Additional Titles

 

 

 

 


Other

Ryter
Articles:

The Two Kerry's:
War Hero or
Traitor?

"Men in Black" The Cult of The Judges

 

KERRYSPEAK

 

 

 

By Jon Christian Ryter

August 15, 2004

NewsWithViews.com

Long before the 2004 Democratic National Convention, presidential nominee Sen. John F. Kerry already had a well-deserved reputation for double talk— Kerryspeak—if you will. Depending on what day of the week it is, or who you are demographically, it safe to say that if you listen close enough, John Kerry will contradict his previously stated position on just about every issue, and will declare he favors what a day earlier he opposed. It isn't that he changed his mind on the issue. He hasn't. It's simply a fact that the way Kerry honestly feels about issues and the way be votes on those issues is not always the way the majority of Americans feel about them. Thus the need for him to conceal how he really feels about the issues he debates—and, much more, the need for Kerryspeak. The only time there is no need for double talk is when Kerry addresses gay rights audiences, feminist audiences, environmentalist audiences, globalist audiences, antiwar audiences, and, of course, socialist one-worlder audiences.

The Communist Party USA is not fielding a candidate in 2004 only because, in their view, John Kerry is the perfect candidate. Their website, www.cpusa.org features a downloadable pdf. file listing the top ten reasons for defeating President George W. Bush. A Georgia CPUSA official affirmed that the CPUSA was supporting Kerry this year with contributions and volunteers because they believe he is the only person who can defeat Bush. Kerry was also endorsed by the largest political party in the world—the People's Republic of China. The People's Daily—the official newspaper of the Chinese communist government—officially endorsed Kerry and urged the American people to vote Bush out of office because "...Kerry is noted for being friendly to China...From a long term view, a Democratic administration, which stresses international cooperation, pursues multilaterialism and stands for a policy of contacts, will be better for both world peace and Sino-US relations." China likes Kerry because he favors the one-China principle and opposes "Taiwan independence." Under Democratic president Jimmy Carter, "free market democracy" Taiwan's membership in the UN was revoked as the western democracies, including the United States, chose to recognize the dictatorship of the People's Republic of China as the lawful government of China and the democratic Republic of China as an interloper on the island nation of Formosa. Under President Bill Clinton, the People's Republic of China was given virtually free access to America's nuclear secrets at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore. Yes, its easy to see why the Chinese communists would prefer a liberal, antiwar Democratic president. Under a President Kerry the People's Republic of China anticipate the "return" of Taiwan to communist China. And, under a President Kerry, it will happen quickly. And when it does, the United States will lose its eyes and ears in the Far East because the nations of the Pacific rim can ill afford to trust their security to a nation who speaks loudly and carries a small stick.

On March 8 the Kerry Campaign announced that several foreign leaders with whom he had met privately endorsed his candidacy. By extension, Kerry's statement suggests he believes that because Germany, France, North Korea, Cuba and the People's Republic of China wanted him to prevail over Bush that America's true allies would feel more comfortable with him in the Oval Office. Kerry told reporters that he had "...met with foreign leaders who can't go out and say this publicly..." but they said to him, "You've got to win this. You've got to beat this guy. We need a new policy...Things like that." The only problem with Kerry's story is that Kerry made no official trips abroad since beginning his campaign last September; nor were there any foreign leaders in the country who met with him." But, it made good press and the liberal media gobbled it up. According to the Secretary of State's office (which logs travel records to foreign ports of call for the Senate), Kerry's last visit overseas was in 2002 when he traveled to England, Jordan and Egypt. The only time since September 2—when he kicked off his campaign—that he was even in the same city with a visiting foreign leader was on September 24, 2003 when New Zealand Prime Minister Phillip Goff was in Washington meeting with Secretary of State Colin Powell. Just a little more Kerryspeak. It sounds good even if it isn't true. But for the liberal media, the perception of truth is always better than truth itself.

Perhaps Kerry believes that Sam Webb, the chairman of the Communist Party, USA is a foreign head of state. He did meet with members of that organization, and he did solicit their support. Kerry has left no rock unturned—and many of the fringe groups supporting Kerry's election appear to have crawled out from under some of those rocks as Kerry's people kicked them over.

One of the top ten reasons the CPUSA cites (on their website) for defeating Bush is gay rights, and in particular, same sex marriage. What is the most hotly contested advocacy issue in Massachusetts? Same sex marriage. Not even the predominantly liberal voting block in the State that elected Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry and Barney Frank favors same sex marriage. Barney Frank—who is an open, practicing homosexual—does. And so do practicing Catholics Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry.

