If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Dear John...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/2/23/95728.shtml
Dear John
Steve Malzberg
Monday, Feb. 23, 2004
What follows is a letter that I would like to see President George W. Bush send to Senator John Kerry.
Dear John, I want to congratulate you on the success that you are having in your quest to gain the democratic presidential nomination.
I realize that I'm not supposed to be taking sides here. Officially I don't care whether the nominee turns out to be you, Senator Edwards or even Al Sharpton. But I must tell you that, between you and me, I am very excited over the prospect of the two of us standing side by side during the debates in the fall. There are some things that I feel the American people need to know, and I can't think of a better forum for me to lay it on them.
I know what you're thinking. You think I'm going to read to them from your 1971 testimony to the Senate where you called our soldiers a bunch of baby killers and rapists, right? No, that's not it. In fact, I do plan to read them some of your own words, but they are much more recent.
They are words that helped to convince me that invading Iraq was indeed the right thing to do in the months following 9/11 and leading up to the invasion, and reinforced those beliefs well after the war began. I bet that you probably don't even remember what it was you said. Well, allow me to refresh your memory, Senator.
Very soon after the horrific attacks of September 11, 2001, you started talking about Saddam Hussein. On December 11, 2001, you went on "The O'Reilly Factor" and said: "The important thing is that Saddam Hussein and the world knows that we think Saddam Hussein is essentially out of synch with the times. He is and has acted like a terrorist, and he has engaged in activities ... that are unacceptable."
And it got even better on that same O'Reilly show: "I think we ought to put the heat on Saddam Hussein. I've said that for a number of years, Bill. I criticized the Clinton administration for backing off the inspections when Ambassador Butler was giving us strong evidence that we needed to continue. I think we need to put the pressure on no matter what the evidence is about September 11. But I think we have to do it in a thoughtful and intelligent way. ... The important thing is that Saddam Hussein has used weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein fired weapons on Israel! ... In addition to that he has refused to live by the terms of the treaty that he signed at the end of the war in which he agreed to do certain things."
Let's review: Saddam has acted like a terrorist, engaged in unacceptable activities ... we need to put the heat on him no matter what the 9/11 evidence ... he's used WMDs and has violated the treaty that ended the Gulf War.
Three days later, you went on with Larry King on CNN. All Larry had to do was ask you about enhancing the war on terror: "What are your thoughts about going further than Afghanistan, all terrorist places?"
It didn't take you long to mention Saddam, did it? You said: "Oh, I think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein."
Let's review: Once again you link Saddam Hussein to terrorism. You even bring up Iraq on your own, when asked about expanding the war on terror.
A couple of months later on "Hardball," there you were talking about Iraq and Saddam Hussein again. Chris Matthews wanted to know if we could get him to accept inspections and "Get past a possible war with him?" Your answer was "Outside chance. ... Could it be done? The answer is yes. But he would view himself only as buying time and playing a game, in my judgment.
"Do we have to go through the process? The answer is yes. ... I think you have to begin there no matter what. Whether Saddam Hussein begins that process today or we begin it, you have to put the challenge of the inspections on the line. Why? Because that's the outstanding issue unresolved from the war. That's what he agreed to do. And that's where we left off with Ambassador Butler and his rejecting it."
What you said next, Senator, was most convincing: "I mean, it's astounding, to me, frankly, that our country, as well as the United Nations, have allowed these years to go by with just a simple stonewalling."
Let's review: Once again you talk about the importance of going into Iraq and inspecting. You fear that even if he agrees, Saddam will probably be playing games. Most importantly, you express displeasure with the Clinton administration and the U.N. for failing to act on all these years of stonewalling.
Later, on the same "Hardball" show, Chris Matthews wants to know what makes you think that we now have the toughness to go in and insist on weapons inspections. Your answer was right on target: "September 11th. That's it, September 11th. I mean, that's changed the dynamic of this country. ..."
On January 23, 2003, you took your concerns about Saddam to the students at Georgetown University. "We need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. ... That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose and destroy its weapons programs. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it's not new. Since the end of the Persian Gulf War we've known this. ..."
Let's review: Saddam is brutal. At this point the world, including the United States, has given Saddam an ultimatum. We have known about his WMDs for more than a decade.
