Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
So,
Rather than dealing with some very damning information, you respond my pointing out what you think is my bias. I am by no means a big fan on bush. I am way to the left of him on social issues. The prospect of a Kerry presidency scares me greatly. The incident this weekend in Russia again points out the nature of the challenge we face
Doesn't the info in my post scare you even a bit???
Wrong again:
Quick Links
Gallup Management Journal
The Gallup Poll Tuesday Briefing
Election 2004
StrengthsFinder Book Site
September 06, 2004
Bush Gets Small Convention Bounce, Leads Kerry by Seven
Post-convention poll shows Bush 52%, Kerry 45% among likely voters
by Jeffrey M. Jones
Page: 1, 2, 3, 4 Next
Kerry, Kansas City, and the FBI files
September 7th, 2004
By now you’ve probably heard that John F. Kerry attended a meeting of his Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) group in Kansas City in November 1971, where they considered a proposal to murder top governmental leaders. You have probably even heard that Kerry met at least once in May, 1970, and maybe several times subsequently, with the North Vietnamese and Vietcong Peace Delegation in Paris, and that he went on to aggressively agitate around the country and even before the US Senate for accepting their terms.
Not that long ago, the notion that John Kerry could have been involved in such activities was so unthinkable that when I first stumbled upon this information back in January, I could not find any journalists in the news media to take these stories seriously.
For even though the information is briefly touched-upon in a couple books on the anti-war movement—a passing reference to the assassination proposal in Gerald Nicosia’s Home To War, a photograph of the VVAW’s delegation in Paris in Richard Stacewicz’s The Winter Soldiers—the putative historians downplayed these events to such an extent you could almost believe they were trying to protect John Kerry’s reputation.
Indeed, Kerry supporter Nicosia even went so far as to portray Kerry as resigning from the VVAW after a melodramatic showdown with Al Hubbard months before the Kansas City meeting took place. All of which is pure fantasy, as the witnesses who have since come forward testify, and more compellingly, the FBI files (which Nicosia had then-unique access to) so clearly reveal.
For the material in the FBI files is not subtle at all. There is no nuance. It is almost impossible to believe that Kerry got so far in his political career without anyone ever bringing it up before. Especially when a historian had access to these very files. But also when so many people who lived through these events are still sitting up and taking nourishment.
Still, since most people have not read these FBI files, but at best have only heard other people’s interpretations of them, I thought it would be a service to transcribe a few pages from them, pages which briefly describe some of the events around that fateful November meeting in Kansas City in 1971.
I believe they offer a revealing glimpse into the people involved in the VVAW, including, most significantly of course, Presidential candidate John Kerry.
From an FBI file* marked “urgent” and dated November 12, 1971:
pp. 1922-3 of the Kerry FBI files
VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR, INC. (VVAW) IS--NEW LEFT
RETEL TO BH, OKLAHOMA CITY, [REDACTED] NEW YORK AND BOSTON NOV. TEN LAST.
FOR INFO NO, RETEL DISCLOSED THAT IT WAS LEARNED AT REGIONAL VVAW CONVENTION, NORMAN, OKLAHOMA, NOV. FIVE - SEVEN LAST THAT JOHN KERRY AND AL HUBBARD, MEMBERS OF EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, VVAW, WERE PLANNING TO TRAVEL TO PARIS, FRANCE, WEEK OF NOV. ONE FIVE - TWENTY NEXT FOR TALKS WITH NORTH VIETNAMESE PEACE DELEGATION.
[REDACTED] TO PAY HUBBARD’S EXPENSES FOR HIS TRIP TO PARIS, [REDACTED]
IT IS NOTED THAT THE “COMMUNIST PARTY” REFERRED IN RETEL IS PROBABLY COMMUNIST PARTY, USA, BECAUSE AL HUBBARD IS A MEMBER OF COORDINATING COMMITTEE OF PEOPLES COALITION FOR PEACE AND JUSTICE (PCPJ)…
Here is a fuller description of subsequent events from another FBI file dated November 18, 1971:
VIETNAM VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR (VVAW)
STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
NOVEMBER 12, 13, 14, 1971
INTERNAL SECURITY – NEW LEFT
A confidential source, who was furnished reliable information in the past, advised as follows:
On November 12, 1971, a meeting of the Steering Committee of the Vietnam Veterans Against The War (VVAW) was convened in Kansas City, Missouri. The meeting was attended by approximately sixty persons, not more than seventy, which included the Executive Committee, people from the National Office in New York, the Regional Coordinators from around the country and some other representatives from some regions.
The first meeting convened at 9:00 a.m. on November 12, 1971, in rooms A, B, and C of the Student Center, University of Missouri at Kansas City. Room A was a smaller room with an oval-shaped table and leather chairs. Rooms B and C were used for the general meeting and large rectangular tables were pushed together in the center at the room making a large conference table. The Regional Coordinators sat around the table and their delegates were behind them. This was done to facilitate the vote procedure. Many of the Regional Coordinators and other delegates discussed that they came to the meeting for a commitment to action and wanted VVAW to take the initiative in the peace movement.
At approximately 2:30 p.m., November 12, 1971, the Agenda Committee, composed of [redacted] adjourned to room A for a three or four hour meeting supposedly to discuss the topics to be considered by the general meeting.
AL HUBBARD did not make an appearance at the general meeting. There was only one black man at the general meeting. He sat with the California and Wisconsin delegations. He left Saturday afternoon. The Friday meeting ended at approximately 11:00 p.m.. A party ensued at the home of [redacted], which was attended by many of the delegates.
At the party SCOTT CAMIL, VVAW Regional Coordinator for [redacted] and [redacted] from Gainesville, Florida, bragged that he had a training range in either Florida or Georgia but would not divulge the location. CAMIL proposed the establishment of "readiness groups" of the "Phoenix type". This proposal was made in the presence of [redacted] VVAW Arkansas organizer, [redacted] and [redacted] (LNU), all from Arkansas, [redacted] the VVAW regional coordinator for Missouri and Kansas, and a delegate from Montana, and three delegates from St. Louis, names unknown.
When asked if CAMIL meant "Phoenix type" in the same context as understood by military personnel, CAMIL answered in the affirmative and outlined a plan for "political elimination" of the "governmental chain of command". The "Phoenix type" is a military term given to groups with specific assassination assignments and the delegates knew that CAMIL meant political assassinations rather than political eliminations.
CAMIL said the activities would depend upon the men being devoted enough to carry out their assignments. CAMIL said that even talking and planning such activities was against the law and therefore the "Phoenix type" groups should carry out their assignments.
CAMIL said he had training ranges for rifle, pistol and mortar practice. He claimed he had rifles, pistols and rifle grenades, but no mortars. CAMIL's proposal for the “readiness squads" and the training was favorably received by many of the persons present and was thereafter quietly disseminated to those at the party. CAMIL indicated he was already conducting his own training program…
The general meeting on Saturday, November 13, 1971, started at 9:00 a.m. and was held in a church, the Institute for Human Studies, near 40th and Main Streets, Kansas City. The first day and part of the second day was spent establishing order. There were numerous interruptions and discussions and very little order during that period.
