Another jewel: http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/20/131219.shtml What You Don’t Know About John Kerry Chuck Noe, NewsMax.com Tuesday, Jan. 20, 2004 With his win in Iowa, Sen. John Kerry could be on his way to the White House. But most Americans are unaware of the real Kerry. Here are facts and quotations that reveal the character of the new Democrat leader. Denouncing America with ‘Hanoi Jane’: Although Wesley Clark and others have attacked former front-runner Howard Dean as a draft-dodging ski bum, Kerry is far more complex than the simple war hero he portrays himself as. He became a celebrated organizer for one of America's most extreme appeasement groups, Vietnam Veterans Against the War. He consorted with the likes of “Hanoi” Jane Fonda and Ramsey Clark, Lyndon Johnson’s radical former attorney general. He attended a seminar bankrolled by Fonda in Detroit in February 1971. Watching 125 self-proclaimed Vietnam veterans testify at a Howard Johnson’s about atrocities allegedly committed by U.S. forces, the man who would be president later said he found the accounts shocking and irrefutable. Dubbed “The Winter Soldier Investigation,” the protest attracted minimal media attention, according to the Los Angeles Times, because Fonda insisted it be held in the remote Michigan city rather than the less “authentic” Washington, D.C. Still, the event gave Kerry an idea for a protest that was sure to be a media smash, and he immediately set out to organize one of the most confrontational protests of the war. Operation Dewey Canyon III began on April 18, 1971, when nearly 1,000 Vietnam veterans and people claiming to be veterans gathered on Washington’s Mall for what they called “a limited incursion into the country of Congress.” The group staged mock firefights on the steps of the Capitol and Supreme Court and defied U.S. Park Police after the Department of Justice issued an injunction barring it from camping on the Mall. Those evil American soldiers: Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 23, 1971, Kerry claimed that U.S. soldiers had “raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam.” ‘We are not the best’: In his testimony, Kerry claimed there was no communist threat and said: “In 1970 at West Point Vice President Agnew said ‘some glamorize the criminal misfits of society while our best men die in Asian rice paddies to preserve the freedom which most of those misfits abuse,’ and this was used as a rallying point for our effort in Vietnam. But for us, as boys in Asia whom the country was supposed to support, his statement is a terrible distortion from which we can only draw a very deep sense of revulsion, and hence the anger of some of the men who are here in Washington today. It is a distortion because we in no way consider ourselves the best men of this country ….” U.S. Veteran Dispatch noted in 1996: “Kerry's testimony, it should be noted, occurred while some of his fellow Vietnam veterans were known by the world to be enduring terrible suffering as prisoners of war in North Vietnamese prisons. Kerry was a supporter of the ‘People's Peace Treaty,’" a supposed ‘people's’ declaration to end the war, reportedly drawn up in communist East Germany. It included nine points, all of which were taken from Viet Cong peace proposals at the Paris peace talks as conditions for ending the war.” Throw as I say, not as I do: On that same day he led members of VVAW in a protest during which they threw their medals and ribbons over a fence in front of the U.S. Capitol. Kerry later admitted the medals he threw were not his. To this day they hang on the wall of his office. Communist stooge: The communist Daily World delightedly published photos of him speaking to demonstrators and boasted that the marchers displayed a banner depicting a portrait of Communist Party leader Angela Davis, on record stating, “I am dedicated to the overthrow of your system of government and your society,” the New American recalled in May 2003. “By frequently participating in VVAW’s demonstrations, Kerry found himself marching alongside what the Boston Herald Traveler identified as ‘revolutionary Communists.’ While noting that known Reds had openly organized these events, the December 12, 1971 Herald Traveler reported the presence of an ‘abundance of Vietcong flags, clenched fists raised in the air, and placards plainly bearing legends in support of China, Cuba, the USSR, North Korea and the Hanoi government.’" Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry says: “As a national leader of VVAW, Kerry campaigned against the effort of the United States to contain the spread of Communism. He used the blood of servicemen still in the field for his own political advancement by claiming that their blood was being shed unnecessarily or in vain. “Under Kerry's leadership, VVAW members mocked the uniform of United States soldiers by wearing tattered fatigues marked with pro-communist graffiti. They dishonored America by marching in demonstrations under the flag of the Viet Cong enemy.” Sen. John McCain revealed that his North Vietnamese captors had used reports of Kerry-led protests to taunt him and his fellow prisoners. Retired General George S. Patton III angrily noted that Kerry’s actions had “given aid and comfort to the enemy.” In recent years when Kerry has exploited the Vietnam Veterans Memorial for photo opportunities on Veterans Day, some veterans, still outraged by his betrayal, have turned their backs on him. The book he doesn’t want you