Back to the TV circuit, John. This time postwar. On September 2 of last year, speaking about your vote to give me the authority to go into Iraq, you told Larry King: "I believe that over time, as people realize why we voted to go with a legitimate threat of force and to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, it was in fact important to the security of our country. The vote was correct." I couldn't have said it better myself, John.
Two weeks later, on CBS's "Face The Nation," you were asked about a statement you had made. You had said that when you voted in October of 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq, it ended up being on the basis of information that you said turned out to be untrue. Doyle McManus asked you if you had known then what you know now, would you have voted the same way.
You said, "Well, it wasn't only on that basis. ... Saddam Hussein could not be left to his own devices based on everything we learned about him for seven and a half years while we were inspecting in Iraq. People have forgotten that for seven and a half years, we found weapons of mass destruction. We were destroying weapons of mass destruction. We were, the United States of America, together with Ambassador Butler and the United Nations."
I am so glad that you took it upon yourself to remind the folks in televisionland about all of those WMDs we found over those seven and a half years.
John, now that you know exactly what I plan to reveal to the American people should we meet in those Ffall debates, I'm sure that you can understand why I'm rooting for you to be the Democratic nominee. Please don't blow it, John. And please, keep talking. I can always use some more debating material.
Your friend,
President G.W. Bush
0
Comments
Another Green Beret Hammers Kerry
WHO IS JOHN KERRY?
"John Kerry Vietnam War hero." Everyday the media tiptoes around John Kerry as if he is an icon of service to the Nation. But why is his service to the nation in war not balanced against his return to longhaired freakdom to march against his fellow veterans still in the war, including myself? I was especially incensed when my communist captors quoted him in propaganda.
I had a discussion with Senator Kerry in Bangkok Thailand. He made some surprising statements during that exchange. He stated emphatically that I should provide him with any information I had on missing Americans. This he stated he would take to Hanoi to discuss with the Communists. He didn't seem to understand the Communists knew where the POWs were and needed no help from him to "find them." Expert on war? Hardly! He then stated that no matter what I had there would be no military operation to rescue them. In other words,
Senator Kerry felt that Americans were worth talking about, but not worth fighting for. Kerry brought up his service on patrol boats in Vietnam in a very defensive way with me, "you weren't the only one in that war, I was on those patrol boats?"
My answer "surely you are not attempting to compare anything you did in that war to my contribution to that endeavor!" I did not say that to belittle the Senator, but to only give him a reality check. He said he had an important appointment.
The insinuation was it dealt with the MIAs. Then a small child came up to us and said, "my Mom said it is time to go." Kerry sheepishly moved away. "All show and no go," just another paper thin ego. I was invited to lunch by his staffer Francis.
She stated in an adoring manner that John Kerry would some day be the President of the United States.
My answer was short and succinct," Based on what?"
She said, "He's a war hero."
I said, "but he then marched in a filthy uniform and threw his medals over the White House fence." She then told me the medals were someone else's. I merely stated it showed disrespect to honors received on the battlefield by "Someone."
End of discussion on that.
Someone in the Asian customs stated a rumor that Senator Kerry purchased a tiger skin in Vietnam and officials were told to ignore it. Somehow Vietnam Veterans got the story and as far as I know, there has never been a denial from the great "environmentalist" John Kerry. But true or not it gives a good look at how Kerry operates.
Take the "war hero" the next. Take the "Champion of MIAs" one day and the "we aren't going to war for them" the next day and you have John Kerry. Senator Kerry threatened to order me before his committee unless I gave him intelligence to carry to Hanoi. My answer? "you do not have to order me before your committee, I'll be there." I waited but, when I called Francis and said I was in America and ready to put the record straight on the rumor about Ross Perot being spread by committee staff, she said." I'm sorry Mark we have run out of money to bring you here." I said; "I have miles to burn and will pay my own way." She said she would discuss it with Kerry and get back to me. I never heard from her or the "War Hero" again.
Vietnam Veterans beware. The best way to describe John Kerry's attempts to be all things to all people is, "Heinz 57."