On Saturday morning MIKE OLIVER, a VVAW national leader from New York, acted as chairman and recognized persons wishing to speak from the floor.
JOHN KERRY, a VVAW national leader from Massachusetts, arrived and spoke to the committee. He resigned from the executive committee of VVAW for "personal reasons" but added he would still be active in VVAW and available to speak for the organization.
The next topic discussed concerned AL HUBBARD, a national VVAW leader from New York. HUBBARD was not present at the meeting and MIKE OLIVER read a telegram to all those present. The telegram had been sent from HUBBARD, who is currently in Paris, France, to [redacted] VVAW Regional Coordinator for Missouri and Eastern half of Kansas, at his residence in Kansas City, Missouri.
The telegram said that HUBBARD was in contact with the North Vietnamese Peace Delegation and he had been confidentially told that the next prisoner of war (POW) released would be effected to VVAW delegates. The telegram further said that the North Vietnamese had promised to not take any major offensive against US troops during the Christmas period up until December 31, 1971; however, they would defend themselves. In the telegram HUBBARD said he was currently negotiating with the North Vietnamese delegation to extend the Christmas cease-fire, which had already been agreed upon, for an indefinite period beyond the December 31, 1971, deadline. HUBBARD said the North Vietnamese are upset over President Nixon's use of POW issue as a reason to keep US troops in Vietnam.
MIKE OLIVER explained to those present that VVAW National Office had decided to send a five-man delegation to Hanoi, North Vietnam, early in December, 1971. They hoped to effect the POW release during that time so that the delegates could return to the US to participate in the national actions at Christmastime. This would demonstrate to the people at the national actions that VVAW has real power. When asked how many POWs would be released, OLIVER said no specific number had been mentioned but that at least one POW would have to be released in order to give the VVAW claimed validity. They planned to present this to the people of the United States and if they were successful in gaining public sympathy and support, they would enter further negotiations for POW release.
The Wisconsin delegation proposed a plan to contact 2,000 active-duty GI’s in South Vietnam and in effect ask them for a mutinous action by refusing to take up arms when ordered to do so. This proposal was favorably accepted by the committee
The topic of the funding of expenses for HUBBARD's trip to Paris was laid aside. OLIVER told the conference that [redacted] had paid for HUBBARD's trip from her own personal account. There was talk among many of the regional coordinators and others speculating as to why [redacted] paid the expenses. It was agreed informally between them that [redacted] is anti-war but neutral, meaning neither for nor against communism, and that by having the money come from her it would remove any taint or suspicion that the funds came directly from the Communist Party, USA.
This was not an official discussion and was merely speculation by some regional coordinators and did not include any person in authority. An agreement was reached to set aside the discussion because some of the delegates believed that VVAW should not be afraid of a "witch hunt". They stated that if VVAW was afraid of a "witch hunt", then they never should have set up the National Office next to the office of the People's Coalition for Peace and Justice (PCPJ).
The Agenda Committee again held a meeting of approximately one hour and returned to the general meeting prior to noon. SCOTT CAMIL proposed to the Agenda Committee the discussion of the training ranges and "readiness squads". The Agenda Committee would not allow CAMIL to discuss his proposal at the general meeting, because of the time element and other matters to be discussed but placed CAMIL's proposal on the agenda for a vote at the spring meeting in February, 1972….
Many of the delegates to the meeting slept in the basement of [redacted] house. A one-pound chunk of marijuana was made available for those delegates wishing to indulge, and many smoked themselves to sleep.
Some of the delegates who were present were: [redacted] Kansas City, Missouri, who was responsible for most of the arrangements; MIKE OLIVER; JOHN KERRY; SCOTT CAMIL from Florida…
*The FBI files are available on CDs for sale by Paperless Archives, and are represented to be copies of the original FBI files released under a Freedom of Information Act request.
Steve Gilbert was the first to expose Kerry's involvement in the VVAW's assassination discussions and his dealings with the North Vietnamese and Vietcong delegations in Paris.
Steve Gilbert
Go Top - Home
If the 9/03 poll showed a 1 point bush lead and todays Gallup shows a 52-45 bush lead- that means a 6 point bounce.
That doesn't include the 11 point newsweek and time polls
How did you come up w/ a 2 point bounce?????
His Adroit Diplomatic Skill Will Save Us
For months America has been asailed with the canard that Kerry's supreme skill in diplomacy could overcome our enemies' refusal to cooperate with the world in a more peaceful manner. Even if negotiating to the point of giving away the farm is acceptable (which it should not be) one should be willing to recognize that diplomacy only works when both sides are willing to work together, and aggressive nations such as Iran fall into that category:
Iran's foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi has bluntly rejected a nuclear disarmament plan floated by US vice presidential hopeful John Edwards, calling it "campaigning."
Senator Edwards told the WPost that the proposal would represent a "great bargain" for Iran -- and that should Iran reject it, a Kerry administration would be forced to conclude that Iran actually was, as the Bush administration now contends, actively pursuing the weaponisation of nuclear materials.
"If we are engaging with Iranians in an effort to reach this great bargain and if in fact this is a bluff that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, then we know that our European friends will stand with us," Senator Edwards told the Washington Post.
This one is simple. Kerry's VEEP candidate himself has said that if the Iranians reject this proposal Kerry's administration would have to admit the Bush administration was right. While his administration does not yet (hopefully will never) exist, the Kerry campaign is now forced to conceed that his diplomacy is of no avail on the likes of Iran.
This is significant because Kerry has repeatedly said that he would have done "everything different" with Iraq, with these differences centered on pursuing a more diplomatic solution. His assumption in this assertion is that his different choices would have been more successful than the current situation. However, his failure to make the slightest headway with Iran illustrates that Kerry has no magic power over our adversaries that makes them kow-tow to him merely because he is willing to acceed to a few of their outrageous (and globally dangerous) positions.
Before, one may have been certain Kerry would have done things different with Iraq. One may have been even fairly confident that his diplomacy may have been effective. What we see now is even with Kerry's diplomacy, the result is the same. The countries that do not want to treat with us will refuse to do so. Kerry has no more power to influence them than does Bush, but Kerry has not now, nor will ever, the backbone to enter into "aggressive negotiations."
This story is a little off topic, but telling. A family friend's son went to see Kerry on his campaign run through the town of Mt. Vernon in central Ohio. He wasn't strongly political at the time, but just wanted to see a Presidential candidate in the flesh for the first time in his life. He was stopped and not allowed to enter the town square to hear Kerry's speech. Why? Because he happened to be wearing flip-flops. He didn't even know what the big deal was until his parents explained it to him. He's a little more strongly political now, and now he's a Bush supporter. Thanks for the elitism, Senator Nuance.
n West Virginia, Cecil Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America, gave Kerry a rifle as a gift. Kerry, a self-described gun-owner and hunter, quipped: "I thank you for the gift, but I can't take it to the debate with me."
Gotta love that wacky sense of humor: another example:
"Mr Bush's campaign staff will have loved his opening comments, praising the limited menu of a local cafe. Mr Kerry said it was perfect "for confused people like me who can't make up our minds about what we're going to eat" - words which would fit perfectly into a pro-Bush attack ad."
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Almost as dumb as setting a deadline for the supposed hand over of power. ..............
