posted on May 7, 2004 09:06:32 PM new
A Psych profile of a President wanna be.
------------------------
"Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam is a credit to him as a man. But it cannot be used as a shield to protect him from a fair assessment of his judgement and wisdom as a statesman." -- Washington Times.
Dr. C. Alan Hopewell, a Vietnam era vet and fellow psychologist, was Chief of Psychology for Landstuhl Regional Army Medical Center in Germany and Director of the Neuropsychological Lab, 7th U.S. Army, European Theatre during the middle of the time of the Iranian revolution and the increase in terror attacks again U.S. forces in Europe. He has held a number of offices in his state psychological association. Here is his view of Kerry:
1. Here is a commissioned Naval officer who takes a formal oath of service to his country as well as an equally strong oath, albeit simply understood among a Band of Brothers, to keep the faith with his fellow officers and troops. He betrayed both on several levels, first by being a "medal hound," next by abandoning his command after only four months, and finally by testifying under oath to blatant lies which exposed his comrades in arms who were still in country to mortal danger and those in the United States to psychological abuse and distortion. It is pretty much unheard of for military doctors to know of an officer leaving his command after only four months for anything less than substantially disabling injuries, and all the line commanders I ever recall treating were extremely anxious to return as soon as possible to their duty assignments unless we doctors prohibited it by sending them to Walter Reed or Brooke.
2. Here is a commissioned Naval officer who was entrusted with the lives and future of the people of Viet Nam and their children. Instead, the officer entrusted with their safety and future helped to insure their enslavement and often their brutalization or death. This is the same as if the police officer commissioned to protect your family decides that "you are not worth the risk any more," quits patrolling your neighborhood and shuts down the police station, effectively turning you and your family over to the criminals. His most stunning failure of judgement was probably in convincing the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "only about 3000 South Vietnamese" would suffer reprisals if we abandoned the Republic of Vietnam to the communists, an assertion which even the Committee found hard to believe.
3. Here a Yale graduate who obviously did not want to investigate the truth of a variety of issues, a guy on a boat for only four months who then under sworn testimony before the United States Congress offered himself as an expert on the atrocities of land warfare and the entire theater of war, governmental policy, and command and control issues.
4. He then used these distortions and betrayals for his own benefit as an opportunist to advance his own political career, continuing his traits of opportunism and political expediency.
5. And finally, a number of sources indicate that he was party in some form to clearly illegal proposals, to include at the minimum discussions of assassinations and the knowledge that some members of the VVAW were avowed communists bent on taking over the organization as the VVAW became increasingly radical. Although an intelligent Yale graduate who presumably knew the law and also a Naval Officer with continuing reserve duty obligations to his country, he declined to recognize criminal activity and report it.
Dr. Hopewell says he is concerned because, "John Kerry's actions after returning to the United States did not simply constitute a "courageous dissenting opinion," as he and others would have us believe, but was a distortion of facts and failure of judgement so severe that it set into motion a cascade of events which assisted not only in the conquest of the Republic of Vietnam but also demoralized and stigmatized an entire generation of military personnel, the effects of which are still felt to this day. This type of failure of judgement would be catastrophic in dealing with our current crises."
The Kerry statement to Congress in 1971, shown recently on C-Span was more than what he now claims, just an anguished cry from those who had seen the horror of war and wanted it ended. There was an agenda involved, an ideology, the same as the one argued by people like Jane Fonda, Jerry Rubin, and Ramsey Clark. Dr. Hopewell made a very important point when he said that Kerry's actions after returning to the United States "did not simply constitute a 'courageous dissenting opinion,' as Kerry and others would have us believe, but was a distortion of facts." Kerry is trying to transform his '71 protest into something it was not.
Kerry was probably more moderate than the above three, but still, he did emphasize "atrocities", "immorality", and "out now" with no regard for the fate of the South Vietnamese, major themes of the protestors. Kerry told Congress the whole war rested on "atrocities," that South Vietnam was a "nothing," that the idea of Communist involvement was "mystical," that it was a "civil war" between "freedom fighters" (the Viet Cong) and an oppressive government being helped by America." Linda Chavez, national columnist, notes the implications of this:
"In his testimony, Kerry described the Vietnam War as a "civil war, an effort by a people who had for years been seeking their liberation from any colonial influence whatsoever." That view -- which depicted Ho Chi Minh as a nationalist hero and totally ignored the Soviet Union's involvement in training and funding the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong -- was embraced by naïve romantics as well as communist propagandists and apologists in the anti-war movement."
