Many of us here in these discussions can relate to what took place between John Kerry and self-styled super patriot, Marc Racicot when John Kerry suggested a regime change in the upcoming Presidential election. Knowing full well that Kerry was talking about the election, still Racicot suggested he did not have the right to speak out about the President during war time. Garbage! Hypocrisy! Sticking a flag in your lapel and calling yourself a patriot while at the same time denying others their right to dissent, their freedom of speech, is nothing short of hypocrisy! Praising the war as bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people while at the same time attempting to deny Americans their freedom and democracy in this country is nothing short of hypocrisy and is pure garbage. Anyone who does that has no idea of what patriotism is, much less the right to define themselves as a patriot. YOU GO KERRY! TELL IT LIKE IT IS! God Bless John Kerry and the author of this New York Times article, Paul Krugman, for having the courage to speak out on behalf of freedom and democracy in America!

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/08/opinion/08KRUG.html?th

The Last Refuge
By PAUL KRUGMAN

In 1944, millions of Americans were engaged in desperate battles across the world. Nonetheless, a normal presidential election was held, and the opposition didn't pull its punches: Thomas Dewey, the Republican candidate, campaigned on the theme that Franklin Roosevelt was a "tired old man." As far as I've been able to ascertain, the Roosevelt administration didn't accuse Dewey of hurting morale by questioning the president's competence. After all, democracy - including the right to criticize - was what we were fighting for.

It's not a slur on the courage of our troops, or a belittling of the risks they face, to say that our current war is a mere skirmish by comparison. Yet self-styled patriots are trying to impose constraints on political speech never contemplated during World War II, accusing anyone who criticizes the president of undermining the war effort.

Last week John Kerry told an audience that "what we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States." Republicans immediately sought to portray this remark as little short of treason. "Senator Kerry crossed a grave line when he dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander in chief at a time when America is at war," declared Marc Racicot, chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Notice that Mr. Racicot wasn't criticizing Mr. Kerry's choice of words. Instead, he denounced Mr. Kerry because he "dared to suggest the replacement of America's commander in chief" - knowing full well that Mr. Kerry was simply talking about the next election. Mr. Racicot, not Mr. Kerry, is the one who crossed a grave line; never in our nation's history has it been considered unpatriotic to oppose an incumbent's re-election.

Anyway, what defines patriotism? Talk is cheap; so is putting a flag in your lapel. Citizens prove their patriotism when they make sacrifices for the sake of their country. Mr. Kerry, a decorated veteran, has met that test. Most of his critics haven't.

I'm not just talking about military service - though it's striking how few of our biggest hawks have served. Nor am I talking only about financial sacrifice - though profiting from public office seems to be the norm, not the exception, among those who wrap themselves in the flag. (Mr. Racicot himself accepted the job as R.N.C. chairman only on the condition that he remain on the payroll of Bracewell and Patterson, a law firm that specializes in lobbying.)

The biggest test of a politician's patriotism is whether he is willing to sacrifice some of his political agenda for the sake of the nation. And that's a test our current leaders have failed with flying colors.

Consider the case of Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, who also piled on Mr. Kerry last week. As it happens, during the war in Kosovo Mr. DeLay was a defeatist, and blamed his own country for provoking Serbian atrocities; any Democrat who said similar things now would be accused of giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Mr. DeLay's political agenda hasn't shifted a bit now that we're at war again. He's still pushing for huge, divisive tax cuts that go mainly to the rich: "Nothing is more important in the face of a war than cutting taxes," he says. And he's still eager to slash any and all domestic spending. In the midst of war he pushed through a budget that included sharp cuts in, yes, veterans' benefits.

You can see why Mr. Kerry blasted back, "I'm not going to be questioned in my patriotism by the likes of Tom DeLay."

Some timid souls will suggest that critics of the Bush administration hold off until the war is over. But that's not the American tradition - and anyway, when will this war be over? Baghdad will fall, but during the occupation that follows American soldiers will still be in harm's way. Also, a strong faction within the administration wants to go on to Syria, to Iran and beyond. And Al Qaeda is still out there.

For years to come, then, this country may be, in some sense, at war. And all that time, if Mr. Racicot and his party are allowed to set the ground rules, nobody will be allowed to criticize the president or call for his electoral defeat. You know what? If that happens, we will have lost the war, whatever happens on the battlefield.

Love, Connie

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5468

John Kerry's War Record

As Sen. John Kerry, Massachusetts Democrat, considers a bid for the White House, Americans should know a few things about him that he might prefer go unmentioned -- and I don't mean his $75 haircuts.

