This is the type of quote that, if made days before the election, would cost him 10%. Absolutely unbelievable.

A law enforcement problem? Send Columbo? Scotland Yard? That was THE problem for 25 years. Both parties and the public responded to these threats not as acts of war but as criminal acts.

Copy and paste this into your browser: http://members.cox.net/classicweb/Heroes/heroes.htm

Thanks to that Boortz guy for the link.

SMG

Kerry worked with Hanoi Jane Fonda during the Vietnam war. His actions were described by George S. Patton III as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

He accused American GI's of rampant war crimes, using people to testify who were later proven to have never been to Vietnam. His activites were used to taunt POW's like John McCain.

In congress he votes to establish trade with communist Vietnam and at the urging of the communist government agrees to vote to quash further searches for POW's in Vietnam.

He now has the nerve to trivialize the unbelievably horrific terrorist attack and the ongoing threats of terrorism as exagerrated!

This guy dishonors American veterans like me and in my eyes is a traitor. That fact that he is running for president is a national disgrace.

Kerry worked with Hanoi Jane Fonda during the Vietnam war. His actions were described by George S. Patton III as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy".

He accused American GI's of rampant war crimes, using people to testify who were later proven to have never been to Vietnam. His activites were used to taunt POW's like John McCain.

In congress he votes to establish trade with communist Vietnam and at the urging of the communist government agrees to vote to quash further searches for POW's in Vietnam.

He now has the nerve to trivialize the unbelievably horrific terrorist attack and the ongoing threats of terrorism as exagerrated!

This guy dishonors American veterans like me and in my eyes is a traitor. That fact that he is running for president is a national disgrace.

I'm a firm believer that Kerry's mental capacity has been greatly exaggerated as well. And don't candy coat: Patton called him a traitor.

Well spoken. Thank you.

Didn't Bush just say that we have to use the Patriot Act to go after terrorists like criminal organizations?

Yes, he did. In the State of the Union address. The war on terror requires more than the binary approach approved by the Bush Administration. We have to treat them like criminal organizations, because we have to cut their ties inside of our allies borders, and our own. The army can't do this alone.

Great post. Thanks for this.

No doubt.

Why do I keep thinking that Kerry would appoint Capt. Renault (Claude Raines)as head of Homland Security?

Can someone document his personal accusations of war crimes? I could be wrong, but I am under the impression that he cited what others had reported to him.

What was his connection with Jane Fonda? Is the connection such that he was just aound and protesting at the same time as she was?

Go to SemiPundit to see how the Washington Times handled this story.

Someone help me understand why they felt the need to carve up the quote the way they did. That's the kind of thing a high-school newspaper would do, and the author is the Editor in Chief!!!

For a good article on Kerry's shameful accusations against Vietnam soldiers, read this:
http://nationalreview.com/owens/owens200401270825.asp

There is also this article in the AJC:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0104/29garlock.html

A few good quotes:
Now that it serves his ambition to be president, Kerry reminds the public of his war record daily. But the dark side of that record is not being told. Many Vietnam veterans have taken notice, and many of us will vigorously oppose Kerry's election to any office.

A young Kerry, however, broke faith with his brothers when he returned to the United States. With the financial aid of Jane Fonda, he led highly visible protests against the war. He wrote a book that many considered to be pro-Hanoi, titled "The New Soldier."

The cover photo of his book depicted veterans in a mismatch of military uniforms mocking the legendary image of Marines raising the American flag atop Mount Suribachi in the 1945 battle for Iwo Jima, holding the American flag upside down.

Kerry publicly supported Hanoi's position to use our POWs as a bargaining chip in negotiations for a peace agreement. Kerry threw what appeared to be his medals over a fence in front of the Capitol building in protest, on camera of course, but was caught in his lie years later when his medals turned up displayed on his office wall.