Not quite. At the handover, none of our troops were leaving. You'll recall that there was a buildup of violence leading up to the handover. We even made the transition a few days early which effectively helped to curb a lot of the violence. Now just imagine making a set date for elimination and imagine the chaos that would bring. Just plain stupid
>>>>>>>>>You are misinterpreting Kerry's statement<<<<<<<<<<<<
Guess I'm just nuance deficient
<<<<<<<<<<<I posted earlier today that the intel cited in the War Authorization was based on false intel statements.>>>>>>>>>
Kerry statement made that point moot. He stated that even with the knowledge that there were no WMD, he would have voted for war. He's made statement going back years that sadaam should be removed.
He has insulted our allies by stating thqat they were "phony- only 500 troops here and 500 troops there" Well, the numbers were wrong, and even so, each of those allies troops are someones son or daughter- to make the commitment they have made is not an example of the type of persuasive coalition building that Kerry says he is so adept at
If you think about it, making a deadline for troop withdrawl would be sthe stupidest thing you could do. The insurgents would just bide their time and try to create major instablity after we left
What about kerry's latest flip flop. H said that even knowing that we were unable to find WMD he would have voted for the war. Today his position is " wrong war at the wrong time, blah blah blah"
How can anybody take him seriously????
yet another well reasoned response
Even assuming that is true, how does it justify clelands outrageous statement?
Charles Krauthammer, making the case for Bush in Time:
John Kerry tells us we have to wage a more sensitive war where we acquiesce more to "allies." O.K., let's talk allies. Which is the single most crucial ally in the war on terrorism? France? Germany? Russia? No. Pakistan. Pakistan made possible the destruction of the Taliban, and has been turning over to us the most important al-Qaeda figures ever captured. How did Bush turn the world's foremost supporter of the Taliban into our most critical ally against them? Sensitivity? Two days after 9/11, Bush had his Secretary of State deliver an ultimatum to the Pakistanis: Join us or else. They joined. That is leadership.
was asking you how you thought that mentioning Rove was relevant to my post about cleland
How could you possibly research why someone commited suicide?????
No, a sincere apology would do the trick
I watched the whole exchange and Zell tore him a new one. He got on him for asking a question and then talking over the answer so it was impossible to respond- something he does all the time. He also criticized his interview with Michelle Malkin
Just curious as to how you jumped to my post about cleland to rove????
That's exactly the point. There is no way to PROVE that type of statement, therefore wasn't it wildly inappropriate of him to make such a claim??? WHy would you assume that cleland was correct without HIM presenting any evidence???
We make judgements on things all the time based on analysis of all that we know. Do you think that statement was true? What do you base that on? Given the fact that he couldn't possibly have evidence to back up the statement, I think it's clear he was taking advantage of a sad situation and using it to make a sleazy, inflammatory political point.
He should be ashamed
Chris Matthews asks the stupidest question i"ve ever heard:
"Do you really think Senator Kerry wants to arm American troops with spitballs?"</I>
He was SERIOUS and that's really scary
Max Cleland raeches a new low:
this is his statement after kerry speech at the american legion yesterday
Former Georgia Sen. Max Cleland, who joined Mr. Kerrey in demanding Mr. Rove's resignation on behalf of the campaign, said the veterans attacking Mr. Kerry's war record have contributed to a spike in suicides, which, he says, has occurred among veterans.
UFB
Joe,
This is what i see on bby:
Excluding the charges, the company said it expects to report earnings of 51 cents to 53 cents a share. Analysts on average forecast 50 cents, according to Reuters Estimates.
So, they actually say they are raising once the "one time" charge is factored in
>>>>>>>>>>As far as Kerry is concerned your coments are taken out of contex<<<<<<<<<<<<
Interesting. I wish you would explain further, that nuance must have missed me. Did he not say that given the current knowledge about that lack of finding WMD, he still would have voted in favor of military action????. That statement seemed pretty clear to me- and a masterstroke by Bush to put him in that box. What was the context, what did he mean to say??
>>>>>> Both of them could have profited handsomely from backing Bush. <<<<<<<<<
Not sure what you mean here. Are you familiar with the UN oil for food scandal whereby sadaam in essence laundered the oil money that was supposed to go towards food and medicine for the Iraquis and used it to bribe officials in mnay european countries. This has been documented and there is a current investigation by Paul Volker, Greespans preceeder as fed chairman. Google oil for food and you'll be astounded and sickened by what you find. France was making huge sums of money selling weapons systems to Iraq as well.
>>>>>>>>>> None were found becasue they had been destroyed by the UN inspectors and not replaced.>>>>>>>>>>>
That is a statement that Ihave never heard. You're saying that the inspectors destroyed all of the tons of chemical and biological weapons that were documented to have existed? What is your source for that knowledge, I have never heard anybody make that assertion
>>>>>>your anti arab, anti islam rhetoric is borderline hate speech. <<<<<<
MY statement is not anti arab, anti muslim or hate speech.
That phrase was chosen clearly. How was nazi fascism defined? BY their irrational hatred and desire to kill jews, blacks and all non aryan races. How are todays current islamic fundamentalist extremeist defined- by their equally determined purpose of destroying the "zionist entity"- they can't even bring themselves to say Isreal. Their stated purpose is to create a world ruled by their distorted view of Islamic law. I'm sure you are aware that if you don't follow their value system they would have no problem in destroying you as well. I think you would find that most mainstream muslims wouldn't have a problem with that characterization. I am not talking about all arabs or all muslims, just about the small group who's stated aim is the extermination of an entire race. How is that NOT fascist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>The fact is they knew he was not a threat to anyone.<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
To what purpose was he stockpiling huge amount of chemical and biological weapons and developing a nuclear program. It is my understanding that these have no purpose other than to harm/ kill people. I think that the Kurds would probabably differ about him being non threatening.
>>>>>>but it took a whole lot of diplomacy to convince the Saudi's and other Arab countries to allow US troops on their soil.<<<<<<<<<
You didn't address the part of my post that dealt with why the arab countries would never agree to aid us in this war on Iraq. Do you really think that any amount of diplomacy in the world would have resulted in their joining the fight? It is simply in their perceived best interest not to a part of the fight. The trouble that it would have stirred up at home for them is simply not worth it, even if they had any inclination to join, which they truly didn't.
What is truly in their best interest is another question. There is some irony in the fact that 2 nations who refused to aid us in the fight, France and Russia are now under attack by islamofascists. France just doesn't get it, they're whining saying hey," we rolled over for you and look at the thanks we get" Just as appeasing the nazis wasn't sound policy, appeasing the islamofascists will only lead to their incresed strength
eddy
>>>>>>That sounds good when you try to make Bush look good but it's nonsense........unfortunately. In Desert Storm, arab countries alone supplied 260,000 troops<<<<<<<<
The two situations really aren't analagous. In desert storm, sadaam committed an act of agression that by implication threatened them. It was in their self interest to join in the fight to remove sadaam from kuwait
In the current situation in Iraq, our stated aim was to remove an unpopular dictator from office, and to set up some sort of representative form of governmant there. The only other government that has some sort of representative government is Isreal. The others are either suppresive theocrstic or military dictatorships. The last thing they would want in the area is a successful form of non centralized governmant there. Most of the government either are state sponsors of terrorism- Iran being the biggest, or have tried to appease the radical mvements- Saudi Arabia
Why do you think that the Arab countries ahve refused to join in??