When Mr. Kerry pontificated at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial on Veterans Day, a group of veterans turned their backs on him and walked away. They remembered Mr. Kerry as the antiwar activist who testified before Congress during the war, accusing veterans of being war criminals. The dust jacket of Mr. Kerry's pro-Hanoi book, "The New Soldier," features a photograph of his ragged band of radicals mocking the US Marine Corps Memorial, which depicts the flag-raising on Iwo Jima, with an upside-down American flag. Retired Gen. George S. Patton III charged that Mr. Kerry's actions as an antiwar activist had "given aid and comfort to the enemy," as had the actions of Ramsey Clark and Jane Fonda. Also, Mr. Kerry lied when he threw what he claimed were his war medals over the White House fence; he later admitted they weren't his. Now they are displayed on his office wall.

Long after he changed sides in congressional hearings, Mr. Kerry lobbied for renewed trade relations with Hanoi. At the same time, his cousin C. Stewart Forbes, chief executive for Colliers International, assisted in brokering a $905 million deal to develop a deep-sea port at Vung Tau, Vietnam - an odd coincidence.

As noted in the Inside Politics column of Nov. 14 (Nation), historian Douglas Brinkley is writing Mr. Kerry's biography. Hopefully, he'll include the senator's latest ignominious feat: preventing the Vietnam Human Rights Act (HR2833) from coming to a vote in the Senate, claiming human rights would deteriorate as a result. His actions sent a clear signal to Hanoi that Congress cares little about the human rights for which so many Americans fought and died.

The State Department ranked Vietnam among the 10 regimes worldwide least tolerant of religious freedom. Recently, 354 churches of the Montagnards, a Christian ethnic minority, were forcibly disbanded, and by mid-October, more than 50 Christian pastors and elders had been arrested in Dak Lak province alone. On Oct. 29, the secret police executed three Montagnards by lethal injection simply for protesting religious repression. The communists are conducting a pogrom against the Montagnards, forcing Christians to drink a mixture of goat's blood and alcohol and renounce Christianity. Thousands have been killed or imprisoned or have just "disappeared." The Montagnards lost one-half of their adult male population fighting for the United States, and without them, there might be thousands more American names on that somber black granite wall at the Vietnam memorial.

As Mr. Kerry contemplates a run for the presidency, people must remember that he has fought harder for Hanoi as an antiwar activist and a senator than he did against the Vietnamese communists while serving in the Navy in Vietnam.

Michael Benge is a Foreign Service officer and a former Vietnam POW


"This use of self-serving rhetoric designed to further Senator Kerry's political ambitions at a time when the lives of America's sons and daughters are at stake reflects a complete lack of judgment. The men and women who are putting themselves in harm's way on the orders of our commander- in-chief deserve better from someone who aspires to that high office."


http://www.chronwatch.com/featured/contentDisplay.asp?aid=2176

Kerry's comments about ''regime change'' are a disgrace, especially in a time of war, for any senator or presidential candidate to utter against their commander-in-chief. There is no doubt that his (as well as other Democrats) opposition to the war with Iraq is not based on honest disagreement, but partisan resentment.

Need proof? On Feb. 23, 1998, as then-President Bill Clinton made Iraqi regime change an issue, Sen. Kerry said the following: "Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." This is a threat that John Kerry no longer takes seriously, since a Republican is president. Like Bill Clinton, his motto is ''speak tough, act weak.''


There are two sides to every story, Kerry is not my idea of a good candidate for President.

Donna

Hi Connie and Donna,

In my opinion, there are far more than two sides to every story ... it is our "two party" political system that tries to reduce everything to those black-and-white terms, and to present everything in eith-or terms. And sadly, both the "either" and the "or" more often than not turn out to be essentially the same thing with minor differences in rhetoric and style to dress them up.

Kerry is not the only one to have turned his stance on Iraq around with the shifting political tides. As late as 1998 George Bush, Sr. wrote, in his book "A World Transformed,"

Quote:

---

"we should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero...assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."

---

I don't know enough about John Kerry to know if he'd make a good President or not. I don't have much faith in the party-politics system, and my experience for a long time now has been that voting for either party's candidate is at best deciding on the lesser of two evils. (That's my belief, not an assertion of "fact." ) But I do agree strongly with the point of the article Connie posted, which was not really about Kerry at all, but about the duplicity of those who attack him for saying that America needs a change of leadership at this time. There is a strong - in my opinion far TOO strong to be commensurate with the traditions of a free country - tendency to stigmatize and attack anyone who challenges the administration on any grounds at this time as "unpatriotic" because American troops are at war. If they are not at war to defend the American values and traditions - including the right to dissent, and to have wide-ranging pluralistic input into decisions that affect the lives and destinies of ALL Americans (and in the long run the whole world), then what ARE they fighting for? We've been told it's to spread democaracy, not military domination, and that's a noble cause. But the suppression of criticism is far more characteristic of authoritarian regimes than democratic ones. Regardless of the merits of any criticisms, they should be recognized as contributions to the American people's rightful debate about American policy ... not shushed up by emotional attacks on the patriotism of those who raise them. That is NOT a good sign in a democratic nation. That such a sentiment is so widespread and expressed with such emotionally virulent righteousness these days is genuinely worrying.