to see: When Kerry ran for election to the U.S. House of Representative in 1972, “he found it necessary to suppress reproduction of the cover picture appearing on his own book, The New Soldier. His political opponent pointed out that it depicted several unkempt youths crudely handling an American flag to mock the famous photo of the U.S. Marines at Iwo Jima,” according to Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry. “Suddenly, copies of the book became unavailable and even disappeared from libraries. But the Lowell (Mass.) Sun said of the type of person shown on its cover: ‘These people spit on the flag, they burn the flag, they carry the flag upside down, [and] they all but wipe their noses with it in their efforts to show their contempt for everything it still stands for,’” the New American reported. Even today it is hard to find this infamous photo and book. Friendly with the enemy: Kerry’s fondness for Vietnam’s communist dictatorship, one of the most oppressive in the world, continues. As chairman of the Select Senate Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, created in 1991 to investigate reports that U.S. prisoners of war and soldiers designated missing in action were still alive in Vietnam, Kerry badgered the panel into voting that no American servicemen remained in Vietnam. “[N]o one in the United States Senate pushed harder to bury the POW/MIA issue, the last obstacle preventing normalization of relations with Hanoi, than John Forbes Kerry,” noted U.S. Veteran Dispatch. “But Kerry's participation in the Committee became controversial in December 1992,” reported the nonpartisan Center for Public Integrity, “when Hanoi announced that it had awarded Colliers International, a Boston-based real estate company, an exclusive deal to develop its commercial real estate potentially worth billions. Stuart Forbes, the CEO of Colliers, is Kerry's cousin.” The “odd coincidence,” according to FrontPageMagazine.com, involved a deal worth $905 million. Jeff Jacoby, the token conservative columnist at the Boston Globe, notes that Kerry continues his apologia for Vietnam's never-ending atrocities. "Far from taking the lead on the Vietnam Human Rights Bill, he has prevented it from coming to a vote. He claims that making an issue of Hanoi's repression would be counterproductive." Kerry is also a fan of China’s communist dictatorship. “On May 19, 1994, five years after Tiananmen Square, Kerry spoke on the Senate floor against linking China's Most Favored Nation trade status to its human rights record,” Slate reported. Kerry said: “China is the strongest military power in Asia. We need China's cooperation. We cannot afford to adopt a cold-war kind of policy that merely excludes and pushes China away.” Limiting China's MFN status “would make us a bit player in a production of enormous proportions. We possess no stick, including MFN, which can force China to embrace internationally recognized human rights and freedoms.” More extreme than Hillary and Kucinich: Among the White House wannabes, long-shot Rep. Dennis Kucinich has the reputation of holding the most left-wing congressional voting record. In fact, this “honor” goes to Kerry. According to American Conservative Union, Kerry has a lifetime rating of 6 percent, compared to 13 for the demolished Rep. Dick Gephardt, 14 for Sen. John Edwards, 15 for Kucinich and 19 for Sen. Joe Lieberman. Sens. Hillary Clinton and Tom Daschle score 13 percent. Only the likes of Sens. Teddy Kennedy and Barbara Boxer have more left-wing records than Kerry. In contrast, Sen. John Breaux, one of the upper chamber’s few remaining moderate Democrats, has a 46. Drive as I say, not as I do: Like Al Gore and other self-described environmentalists, Kerry has a radical agenda that would devastate the U.S. economy in favor of the likes of communist China, yet he enjoys the gas-guzzling modern conveniences that greens denounce. Kerry, a delegate to the environment-destroying Earth Summit in 1992 (where he met his future wife, left-wing activist Teresa Heinz, the multimillionaire widow of GOP Sen. John Heinz), the Kyoto climate talks in 1997 and the Hague Conference of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change in 2000, has attacked President Bush for withdrawing from the anti-U.S. Kyoto Protocol. This treaty, which then-President Bill Clinton had signed, would impose severe restrictions on the United States but not Third World polluters that already enjoy huge trade surpluses with the U.S. However, although Kerry spouts the party line on anti-U.S. ecopolicy, he doesn’t like to practice what he preaches. Kerry was humiliated in April 2002 when photographed attending a rally against energy independence and then heading back to his SUV, the symbol of all that is evil to self-described greens. Bone to pick: Bush-hating conspiracy theorists find it alarming that the president, like his father, was a member of the secretive Skull and Bones society at Yale University. Another alum of this club: John Kerry. Get out your wallets: One reason Kerry and Edwards did well in Iowa: Losers Dean and Gephardt admitted they'd repeal all of the president's tax relief. However, although Kerry has taken credit for middle-class tax cuts, child tax credit and relief of the marriage penalty, he voted against them, GOP.com disclosed. "Kerry will have to expend an awful lot of time and money to convince people that he's not the classic Massachusetts liberal," Larry Sabato, a respected political analyst at the University of