Next topic for the swifties:
How about Kerrys illoegal meeting with the North Vietnamese officilas in Paris while still a member of the Navy National Guard
So wrong on so many levels
eddy
Do you plan to vote for Kerry?
He voted in favor of the war and now says that even with the knowledge that the WMD's weren't found, he would vote for the war again.
The only difference is that kerry now says that in hindsight he would have carried the whole thing out flawlessly. He also says that he would have brought more allies in to commit troops. The only allies missing are france and germany. They were profiting by sadaam being in power via the oil for food scam. Politically it would be suicide for them to offer any kind of support. It's NOT going to happen, even with Kerry's patrician tones urging them on
Regarding the WMD, the Un inspectors over the years had certified massive stockpiles. Under the UN rules, they could only be destroyed under their supervision. Either they destroyed them illegaly ( why would they do that ) or have possibly moved them to another location- possibly SYRIA. That sadaam DID have stockpiles of WMD has been recoginzed and verified for years. The only relevant question is what happened to them
eddy
A number of small stox popped also- fnsr cmgi actu avan brcd chtr cray dclk etc
weird
The Bush daughters could have been worse. They could have come out and armpit-farted the Star Spangled Banner.
I am stabbing out my eyes now...
not my line toooo funny
Kerry's stances on Cuba open to attack
BY PETER WALLSTEN
pwallsten@herald.com
John Kerry had just pumped up a huge crowd in downtown West Palm Beach, promising to make the state a battleground for his quest to oust President Bush, when a local television journalist posed the question that any candidate with Florida ambitions should expect:
What will you do about Cuba?
As the presumptive Democratic nominee, Kerry was ready with the bravado appropriate for a challenger who knows that every answer carries magnified importance in the state that put President Bush into office by just 537 votes.
''I'm pretty tough on Castro, because I think he's running one of the last vestiges of a Stalinist secret police government in the world,'' Kerry told WPLG-ABC 10 reporter Michael Putney in an interview to be aired at 11:30 this morning.
Then, reaching back eight years to one of the more significant efforts to toughen sanctions on the communist island, Kerry volunteered: ``And I voted for the Helms-Burton legislation to be tough on companies that deal with him.''
It seemed the correct answer in a year in which Democratic strategists think they can make a play for at least a portion of the important Cuban-American vote -- as they did in 1996 when more than three in 10 backed President Clinton's reelection after he signed the sanctions measure written by Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton.
There is only one problem: Kerry voted against it.
Asked Friday to explain the discrepancy, Kerry aides said the senator cast one of the 22 nays that day in 1996 because he disagreed with some of the final technical aspects. But, said spokesman David Wade, Kerry supported the legislation in its purer form -- and voted for it months earlier.
The confusion illustrates a persistent problem for Kerry as Republicans exploit his 19-year voting history to paint the Massachusetts senator as a waffler on major foreign-affairs questions such as the Iraq war, Israel's security barrier and intelligence funding.
Cuba policy is particularly treacherous for Kerry because Florida's nearly half-million Cuban-American voters could be pivotal in awarding the state's 27 electoral votes. And Republicans are preparing to unleash a wave of publicity designed to portray Kerry's new toughness as an election-year conversion from a career of liberal positions on Cuba.
Speaking to reporters Saturday after a meeting of senior Florida Republicans about increasing Hispanic turnout this year, Lt. Gov. Toni Jennings predicted that Kerry's voting record on Cuba would ''haunt'' him in the coming months.
kerrys medals:
Medal Mettle Print Friendly Format
E-Mail this to a Friend
Published 8/31/2004 12:01:33 AM
KERRY CITATIONS
Re: The Washington Prowler's Citation Enhancement:
I read with interest your article by the Prowler concerning Kerry's multiple silver star citations. I have been raising this issue with the media and my Congressional representatives for months. Here are my observations:
Did he or didn't he? After reviewing Kerry's service records, as released by him, I find it hard to believe the media have not picked up on the John Lehman connection. It should set off all kinds of alarm bells, especially considering the recent flap over whether he threw his medals away or not.
A very curious question arises over Kerry's multiple Silver (3) and Bronze (2) star citations. Two of the five were signed by John Lehman who was Secretary of the Navy in the Reagan Administration 5 Feb 1981 - 10 Apr 1987. There are three Silver Star citations supplied by Kerry. One was signed by ADM Zumwalt, one by ADM Hyland, and one by Secretary Lehman. The Bronze Star citations were signed by Zumwalt and Lehman.
Specifically, Zumwalt: ADM Zumwalt served as Commander, US Naval Forces Vietnam from Sep 1968-May 1970. The Silver Star citation is more than likely the original citation taken from the award submission. Normally, as part of the nomination form, the nominator must provide a synopsis of the award (citation) that can fit on a single page suitable for framing with the certificate. Zumwalt's citation covered two pages. I suspect that Zumwalt forwarded the award to CINCPAC, ADM Hyland, for the final signature, including the citation. It is worth noting that the requirement to go to CINCPAC applied only to the Silver Star, hence only the Zumwalt and Lehman citations for the Bronze Star, i.e., Zumwalt as the final approving authority and Lehman for the replacement/reissue.
Hyland: CINCPAC probably edited the Zumwalt Silver Star citation to make it fit on to one page and to clean it up a bit to fit the existing format. I do find it odd that Zumwalt's citation is on letterhead paper. Usually the suggested citation language is submitted on the award recommendation form itself. ADM Hyland was CINCPAC 30 Nov 1967 - 05 Dec 1970.
Lehman: Except for the last sentence, the Silver Star citation is the same as Hyland's. What makes this curious is that Secretary Lehman signed the citation at least over 12 and up to 18 years after the events occurred. Kerry served in Vietnam from November 1968 to April 1969. I doubt, in any event, that the final approval authority for Silver Stars had to go to SECNAV for approval. We also have photographic evidence that Kerry had the Silver Star medal pinned on in 1969. Kerry also acknowledges that he received them. My take is that Kerry requested replacement medals and due to the fact that Kerry was no longer an active duty service member, administrative requirements mandated that SECNAV's office had to approve the issue of the replacements once it was verified from official records that Kerry had actually earned them. It is odd that they could not have just given Kerry copies of the original citations and I am at a loss for the reason to change the last sentence of the Silver Star citation, even if it is boilerplate language. Why not go with the original like what was done for the Bronze Star?
The bottom line is that Kerry probably did throw away his medals and then requested replacements in the 1980s. Someone needs to raise this issue with Kerry, i.e., why did Secretary Lehman sign duplicate Bronze and Silver Star citations at least 12 years after you left Vietnam? Kerry needs to release all of his military records including the nomination forms, which will give us the chronology and the approval chain of command.
