Replies to post #10586 on Simply Politics and News (GOV)

[wstera2]

"Post a credible link - not from the swifties - to prove your claim"

I see you didn't bother to read the articles.

[wstera2]

Kerry's October surprise

Friday, October 29, 2004

How's this for an October surprise?

While John Kerry is running around claiming President George Bush and our troops overseas failed the American people by not guarding an explosives dump without explosives in it, documents have been uncovered at Texas Tech University that show Kerry was following Vietnam War protest guidelines from North Vietnamese communists in the early 1970s.

"Wait! Why am I not seeing any of this in the national news media, Mr. Gaylon?" you might be asking. "This cannot be true. Our Democrat candidate for president surely wasn't on the side of the communists and carrying out their requests when he got home from valiantly fighting for his country and winning all those medals, was he?"

Yes, he was.

The documents -- which actually LOOK like they came from the 1970s and not from a Microsoft Word program -- were found at the Vietnam Center at Texas Tech University in Lubbock and reproduced from captured communist records. These documents have been PROVEN 100 percent authentic BEFORE their release, unlike those 60 Minutes National Guard documents that CBS refuses to investigate.

They show that Madame Nguyen Thi Binh, the Viet Cong provisional governor of South Vietnam at the Paris Peace Talks, delivered a plan from Le Duc Tho -- Ho Chi Minh's second in command -- for American anti-war activities that anti-war protesters followed to the letter.

These documents are available at www.worldnetdaily.com or www.wintersoldier.com and show anti-war protesters not only received approval from the communists in North Vietnam, but also their direction. One of the documents states, "The spontaneous antiwar movements in the U.S. have received assistance and guidance from the friendly (i.e. communist Vietnamese) delegations at the Paris Peace Talks."

Another article at www.nysun.com/article/3756 also reflects on the North Vietnamese anti-war coordination with protest groups.

By the way, Madame Binh subsequently became the Minister of Information for the People's Republic of Vietnam after Saigon fell. You know what "Minister of Information" means in communist countries, right?

Of these organizations, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the communist organizations Peoples Committee for Peace and Justice and National Peace Action Committee were represented at the talks. Some representatives of these groups had their airfare covered by the United States Communist Party.

Shortly after Kerry returned from the talks he delivered Madame Binh's peace proposal through a press conference on July 22, 1971. He did so with veterans' families around him, a tactic that was suggested by the communists.

However, he said he only attended the peace talks because he was on his honeymoon in Paris.

There are two problems, Hanoi John Kerry met twice, and possibly thrice, with communist officials in Paris. Also, his honeymoon was spent at the Jamaica home of the Pershing family with then (other) heiress wife, Julia Thorne, in 1970. I suppose Paris was a second honeymoon.

Kerry had also met illegally with Binh in 1970 while he was still a Naval officer on inactive reserve status, and in fact, all his meetings were under the six-year window of the term of his enlistment. This precludes him from even running for elective office, much less president, but nobody is mentioning it for some reason. Amendment 14, Section 3 states: "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-president, having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Other documents show the Hanoi plan for war protests, which was basically accepted and carried out by PCPJ, NPAC and VVAW and other protest groups, which eventually forced a vastly superior military force to capitulate to a sniveling gang of thugs because of propaganda and lies.

It was John Kerry's finest hour.

So Kerry's earnest presidential campaign begins and ends the same place it started: Vietnam. And the whole way, the national liberal news media have ignored his crimes. They are overlooking this new evidence while inflating a bogus charge from the United Nations against the president during a time of war. Kerry is helping spread the lie, again, working against his government for his own purposes.

Those who think this man is even an American -- much less are willing to vote for him -- ought to have their heads examined. But then again, so few people on the left even know what it means to BE American anymore that I doubt Kerry's activities alarm, surprise or offend them. There is a growing body in the Democrat Party that sees nothing wrong with subservience to the United Nations on any and all issues. For them, Kerry must be a revelation.

But for Americans who do not trust an organization so guilty of greed, glorification of communism, thuggery, deception, virulent anti-Semitism and corruption, Kerry is anathema. His pursuit of the presidency should never have been allowed, but for all the left-wing propagandists in the media. They've refused to do their jobs and we're paying the price with a lousy Democrat candidate.

John Kerry took the direction of a foreign government in protesting one war and now he's doing it again. This time, as with the last, he is a willing puppet of people opposed to American strength.

John Kerry is on the wrong side again, folks. I hope on Nov. 2 you're on the right one.

http://www.gulflive.com/opinion/mississippipress/index.ssf?/base/opinion/109904493874180.xml

[wstera2]

Good summation.

"..if a story might hurt President Bush, play it up big; if
it might help Mr. Bush, bury it; and if might hurt Mr. Kerry,
ignore it altogether."


Guided by hidden hands?

The Washington Times
By Linda Chavez
Published October 30, 2004
- Linda Chavez is a nationally syndicated columnist.