Virginia, told the Associated Press in December 2002. "And that's going to be tough, because mainly he is." Waffling on Iraq: Kerry has the tough job of wooing Howard Dean’s anti-war Democrats despite his support of the war in Iraq. His favorite tactic, claiming the president outfoxed him, doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. On “Meet the Press” in late August, Tim Russert played a tape of Kerry addressing the Senate in October 2002 with a hard-line speech declaring Iraq “capable of quickly producing weaponizing” of biological weapons that could be delivered against “the United States itself.” Kerry insisted: “That is exactly the point I’m making. We were given this information by our intelligence community.” However, as columnist Robert Novak noted, “as a senator, Kerry had access to the National Intelligence Estimate that was skeptical of Iraqi capability. Being tricky may no longer be as effective politically as it once was.” No doubt Dean, Lieberman, Clark and other rivals will now use these and other details to do to Kerry what the Democrats did to Dean.
This thread title is a little misleading. I mean, I really thought it was some big group, only to learn it was a whole four. Are both sides gonna post these meaningless stories. Kerry gets dissed by a soccer mom. Bush gets dissed by a NASCAR dad. Who gives a flip. You guys are really reaching with these trivial stories. Unless they actually get into a fist fight, please think about posting it or else its gonna be a long 3 months.
eeeee.... http://www.awolbush.com/ ooooo..... http://www.independent-media.tv/itemprint.cfm?fmedia_id=7073&fcategory_desc=The Zero and The Hero aaaaaah.....
Thanks giddy. That led me to the Dick Cavett show transcript. I feel very comforted now after reading Kerry's opinions from the day. It appeared that all he argued is pretty much what hindsight shows us to be accurate. And you can see the transparent, baseless hatred the other Vet had for Kerry. http://ice.he.net/~freepnet/kerry/index.php?topic=KerryONeill
<center><b>Rwanda</b></center> What group was formed for action in Rwanda? This article doesn't paint the U.S. or the International Community in a favorable light in regards to helping Rwanda, yet you seem to imply otherwise. <a HREF="http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/">The US and the Genocide in Rwanda 1994: Evidence of Inaction</a> <hr color=green> <center><b>Somalia</b></center> Parts of the activities by the International Community in Somalia were a success and other parts would be regarded as failures. Even then, the U.S. was expected to do more of the <i>heavy lifting</i> than other countries that were part of UNITAF. <a HREF="http://www.hrw.org/reports/1994/WR94/Africa-08.htm">SOMALIA</a> <i> Human Rights Developments Despite a considerable improvement in the overall humanitarian situation in Somalia during 1993, after it became a major focus of international interest and the subject of United Nations intervention, the country remained in crisis. For several months in the middle of the year, U.N. forces, sent to Somalia to restore peace and reestablish a functioning civil society and state after a year of brutal clan warfare, found themselves caught up in a serious military confrontation in Mogadishu. Humanitarian and political issues took second place to military priorities. The whole process of U.N. intervention raised serious questions of accountability as well as various legal and ethical issues. The Somalia operation underlined the U.N.'s overall weaknesses in peacekeeping operations, and demonstrated problems inherent in the concept of peace enforcement. The decision to send the predominantly U.S. forces of the United Nations International Task Force (UNITAF) to Somalia from December 9, 1992, was taken by outgoing U.S. President George Bush in response to reports that the majority of food arriving in Somalia for relief of the famine was being looted, and that relief agencies could not operate because of a general climate of insecurity. It was authorized by Security Council Resolution 794, under Chapter Seven of the U.N. Charter, "to establish a secure environment for humanitarian relief operations." The reports of food diversion may have been exaggerated, and earlier aid, together with a successful harvest following a drop in military activity, had already made a substantial difference in food supplies. Nevertheless, the famine was certainly not under control by December 1992, and mortality rates in the worst-hit areas remained high. With the arrival of UNITAF forces (made up originally of some 24,000 U.S. troops and another 13,000 from other countries) the general climate of insecurity suffered for most of 1992 eased greatly. The port of Mogadishu, closed to the U.N. for weeks, was reopened; the airport was able to operate much more efficiently; international agencies and nongovernmental organizations were given military protection, and most of the protection rackets, food diversion and looting were brought to an end-at least in the areas in which UNITAF forces operated. Food distribution improved, and, in a matter of weeks, meals and supplemental food were being delivered to virtually all areas of southern and central Somalia without interference.........