Kerry's reaction on "Good Morning America" fits his MO. He wants it both ways. When he discovered that throwing away your medals was politically a negative, he came up with the story about his ribbons and someone else's medals. Kerry realized that he couldn't walk away from the story entirely, especially since he has the medals displayed prominently in his office. However, the fly in the ointment is that we now have the citations, released by him, signed by Lehman. If he indeed requested replacement medals, he has a real problem, i.e., he was telling the truth initially, lied in the 80s, and is lying now.
Kerry is frozen in a time warp when it comes to his service in Vietnam. His preoccupation with his medals borders on being an obsession. If you check Kerry's released military records, you will notice that Kerry amended his DD214 with a DD215. Among other things, Kerry burnishes his Vietnam Service medal by adding four bronze service stars to reflect various campaigns. This was done in March 2001!!! Why anyone would go through that effort to make some meaningless changes is beyond me. Hundreds of thousands of veterans, including myself, could do it, but beyond self-gratification and ego, what is the point?
Vietnam Campaign Ribbon Stars: In actuality, Kerry served in four Vietnam campaigns, two while stationed in Vietnam and two while on the USS Gridley. If you check the attached link, you will see how the campaigns are delineated. NAMED CAMPAIGNS - VIETNAM Kerry was wrong however to request four stars. The ribbon counts as one star. There should be three stars rather than four. I suspect that the Navy spokesman was only referring to Kerry's Vietnam service when he stated that Kerry was entitled to two.
I should note my service as a naval officer (1965-72) including service in Vietnam -- 8 months off the coast on the USS Iwo Jima (LPH-2) and 12 months in Danang -- gives me some insight on how the award process works.
Thank you for pursuing this story. Anyone with any military background will tell you that something is very wrong when almost all of your peers and all of your superiors conclude that you are unfit for command. The bottom line is that this question has to be made public so it can be researched. Even a best case scenario for Kerry, i.e., he wanted medal citations signed by the Secretary of the Navy for display purposes, portrays someone who is obsessed about Vietnam and his medals. Who else would have PH3 on his license plates?
-- Michael McLaughlin
McLean, Virginia
I'm sorry to say that your facts are pitifully wrong. There are 3 versions of Kerry's Silver Star Citation, not 2. The original signed by Zumwalt, 1 signed by ADM Hyland, and the final one signed by Lehman. Here's a link to a comprehensive comparison of all 3 citations.
You're correct on the analysis of the Combat "V" device.
You're badly mistaken on campaign stars on his VSM. He is entitled to 4. 2 while on the USS Gridley in early '68 and 2 while on Swifts in late '68 to early '69.
What needs to be pursued is the sanitization and embellishment of the citations. The Combat "V" issue, being so blatantly wrong, may be nothing more than a civilian error occurring while otherwise embellishing Kerry's record.
-- Tom Mortensen
Silver Star Recipient USN RVN '68-'69
Don't care about his medals. Don't care about his non-record in the Senate. Still haven't figured out how to get decorated for not following orders and doing your job but that's beside the point.
If most folks can't spot a cold, ambitious man who will do anything, say anything....and I mean anything to win ANY election he'll win again. The NE and the big cities will vote for a aardvark if he has the keys to the federal coffers. Bush carries MILLIONS of square miles, Gore carries a few hundred thousand. This should tell everyone who is voting democratic. Even though it's ruining their races, pride, and futures, the scam has been going on so long, it's habit. Bill Cosby tried to say it in words so clear it left the rest of the dais looking at their shoes. "Brothers and Sisters" they're killing us with their "gifts." It's like the ad "free gift." I thought all gifts were free!
So, once our inner city kids are so uneducated and drug addicted, and our federal coffers are empty from program to program, some guy will come along that will have runes as his campaign symbols. He'll "save" us. From bondage to prosperity, from prosperity to bondage. Swell. 200 some odd years, eh? Well, his-story says it's about time.
-- Dave Thomas
Rochester, Mn.
From The QandO blog:
"Operation RAW" deal
Posted by McQ
Reader Becky comments on the Kerry testimony before the Senate in 1971 by asking:
Okay, guys. Could you PLEASE just read the ENTIRE transcript of Kerry's testimony instead of a few random quotes from someone's article?
Kerry emphatically stated, at the beginning of his testimony, "...I am not here as John Kerry. I am here as one member of the group of 1,000 which is a small representation of a very much larger group of veterans in this country, and were it possible for all of them to sit at this table they would be here and have the same kind of testimony...."
He was speaking on behalf of a group of Viet Nam vets he met with in Detroit.
Not an unreasonable request and not an unreasonable assumption, if you only limit your research into Kerry’s anti-war, anti-military activities to his testimony. But there’s more .... much more that makes the case that Kerry was indeed indicting the entire military through his activities in the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). His testimony was only the most visible of these activities and certainly not the most damning.
As an example of his other activities, let’s start with “Operation RAW” which began on Labor Day, 1970. Organizing flyers seen here and here were sent out.
Note who is among the organizers and among the speakers. As you can see they planned on “forming an infantry unit of company strength” comprised of “Vietnam vets, active duty GIs and other war veterans” and staging a 4 day march from Morristown, NJ to Valley Forge, PA where they’d have a mass protest. On the surface, it sounds pretty benign, doesn’t it?
But the devil is in the details.
There was a reason they formed an “infantry unit of company strength”. It was so they could portray American infantrymen, every day soldiers, as brutal butchers. Now, the words sound hyperbolic, but they’re not. As Operation RAW moved through each town they enacted their version of a “search and destroy” operation”. As described in one of the flyers, the purpose of this unit was to “dramatize as authentic a picture of a US Army search and destroy mission to the American people as practical."
How did they do this? Well read it straight from the horses’s mouth. As it proclaims in the cite: “This story is taken from material saved by Joe Urgo-VVAW AI. Joe was one of the marchers, a former national officer of Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW), and the first Vietnam vet to travel to Hanoi in support of the revoluntary struggle of the Vietnamese.”
It was Labor Day weekend 1970. At 10:30 a.m. in Doylestown, PA a company of infantry swept into town, seizing and occupying the center of the city, setting up road blocks and taking civilian prisoners. Anyone fleeing was killed, the rest were tortured and then killed for just being there. The younger women were particularly mauled and abused before being killed. At 10:45, once again on alert, the company marched south of town, leaving a trail of bloody bodies and survivors standing in their yards and streets, mute with shock, unbelieving eyes fastened on the departing soldiers. Leaflets lay in the streets like the one below.
Beginning in Morristown, New Jersey, 150 combat veterans marched through the countryside toward Valley Forge, Pennsylvania. The veterans, who held 110 purple heart medals between them, had enlisted the help of the aptly named Philadelphia Guerilla Theater Company to go ahead of the march and plant themselves in the villages and towns along the march route. Sweeping through the rural back countries of New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania, the vets wore as much of their combat fatigues and battle gear as they had been able to scrape together. Their "infantry company" was realistically armed with toy rifles.
As the column of veterans passed through the communities, they cordoned off the villages, "interrogated," "tortured," and "shot" the actors posing as civilians, and in general tried to recreate the brutal realities of war. The towns and roads were mapped out in advance and the skits were pre-arranged so that as the company surrounded a home or a village--with walkie-talkies screaming and vets running all over the place, blood capsules bursting on library steps or in front of stores--there was a sense of realism in the air as these safe rural hamlets were "invaded." The veterans terrified and shocked some people, challenging many others. Of course, some patriots thought that the vets were "disgracing the uniform of the U.S." to bring their message to civilian Amerikkka. One thing was certain: there was no business as usual for those communities on the day the column of vets marched through.