Love,
Greg

Greg,

I agree totally with what you said in your post. The issue here is not about John Kerry's past or promoting him for President. The issue here is that both he and the reporter of this article had the courage to stand up for democracy and their right to speak. They called a spade a spade and refused to give into the fear tactics that the Bush administration and certain members of Congress are using against anyone who oppose them or their policies. I feel as you do about the two party system in this country, Greg; best of two evils is the only choice we have.

I did not read the articles you posted, Donna because frankly I am not interested in any smear campaigns. I, like Greg, do not know enough about John Kerry, have not heard him campaign yet, to be promoting him or anyone else for President. I like what he said though. I liked his courage.

John Kerry spoke out so what did you do? You did as certain members in Congress, President Bush and his administration and all those who promote the tenets of the war and the policies of the Bush administration, have repeatedly done to anyone who dares to exercise their Constitutional rights of dissent and freedom of speech. You immediately sought to smear his name and discredit him as has been done by some repeatedly to the people in this forum who speak out in dissent against the Bush administrations policies or the war in Iraq. Then, the same people who would attempt to silence those in this country, deny them their freedoms under the Constitution, deny them their rights of free speech guaranteed in a democratic society, praise the war because it is bringing freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people. If, as Greg rightly pointed out, those soldiers are fighting over in Iraq and dying to bring freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people, why are certain members in Congress, the Bush administration who came out and said "you are either with us or against us," and people who are in favor of this war trying to take away the very freedom and democracy here in the U.S. that those soldiers are dying and fighting for? I will bluntly call it what it is - HYPOCRISY. Also it is unpatriotic, and unAmerican. It anti-Constitution and it is anti-God. What it is in it's nature is Communistic, Totalitarian, Socialistic, Marxist and Fascist. It represents everything contrary to what this country is about. FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.

I am not giving into the fear tactics promoted by the Bush administration or his followers, I am not giving into the fear tactics of terrorists of any kind, either in this country or those terrorists who were behind Sept.11. Let people label me and try to smear me and diminish me as they will, I will speak out, I will criticize this administration for the wrongs I see and I will continue to point out any injustices I see here and in the rest of the world, and call evil what it is. Because that is my right as a voting, tax paying American citizen. There are some things worth dying for. Freedom, God, and the Constitution of United States of America. I will continue speaking out to insure not only my own rights, but the rights and future of my grand children, and generations to come. The rights of all Americans. That is freedom. Silencing those who disagree with you or oppose you is not freedom. It is not democracy. George Bush and those in his administration do not have what is best for this country as their agenda or they would not be promoting fear as a means of control. The United States of American was not formed on fear. It should not be controlled by fear either.

I love America more than any other country in this world,
and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to
criticize her perpetually.
--James A. Baldwin

This one applies to me and those of us here who keep speaking out:

Somebody has to do something, and it's just incredibly
pathetic that it has to be us. - Jerry Garcia

Love, Connie

I also wanted to add a P.S. to my previous post.

How many of us are the same now as we were in our youth? One would hope we have undergone many changes because change is growth. How many of us have done things in our past that we later regreted?

If going a bit overboard in protesting the Viet Nam war in his youth is the worse thing that John Kerry can be accused of doing then he is doing okay. At least he fought in the Viet Nam War. George W. Bush's daddy got him out of the war by seeing to it that he did a stint at the National Guard base while poor kids all over country fought for his freedom in his place.

Jane Fonda recounted her actions in going to Hanoi during the Viet Nam war a long time ago. Yet we are an unforgiving society so we will never forgive her though she has admitted it was a mistake and one she is sorry for having made.

Jesus said, " Let the man who is without sin cast the first stone."

Pointing out Kerry's $75 haircuts is a moot argument when you are comparing him to someone with the wealth of George W. Bush. I'm certain that Bush doesn't go to Bo-Rics or the corner barber shop for his haircuts either.

George W. Bush is a weak man who speaks tough. I just love for my grand kids to hear the President of the United States using terms on the newscast when speaking about Hussein like, "we are going to cut the head off this regime" and today on the news "we are cutting off the fingers of this regime one by one." Nice talk from the President of the U.S. Violent talk. And it is said, "what comes out of a man's mouth is what is in his heart."

Love, Connie