</i> President Bush had authorized a fairly narrow role for U.S. forces in Somalia of helping get humanitarian aid out to the people. <a HREF="http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/research/papers/1992/92121000.html"> Letter to Congressional Leaders on the Situation in Somalia: December 10, 1992</a> As things got better, the UN leadership had other goals they wanted to achieve. When the goals shifted into rearranging the political landscape in Somalia, things started to go wrong. <a HREF="http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosomi.htm">Somalia - UNOSOM I</a> <i>........Transition from UNITAF to UNOSOM II On 3 March 1993, the Secretary-General submitted to the Security Council his recommendations for effecting the transition from UNITAF to UNOSOM II. He indicated that since the adoption of Council resolution 794 (1992) in December 1992, UNITAF had deployed approximately 37,000 troops in southern and central Somalia, covering approximately 40 per cent of the country's territory. The presence and operations of UNITAF had a positive impact on the security situation in Somalia and on the effective delivery of humanitarian assistance. However, despite the improvement, a secure environment had not yet been established, and incidents of violence continued. There was still no effective functioning government in the country, no organized civilian police and no disciplined national army. The security threat to personnel of the United Nations and its agencies, UNITAF, ICRC and NGOs was still high in some areas of Mogadishu and other places in Somalia. Moreover, there was no deployment of UNITAF or UNOSOM troops to the north-east and north-west, or along the Kenyan-Somali border, where security continued to be a matter of grave concern. The Secretary-General concluded therefore, that, should the Security Council determine that the time had come for the transition from UNITAF to UNOSOM II, the latter should be endowed with enforcement powers under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter to establish a secure environment throughout Somalia. UNOSOM II would therefore seek to complete the task begun by UNITAF for the restoration of peace and stability in Somalia. The new mandate would also empower UNOSOM II assist to the Somali people in rebuilding their economic, political and social life, through achieving national reconciliation so as to recreate a democratic Somali State. UNOSOM II was established by the Security Council in resolution 814(1993) on 26 March 1993. UNOSOM II took over from UNITAF in May 1993. </i> Things didn't progress very well and eventually, there was a withdrawal. <a HREF="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/docs/lorenz.htm">Non-Lethal Force: The Slippery Slope to War?</a> <i>.....Background Operation Restore Hope, an international effort to restore order to Somalia and ensure the safe delivery of relief supplies to the starving population, began in December 1992 with great optimism. In May 1993 leadership of the operation was turned over to the United Nations, which undertook a much more ambitious program of nation-building and disarmament, with a much less capable force.[3] By the end of 1994 more than 130 peacekeepers had died trying to carry out the UN mandate, on which the international community had spent more than two billion dollars. The UN mission to Somalia was judged a failure, and the UN ordered the withdrawal of the remaining peacekeepers by the end of March 1995. In late 1994 renewed fighting in the city of Mogadishu presented an increased danger to the departing peacekeepers, and the UN called for US assistance to provide security to the withdrawal. The I Marine Expeditionary Force, which had been the nucleus of the command element of Restore Hope two years earlier, was directed by US Central Command to return to Somalia and command the US forces that supported the withdrawal. As preparations began for the operation, it became clear that unarmed hostile elements could pose a substantial threat to US forces. During the final days of the deployment, large bands of looters and thieves would be competing for the booty left behind by the UN. Although Marines regularly train in crowd control, this type of training is only one part of an intense training cycle that must occur before deployment. The I MEF took the lead in obtaining the best available equipment that could protect lives and reduce the possibility of confrontation with unarmed groups.........</i> <a HREF="http://www.un.org/Docs/SG/SG-Rpt/ch4d-21.htm">Somalia</a. <i>During the 12 months since my last report, it has become evident that the humanitarian tragedy in Somalia has been overcome, thanks to the international humanitarian assistance supported by the United Nations Operation in Somalia (UNOSOM II). This achievement contrasts sharply with the lack of tangible progress in national political reconciliation, for which the responsibility must be borne by the Somali leaders and people. Because of the deteriorating security situation in the country, including attacks and harassment directed against UNOSOM II and other international personnel, and because of the lack of cooperation from the Somali leaders concerned, the continued presence of UNOSOM II became increasingly questioned. On 14 October 1994, I reported to the Security Council (S/1994/1166) that the Somali leaders still had not carried out commitments entered into under the Addis Ababa Agreement and the Nairobi Declaration. The UNOSOM goal of assisting the process of political reconciliation was becoming ever more elusive, while the burden and cost of maintaining a high level of troops were proving increasingly difficult for Member States to justify. The presence of UNOSOM II troops was