouth disease democrap



To: American Spirit who wrote (431)3/9/2004 10:39:05 AM
From: GROUND ZERO™  Respond to of 681
 
john fonda kerry has no chance...

GZ



To: American Spirit who wrote (431)3/9/2004 11:23:13 AM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 681
 
Flippin' and Floppin'
Tuesday, Mar 09, 2004; 8:54 AM

I've been giving some deep philosophical thought to this whole 'flip-flop' business, which seems to be the FCC-approved F-word of the presidential campaign, at least this week.

Can it really be that both candidates are spineless tacticians who change their positions at the slightest provocation, just to vacuum up votes? Or is that just typical campaign rhetoric?

Is changing your mind in politics really such an awful thing?

Do we really our politicians to be so cautious about future attacks that they're afraid to explore new ideas or think out loud? After all, if you stick to the same old stale talking points, you can never be accused of flipping. Or flopping.

At the same time, if presidential aspirants don't have a cohesive approach over the years to fundamental matters of war and peace and the economy--or at least a logical progression--that raises some serious concerns.

I also wonder whether these back-and-forth charges just cancel themselves out as voters give up on figuring out who deserves the championship in the flip-flopping sweepstakes.

On one side, Andrew Sullivan lays out the case against JFK:

"Over the many years that John Kerry has been in the United States Senate, the Democrat from Massachusetts has accumulated an astonishing ability to have been on every side of most issues . . .

"Take a couple of obvious issues in American politics. Affirmative action. As writer Michael Grunwald recently pointed out, in 1992, John Kerry made something of a splash attacking racial preferences as counter-productive and divisive. Kerry worried out loud about whether such racial set-asides encouraged a 'culture of dependency.' It seemed like a brave statement of the time - from a man willing to challenge Democratic orthodoxy. But almost as soon as he had uttered those words, Kerry backtracked. His current position is blanket support for all affirmative action. His campaign website brags that he has 'consistently opposed efforts in the Senate to undermine or eliminate affirmative action programs, and supports programs that seeks to enhance diversity.'

"On another critical issue, education reform, Kerry once took on the all-powerful teacher's unions whose resistance to weeding out poor teachers and allowing parents greater choice in schools has been a huge drag on improving performance and raising standards. In 1998, he supported giving head teachers more leeway to fire bad teachers, end tenure and allow for real reform. Now, he's once again a tool of the teachers' lobby. His campaign brochure promises to 'stop blaming and start supporting public school educators,' and to give them 'better training and better pay, with more career opportunities, more empowerment and more mentors.'

"You can point to a long litany of other issues where Kerry has taken one position and then regressed to another. Even in this campaign, he started out as pro-war (he voted for it in the Senate) and then, sensing Howard Dean's appeal, swung against it. In the Senate, he voted for the Iraq war resolution and then against the $87 billion needed to fund the reconstruction. On trade, Kerry's record has been consistently - yes consistently! - in favor of free trade. But as soon as John Edwards' charismatic protectionism seemed to threaten his momentum, Kerry shifted back to talking about 'putting teeth' into labor and environment protections in free trade agreements."



To: American Spirit who wrote (431)3/9/2004 12:40:37 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 681
 
Kerry Says His Views on Arafat Have Shifted

By Mike Glover
Associated Press
Tuesday, March 9, 2004; 10:05 AM

TAMPA, Fla. -- Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) says he no longer considers Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to be a statesman, but rather "an outlaw to the peace process" in the Middle East who has been rightly shuffled aside.

In a 1997 book, Kerry described "Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman." But in an interview with The Associated Press, he said he no longer views Arafat favorably.

"Obviously, Yasser Arafat has been an impediment to the peace process," said Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting. "He missed a historic opportunity and he's proved himself to be irrelevant."

On Tuesday, Kerry visited a coffee shop in a Cuban-American neighborhood in Tampa before flying to Chicago for campaign appearances. He was awaiting results in four Southern states -- Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas -- with delegate elections.

In a wide-ranging interview Monday with the AP, Kerry said Arafat "blew his opportunity" to be effective in 1999 and 2000.

"He was (a statesman) in 1995," Kerry said, recalling frequent White House meetings between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in search of peace in the Middle East. "As far as I'm concerned, he's an outlaw to the peace process."