Although the normally hot button divisive liberal issues—like same sex marriage, abortion rights, and further abrogation of religious freedom in America—were supposed to have been adroitly hidden in the closet at the Democratic Convention, speaker Barney Frank [D-MA] addressed what was very obviously a "gay-friendly" audience at the Fleet Center in Boston on gay rights and same sex marriage. Frank assured the lesbian and homosexual voters that equal rights for gays, including civil marriage ceremonies for homosexuals and lesbians were on the "radar screen" even though the Democratic Party deliberately refused to hammer a gay rights plank into their platform in order to appeal to traditional family values working class Reagan Democrats who have become disillusioned with Bush almost entirely because of the USA Patriot Act and Bush's willingness to allow the Justice Department to violate the Bill of Rights.

The homosexual and lesbian community clearly understood Frank's backdoor promise when he specifically addressed the concerns of the National Stonewall Democrats once Kerry is elected. Same sex marriage, equal access to the military for homosexuals and lesbians, and housing preferences, will all be on the table—even though both Kerry and Sen. John Edwards have publicly declared to their new national constituency that both of them favor legalized civil unions over marriage ceremonies for lesbians and homosexuals. Kerry is so concerned about homosexual and lesbian rights that his liaison to the homosexual and lesbian community, Bryce Peyre is himself a homosexual member of the National Stonewall Democrats.

Interchangeable adjectives for Kerryspeak are Clintonspeak, Gorespeak, Deanspeak, Clarkespeak (either Wesley or Richard) and, of course, every conservative's favorite: Hillaryspeak. Political doubletalk is pretty much a Democratic party phenomenon since it is generally Democrats who are required to conceal their leftist ideological positions—and liberal voting records from their family values constituents (either State or national) since they know full well that moderate voters—even many of those who support a woman's right to kill her unborn children—wouldn't vote for them if they realized just how far to the left they really lean.

In February when Howard Dean was the sweetheart of the liberals, 29% of the American people thought Kerry was farther to the left than the former Vermont governor. After Dean lost in New Hampshire and Kerry stole the media spotlight, 41% of America thought Kerry was too liberal to occupy the White House. And, believe me, Kerry has not magically changed since the convention. His spinmeisters are simply working overtime to fool you in precisely the same type of media makeover that made liberal Bill Clinton into a moderate, and a humanity makeover made two-dimensional cardboard Al Gore look like a real, three-dimensional person in 2000. And, that is the reason Kerry did not get a "bump" in the polls after the Democratic National Convention in Boston. While the "botox" worked to make him look a few years younger, the ideological "extreme makeover" hasn't yet gripped the American people. Not even the New York Times and Washington Post can say Kerry is a moderate with a straight face.

Because the Bush "early warning system" is working, the voters appear to be listening a little closer to what Kerry is actually saying. Those who take the time to examine Kerry's voting record and examine his positions on any issue will notice an extreme amount of contractions that simply can't be explained away by saying, "I changed my mind." For example, in one instance Kerry told the Boston Globe that he favored a 50˘ per-gallon tax on gasoline as a means of reducing consumer consumption. Kerry's campaign is now arguing that Kerry never advocated raising taxes on gasoline. The Kerry people screamed when Bush aired the spot in which the announcer said: "Some people have wacky ideas—like taxing gasoline more so people drive less." I guess to Kerry, that means working class Americans should drive to work on Monday, Wednesday and Friday...and either walk to stay home the other two days to reduce their consumption of gasoline. If you recall, Gore's solution in 2000 was just as wacky. His solution was to adopt the Chinese form of horsepower...or rather, pedal power. Gore suggested people should buy bicycles and leave their cars at home. Just remember, whenever you put liberal extremists on the ticket, you have to expect extremist utopian logic.

At the Democratic convention, the Kerry Campaign went out of its way to make sure all theological perspectives (except Bible-thumping fundamental Christianity) were represented in the flag-waving patriotic, "We love America, too," rhetoric that opened the convention. The religious flag-waving was specifically scripted to make the American people believe that the pro-Viet Cong, anti-American John Forbes Kerry who denounced America in his April 23, 1971 speech before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was a figment of rightwing demagoguery—and that the real John F. Kerry is a genuine, patriotic war hero. And although several Swift Boat commanders who served with him dispute his claims, Kerry has the medals to bolster his claims. In fact. Kerry's theoretical heroics have become the cornerstone of his campaign for the White House. But then, anyone who knew teen-ager John F. Kerry after he read PT-109, the exploits of U.S. Navy Lt. jg John F. Kennedy who parlayed his own genuine heroism in the Solomons into a winning campaign for the White House, was not surprised that Kerry—who has not had too many original thoughts in his lifetime would try to do the same.