"The young Kerry seems to have fallen in the latter category, communist apologist. Said scholar Stephen J. Morris of Johns Hopkins University this week, Kerry "sympathized with the communist cause." John Kerry deserves to make atonement to the Vietnamese people -- not for what he did as a young soldier but for what he has done ever since to justify communist tyranny in Vietnam and elsewhere."
Earlier, on Sept. 17, 1970, [b]Kerry and his group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War had also slandered the National Guard, protesting at its convention in New York that year that
"The National Guard Uses Your Tax Dollar:
To support the military-industrial complex
To honor war criminals -- Westmoreland, Laird, Nixon
To applaud campus murders by National Guard units
To encourage armed attacks on minority communities."
...all standard leftist rhetoric.[/b]
Today on the campaign trail Kerry tries to tell people his group was dedicated to advancing the interests of American servicemen -- protecting them, bringing them home, helping them. We know that is not true. Said John Podhortz of "The New York Post," "Kerry was a key midwife in the birthing of one of the worst myths ever fostered in this country, the myth of the crazed, violent, dangerous Vietnam vet who had come back to America to wreck the same kind of devastation here he had wrecked in Southeast Asia."
What is going on here? This looks like the biggest shell game since Watergate. Kerry was a leader in the "peace" movement, sharing platforms and ideology with the likes of Jane Fonda. In a sense, a vote for Kerry is a vote for Fonda, a vote for the 60's radicals. There is a reason vets refer to Kerry as "Hanoi John."
For thirty years Vietnam vets have been trying to get the truth out about that war as against the 60's version, and have an unprecedented opportunity to do so now. We know of a number of national symposiums being planned to reverse the campus version of the Vietnam War. A Kerry win would leave the current tissue of lies about Vietnam in place forever. By not mentioning his background, the media has helped Kerry to project himself as an idealist, a friend of the Vietnam vet, when in actual fact he played a significant role in the betrayal of their sacrifices to help the people of South Vietnam, and played a significant role in the triumph of tyranny and genocide in Southeast Asia. His pal Ted Kennedy also played a role in this triumph by cutting off all ammunition to the South Vietnamese, plunging them into the dark night of Communist horror. It was not the first time Kennedy had plunged someone into the dark. Kerry's pal Kennedy could not run for president because his two aides that fateful night could have blackmailed the nation, knowing what they did about the cover-up at Chappaquiddick.
Kerry should also not be running for president; he helped betray a national sacrifice for freedom for the people of South Vietnam. How did these two old partners in crimes against freedom manage to hijack the Democratic party? There is much to be said for forgiving the past. But it is best to keep an eye on second chances. They might do it again. In Kerry's subsequent history there is not much to indicate he has changed. Let's look at that.
In "The Harvard Crimson" of 1970 Kerry said "I'm an internationalist, I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations". Later, in 1971, at West Virginia's Bethany College, Kerry told students "Democracy is a farce," and that Communism "did not pose any kind of threat to the United States and the war was not moral. We can't sit around and support this kind of society." Nor had Kerry much changed his views sixteen years later. Speaking at Yale in 1987 he said U.S. policy in Vietnam was "tantamount to genocide" and on Meet the Press he again said our soldiers were guilty of "all kinds of atrocities" and branded America's leaders as "war criminals." Asked why there were so many Communists in his movement, he said that was not "relevant."
Kerry championed a nuclear freeze in the 1980's in opposition to Ronald Reagan's peace-through-strength stance, which won the Cold War. Kerry was also one of the strongest critics of Ronald Reagans policies of military resistance to Communist inroads in this hemisphere. He lent his name to aid Communist guerrillas in El Salvador and was a vigorous opponent of the anti-Communist Contras in Nicaragua, undercutting U.S. policy.
His voting record on defense is appalling. He voted against the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, the Apache helicopter, the Patriot missile, the F-15, the F-14, the Harrier jet, and the Aegis air defense cruiser. He advocated cuts in other systems, including the Bradley vehicle, the Abrams tank, and Tomahawk missile programs, all critical to U.S. military success. In a foreign policy address last December Kerry pledged that if elected he will abandon the president's war on terror and begin a dialogue with the terrorists. Begin a dialogue with the terrorists? Does he think we're playing tennis?
An e-mail sent overseas by Kerry ended up on the front page of the anti-American "Theran Times," Iran. That murderous regime was ecstatic over his statement of support. The president of the student pro-democracy movement in Iran immediately wrote Kerry, "You have given them credibility and comfort and encouraged them into declaring open season on the freedom fighters in Iran." Both Iran and North Korea have announced their support for Kerry. No wonder.