There has been much sniping at President Bush for being a fighter pilot in the Air National Guard. Liberals who seem to believe September Eleventh was somehow our fault and most surely the President's, laugh at his flying to an aircraft carrier
to welcome home U.S. Troops. They said he looked silly dressed as a pilot. No candidate for President had more right to dress like that, than George Bush; he is a fighter pilot. Where were these people, when the draft dodging Clinton wore a "Tanker Jacket" when visiting the troops? A part of a uniform he evaded wearing in time of war. I hope Kerry does not show up to see the troops, if elected, in the ragged field
jacket and head ban, he wore in the peace marches. When time to honor a battlefield hero, I hope he does not have a "flashback" and throw our Nation's highest award over the White House fence. After all, he does think throwing other people's medals over that fence is all right.
Lastly, as Guard and Reserve Troops fight and die for our freedom, I don't want any Commander In Chief who would think their service a joke. Further, if the big time Vietnam Veteran Kerry knew a thing about the Vietnam War, other than how deep the river was, he would know Guard and Reserve Pilots regularly flew combat missions in Vietnam. I for one appreciated the support. "War Hero?" O.K., he received the Silver Star. But, "Expert" on war? No John, but those of us who are, will take the honest leadership of President Bush anytime over you. You have not changed a bit from the time of the Vietnam War. Your wet finger is still in the air checking the political winds, before making any decision or changing one already made.
We are at war and I know war. Your brand of equivocation on every issue costs lives in a war and I don't want more dead and wounded here and abroad. You went to war and then marched against it and those of us who still fought. I know you as "Springtime Patriot" and then as a "Winter Soldier." People should look up what you said during your "Winter Soldier" days You voted for the present war and now you condemn it. You may be an Ivy League graduate, but, your war record is minor league and your leadership is straight out of the "Waffle House."
If being President is going to be based on medals earned in battle, there are a whole lot of us in front of you, John Kerry. There is one last thing that places all of your fellow veterans ahead of you in the honor department, with the exception of a few of your fellow "Winter Solders." We had too much respect for our fellow warriors, who fell on the field of battle, to throw even our lowest award over the White House fence. If you keep running on the "warrior ticket," you will lose sailor! For on that ticket, you are who you have always been.......NOBODY.
Mark A. Smith - DSC Major, USA, Retired
Member, The Legion of Valor
Returned Prisoner of War
We did what we had to do and did it well.
We can all see that Kerry is infinitely more qualified to run the country than Bush and especially you.
Only in hickville or redneck county will something like his war record actually matter. The educated people in your country will be more concerned about his policies on the economy, employment, social security, education e.t.c.
But the of course if you're anything to go by I wouldn't be surprised if we saw Hitler taking the podium and recieving a standing ovation for his work at ridding the world of undesirables.
"Educated" in what? Lies? Kerry's whole political career is an orchestrated lie.
It is thus a case of a lesser of two evils, I imagine most Europeans would consider any democratic nominee superior to the Republican candidate regardless of their past etc.....
Including a self-professed war criminal?
How illuminating...:rolleyes:
Quoted from another site:
Face it... if it were BUSH being discussed, you would be all over it like stink on shit. However, when it is one of your "brethern" to whom attention is pointed, then it is heresy.
If you bothered to read the preceding posts it would clear to you that I have no regard for Kerry whatsoever, thus making your rant pointless. What is vital, however, are the issues you routinely ignore or avoid and which will continue to undermine the future of our nation to further line the pockets of elite corporate interests.
Obviously the answer to the question put to you above is that militancy, to your way of thinking IS more important than the betrayal of the very democratic principles our nation was founded upon and which you supposedly believe you served to protect.
You claim to have been in line to study Nuclear Physics and yet regularly fail to demonstrate any critical analysis capabilities whatsoever or to focus on the issues themselves. You are quite skilled in sidestepping legitimate issues though, ill give you that.
Clandestine doesn't like Kerry
Globe doesn't like Kerry
Gentleman what exactly are you arguing about?
He simply once again ignores the question as he did when asked by you, I believe, about Bush's pampered service and refusal to actually account for his record (aside from tell-nothing pay slips) and chooses to hide behind some evasive remark (which itself shows how little attention he has paid to what Ive said about Kerry for some weeks now).
He may intend to argue, I merely await an answer to the question (in its full context) put him above.
Has either side published a manifesto or do they wait until the Democratic contender is confirmed?