The Bush administration has ruled out dealing with Arafat, a veteran Palestinian activist, claiming he is tainted with terror against Israel, a close U.S. ally. In the peace process, the administration has dealt only with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and senior Palestinian officials appointed by Arafat.

Of the campaign against Bush, Kerry said, "It's not personal."

"He's an enjoyable person to be with," Kerry said. "He's funny and so forth, but he doesn't keep his promises."

Kerry added: "It has nothing to do with him being a good man, bad man. I'm not here to judge him personally, that's up to other people, that's up to God."

In discussing foreign policy, the Massachusetts senator said he couldn't guarantee that Saddam Hussein would now be out of power in Iraq if he had been president over the past year.

"I can't tell you that," said Kerry, who faults Bush for not allowing continued U.N. inspections in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction Saddam was said to be hiding.

"If we had exhausted that process and built a legitimate coalition and Saddam Hussein had not complied, I would not have hesitated to march with that coalition against him," said Kerry. "You don't know how an appropriate global coalition with the proper amount of patience might have coerced him into a different set of behaviors."

Kerry, who was on the final day of a swing through the four Southern states that vote Tuesday, said the South has "changed dramatically" since the last election.

Al Gore, the nominee in 2000 and a native Tennessean, fared poorly in the region, which Kerry said was largely due to Gore's staunch support for gun control. A hunter and gun owner, Kerry said he expected to fare better.

Kerry also rejected suggestions that the gay marriage issue would be a potent weapon against him in the South. Kerry opposes same-sex marriage, but favors giving such couples certain rights. He also said he didn't think Bush's support for a constitutional amendment banning such unions would sell well in the South.

"The people of the South who are conservative would never want to disrespect the Constitution of the United States for wildly political purposes," Kerry said. He said economic issues will resonate more.

Kerry, meanwhile, said his former rivals have largely fallen into line and that he was meeting this week with Howard Dean and John Edwards, both of whom want to "be part of the team."

"I think our party is more united than it has been in years," he said.

Kerry declined to address any aspect of his search for a running mate. "I have not talked to anyone on my staff about this," he said. "I want to keep it personal and I want to keep it private."



To: American Spirit who wrote (431)3/9/2004 5:15:41 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 681
 
Kerry alternately pleases, befuddles Arab Americans and Jews
By JAMES KUHNHENN
Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Sen. John Kerry is a former altar boy with a Jewish heritage that includes at least two victims of the Holocaust in his family tree. His brother converted to Judaism. He supports Israel. So he should be a cinch with Jewish voters and donors, yes?

Not quite.

Over the past few months, wary leaders of the Jewish community have questioned Kerry's stance on the Middle East. Many were incensed when he told Arab-Americans in October that Israel's security fence presented a "barrier to peace."

They've urged him to clarify his position and warned that Jews, a reliable Democratic bloc in the past, are politically in play after President Bush's forceful post-Sept. 11, 2001, policies in the Middle East.

"The Jewish community has not been a battleground until now," said Rep. Anthony Weiner, D-N.Y., who attended a question-filled session between Kerry and Jewish leaders last week in New York.

For Kerry, holding on to Jewish voters is especially important in states such as Florida. So far, Kerry has fared well with Jews as he has moved to secure the Democratic Party nomination, but the Sunshine State could be crucial in November's general election, and Jewish defections to Bush could cost Kerry the state.

The closely divided U.S. electorate, however, has led Kerry to perform a political high-wire act.

Arab-Americans are also becoming a political force and constitute a sizable voting bloc in states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania. Kerry has gone out of his way to appeal for their votes. He has scored with his criticism of Attorney General John Ashcroft, whom many Arab-Americans accuse of civil rights violations in the aftermath of Sept. 11.

"We feel closer to Senator Kerry than we did to many of the other (Democratic) candidates who were running," said James Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute, an advocacy group for Arab-Americans.

Zogby pointed out that Ralph Nader, who is of Lebanese ancestry, received more than 13 percent of the Arab-American vote in 2000. More than 80 percent of those voters, Zogby said, chose Nader because of his pro-Arab stance on Middle East policy.

"There's something there (for Kerry) to be concerned about," Zogby said.