Those medals, received under a well-devised plan with a foolproof escape clause, were specifically the reason Kerry [a] went into the US Navy, [b] applied for Swift Boat duty, and [c] took an 8mm camera along with him to Vietnam. He wanted actual footage of a heroic JFK-2 that could be used in his campaign spots when he returned home and ran for Congress. If he was going put himself in harm's way, he was going to have something from the experience that he could use to profitably advance his political career. After each mission was concluded, Kerry's swift boat returned to the scene of the "action," and reenacted the battles for posterity.

Several former Swift Boat commanders and crew members who served in the Mekong Delta with Kerry have launched a campaign to "set the record straight" about Kerry's purported heroics. One of members of the group, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Lt. Cmdr. John E. O'Neill [USNR] wrote a book denouncing Kerry's wartime exploits. The group cut a TV spot featuring many of the faces of Kerry's former Coastal Division 11 compatriots from the Mekong Delta who recount from their memories what actually happened on the three missions where Kerry was awarded either a Purple Heart, Bronze Star or Silver Star that call into question whether or not Kerry actually deserved the commendations he was awarded. Over the weekend (on August 6) the Kerry Campaign threatened to sue any television station that aired the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth spots. Only one TV station—in Green Bay, Wisconsin—has thus far refused to air ir the spot. But since Kerry has wrapped his entire campaign around the argument that his wartime experiences make him more qualified than President Bush to sit in the Oval Office, examining his war record through the eyes of those who experienced it with him is not only permissible in light of Kerry's contradictory antiwar activism, it's pretty much mandated since those eyewitnesses serve as independent corroborators of what actually happened on the three Swift Boat missions in question. Retired Rear Admiral Roy Hoffman, who commanded Kerry's task force in Vietnam called Kerry a perpetual and habitual liar, and said, "I don't care whether it was perjury or [just] lying before the Senate of the United States, or that two of his Purple Hearts are at least very specious if not absolutely false because he filed false after-action reports."

The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are determined to get the word about Kerry out to the American people. Kerry's lawyers have already reacted and are threatening to personally sue each of the former Swift Boat veterans in the commercial if the spot is not pulled. Hoffman and former Lt. Commander John E. O'Neill who authored the book, Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry (Regnery Publishing) have made it clear to the Kerry Campaign that they will not pull the TV spot. One of those in the spot, former Lt. Commander George Elliott, fearing a lawsuit he can't afford to defend, has asked that his segment be removed from the commercial. Hoffman also noted that of all the 23 swift boat officers that Kerry served with in Coastal Division 11, only one of them supports Kerry. The rest of them—which includes every single officer that Kerry served under—are on the record questioning Kerry's fitness to serve as the commander-in-chief of the military.

Even when he was denouncing the United States, Kerry knew the political value of his ribbons and medals. And even though Charles Gibson of ABC's Good Morning America personally watched Kerry throw some medals and ribbons over the fence around the Capitol Building on April 23. 1971, more likely than not, they were not his own medals he tossed. Kerry, after all, went into harm's way to get them and he wasn't about to throw them away on an ideological whim when he knew he would need them somewhere down the road to political fame and fortune. If Kerry did toss his own medals over the fence, then the Senator is now facing an even more serious legal question whose medals are hanging in his Senate office?

However, since he was wearing his ribbons and medals when he addressed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee later that same day April 23, 1971 at the invitation of antiwar dove Committee Chairman J. William Fulbright [D-AK] it is not likely the ribbons and medal tossed during the photo op witnessed by Charlie Gibson were his. And that makes Kerry even more of a hypocrite since he was not even loyal to his fellow antiwar protesters. He used the antiwar crowd the same way he used the military—for personal gain. Both sides should distance themselves from him but, ironically, both sides believe he is a hero. Kerry has become a master politico—he can't be trusted by anyone, least of all his friends.

Furthermore, another Vietnam era antiwar black cloud still hangs over Kerry's head. Rumors surfaced in 2001 from the author of Home To War (an updated version of the book has just been released) that ties Kerry to a bizarre scheme to assassinate war hawk politicians who favored America's continued presence in Southeast Asia. The author, Gerald Nicosia claims to have FBI surveillance reports on antiwar protestor John Kerry in which the "war hero" reportedly attended at least one meeting in which antiwar dissidents proposed assassinating various pro-war government officials. For a long time Kerry denied that any such meeting took place. One news source claims that Kerry grudgingly admitted the a meeting in which ramblings of that nature did take place, but that he quickly disassociated himself with the antiwar people after that meeting. ABC News and Inside Edition both interviewed Nicosia. Neither used the interview.