Another question, what happens to the donations to candidates that drop out, do they have to return them or do they donate them to the the respective parties?
As for a manifesto, there are broad party platforms but its more a case of the agenda of the candidate himself in the US. The parties, as ive mentioned previously in another thread, are merely the aparatus of elections, otherwise they do not control the policy (thats the corporations' and special interests' job).
Donations welcome folks, join me in creating a new hope for the free world :wave:
Hes had a difficult 4 years. I mean the 9/11 attacks have made it impossible for him not to fight against terrorism (and the rogue eastern states like iraq)
People only pick on him because of the propoganda shit spouted by michael moore.
I think Bush should be reelected!
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/pacepa200402260828.asp
February 26, 2004, 8:28 a.m.
Kerry’s Soviet Rhetoric
The Vietnam-era antiwar movement got its spin from the Kremlin.
By Ion Mihai Pacepa
Part of Senator John Kerry's appeal to a certain segment of Americans is his Vietnam-veteran status coupled with his antiwar activism during that period. On April 12, 1971, Kerry told the U.S. Congress that American soldiers claimed to him that they had, "raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned on the power, cut off limbs, blew up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan."
The exact sources of that assertion should be tracked down. Kerry also ought to be asked who, exactly, told him any such thing, and what it was, exactly, that they said they did in Vietnam. Statutes of limitation now protect these individuals from prosecution for any such admissions. Or did Senator Kerry merely hear allegations of that sort as hearsay bandied about by members of antiwar groups (much of which has since been discredited)? To me, this assertion sounds exactly like the disinformation line that the Soviets were sowing worldwide throughout the Vietnam era. KGB priority number one at that time was to damage American power, judgment, and credibility. One of its favorite tools was the fabrication of such evidence as photographs and "news reports" about invented American war atrocities. These tales were purveyed in KGB-operated magazines that would then flack them to reputable news organizations. Often enough, they would be picked up. News organizations are notoriously sloppy about verifying their sources. All in all, it was amazingly easy for Soviet-bloc spy organizations to fake many such reports and spread them around the free world.
As a spy chief and a general in the former Soviet satellite of Romania, I produced the very same vitriol Kerry repeated to the U.S. Congress almost word for word and planted it in leftist movements throughout Europe. KGB chairman Yuri Andropov managed our anti-Vietnam War operation. He often bragged about having damaged the U.S. foreign-policy consensus, poisoned domestic debate in the U.S., and built a credibility gap between America and European public opinion through our disinformation operations. Vietnam was, he once told me, "our most significant success."
The KGB organized a vitriolic conference in Stockholm to condemn America's aggression, on March 8, 1965, as the first American troops arrived in south Vietnam. On Andropov's orders, one of the KGB's paid agents, Romesh Chandra, the chairman of the KGB-financed World Peace Council, created the Stockholm Conference on Vietnam as a permanent international organization to aid or to conduct operations to help Americans dodge the draft or defect, to demoralize its army with anti-American propaganda, to conduct protests, demonstrations, and boycotts, and to sanction anyone connected with the war. It was staffed by Soviet-bloc undercover intelligence officers and received about $15 million annually from the Communist Party's international department — on top of the WPC's $50 million a year, all delivered in laundered cash dollars. Both groups had Soviet-style secretariats to manage their general activities, Soviet-style working committees to conduct their day-to-day operations, and Soviet-style bureaucratic paperwork. The quote from Senator Kerry is unmistakable Soviet-style sloganeering from this period. I believe it is very like a direct quote from one of these organizations' propaganda sheets.
The KGB campaign to assault the U.S. and Europe by means of disinformation was more than just a few Cold War dirty tricks. The whole foreign policy of the Soviet-bloc states, indeed its whole economic and military might, revolved around the larger Soviet objective of destroying America from within through the use of lies. The Soviets saw disinformation as a vital tool in the dialectical advance of world Communism.
The Stockholm conference held annual international meetings up to 1972. In its five years of existence it created thousands of "documentary" materials printed in all the major Western languages describing the "abominable crimes" committed by American soldiers against civilians in Vietnam, along with counterfeited pictures. All these materials were manufactured by the KGB's disinformation department. I would print up these materials in hundreds of thousands of copies each.