If John Kerry is elected president the new first lady will have a track record of support for the causes of radical, anti-American groups, including Islamists and terrorist-defense lawyer firms. One of her favorite charities is the Tides Foundations, which supports the War Resisters League, Ramsey Clark's International Action Center, A.N.S.W.E.R, and United for Peace and Justice; all of which have been involved with long-time communist revolutionaries. It also supports the Council for American Islamic Relations, (CAIR) which has links to the terrorist group Hamas. Isn't that cozy? A whole nest of leftists and terrorists in the White House.
There are simply too many signs of sympathy for the left in this history. The left has already crippled public education, it dominates the media, and it is promoting anti-Semitism on campuses across the country. We don't need even a hint of it in the White House.
The Center for Security Policy, a Washington-based think tank, has rated Kerry among the worst on Capitol Hill when it comes to national security. In 1995 the Center gave Kerry a score of five out of a possible 100 points. Two years later Kerry earned a mind-blowing score of exactly zero. That's just great. Here we are facing probably the greatest crisis in our history, and we've got a man who says he can handle it running for president who is a total zero when it comes to national security.
Go to www.JohnKerry.com. Look up "foreign policy" and "homeland security." It says Kerry "rejects the Administration's erratic unilateralism." He wants the U.S. to work with the United Nations to secure a lasting peace so that "the conditions that gave rise to the terrorist threat can never recur." This statement reveals Kerry's ignorance on terrorism. He apparently agrees with the academics that these "conditions" are economy and social injustice. The "conditions" are the violent verses in the Koran."Never recur" is not possible, jihad is forever. The only way to insure that terrorism "never recurs" is to eliminate Islam. He refers to an "unseen" enemy, but has no views on them, has no plan to defeat them. He doesn't just lack credibility on national defense policy. He has no national defense policy.
Said Peter Brown of the Orlando Sentinel, "McGovern, who flew bombers in World War ll, was, like Kerry, a war hero, yet voters rejected his foreign policy as hopelessly naive. So is Kerry's and he can't hide his record on national defense behind an honorable discharge and medals."
Conclusions:
Said Mr. Magruder, a psychologist, "The biggest issue in choosing between Bush and Kerry is how they characteristically handle conflict. Bush and the people around him have clearly shown themselves to be tough-minded. They will deal with the problem of terrorism no matter how difficult. Senator Kerry, trusting to negotiation, dialogue, compromise, and even appeasement to work in the new world of terrorists, deadly religious fanatics and suicide bombers, plus his history of weakness in dealing with totalitarian movements, would certainly fail in the face of such challenges. The main question for everyone regarding Kerry would seem to be whether he is capable of handling the terrorists. Does he even understand what that is all about? Has he studied Islam, the root of the problem. We have never even heard him mention the word."
"Looking back over his record, and looking at recent statements, I believe, with Dr. Hopewell, that he would be extremely dangerous on the issue of national security."
Negotiation, dialogue, compromise, and even appeasement, the typical tools of a liberal, 20th century diplomat in dealing with reasonably civilized nations, would prove utterly useless in light of 9/11 and an enemy that has repeatedly said:
"We will offer no chance for America to come to an agreement with the righteous warriors, no possibility for compromise, no hope for a treaty, no attempt for solution. The war will be waged until the United States remains a memory."
----------
C. Alan Hopewell, Ph.D., Former Major, MSC, USAR
Dr. Leonard Magruder, President, Vietnam Veterans for Academic Reform
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on May 7, 2004 10:24:22 PM new
I wonder what their assessment would be of Bush-- a deserter and chicken. And then there is Cheney, another chicken.
What would be their diagnosis for two chickens that lie to start a war that they would never fight in and it gets over 700 US soldiers killed and 22,000 civilians killed ?
I think the terms cowards, bullies, punks, panty wastes, liars, deserters, come to mind when we look at Bush and Cheney.
posted on May 8, 2004 09:05:45 AM newI think the terms cowards, bullies, punks, panty wastes, liars, deserters, come to mind when we look at Redmond who continues to rant and rave & fails to provide conclusive evidence of the accusations.
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on May 8, 2004 09:23:12 AM new
LOL bear....I think if those two psychologists could have a few sessions with kerry....they might be able to find out why he comes down on both sides of most issues.....split personality perhaps?
---------------------
reamond - You go on and on about those who didn't serve. But when this same subject was being discussed about clinton's draft dodging....the left excuse it over and over again. Different standards according to who's being discussed.