having a limited impact on the peace process and on security in the face of continuing inter-clan fighting and banditry. I therefore recommended that if the Security Council maintained its previous decision to end the mission in March 1995 and to withdraw all UNOSOM II forces and assets, it should extend the mission's mandate until 31 March 1995 to allow the time required to ensure a secure and orderly withdrawal. At the same time, I stressed that the withdrawal of UNOSOM II would not mean United Nations abandonment of Somalia. However, although humanitarian organizations were committed to continuing their work in Somalia, they could continue doing so only in a secure environment for which Somali leaders would bear the ultimate responsibility. The United Nations would also remain ready to assist the Somali parties in the process of national reconciliation.....</i> <a HREF="http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/so.html">Somalia</a> <i> The SIAD BARRE regime was ousted in January 1991; turmoil, factional fighting, and anarchy have followed for thirteen years. In May of 1991, northern clans declared an independent Republic of Somaliland that now includes the administrative regions of Awdal, Woqooyi Galbeed, Togdheer, Sanaag, and Sool. Although not recognized by any government, this entity has maintained a stable existence, aided by the overwhelming dominance of a ruling clan and economic infrastructure left behind by British, Russian, and American military assistance programs. The regions of Bari and Nugaal and northern Mudug comprise a neighboring self-declared autonomous state of Puntland, which has been self-governing since 1998, but does not aim at independence; it has also made strides towards reconstructing a legitimate, representative government, but has suffered civil strife in 2002. Puntland disputes its border with Somaliland as it also claims portions of eastern Sool and Sanaag. Beginning in 1993, a two-year UN humanitarian effort (primarily in the south) was able to alleviate famine conditions, but when the UN withdrew in 1995, having suffered significant casualties, order still had not been restored. The mandate of the Transitional National Government (TNG), created in August 2000 in Arta, Djibouti, expired in August 2003. Discussions regarding the establishment of a new government are ongoing in Kenya. Numerous warlords and factions are still fighting for control of Mogadishu and the other southern regions.......</i> I fail to understand why you cited Somalia as an example when the International Community has cut it loose and it seems to be a failed state. The only period of success for the International Community was the UNITAF which had the U.S. military as the backbone. Just speculation on my part, but the U.S. probably could have added several thousand troops during the UNITAF phase and had similar success going it alone. The flip side of the International Community mustering up another 20,000 troops, the logisitics capabilities and accomplishing the task without the U.S. military is much more doubtful. <hr color=green> <center><b>Bosnia</b></center> The United Nations was trying to do something about the situation in the Balkans, but until the United States took a more active part, things were bad. <a HREF="http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761564986_2/United_Nations.html">United Nations</a> <i>....The UN undertook its largest peacekeeping mission in the former Yugoslavia in 1992. The effort involved about 40,000 foreign troops and cost about $1 billion annually. The mission focused on Bosnia and Herzegovina, a war-torn nation that emerged from the breakup of Yugoslavia. The mission was flawed from the beginning. The troops were not prepared for the conditions they faced. The UN sent lightly armed forces equipped for humanitarian operations into a war where one side had been identified as the main aggressor. The UN monitored numerous ceasefires, which were continually broken. The peacekeepers could deliver aid to besieged cities only if they followed the terms dictated by the aggressors, and they were taken hostage on several occasions. In 1995 Serb forces overran the Bosnian town of Srebrenica, which the Security Council had declared a “safe area,” without providing adequate troops to protect it. About 7,000 men and boys were massacred. Within months, the peacekeeping effort was disbanded and replaced by a more heavily armed force assembled by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a regional defense alliance of countries including France, the United Kingdom, and the United States.......</i> <hr color=green> 1) Rwanda The United States shied away from involvement and the International Community did much the same. 2) Somalia The only period of successs seems to be when the U.S. had a fairly good sized deployment in Somalia. The International Community failed when the U.S. wasn't actively involved. The moving of the goal from Humanitarian Aid to Nation Building by the UN leadership had little chance of success without substantial U.S. support. Even with strong U.S. support, it was a lofty expectation. 3) Bosnia The UN had the lead during the early 1990's, but wasn't up to the task. After examining the different actions or inaction in the case of Rwanda, without the active participation by the US, the UN lacks a country to make things <i>happen</i>. Even when the U.S. has partners under NATO or UN <i>flags</i>, they seem to rely on the US to carry a large share of the load.