From a WSJ Article, "Conduct Unbecoming" on the shameful actions of Kerry the antiwar protester:

In his book "Stolen Valor," B.G. Burkett points out that Mr. Kerry liberally used phony veterans to testify to atrocities they could not possibly have committed. Mr. Kerry later threw what he represented as his awards at the Capitol in protest. But as the war diminished as a political issue, he left the VVAW, which was a bit too radical for his political future, and was ultimately elected to the Senate. After his awards were seen framed on his office wall, he claimed to have thrown away someone else's medals -- so now he can reclaim his gallantry in Vietnam.

Mr. Kerry hasn't given me any reason to trust his judgment. As co-chairman of the Senate investigating committee, he quashed a revealing inquiry into the POW/MIA issue, and he supports trade initiatives with the Socialist Republic of Vietnam while blocking any legislation requiring Hanoi to adhere to basic human rights.

Just as Mr. Kerry threw away medals only to claim them back again, Sen. Kerry voted to take action against Iraq, but claims to take that vote back by voting against funding the result.

Kerry is pathetic. He is weak on fighting terrorism.

He is weak on everything...he always tries to equivocate and straddle the fence to avoid taking a stand. That is dangerous to have in the White House.

And in his days as Vietnam protester, he slandered our troops. If people had or have a negative image of Vietnam troops, it is in part because of Kerry.

Kerry is disgusting...and cannot be trusted with the presidency.

Another Thought,

What do you mean by phony veterans?

NOW THAT THE DNC HAS CHOSEN TO GO AFTER THE PRESIDENT'S VIETNAM ERA SERVICE, IT'S ONLY FAIR THAT KERRY'S AFTER-VIETNAM DISSERVICE BE BROUGHT TO THE FOREFRONT.

We cannot trust Kerry, or any Democrat with control of this country. This is not unlike 1992 - if we had stood with George H.W. Bush, instead of turning to that draft dodger Clinton, 9/11 would have never happened, or we would have attacked OBL a lot sooner.

Try to stack up Senator Botox Heinz Ketchup with President Bush. I don't THINK so!

It's almost funny how so many right-wingers will attempt to assassinate the character of a decorated war hero if he isn't "on their side" but will overlook the fact that Bush was a draft dodger and later military deserter who deserves a courtmartial, dishonorable discharge, and prison.

The only reason Bush Junior didn't get what he deserves is because he is the son of a powerful politician who could pull strings for him. If any of you sheeplike right-wingers reading this who don't have politically powerful daddies had skipped out on your military commitment the way Bush Junior did, the system wouldn't have been so kind to you as it was to Bush Junior, I guarantee you that.

Let's address this 'threat of terrorism being an exaggeration' face-on, shall we? Let's put it into terms that put it into a perspective with other very real threats. Yes lots of people died horrible deaths on 9/11 and the perpetrators deserve worse than any legitimate legal system will ever give them. Nobody's questioning that or attempting to minimize or dismiss that horror lightly. Realize however that we are talking about deaths on the order of just under 3,000 people according to the official stats on the matter, call it 3,000 when rounded up. Now consider how many deaths are attributed to tobacco each year: estimates range from around 300,000 to 400,000 more or less, call it 300,000 when rounded down. That death toll from tobacco is therefore a HUNDRED TIMES GREATER than the worst Osama bin Laden could achieve on 9/11, and it's been going on EVERY YEAR FOR DECADES since it's been absolutely established without question by the health community of this country and of the rest of the world that tobacco is a killer.

From this perspective (yes of course there are differences to nitpick, smoking is a 'choice' yada yada yada, but needless death and suffering is needless death and suffering) the bottom line is that if you really care as much as you say you do about needless death and suffering, you've got to be a flaming hypocrite to be pointing fingers at bin Laden if you're not also screaming bloody murder about the tobacco companies. They are a HUNDRED TIMES WORSE than bin Laden EACH YEAR they are allowed to continue to peddle their addictive drug to create the pathetic addicts that support their death industry. The tobacco companies are MASS MURDERERS on a scale of a HUNDRED TIMES WORSE than bin Laden! Yet they continue to operate scot-free!