"Amerikkka". No agenda in that spelling, is there?
The flyers they left laying in the street as they departed said the following:
A US INFANTRY COMPANY JUST CAME THROUGH HERE
If you had been Vietnamese
--We might have burned your house
--We might have shot your dog
--We might have shot you
--We might have raped the women
--We might have turned you over to your government for torture
--We might have taken souvenirs from your property
--We might have shot things up a bit
–We might have done all these things to you and your town
If it doesn’t bother you that American soldiers do these things every day to the Vietnamese simply because they are “gooks”, then picture yourself as one of the silent victims. Help us end the war before they turn your son into a butcher or a corpse.
Signed,
Vietnam Veterans Against the War
Becky claims Kerry’s focused on the “leadership” of the military, not the soldiers.
Now, before you get all crazy...keep in mind one very important thing. Kerry NEVER blaimed the vets for the atrocities comitted. He blamed our LEADERSHIP. Read the whole thing. Read it 3 times. I read it 5 times.
Operation RAW certainly didn’t do that, did it? It was talking about American soldiers. In particular infantry soldiers. It was saying “American soldiers do these things every day”. It said we were the butchers. It said we raped and murdered “every day”.
You know, just another day at the office.
Listed on the organizing flyers for Operation RAW is a partial list of the event sponsors, including Jane Fonda and John Kerry. Listed as an information and transportation sponsor in Boston is John Kerry. Listed as speakers are Jane Fonda and John Kerry.
So I’m sorry Becky, I can read it 50 times, which I most likely have in the last 35 years, but it is only a part of what John Kerry has responsibility for ... and its high time that all of it was exposed. In Operation RAW the only purpose of their “theater” was to paint everyday soldiers in Vietnam as stone-cold butchers and rapists. As war criminals. And nothing could have been further from the truth. That’s what the 2.5 million Vietnam Vets are finally saying.
Read this stuff 3 times, 5 times. It doesn’t matter. The conclusion is inescapable. John Kerry and the VVWA purposely and viciously painted a whole generation of soldiers as baby killing rapists through actions such as Operation RAW.
I haven’t forgotten it and I haven’t forgiven it.
Becky concludes with:
I am angry. I am VERY angry. And that you people can sit back and condemn Kerry for speaking out against an unjust war, for bringing to light the atocities of war that our LEADERSHIP condoned in the name of freedom -- in the name of MY country....I have no words for you, either.
Well I’m very angry as well, Becky.
I’m angry that a nation treated its soldiers the way it did 35 years ago. I’m angry that actions of John Kerry led to that dishonorable treatment. But more than that, I’m angry that now that we who were maligned and smeared by Kerry and the VVWA want to speak out about it, people like you want us to shut up.
Well we’re not going to shut up.
We kept quite about it for all those years and we’re damn tired of living with the lies Kerry and others told about us. We’ve as much right to speak as John Kerry. And we’ve got as much right to tell you and others he was full of crap as any other citizen of this country.
Its not just YOUR country. Its OUR country as well. And this is about how OUR country treated us because of the lies people like John Kerry and the VVWA spread.
When Kerry grows the balls to stand up and tell the Vietnam Vets that he was wrong, he lied and he portrayed them falsely and that he’s sorry for doing so, then perhaps, some real healing can begin.
Until then, I agree with John O’Neill ... he’s unfit for command.
Permalink / Comments (13) / TrackBack (1)
Divider
questions about kerrys medical redords
Sleepless in Cam Ranh Bay
August 27th, 2004
The President of the United States holds the most demanding job in the world. The physical and mental fitness of a candidate are matters of legitimate concern for voters. The refusal of John F. Kerry to release his complete medical records should be disconcerting to the press and public. All the more so, given disturbing indications that there may be serious questions about Kerry’s health and his ability to perform in office, questions which could be resolved only by the full release of his medical records.
For ordinary jobs, everyone is entitled to the presumption of physical and mental fitness. The Americans with Disabilities Act forbids negative employment judgments based on all but obviously disabling conditions. But the Presidency is not an ordinary job. The welfare and very survival of all of us are at stake. This employment decision is by popular vote, and we voters are entitled to consider anything and everything.
John F. Kerry is a cancer survivor. Fortunately, his prostate cancer was detected early, and treated with a procedure which claims a 97% rate of positive outcomes. Even though prostate cancer is the second biggest cancer killer of men in the United States, his surgeon, Dr. Patrick Walsh, chief urologist at Johns Hopkins Hospital, assures us that there is a 95% chance that he will be cancer free in ten years.
John Kerry faced up to his cancer bravely. His prompt treatment of it is a model for the rest of us to emulate. He even likened it to – what else? -- his Vietnam experience:
"The cancer, frankly, was -- it's strange. I think it's a reflection of the experience that I went through in Vietnam, that I didn't feel particularly threatened. That I felt: `I'm going to conquer this.' And it's why I had a confidence that I could run for president.”
So, curiously enough, one of the most serious diseases imaginable, cancer, is not really a serious concern, at least in terms of its threat to candidate Kerry’s longevity. For that, we are all thankful. But there is another curious circumstance:
Doctors found the tumor after Kerry took a series of medical tests in November and December[2002] in preparation for releasing his medical records to reporters in connection with his presidential bid. [emphasis added]
Yet following his successful treatment, Kerry did not release his medical records, despite the fact that he had intended to do so, and despite the fact that this intention may have saved his life. To date, the national press corps has been entirely incurious as to why Kerry reversed himself, and has refused to provide information which the voters need, and which he had announced his intention to provide.
It seems reasonable to have questions about what further treatments candidate Kerry is receiving, and what their effects on his health, energy, and mental clarity might be. Is he receiving any drugs or hormones, or other substances which have the potential of impairing him, mentally, emotionally, or physically? We don’t know. He could easily reveal this information, but refuses to do so.
Much more troubling than cancer, however, are indications, from those who know him well, that John Kerry suffers from parasomnia, a sleep disorder, which can manifest in many ways, including insomnia, sleepwalking, night terrors, and restless leg syndrome, among others.
The irrepressible Teresa Thierstein Simoes-Ferreira Heinz Kerry has provided vivid first hand testimony of her husband’s sleep disorder:
When Kerry is asked about the nightmares that haunted his sleep for years after he returned from Vietnam, he shrugs. "I don't think I've had a nightmare in a long time," he says. But then Heinz begins to mimic Kerry having a Vietnam nightmare.
"Down! Down, down!" she yells, patting her hands down on her auburn hair.
"I haven't gotten slapped yet," she says. "But there were times when I thought I might get throttled." [emphasis added]
Kerry quivers his right foot [emphasis added] and steers the discussion to the counseling programs he has supported for Vietnam veterans. Asked if he has been in therapy himself, he non-answers [emphasis added]. "It doesn't bother me anymore, I just go back to sleep."