I saw clips of that interview on CNN Presents. Kerry is the epitome of New England uppercrusted snobbery. I give Kerry his kudos for 4 months of battleground service. I think he handled it badly when he came back; he formed unholy alliances with people and organizations with anti-American viewpoints. GWB's term of service was still greater than Clinton's...
The financial deals would have been moot had Saddam possessed WMDs. They would not have been able to deny an invasion if Iraq was in violation of the UNSC resolutions. That was the justification in the '90s, but Saddam had let the inspectors back in and was allowing them to visit the sites they wanted to. They were almost done with their report when Bush PULLED THEM OUT OF IRAQ SO WE COULD ATTACK! Why, do you think, did Bush feel the need to attack then? Probably so that the weapons inspectors would not give Iraq a clean report and take away Bush's ONLY true justification for this war: WMDs. We might be "still be trying to get it resolved today," but isn't that preferable to being misled into a war? Saddam was completely contained and could not have become a threat for the foreseeable future. Bush had to attack when he did or the chance would have slipped away from him and that was something that either he or others in his administration could not allow.
But Uday and Qusay were running amok within that "containment." Bush gave Saddam some 90 days give or take a dozen years to get with the program. What exactly was so imperative about the timing of the start of the war that was about to slip away? Anger over 9/11?
The only Kerry negatives that I've heard repeatedly are: 1) the flip-flop spin which has been explained 2) some Vets don't like Kerry, which has also been explained Which issues do you refer to?
No, the weapons inspectors were about to finish their work and give Iraq a clean report. Had the inspectors been able to finish their job, we would not have been able to get even the minor support that we DID get, and even Britain may not have supported the action.
Again, folks.... the continued denial of the truth that Saddam had kicked out the inspectors, moved files, etc. as reported by the UN inspectors themselves on several world-wide news affiliates for years on end... all while the shooting at patrol planes in the no-fly, demilitarized, zones was taking place indicating continued hostilites toward the UN and US, indicative of Saddam's regime protecting something they did not want us to find. Had the inspectors been able to get TO WORK they might've found what Saddam was hiding and defending. TRUTH BE TOLD.... you can't handle the truth. It's recorded plain as day, yet you claim it is pitch black. It's there. The truth is out there. Denial is starting to get bigger than the Nile.
Looks like the whole Wendy's thing was just a ruse anyway. http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/KerryEdwards_menu-31Jul04.htm Was the real lunch choice Wendy’s or fine dine. What was being served inside the bus? While Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, and their families were having a “lite” lunch at Wendy’s in the Town of Newburgh Friday, drumming up local support right after the national convention in Boston, their real lunches were waiting on their bus. A member of the Kerry advance team called Nikola’s Restaurant at the Newburgh Yacht Club the night before and ordered 19 five-star lunches to go that would be picked up at noon Friday. Management at the restaurant, which is operated by CIA graduate chef Michael Dederick, was told the meals would be for the Kerry and Edwards families and actor Ben Affleck who was with them on the tour. The gourmet meals to go included shrimp vindallo, grilled diver sea scallops, prosciutto, wrapped stuffed chicken, and steak salad. The meals came to about $200. The entourage had also expected to stop at the Alexis Diner at Route 9W and North Plank Road in the Town of Newburgh. In fact, the Kerry advance team had ordered 125 lunches for the team and supporters. Their buses drove right by the diner on I-84 and proceeded straight to Wendy’s. Kerry may still have the vote of Wendy’s manager John Garrett. “I’m for anyone who comes in and likes double cheeses”, Garrett said. “I’m a big supporter of anyone who orders our food.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HEAR today's news on MidHudsonRadio.com, the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio news report.
I understand what you were referring to. I was trying to determine which negative reports on Kerry were being ignored.