The Middle East thicket also could affect Kerry's ability to raise money. Jewish contributors have always been a staple of the Democratic donor base. With President Bush armed with a record-setting campaign treasury, any slippage in fund raising could be disastrous.

"Among the Democratic voter base for whom Israel is a seminal issue, there are many more who are writing checks to Republicans than I have ever seen," said Weiner, a Kerry supporter.

The Middle East also poses another problem for Kerry: It illustrates the criticism that he equivocates on issues.

In his speech to Arab-Americans in Dearborn, Mich., in October, Kerry said Israel's security fence was "provocative and counterproductive" and presented a "barrier to peace."

He also said that, if elected president, he would name former President Jimmy Carter or former Secretary of State James Baker as peace envoys to the region.

But many Jewish leaders have long perceived Carter and Baker as being tougher on Israel than on Arab countries and object to giving them negotiating roles.

At his meeting with about 50 Jewish leaders in New York on Feb. 28, Kerry backed off and offered to send President Clinton's former national security adviser Samuel "Sandy" Berger and his special Middle East envoy, Dennis Ross, as his intermediaries.

Kerry also has been a persistent critic of President Bush's foreign policy, calling it arrogant and inept and has demanded a greater role for the United Nations. That sparked a question from Jack Rosen, the president of the American Jewish Congress.

"Given his position on the question of multilateralism and knowing that the United Nations has not been a kind home for the Israelis ... would he continue to maintain the current Bush policy of vetoing any one-sided resolution at the U.N. Security Council," Rosen said he asked. "He quickly reacted and said he would maintain that same policy."

Kerry also repeated his assertion, made in a debate earlier in the day, that the fence is "necessary to the security of Israel until they have a partner to be able to negotiate." Campaign spokesman David Wade later said the objections Kerry expressed in Michigan about the fence were based on its proposed location inside the West Bank, not on Israel's right to build it.

Rosen, a longtime Democrat, is a fan of Bush's Middle East policy and gave $100,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2002. He said that while Kerry has a long pro-Israel record, he was withholding final judgment.

"You can't go to Michigan and give nuances to one crowd and then come to New York and give nuances to another crowd," he said.

Former New York Mayor Ed Koch, a lifelong Democrat turned Bush supporter, exemplifies the problem Kerry faces.

"I am for Bush because I think his position on international terrorism and the Bush doctrine, which is we will go after terrorists and countries who harbor them, trumps everything else," Koch said. "I don't agree with any domestic position he has taken."

In meetings with Jewish backers, Kerry reminds them that his brother Cameron converted to Judaism and that his sister-in-law is Jewish. Kerry also mentions his Jewish ancestry - his grandparents on his father's side were Jewish.

Last week, an Austrian genealogist hired by the Boston Globe discovered that Kerry's grandmother's sister and brother, Jenny and Otto Lowe, died in the Holocaust. On his Web site, genealogist Felix Gundacker said Otto Lowe was murdered in the Theresienstadt ghetto in Czechoslovakia in 1943. Jenny Lowe disappeared in the Treblinka death camp.

Two weeks ago, aboard his campaign plane, Kerry voiced concern about the resurgence of anti-Jewish sentiment in America and abroad. Asked whether he intended to watch Mel Gibson's controversial "The Passion of the Christ," Kerry said he was unsure.

"I'm concerned about the anti-Semitism message," he said. "I don't know if it's there or not there. But it's a concern. There's a lot of that around right now. There's a lot in Europe. There's a lot in other parts of the country. I think we have to be careful of it."

On the Web:

(For more on Kerry's ancestors, go to genealogist Felix Gundacker's Web site at the Institute for Historical Family Research at www.ihff.at/indexstarte.htm)



To: American Spirit who wrote (431)3/9/2004 8:50:16 PM
From: PROLIFE  Respond to of 681
 
Who's Kerry?
by JEREMIAH DENTON
Special to the Register

Knowing that I served in the U.S. Senate with John Kerry and that, like him, I am a veteran of the Vietnam War, many people have asked me what I think of him, particularly now that he's the ap parent presidential nominee of the Democratic Party.

When Kerry joined me in the Senate, I already knew about his record of defamatory remarks and behavior criticizing U.S. policy in Vietnam and the conduct of our military personnel there. I had learned in North Vietnamese prisons how much harm such statements caused.