Since Kerry has proudly wrapped his entire campaign around his military record, Kerry's credibility as a candidate must necessarily rise and fall on that single issue—particularly in light of the testimony given by Kerry to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on East Asian and Pacific Affairs in September, 1997 when he said that his swift boat was in Cambodia at a time when President Richard Nixon assured the Congress of the United States that no American troops were operating from that theater. Kerry is on the record as saying: "I first was introduced to Cambodia when I spent Christmas Eve of 1968 in a river in Cambodia during the Vietnam conflict..." In a March 1986 Senate speech Kerry once again declared that he had been in Cambodia: "I remember Christmas of 1968 sitting on a gunboat in Cambodia. I remember what it was like to be shot at by the Vietnamese and the Khmer Rouge and Cambodians, and have the president of the United States telling the American people that I was not there; that [American] troops were not in Cambodia. I have that memory which is seared in me." When the Washington Post did a profile on Senator John F. Kerry in June, 2003 (helping to fabricate the Audie Murphy-Alvin York character of Senator John F. Kerry as he prepared for his "run for the roses," Kerry noted that he kept an old Vietnam era camouflage hat in a secret pocket in his brief case. It was, he explained, his good luck hat. It was given to him, he said, "...by a CIA guy as we went in for a special mission in Cambodia." Clearly, special ops people and the CIA were conducting covert missions into Cambodia during that period since North Vietnamese supplies came out of there. There are no records that suggest that Kerry or PCF-94 were ever part of any of them. The records indicate that the farthest north that Kerry went was to the Vietnamese town of Sa Dec, which was about 50 miles from the Cambodian border. The other Swift Boat commanders in Kerry's group have denied any Cambodian excursions. When National Review, which picked up on Matt Drudge's breaking story, asked Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman about Kerry's Cambodian mission, Hoffman replied simply, "You've got to be kidding..."

Kerry is on the record on several different occasions, insisting that his Swift Boat was assigned to duty in Cambodia over the Christmas holiday in 1968. In reality, Kerry's PCF-94 was assigned to a patrol an area between 50 to 100 miles away from the Cambodian border at that time. Some of Kerry's crew members, defending their skipper, suggested that they were searching for the location of Bob Hope's Christmas show and may have gotten lost and ended up in Cambodia. Crew member Jim Wasser, a Kerry campaign tagalong, told the Dallas Observer that he wasn't sure where PCF-94 was at Christmas, 1968 except he believed they were "close" to Cambodia. "I don't know exactly where we were. I didn't have the chart. It was easy to get turned around with all the rivers around there. But, I'll say this: we were the farthest inland that night. I know that for sure." If Wasser is correct, and they were confused and may have accidentally crossed into Cambodia, then all of Kerry's statements about his "mission" there are still a lie. Why? Because Kerry claims they were engaged in more than one firefight that evening. Wasser would certainly have remembered separate firefights with Vietnamese regulars, Viet Cong, Khmer Rouge, and Cambodian soldiers, a real clue that they had crossed into Cambodia. But Wasser's recollections conflict with those of crew member Steve Gardner, who also served on PCF-94, but who is not being wined and dined by a grateful Democratic presidential nominee. Gardner claims that it "...was physically, totally, categorically, across the board impossible to get into the canal that went to Cambodia with a Swift Boat...There were concrete pilings that were put in the water [to keep accidental excursions from happening]...Plus, the Navy kept patrol boats there to make sure nobody went in. When I was on the 94, it was physically impossible to take a swift boat into Cambodian waters."

Kerry's inconsistencies demand that the accusations by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth be fully aired and debated. Kerry needs to personally face his accusers and defend himself—just as the Kerry advocates demanded that President George W. Bush face the ghosts who wrongfully accused him of being AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard. Of course, that won't happen. The Heinz-Kerry fortune is already muscling those have spoken out against candidate Kerry.

© 2004 Jon C. Ryter - All Rights Reserved

Sign Up For Free E-Mail Alerts

E-Mails are used strictly for NWVs alerts, not for sale



Jon Christian Ryter is the pseudonym of a former newspaper reporter with the Parkersburg, WV Sentinel. He authored a syndicated newspaper column, Answers From The Bible, from the mid-1970s until 1985. Answers From The Bible was read weekly in many suburban markets in the United States.

Today, Jon is an advertising executive with the Washington Times. His website, www.jonchristianryter.com has helped him establish a network of mid-to senior-level Washington insiders who now provide him with a steady stream of material for use both in his books and in the investigative reports that are found on his website. E-Mail: BAFFauthor@aol.com


Home

 

 

 

 


The Communist Party USA is not fielding a candidate in 2004 only because, in their view, John Kerry is the perfect candidate. Their website, www.cpusa.org features a downloadable pdf. file listing the top ten reasons for defeating President George W. Bush.