Gee, I wonder if the tobacco companies mainly support Bush? Why would I be surprised if it were any other way? Especially since Bush is a mass murderer too, having recently killed thousands of Iraqis at the cost of 'only' several hundred American lives for a war that we now know with increasing clarity each day was based on Bush's lies and preordained decisions in the first weeks of his occupation of the White House, well before 9/11 ever happened. We've got our very own Psychopath In The White House, whoopee! More death, more destruction, more lies, come on Bush, BRING 'EM ON! FOUR MORE YEARS and you might just bring us WORLD WAR THREE!

GO BUSH
GO LIES
GO DEATH
. . . AND WATCH HIM FLUSH AMERICA DOWN THE TOILET

CONCLUSION: THE THREAT OF TERRORISM IS AN EXAGGERATION RELATIVE TO THE HUNDRED-TIMES WORSE THREAT OF TOBACCO WHICH GOES COMPLETELY IGNORED IN COMPARISON.

Terrorism vs. Lung Cancer? That's your brilliant analogy? That's quite a critical analysis, there, Fascist! Do you suffer from terminal SFB? Shit for brains. LOL

3,000 deaths in a terrorist event compared to 300,000 deaths EVERY YEAR by our own 'domestic terrorists', the tobacco companies.

Which number do you think is worse, pinhead?

3,000 deaths in a terrorist event compared to 300,000 deaths EVERY YEAR by our own 'domestic terrorists', the tobacco companies. Which is worse?

The 3,000 deaths in a terrorist event.

Why?

Because the tobacco deaths are VOLUNTARY deaths by free Americans who CHOOSE to smoke. The deaths on 9/11 were INVOLUNTARY - those people were murdered in an act of war against our country.

3,000 deaths in a terrorist event compared to 300,000 deaths EVERY YEAR by our own 'domestic terrorists', the tobacco companies. Which is worse?

The 3,000 deaths in a terrorist event.

Why?

Because the tobacco deaths are VOLUNTARY deaths by free Americans who CHOOSE to smoke. The deaths on 9/11 were INVOLUNTARY - those people were murdered in an act of war against our country.

The Kerry - Fonda connection. See the photo at www.newsmax.com now.

Hey Fascist, with your rationale, you and your lefty ecowhacko buddies cause 1-2 MILLION deaths per year from malaria and other mosquito-borne diseases since the ridiculous ban of DDT. Since 1972 we're looking at perhaps 60 million unnecessary deaths, a large portion of them children. So who's the death-dealer now, eh, Fascist? What a maroon.

Oh, and guess what, even people who don't smoke die of cancer you idiot.

OK...Tobacco companies are "health terrorists" of the worst kind. The World Health Organization estimates that by 2010 10 million people will die every year from tobacco related diseases.

My mom died from cancer...she smoked for 45 years
My father in Law died of complications of emphysema, he smoked for about 50 years
My uncle, a WWII vet. died of Lung Cancer, he smoked for over 40 years.

I think that when we capture Osama Bin Laden, we need to put him in a room filled with tobacco smoke and let him die of cancer/emphysema/heart disease.

And 'visualops" maybe you should research the ill health effects of tobacco....of course people die from cancer that don't smoke ...but tobacco causes nearly 40% of all cancers (America Cancer Society, CDC, JAMA, and thousands of other research and publications)...the number one cancer killer of women is lung cancer (smoking)

Finally...no one cells mosquitos in a box. The tobacco cartel makes millions...no, billions from their deadly and addictive garbage.

Intolerance by Dennis Miller ( From his book; The Rant Zone, HarperCollins Books, 2001)

"Intolerance leads people to do strange things:go to war,burn books,riot at soccer games, and eschew lactose, and there's never any logical reason for any of these actions. Most arguments made by intolerant people have all the consistency of space-shuttle Thanksgiving gravy. Why can't anyone just shut up and listen anymore? Whatever happened to the genteel art of sitting back and letting someone go on and on thinking he's right while you bask in the knowledge that he is completely full of sh*t"

So have a good week and practice the "genteel" art of listening (to your boss even), the Rush Limbaugh show, Michael Moore, and last but not least that whole bevy of presidential wannabes currently babbling their way through several States.