Think about the time frame. Chaney was 18 in 1959. No one was being drafted during that time nor the next few years. Hundreds of thousands were given deferments for many reasons during the 'heat of battle'....and the left even supported the draft dodgers who RAN AWAY to Canada. Then there's the matter of how many elected officials DIDN'T serve in VN.
It's hypocritical for the left to now change there position on this issue.
posted on May 8, 2004 09:35:16 AM new
Linda, In the NEW Lib dictionary "hypocritical & Reamond" are interchangeable.
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on May 8, 2004 10:37:55 AM new"hypocritical & Reamond" are interchangeable
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
It's too bad that their blindness can't see they are killing more soldiers than President Bush ever has... Protest Loud and Proud! Your fellow taliban and insurgents are rejoicing at the support...
posted on May 8, 2004 02:02:15 PM new"...dave is one of the worst with the insults..."
Now it's Dave... yes, we're all so insulting Linda, but not you with your recent lies or Twelve calling us the "c" word. Next you'll be telling us that we're making you act poorly because of all the bad things we say to make you mad!
posted on May 8, 2004 04:44:08 PM newWhy is it that name calling seems to be the only level on which the right wing can function?
Helen, the right is starting to use the only language the left understands.
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on May 8, 2004 05:10:18 PM new
Kd - That's the second time you've accused me of lying. Maybe you want to point out my lie that you believe I've stated.
posted on May 9, 2004 09:33:54 AM newreamond - You go on and on about those who didn't serve. But when this same subject was being discussed about clinton's draft dodging....the left excuse it over and over again. Different standards according to who's being discussed.
Clinton admitted his opposition to the war and that's why he used a deferment. He didn't have the connections that Bush had to get into an over staffed guard unit and not show up for a year. Clinton stood by his convictions. Bush and Cheney are hypocrits.
Think about the time frame. Chaney was 18 in 1959. No one was being drafted during that time nor the next few years. Hundreds of thousands were given deferments for many reasons during the 'heat of battle'....and the left even supported the draft dodgers who RAN AWAY to Canada. Then there's the matter of how many elected officials DIDN'T serve in VN.
Cheney used at least 6 deferment and when asked why he didn't serve stated "That wasn't a priority for me at the time". Kerry had the connections to chicken out like Bush or Cheney. But he went into harms way instead. He had first hand experience of combat and what was going on. He then exhibited ever greater courage and worked to end the war.
It is not a question of the left supporting draft dodgers.
It is a question of the right denying and rationalizing what Bush and Cheney did, just as you are doing.
Bush and Cheney are scheming lying little weasels, who would demand that your son or daughter die for their failed policies, but when they were in the same situation, they weaseled out of it.
posted on May 9, 2004 04:42:35 PM new
"You know the difference between 'Friends' and the John Kerry campaign? 'Friends' has a theme."..Jay Leno
"The Secret Service has announced it is doubling its protection for John Kerry. You can understand why — with two positions on every issue, he has twice as many people mad at him." —Jay Leno
posted on May 9, 2004 09:00:42 PM new
"John Kerry said that a lot of world leaders want him to be the president and the Bush administration said, 'Yeah, well, like who?' and John Kerry said, 'Well, I can't say really.' So, now they're really hammering John Kerry and listen to this, the only name he could come up with? Queen Latifah." —David Letterman
Oh, Happy Mothers Day moms!
__________________________________ In cyberspace, you can't hear a liberal scream.
And on the draft deferments.....more young people received draft deferments than there were those who drew lottery numbers to serve in VN. Also....many of those who were drafted didn't serve in VN. Many volunteered to serve.
Then, of course, there's kerry on record defending the draft dodgers like clinton....now he's flip-flopped and wants to make serving an election issue. it's funny.
posted on May 10, 2004 08:53:09 AM newSpecial arrangements WERE made for him.
No there was not, and there is nothing in your linked article that even comes close to supporting that statement. But I hope you Bush supporters keep running against Clinton. It is a great strategy. Bush has screwed up miserably in Iraq, he has ruined the economy, and he wants to run against Clinton. Kerry couldn't ask for more.
Then, of course, there's kerry on record defending the draft dodgers like clinton....now he's flip-flopped and wants to make serving an election issue. it's funny.
The only funny thing is all of you conservative "patriots" supporting the draft dodging deserter Bush. And all Kerry said about the Clinton issue was to leave the Vietnam issues in the past. Bush is the one that felt it necessary to bring up Kerry's Vietnam era activities. Another big mistake by Bush.
It is in the undisputed record - Bush got into a NG unit that was already over staffed and one that flew planes that would never be assigned to Vietnam.
Then on top of that he was AWOL for a year.