The media are too busy repackaging old Iraq news in an October offensive against President Bush's re-election to investigate truly startling evidence unearthed this week that the Communist Party may have been directing John Kerry's anti-war activities in the early 1970s.

The evidence, contained in captured communist records on file at the Vietnam Center at Texas Tech University, shows a well-coordinated effort by the Communist Party to recruit U.S. servicemen to become part of the American anti-war movement. The objective was to organize high-profile activities to undermine support for the Vietnam War, including holding hearings on alleged war crimes, lobbying Congress to oppose the war, exploiting the families of American POWs and urging servicemen to return their service medals.

Not only did John Kerry and his group Vietnam Veterans Against the War follow this game plan, but Mr. Kerry went to Paris to meet with the communist official designated as the point of contact for guiding these activities. In June 1970, Mr. Kerry met with Mme. Binh, foreign minister of the Provisional Revolutionary Government (Viet Cong) of South Vietnam and a delegate to the Paris peace talks. The documents discovered last weekend -- one titled "Circular on Antiwar Movements in the U.S." -- was disseminated in Vietnam in the spring of 1971, and the other titled "Directive" was captured by U.S. forces in April 1971 -- are available for viewing at www.wintersoldier.com. They reveal a detailed plan to use anti-war activists in the United States as propagandists for the communist cause in Vietnam.

So why isn't the mainstream media all over this story? If Mr. Kerry -- wittingly or not -- was carrying out directives from Hanoi, or perhaps even Moscow, the American people have the right to know before they decide whether to elect him president on Tuesday. But the networks and major dailies were too busy covering a hysterical report that 380 tons of explosives went missing from an Iraqi depot in the early days of the U.S. invasion to inquire into Mr. Kerry's dubious activities in the anti-war movement.

On Monday, the New York Times broke the story of the purported looting of weapons from an Iraqi arms depot. "Huge Cache of Explosives Vanished From Site in Iraq" screamed the front-page Times headline, which was picked up by all the major networks and newspapers, not to mention the Kerry campaign. CBS' "60 Minutes" was also set to air a story tomorrow -- two days before the election -- aimed at convincing viewers that the administration had carelessly let the depot be looted of its powerful explosives, the kind that might even be used to detonate a nuclear device. "Our plan was to run the story on Oct. 31, but it became clear that it wouldn't hold," CBS executive producer Jeff Fager said in a statement.

In fact, the "missing explosives" story was more media campaign ploy than real news. There is substantial evidence that most of the explosives were either destroyed by U.S. bombing prior to the invasion or were already gone by the time U.S. troops arrived at the site on April 10, 2003, according to NBC, which had a reporter embedded with the Army's 101st Airborne Division at the time. Furthermore, the United States has already destroyed or is in the process of destroying more than 400,000 tons of similar material in Iraq, a fact conveniently ignored by much of the media.

The media rule seems to be if a story might hurt President Bush, play it up big; if it might help Mr. Bush, bury it; and if might hurt Mr. Kerry, ignore it altogether. In an election as close as this one, the media's role could be decisive. We used to expect the candidates to unleash their own October surprise in an effort to sway the voters at the last minute. Now it's the media that plays that game. Come Halloween, it's media tricks for Mr. Bush and treats for Mr. Kerry.

[wstera2]

Subject: Vietnam Veterans against the War turn on Kerry.

This is a tough "open letter to John Kerry" that is circulating around the web at a rapid pace. It is written by a Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr. Johnson is a combat vet who joined VVAW (Vietnam Veterans against the War) and disliked the position "Kerry was dragging" the organization toward. He has asked this letter be widely circulated. Johnson also supports the efforts by SwiftVets and POWs. Johnson is an accomplished writer; his website is http://www.solvinglight.com

An Open Letter to Senator John F. Kerry

From Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.
October 19, 2004

Dear Senator Kerry,

I never met my uncle Will. He was a lieutenant in the Navy during WWII. He was killed in action on his PT boat in the Pacific. For his fatal wounds, he received the Purple Heart posthumously.

The first-captain of my West Point class took a bullet through the heart while leading a South Vietnamese airborne battalion into combat. For this fatal wound, he was awarded the Purple Heart posthumously.

My senior year roommate at West Point became a tunnel rat. A booby trap explosion killed him in the tunnels of Duc Pho. The army awarded him the Purple Heart posthumously. My plebe year roommate lost an eye and became permanently crippled. For his extensive wounds, he received the Purple Heart.

My battalion commander in Viet Nam was one of the bravest men I ever knew. He went out ahead of the troops in his light observation helicopter to find and kill enemy before they had a chance to fire on his men. That's how he died. For his fatal wounds, he received the Purple Heart posthumously.

My words pale in their import compared to the terse comment of a high school classmate of mine. We played lacrosse together in Baltimore. He went to the Naval Academy and upon graduation became a marine. This past July at our annual lacrosse crab feast, I asked him what he thought of your Purple Hearts. He said, "Bob, nine of us lieutenants went over there together, and only three of us came back. All three of us who survived spent at least a month in the hospital recovering from wounds we suffered in combat."