It is now recognized that a lot of death, disease, and suffering from tobacco is caused by secondhand smoke, so in the first place it is a poor argument to call all death from smoking a CHOICE. There are plenty of people who have been so successfully propagandized by 'domestic terrorist' tobacco companies that they believe the risks associated with tobacco are zero or very small, so the element of CHOICE after such brainwashing is greatly diminished by the lies they've been fed, in the second place.

That leaves VOLUNTARY to quibble over. Anyone in a health field who is familiar with addiction can enlighten you that addiction is a disease process that people do not necessarily have control over. The addictive nature of nicotine has been shown to be essentially as powerful as that of heroin, both of which (nicotine and heroin) are much more addictive than alcohol for example. Yet we see terrible effects from alcohol addiction, and even in that less-addicting case we see people who in some cases are helpless to control themselves. So the idea that tobacco is something entirely VOLUNTARY is just plain wrong and stupid. Get yourself a little educated if you really believe that nonsense.

In any event, EVEN IF tobacco were an entirely voluntary choice for all its victims, we'd STILL be talking about the routine acceptance of unnecessary death in America that is a HUNDRED TIMES GREATER EACH AND EVERY YEAR than the worse that bin Laden was able to accomplish one time. In that context it is surely accurate to say that "the threat of terrorism is an exaggeration", which apparently was the original point of this right-winger's page. Apparently he didn't think it through very well and is driven by the emotionality of feeling vulnerable to attack. His fears may be entirely valid for him but it is an error to extrapolate those fears to everyone else to make a claim that they are not exaggerated when death and suffering on a scale a HUNDRED TIMES GREATER EVERY YEAR goes on routinely and hardly anybody even notices unless it touches their lives personally.

Here's a less-fearful context in which to view the situation more rationally: America was founded on principles of individual liberties, so much so that we can accept the deaths by smoking of over 300,000 people every year as a consequence of having those American liberties which enable people to even poison themselves to death with tobacco. In recent years there has been a great and noble movement to somewhat restrict the activities of smoking death-wishers so that they do not poison innocent people with their secondhand smoke. This is also in keeping with American principles of liberty in which nobody should have to be poisoned accidentally or inadvertently through someone else's uncaring thoughtlessness--but continue to let them do it to themselves just so long as they don't harm anyone else! In this context it must be realized that terrorism is a fact of life; foreign terrorism has only recently come to America and indeed it frightens people, but Europe and most of the rest of the world has dealt with terrorism for a long time. Those other countries haven't given up their liberties and freedoms (such as they may be in other countries) in order to fight terrorism, and neither should we. But that is just what Bush and Ashcroft and so far the entire Republican Party have been pushing through the so-called 'Patriot' Act and other subversions of American liberties: giving up our American heritage in response to fear. It is the wrong response because (1) it will not actually materially lessen terrorism or threats of terrorism, and (2) too many of this country's true patriots have died so that we could live free today with the very liberties that Bush and Ashcroft and the Republican Party are now working to take away from us. Osama bin Laden has killed 3,000 people so far and may very well yet succeed in killing more on American soil, but nothing he does himself can destroy the essence of America. Through their poor leadership however, Bush, Ashcroft, and the Republican party may gut America from the inside and do what bin Laden cannot: take away our precious freedoms in this country and destroy what America is all about. That is why Bush, John Ashcroft, and the Republican Party are FAR MORE DANGEROUS to America than Osama bin Laden, and why the terrorist threat is greatly exaggerated.

What if ... ? What if Bin Ladin hated America so much, that he sought to destroy it, not by flying planes of innocents into buildings, but by creating a paranoia so strong that we ourselves begin to disassemble what we hold most dear - our freedom?
Terrorism seeks to accomplish its mission, not through the violent act directly, but through the fear and the paranoia it creates. Every restriction we place on our own freedom under the banner of the "war against terror", we do in Bin Ladin's name, and plays right into his hands. Let's think long and hard before we dismantle everything about America that Bin Ladin hates.

This post, along with many others, seems to have been overly reliant on what Kerry said as reported in the Washington Times. Context and comparing the facts do wonders.