Parasomnia runs in families, and is suspected of being at least partially genetic in origin. It often begins in childhood. It is therefore quite interesting to note that John Kerry’s War Journal from his Vietnam service show evidence of sleep disorders:
You wake up with a start thinking that something is wrong [emphasis added] and you grab the bars over your rack and swing down onto the metallic deck in the main cabin. Suddenly you are really awake and realize sheepishly that the startled concern that consumes you is prompted only by the conglomeration of noises that fill POF 44 and the fitful sleep that has characterized the nights on patrol. This is the fourth time during the night that sleep has been startled into movement - and each time the boat was riding smoothly and quietly. [emphasis added] Once you were so sure of danger that you ran up into the pilot house and grabbed the throttles only to laugh with you men at your over-concern and reaction but deep inside you know and understand the pressures that are being brought to play with the mind and the body. And once you laughed at the Captain who talked in his sleep and who demanded that he be notified of any and all changes.
Sleep is probably one of the biggest battles of all [emphasis added] on patrol. There is the constant temptation just to let go and relax and sleep all night -- trusting to the enth degree the young men who man your boat and who make up your watch sections. Eventually you begin to succumb and leave you life and that of the boat in your mouth and with eye lids that cascade down over dirty cheekbones, the sleep is light and restless.
Commander Robert “Friar Tuck” Brant has publicly said that he bunked with Kerry in Vietnam (when he was a Lt. and a Swiftie in 1968) and that he often had to get up in the middle of the night and put Kerry back into bed after Kerry had gotten up while still asleep and gone for a sleepwalk.
Kerry and Brant slept in the same quarters, and Brant used to put Kerry back to bed at night when Kerry was sleepwalking
Suggestive, but by no means conclusive, evidence that parasomnia may have bedeviled John Kerry when he was even younger comes from the record recorded by his high school band, The Electras. One of the tracks on the album was entitled “Sleepwalking.” Could this have been the band’s little bit of fun?
It may be tempting to dismiss parasomnia as a minor affliction. But a clinical description contains the following information:
Parasomniacs may look as if they are awake, but they are clinically asleep. One of the best known parasomnias is night terrors, extreme and animated versions of nightmares. The sleeper may scream or shout, suddenly leap up from bed - it's as if they have been woken in the middle of a terrible crisis, which in a way they have. Typically, the sleeper experiences a sense of terrible danger and will twist and fight and scream in an effort to defend themselves. It's a frightening and potentially dangerous experience for bed partners, who may also find themselves attacked [see Teresa’s testimony above] in mistake for the dangerous presence. Parasomniacs may sleepwalk into other rooms, even run into walls and windows. They can wake up covered in bruises and blood but with little or no memory of their actions or details of the terror. Others recall their dreams in vivid and violent detail.[…]
Treatment is not with intensive psychotherapy but with sedatives [emphasis added] which act as REM suppressants. 'They don't stop REM sleep,' says Ebrahim, 'but they calm it down. It's as if the REM segment has become over stimulated and medication normalises it.'
[...]
The dreams of post-traumatic stress sufferers attest to the power of the psyche to invade our sleep, while the enormous variety of our sleeping and dreaming experiences reveal that the mind, as well as the brain, guides our sleeping selves as much as our waking ones. 'We treat patients with medication, psychotherapy, CBT, acupuncture or a mixture of them all,' says Ebrahim. 'I am a doctor, but in treating sleep disorders, we have to address the physical, emotional and spiritual - our sleeping lives encompass the whole range of what makes us who we are.'
Is Kerry getting medical and or psychological treatment including drugs or counseling for parasomnia or any other sleep disorder? If he is not getting therapy for it now, did he ever get therapy for it in the past - and if so what kind of therapy?
To answer these questions, Kerry MUST release his complete medical records.
According to the New York Daily News, the Kerry campaign considers mental health to be a perfectly valid subject of controversy, at least when it concerns one of their political opponents. James Zumwalt, son of illustrious Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, is said to be the subject of a dossier compiled by campaign opposition researchers, because he testified in support of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. He is said to have
attempted to kill himself with an overdose of prescription drugs," after the murder of his ex-wife's fiance, John Kowalczyk, according to the dossier.
Blogger Ed Morrisey aptly comments:
at least the Democrats have agreed in principle that medical records should be released as a basis for public debate in this presidential cycle. Bush released his, now Zumwalt's are out in the open -- so where are Kerry's?
Politics aside, sleep disorders have the potential of seriously impairing judgment. Nearly everyone has the experience of making bad decisions, losing self-control, or simply being sub-par in our job performance, when we aren’t sleeping well. A President of the United States has to be prepared to handle terror attacks, nuclear threats, and other extreme challenges. A lack of good judgment or job performance due to ongoing sleep issues could have an impact far beyond the sufferer or his family.
President Bush has been far more open about releasing important information than has Senator Kerry, who behaves as if he has secrets he wants to keep buried. President Bush has released his and his wife’s tax returns, whereas John Kerry has chosen to keep secret his wife’s tax returns, despite the fact that his lifestyle depends on her money, not his own, and the fact that his campaign was kept alive by mortgaging “his share” of the Beacon Hill mansion he could not have purchased with his own money.
To put an end to questions about his service in the Air National Guard, President Bush released his entire military record, while candidate Kerry refuses to sign Form 180, releasing all of his military records. And, of course, President Bush has released his complete medical records.
The public has a right to know if the man who may be our next president is healthy – or not. The electorate has the right to any and all relevant information about a candidate which can aid in forming an opinion as to that candidate's fitness for office. Health is certainly one of them. We are long past the time when it is or should be acceptable for a candidate to cover-up his ill-health.
It is now a matter of public record that another man with the initials JFK covered up his suffering from Addison’s Disease, and his reliance on a variety of drugs to alleviate his chronic back pain. Most commentators have agreed that this cover-up was a shameful episode, that the public had a right to know the condition of the man who led them through perilous times. Kennedy’s Presidency may have been adversely affected by his condition and its therapies, though such opinions can only be speculative.
The American public deserves to know that there is serious reason for concern over the health of the other JFK, too, and that he should avoid emulating the first JFK’s deception of the American public about the true state of his health.
Daniel Aronstein is a screenwriter and artist who lives in Manhattan. He has been a registered Democrat since 1974.
Thomas Lifson is the editor and publisher of The American Thinker.
Daniel Aronstein and Thomas Lifson
Go Top - Home
Wonder if they've had a look at the GDP and consumer sentiment numbers due out tomorrow
Big fed pump today- net 5.5 billion
ML
You probably didn't see this:
{I}Published on Wednesday, February 18, 1970
John Kerry: A Navy Dove Runs for Congress
By SAMUEL Z. GOLDHABER
Crimson Staff Writer
RELATED ARTICLES
Old Crimson Interview Reveals A More Radical John Kerry
Citizens'Caucus To Meet Saturday
Hundreds of opponents to the Vietnam War will meet this coming Saturday in a Third District Citizens Caucus to choose a Democrat strong enough in the September primary to oust Philip J. Philbin (D-Mass.) from the Congressional seat he has held for 26 years. Philbin, whose District stretches from Fitchburg to Newton, is the second-ranking member on the House Armed Services Committee and many people consider the 71-year-old Congressman a hawk on Vietnam and an all-around conservative. Any resident of the Third District, including college students under 21, will be eligible to vote at the open caucus, which will be held at Concord Carlisle Regional High School.