To me, his remarks and behavior amounted to giving aid and comfort to our Vietnamese and Soviet enemies. So I was not surprised when his subsequent overall voting pattern in the Senate was consistently detrimental to our national security.

Considering his demonstrated popularity during the Democratic primaries, I earnestly hope the American people will soberly consider Kerry's qualifications for the pres idency in light of his position and record on both our cultural war at home and on national security issues.

To put it bluntly, John Kerry exemplifies the very reasons that I switched to the Repub lican Party. Like the majority in his political party, he has proven by his words and actions that his list of priorities -- his ideas on what most needs to be done to improve this country -- are almost opposite to my own.

Here are two issue areas that I consider top priorities: the war over the soul of America, and national security.

Top priority should be placed on an effort to recover our most fundamental founding belief that our national objectives, policies and laws should reflect obedience to the will of Almighty God. Our Declaration of Independence, our national Constitution and each of the states' constitutions stress that basic American national principle.

For about 200 years, the entire country, both parties and all branches of government understood that principle and tried to follow it, if imperfectly.

For some 50 years, our nation's opinion-makers, our courts and, gradually, our politicians have been abandoning our historical effort to be "one nation under God" in favor of becoming "one nation without God," with glaringly unfavorable results.

I believe our political leaders, educational system, parents and opinion-makers must all return to teaching the truth most emphasized by our Founding Fathers.

George Washington called religious belief indispensable to the prosperity of our democracy. William Penn said, "Men must choose to be governed by God or condemn themselves to be ruled by tyrants." And when asked what caused the Civil War, President Lincoln said, "We have forgotten God."

In these days we have not only forgotten God, we are by our new standards of government and culture rejecting him as the acknowledged creator and as the endower of our rights.

As a result, we are suffering cultural decay and human unhappiness. The decline of the institution of the family is the most obvious result.

Perhaps the current movie, "The Passion of the Christ," will help many to come to realize the cost of the redemption of our sins, and the destructiveness of sin.

Let's remember that over 95 percent of Americans during our founding days were Christians, and though our Founding Fathers stipulated that no one was to be compelled to believe in any religion, and also stipulated that there would be no single Christian denomina tion installed as a national religion, there was no question that our laws were to be firmly based on the Judean Ten Commandments and on Christ's mandate to love your neighbor as you love yourself.

That setup brought us amazing success as a nation, lifting us from our humble beginnings, through crisis after crisis, to become the leading nation of the world.

Now, though, we are throwing away the very source of our strength and greatness. Yet I am not giving up on our country. I am encouraged at the stand and the attitude of our president, and inspired by his courage. There are many more of his stripe in Washington now.

Though Rome and other empires have decayed and fallen, the cultural war in the United States can and should be won by the majority of Americans -- a majority to whom Kerry and the Democrats disdainfully refer to as the "far right." They are people who believe in God and in the original concept of "one nation under God."

As a nation, we are now at the point of no return. The good guys are finally angry enough to join the fray, and I pray we are not too late.

John Kerry is not among the good guys. The Democratic Party isn't, either.

Indeed, on the subject of national security, John Kerry epitomizes a fatal weakness in the Democratic Party.

During the decisive days of the Cold War, after the Democratic Party changed during the mid-1960s, the party was on the wrong side of every strategic debate on policy regarding Vietnam and the USSR, and is now generally on the wrong side in the war on terrorism.

The truth is that the Cold War was barely won by a narrow margin -- a victory and a margin determined by the political choices made by our government regarding suitable steps to deter Soviet attack and finally win the Cold War.

If the U.S. had followed the Democratic Party line, the Cold War would have concluded with the U.S. having to surrender without a fight, or the U.S. would have been defeated in a nuclear war with acceptable losses to the USSR.

It was not Johnson and Carter and the Democrats; it was Nixon, Reagan, George Bush and the Republicans who led us to victory in the Cold War.

And George W. Bush and the Republican majority -- not John Kerry and the Democrats -- can lead us to victory in the war on terrorism.

Jeremiah Denton is a retired Navy admiral who served in the U.S. Senate from 1981 to 1987.

al.com