The Romanian DIE (Ceausescu's secret police) was tasked to distribute these KGB-concocted "incriminating documents" all over Western Europe. And ordinary people often bought it hook, line, and sinker. "Even Attila the Hun looks like an angel when compared to these Americans," a West German businessman reprovingly told me after reading one such report.
The Italian, Greek, and Spanish Communist parties serviced by Bucharest were much affected by this material and their activists regularly distributed translations. They also handed them out to the participants at anti-American demonstrations around the world.
Many "Ban-the-Bomb" and anti-nuclear movements were KGB-funded operations, too. I can no longer look at a petition for world peace or other supposedly noble cause, particularly of the anti-American variety, without thinking to myself, "KGB."
In 1978, when I broke with Communism, my DIE was propagating the line that Washington's adventure in Vietnam had wasted over $200 trillion. This waste, we warned darkly, would soon generate European inflation, recession, and unemployment.
As far as I'm concerned, the KGB gave birth to the antiwar movement in America. In 1976, Andropov gave my own Romanian DIE credit for helping his KGB do so.
Leftist intellectuals in America now look to Europe — steeped for years in anti-American propaganda from the Soviet Union — for "a sane and frank European criticism of the Bush administration's war policy." Indeed, anti-Americanism in Europe today is almost as ferocious as it was during Vietnam. France and Germany insist we are torturing the al Qaeda prisoners held at Guantanamo Base. The Mirror, a British newspaper, is confident that President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair were "killing innocents in Afghanistan." The Paris daily Le Monde put Jean Baudrillard on its front page asserting that "the Judeo-Christian West, led by America, not only provoked the [September 11] terrorist attacks, it actually desired them."
In June 2002, a documentary film on "U.S. war crimes" in Afghanistan was shown in the German Bundestag by the crypto-Communist Party of Democratic Socialism (PDS). The film faithfully reincarnated the style of old Soviet-bloc "documentaries" demonizing the U.S. war in Vietnam. According to this 20-minute movie, American soldiers were involved in the torture and murder of some 3,000 Taliban prisoners in the region of Mazar-e-Sharif. One witness in the film even claimed he had seen an American soldier break the neck of one Afghan prisoner and pour acid on others.
During my last meeting with Andropov, he said, wisely, "now all we have to do is to keep the Vietnam-era anti-Americanism alive." Andropov was a shrewd judge of human nature. He understood that in the end our original involvement would be forgotten, and our insinuations would take on a life of their own. He knew well that it was just the way human nature worked.
And he claims he ever had the intellect to be a physicist. lol.
The audience continues to await an answer to the question put to you. :rolleyes:
No. Simply refusing to be distracted by your attempts at obfuscation.
The topic of the thread is JOHN KERRY and his repeated acts of betrayal.
But then... obfuscation would be your SOP...
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004738
the weblink might as well be called
www.RepublicanSmear.Neo.Com
Observe... No two quotes are from the SAME SOURCE, and The Village Voice? Is hardly "neo-con" ...
BTW > Is "neo-con" your new "N-word" for EVERYTHING which threatens your delusions?
You are continually REFUSING to address any of these or any of Clandestines points because you have NO good answers for them. Instead you simply cut and paste from stupid obscure websites and tell us how obfuscating we are being. Your only real knowledge as far as we can see is one of using POINTLESS words that have never been used in popular English language for over 100 years and how to clean the bullet chamber on an M-16.
Do you care about what happens to your "great" (i use the term loosely because the USA has never attained greatness) nation? Yes, it MAY triumph on the battlefield, but when you all realise that Bush's continual refusals to adhere to the Kyoto climate agreements that EVERY major western nation has managed to adhere to, he refuses to ban landmines, he continues with his isolationist policies. You'll find that no country will do buisness with you. While we start using cars powered by compressed air eat this America you'll still be using gas guzzlers in order to appease Shell and Texaco.
You'll find that your policies will lead to Alliances being formed that can challenge America's military power (we don't need to challenge you economically, Europe is already more than a match for you) and enforce embargoes on you, you'll watch your once great nation collapse into depression, and face ruin because you failed to embrace the future, spending it all on a bomb that can kill 2 people instead of 1. Well done.