You didn't need any recovery time from your three alleged "wounds." How does one get "wounded" and yet not need to recover from those "wounds"? With wounds comes suffering. Where was your suffering? How could you merit a Purple Heart when you weren't even a casualty? You did not earn your Purple Hearts; you wrangled them from the system through deception so you could go home early and get out of eight months of combat. That is despicable and shameless. During the democratic convention, your flagrant boastful show of your "heroism" gave the impression that you had been a man in the thick of combat, when in fact, you had been a man on the very edge of it, all the while slyly conniving your way out of it. Instead of "Reporting for duty," you should have said, "Derelict in my duty." I marvel at your pomposity, and at the astonishing facility with which you present your phony war record as fact to the American people.

Let's compare your wounds with those of a West Point classmate of mine and his men. As my classmate directed artillery fire onto suspected enemy positions, shrapnel from an enemy mortar ripped into his leg. A medivac chopper took him to the Americal Division field hospital. When he returned to his company two weeks later, many new faces met him: the lieutenant who had taken over had marched the company into a u-shaped ambush resulting in two-thirds of the men being killed or wounded. Those wounded in that battle didn't have to put themselves in for the Purple Heart, Senator Kerry.

You exhibit the characteristics of a Narcissist. Narcissus, for whom this malignant character defect is named, fell in love with his image in a pool of water. As with Narcissus, your image has become the focus of your life. This image of yourself with which you are enamored, so greedy for recognition and praise, is only two dimensional: it has breadth and width, but no depth. And while your image may appear grand and heroic on the surface, there is no substance to it. My high school marine friend and my West Point classmate, true heroes, didn't take movie cameras with them to Viet Nam, but you did-with the express purpose of recording your imaginary exploits and feeding your grandiose image of yourself.

The truth is you faked combat wounds in Viet Nam, and your actions were devious and self-serving. You were a "Purple Heart hunter," just as the Swift Boat Vets say. Narcissus was an actor, and so are you.

I don't understand how any veteran, or any member of a veteran's family, or any sane-thinking American could even consider voting for you-a man who faked Purple Hearts in wartime. A man who will fake Purple Hearts for the sake of glorifying his image has no integrity and misdefines truth as whatever enhances the power and prestige of that image. A man without depth and substance stands for anything and everything-so long as his image is glorified. Narcissists such as you cannot be trusted; and they can be very dangerous, especially when they become paranoid about protecting their image, especially when they occupy positions of great authority and consequence. The issues in this election are truthfulness and character, and you lack both.

In 1971, I became a regional coordinator for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) for a short time. I and many other vets were very angry at our government. We had experienced horror, terror, trauma, and grief in a no-win war and couldn't see the reason for it. We felt betrayed by our government and our military leaders. You stepped in and became our spokesman.

What enabled you to rise to the leadership of VVAW? What caused us, back then, to respect a four-month mini-veteran of the war? The answer is your medals: your phony medals for valor and your three phony Purple Hearts. Your congressional testimony about the war began with your own assertions that you had received the Silver Star and three Purple Hearts. What better spokesman than an heroic, thrice- wounded veteran! Our mistake was that we all assumed you were an honest and good man. But well before your antiwar days, you had decided to trade your integrity for the spotlight, and to barter your loyalty for vain political ambitions.

Most of us in VVAW expressed our outrage with government war policies through speeches, marches, and protests. We told the truth about what we saw and did in Viet Nam and we demanded from our leaders acknowledgment and change. You usurped the leadership of VVAW under false pretenses and dragged it in the direction of Jane Fonda and collaboration with the enemy. If, God forbid, you are elected president, in what awful direction will you and your foreign-born-and- raised wife drag our country?

Your deceit is an explicit slur upon my uncle Will's Purple Heart award, and you mock all other veterans who made the supreme sacrifice or suffered genuine wounds in combat throughout our nation's history. Your rise to prominence is based upon your abominably perverse desecration of our ideals; you have trivialized and demeaned the sacred and the solemn, and no amount of fluent sophistry or braggart pretense can cover it up.

Your conduct goes far beyond dereliction of duty. You betrayed your comrades in Viet Nam; you betrayed the trust of antiwar veterans, and now your self-fabricated credentials and continued lies contaminate the political process.

Remember the professor a few years ago who lied about being a Viet Nam veteran? His college reprimanded and suspended him for foisting such an abominable sham upon a few hundred students. I ask you in closing, Senator Kerry, what punishment is fitting for a man who fabricates medals as sacrosanct as the Purple Heart, and who continues to lie about his Viet Nam service to the entire world?

Yours truly,

Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr.
[e-mail]

Mr. Johnson is an airborne ranger infantry veteran of Viet Nam and an author. His latest book is "The Parthenon Code: Mankind's History in Marble."
-----------------------
UW, Lifted verbatim from an email received from a fellow Marine USNA grad with the note: "This is forwarded by a Korea-vintage USMC (Ret) colonel."...jj