I hope the right continues to hammer on Kerry's military service and patriotism. The more they do the more Bush and Cheney's dispictable records are brought to light.
Bush and Cheney will send your sons and daughters to a war they themselves would not fight in.
Bush's daughters and Cheney's kids will not fight in their wars either. All of their kids are old enough to volunteer but not one will.
posted on May 10, 2004 09:06:50 AM new
reamond - The problem with your argument is your statements can be proven wrong.
There is a record of Bush getting an honorable discharge. The rest of this awol BS is just that....unfounded accusations. The business about who got draft deferments.....was *more the norm* for those days than were the ones without deferments. Chaney et all are NOT in a small group who used legally offered deferments to go to college, to not go FIRST because they were married, to not go FIRST because they had a family....etc.
If you think draft deferments = draft dodgers....then over 60 of those registered with the Selective Service were ALL draft dodgers. LOL
No Bush is not running against clinton....but when the left and kerry defended clinton avoiding the draft....when kerry states we shouldn't be discussing what happened 30-35 years ago....then makes it a campaign issue....that's hyprocisty at it's best.
There is NO requirement that our leaders serve their country in our Armed Forces in order to be elected. If the left wishes to make that a requirement then they are free to work toward changing our laws. BUT left take both sides of this issue. Supporting those in their party who didn't serve...while calling to the carpet those who did serve and were honorably discharged.
posted on May 10, 2004 09:14:42 AM new
More important than who served and who didn't and who did but the left can't prove their accusation...
is kerry's voting record against funding defense, against funding our intelligence agencies and against funding our military/soldiers.
That's what's going to make more of a difference as to how people decide IF kerry should be Commander-In-Chief of our Armed Forces....especially in the war on terror.....will he defend this nation or not.....rather than what happened 35 years ago.
By his own voting record....I don't believe he will.
"Issue of Clinton's Vietnam Draft Record Flares Up Again"
By Bill McAllister
and Charles Babington
The Washington Post
Bill Clinton's draft status -- an issue the Arkansas governor had hoped to put to rest last week -- flared anew Wednesday with Republicans charging that the Democratic presidential nominee had failed to fully explain how he had avoided military service during the Vietnam War.
Campaigning in Kansas City, Vice President Quayle charged that Clinton "has a credibility problem" over the issue. "He is going to have to come clean with the American people and answer the questions," Quayle told reporters.
His comments were prompted by a Los Angeles Times story that Raymond Clinton, a now-deceased uncle of the Arkansas governor, had conducted a vigorous campaign to get Clinton enlisted in a Hot Springs, Ark., naval reserve unit rather than have his nephew face induction. Until that account was published, Clinton's only known encounter with military recruiters was his short-lived agreement to join an Army ROTC unit at the University of Arkansas.
He never attended the university and backed out of the agreement after he drew a number in a draft lottery that made his induction unlikely.
--------------------
posted on May 10, 2004 12:00:04 PM new
Yeah Linda, Bush's "honorable discharge: covers up his AWOL record - not. He got his "honorable discharge" the same way he got into an over staffed NG unit.
posted on May 10, 2004 12:29:59 PM new
Reamond: If its 'covered up' as you say, then how do you know he was AWOL? If its 'covered up' how do you know WHAT he did?
__________________________________ In cyberspace, you can't hear a liberal scream.
posted on May 10, 2004 12:50:49 PM newReamond: If its 'covered up' as you say, then how do you know he was AWOL? If its 'covered up' how do you know WHAT he did?
Linda is the one who says the honorable discharge covers up his being AWOL.
She claims that he could not have been AWOL because he got an honorable discharge.
Bush's own commanding officer wrote that he could not comment on Bush's progress report because that hadn't seen hiom for 5 months. This came out in Bush's own released records. His total unaccounted for enlistment totals a year.
The same people that allowed Bush into an over staffed NG unit are the same ones that gave him an undeserved honorable discharge.
posted on May 10, 2004 03:05:52 PM new
reamond - Maybe you can point out to me ANY site that has made anything other than an accusation about Bush being AWOL. Any site that has not just *questioned* the issue but has been able to prove he was AWOL, rather than just continuing to make the accusation....
especially since this is the fifth time it's been brought up....fifth election cycle and so far no one has been able to prove their allegations.
I checked out factcheck.org....who appears to me to side with Bush NOT being AWOL.
posted on May 10, 2004 03:13:19 PM new
Again....fully aware that this will change no ones mind
Also fully aware that since it hasn't made a difference in past elections....it won't in this one either. What will is kerry's voting record against defense spending, against military spending and his voting for reducing funding for our intelligence agencies.