The caucus will assign electoral votes to each city and town in the Third District, based on the latest population figures. Residents from each locality will meet in Concord and the candidate who gets the majority of each locality's votes will take all the city's or town's electoral votes. For example, I come from Waban, a village of Newton, which happens to be the most populous city in the District. If I'm the only delegate who shows up from Newton, all of Newton's electoral votes will go to the candidate of my choice.
The leading contenders for the caucus's nomination are Father Robert F. Drinan, dean of the Boston College Law School; Harrison Chandler Stevens, who ran as an Independent against Philbin in 1968 and enjoyed the support of many college volunteers; and John F. Kerry, who favors immediate withdrawal, and was the first Vietnam veteran to run for Congress with a dovish platform on the War.
Drinan, for the moment, is considered the favorite. He is well known in academic circles and at the age of 49 has mustered an impressive list of credentials. He is distinguished especially as the first priest to run for Congress since 1822.
Stevens, who would have to change his registration from Independent to Democrat in order to oppose Philbin in the September primary, is shied away from not only because he is not a Democrat, but also because he refused to endorse any Presidential candidate when he ran in 1968. Although Stevens had built up an impressive political machine, he has been assistant to the governor of Puerto Rico for the past year and returned to the District only two weeks ago.
Kerry has the most explicit stand against the Vietnam War and although his youth is a plus, the fact that he is a political unknown does not help him. Now 26, he was honorably discharged from the Navy last month but has been laying the groundwork for the race ever since November. Occasionally, Kerry makes obvious his recent return to civilian life and the Third Congressional District. When he came into the CRIMSON building last Friday, I introduced myself, saying I was from Waban.
"Waban, where's that?" he asked.
"It's in the District."
"W-O-B-O-N? Wobon? That's not in my District," he said.
"There's no such thing as Wobon. You must be thinking of Woburn. Anyway, I'm in Waban, a village of Newton, and certainly you've heard of Newton, haven't you?"
"So Waban's in Newton? Well, you learn something new every day," he said.
At Yale, Kerry was chairman of the Political Union and later, as Commencement speaker, urged the United States to withdraw from Vietnam and to scale down foreign military operations. And this was way back in 1966.
When he approached his draft board for permission to study for a year in Paris, the draft board refused and Kerry decided to enlist in the Navy. The Navy assigned him to the USS Gridley which between December 1966 and July 1968 saw four months of action off the Vietnam coast. In August through November, 1968, Kerry was trained to be the skipper of a patrol boat for Vietnamese rivers. For the next five months, until April of 1969, Kerry was the commanding Lieutenant of a patrol boat in the Mekong Delta. He was wounded slightly on three different occasions and received a Silver Star for bravery. His patrol boat took part in Operation Sealords, mostly scouting out Viet Cong villages and transporting South Vietnamese marines to various destinations up and down narrow rivers covered with heavy foliage on either side. One time Kerry was ordered to destroy a Viet Cong village but disobeyed orders and suggested that the Navy Command simply send in a Psychological Warfare team to be friend the villagers with food, hospital supplies, and better educational facilities.
Pulling Out
Immediate withdrawal from Vietnam, Kerry said, would take about seven months due to complex logistics problems. During that interval he would allow only "self-defense return of fire." "Logistic suport is now what Nixon is talking about leaving there and I don't want to see that. I don't think we should leave support troops there and I don't think we should give Vietnam any more than the foreign aid given any other one country." He does not feel there would be a massive slaughter of American, sympathizers once the United States pulled out.
In America, "everybody who's against the war is suddenly considered anti-American," Kerry said. "But I don't think they can turn to me and say I don't know what's going on or I'm a draft dodger." Referring to the House Armed Services Committee, chaired by L. Mendel Rivers (D-S.C.), Kerry said, "I want to go down to Washington and confront Medel Rivers, who never fought in a war.
"I as effectively as anyone else in the country, can address myself to the issue of Vietnam," Kerry said. "I'm very realistic, though. I'm just going to be one man adding to the work of men like Lowenstein."
Kerry is a pilot, and on October 14 and 15 he flew Ted Kennedy's advisor Adam Walinsky by private plane throughout the State of New York so that Walinsky could give speeches against the Vietnam War. But Kerry was smart enough not to put down "Moratorium" on the Navy signout sheet for that Tuesday and Wednesday. The following month, Kerry was sick and did not engage in the November moratorium activities.
He supports a volunteer Army, "if and only if we can create the controls for it. You're going to have to prepare for the possibility of a national emergency, however." Kerry said that the United Nations should have control over most of our foreign military operations. "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."
On other issues, Kerry wants "to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care." He also favors a negative income tax and keeping unemployment at a very low level, "even if it means selective economic controls."
Kerry's Background
"I have a somewhat Establishment background," Kerry admitted modestly. Kerry, whose family comes from Groton, attended Fessenden, a prestigious private school in West Newton, until he was old enough to go to St. Paul's. From there he went on to Yale where he majored in political science.
Kerry's interest in politics began in 1960, when John Kennedy was running for President. Kerry gave his first political speeches for JFK and at St. Paul's founded a political group, the John Winant Society. In the summer of 1962, Kerry worked for Ted Kennedy, who was then making his first Senate bid. "I wanted to see how the political machine works."
At Yale, Kerry was instrumental in organizing the demonstrations for giving tenure to philosophy professor Dick Bernstein, even though Bernstein had not done very much publishing. As President of the Political Union, Kerry met an impressive array of political figures and spent much of his time fighting for a new YPU building, which Yale eventually built.
Kerry's style can turn people off at first because he gives the initial impression of being too good to be true, of being just a little bit insincere. His preppiness might make you think he's a blueblood WASP, but Kerry is really a Roman Catholic. However, an afternoon on the campaign trail with Kerry leaves you with quite a different impression.
Out in Bolton, a town smaller than Waban, he went to a genuine Yankee house, built in 1740, I watched Kerry as he tried to convince four ladies to go to Saturday's caucus in Concord. While the ladies drank tea. Kerry stuck to his guns and told the women that most welfare recipients did deserve to be on the lists. He said Spiro Agnew was one of the poorer vice-presidents, not one of our great statesmen.
Because of Kerry's background, and his style which the ladies adored, he may have succeeded in charming them into driving out to Concord on Saturday. And four Kerry votes from Bolton would probably mean all of Bolton's electoral votes for Kerry.
What if Kerry loses at the caucus? "If it's a representative group," he said, "I'll support the candidate that comes out." He said he might campaign for Stevens, if Stevens wins the caucus's approval. Another idea of his is creating a national citizen's lobby which would be primarily educational and which "would be a new kind of interest group that will demand attention from the men who are legislating."
In the last month, Kerry has driven 4000 miles back and forth across the District. "I should be at law school," he said, "but the problems are too great to sit back and watch them go by."
ML.
On your first point, Kerry only volunteered to jon the navy AFTER he had applied for a deferral so he could- you'll never guess- study in FRANCE for a year. He was turned down and then enlisted
eddy
Alex,
you forgot the original-
The KILLER BEES