The Man Who Would Be King

Senator John Kerry On Saddam Hussein:

Without question we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oilrigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct.

And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction.

January 2003, Georgetown University (less than four months before commencement of Operation Iraqi Freedom)

Presidential-Candidate John Kerry On Intelligence Part 1:

WALLACE: Let's talk about national security. In 1995, you were the only sponsor of a bill to cut $1.5 billion from intelligence spending over the next five years.

KERRY: Right.

WALLACE: And in 1997, you said that the intelligence apparatus was too big...

KERRY: Absolutely.

WALLACE: ...there were higher priorities.

KERRY: Right.

WALLACE: And then in 2001, after 9/11, you complained and said, "Why wasn't our intelligence better?"

Warning by Republicus: Blah-blah alert...blah-blah alert...blah-bah alert...

KERRY: Let me tell you exactly why I did that. I went to Moscow shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union. I got out of an airplane, and I looked around me, and there wasn't a light, barely, that worked in the airport. There wasn't a new truck in the parking lots. I went to the foreign office, and there were 12 telephones on a desk. And I asked, "This guy must be really important. Why does he have 12 phones?" They said, "Because they don't know how to hook up all the phone lines into one phone." And this was the country that we supposedly had to fear marching through Poland...

WALLACE: But the intelligence, obviously, could have helped against the...

KERRY: Intelligence failed us, because — I was on the Intelligence Committee.

Aside by Republicus: So THAT'S why intelligence failed us, because he was on the committee! Ha ha, of course, he didn't mean it that way. He just broke off in mid-sentence and rewound back to the beginning to put his "authority" on the matter in context.

However, that vaunted authority is certainly compromised by the fact that the senator missed a WHOPPING 76% of the senate intelligence meetings.

Why, Senator Kerry?

"Too busy."

That's what he answered when asked. No, really, that was his excuse.

(Look at the posted pics to see the busy playboy keeping himself busy from the business of the Intelligence Commitee!)

Kerry: What we were trying to do, some of us, was push the funding not into technical means — there was a fascination always with satellites and listening devices, not with human intelligence. I've always been somebody who has felt that we needed human intelligence.

Interview With Chris Wallace, Foxnews Sunday, January 25, 2004

Senator Kerry on Intelligence, Part 2:

Background by Republicus: As reported by Sheryl Gay Stolberg of The New York Times (4/13/05), sometime in 2003 news reports had identified the National Intelligence Officer for Latin America (Fulton Armstrong) by name during a dispute with other officials over intelligence regarding Cuba. His name was not a secret at the time.

However, by the time of the senate confirmation hearings for John Bolton in the spring of 2005, the CIA asked news organizations to withhold his name, and he was to be referred to as "Mr. Smith."

Senator John "I-Was-On-The-Intelligence-Commitee"-and-"I've-Always-Been-Somebody-Who-Has-Felt-That-We-Needed-Human-Intelligence" Kerry was apparently "too busy" to have been informed of that.

You decide:

During the televised hearings, Senator Kerry asks Mr. Bolton:

KERRY (reading from committee records of interviews its staff had conducted): 'Did Otto Reich share his belief that Fulton Armstrong should be removed for his position? 'The Answer Is Yes.'

BOLTON (unruffled and sticking to the alias): As I said, I had lost confidence in Mr. Smith, and I conveyed that.

Note by Republicus: Where's Fitz? lol

Presidential-Candidate John Kerry On Why A Flip-Flop Is Not A Flip-Flop:

KERRY (from Wallace Interview): Now, I'm happy to answer that. I did indeed vote the way I voted in 1991. I thought we ought to kick Saddam Hussein out of Iraq. I said so on the floor of the Senate. But with the memories of Vietnam, I also thought we ought to take a couple of months more to build the support in the country.

Note by Republicus: "Building support" for kicking the Viet Cong out of Vietnam and now for kicking Saddam Hussein out of Iraq is NOT the "memories" anyone should have of John Kerry, despite his earlier positions in both conflicts when gung-hoism was the political wind of the day.

KERRY: With respect to this time, I voted to give the authority to the president to use force under a set of promises by the president as to how he would do it: build a legitimate international coalition, exhaust the remedies of the United Nations, and go to war as a last resort. He broke every single one of those promises.

Note by Republicus: The president did no such thing. The mustered coalition is legitimate (and has shed blood for the mission) and the UN had exhausted 16 resolutions.

Kerry: And that's why I'm the best candidate to run against him and beat him, because I knew we had to hold Saddam Hussein accountable but I knew how to do it the right way. President Bush did it the wrong way.

Note by Republicus: Does that go for who knows best how to organize and execute a winning campaign strategy, "Commander?"

Presidential-Candidate John Kerry On Misleading, Exaggerating, Stretching, And Deceiving--But Not "LYING":

WALLACE: While we're discussing Iraq, David Kay, the chief U.S. weapons inspector, says he's now concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons before we went to war.

KERRY: Right.

WALLACE: And now Secretary of State Powell says, you know what, Kay may be right. What do you make of that?

KERRY: It confirms what I have said for a long period of time, that we were misled — misled not only in the intelligence, but misled in the way that the president took us to war...

WALLACE: But if I may ask you...

Note by Republicus: Here Wallace is trying to--logically--just have Kerry come out and use the "L- word" and to stop pusillanimously pussyfooting around it.

Enjoy the do-si-do:

KERRY: Let me just finish now. The president...

WALLACE: Let me just ask you specifically about this. Did...

Completion by Republicus: "...the president lie?"

KERRY: The president cut off that process.

Note by Republicus: Kerry just cut off Wallace's process!

KERRY: He chose the date to start this war.

Note by Republicus: Actually, the DoD had a lot to do with it, minding optimum weather conditions as they do for the purpose of facilitating large-scale deployment and telling the president that the window of best opportunity was closing and would not re-open for another year--something the stallers who pleaded for "one more month" (or somesuch) of inspections were well aware of, and so by winning a delay buying time for another year of inaction and opportunities for sabotaging of the mission.

KERRY: He said, the time for diplomacy is over. I talked to Kofi Annan.

WALLACE: But you voted — in your decision to support it — I've looked at your speech on the floor of the Senate. You talked about these weapons of mass destruction. Obviously you read the intelligence.

KERRY: Yes.

WALLACE: Do you believe that Colin Powell, the president, when they were talking about this threat, were speaking in good faith and just were misled, as you were, or do you think they cooked the books?

Note by Republicus: Did they "Lie," brave warrior Kerry? Say it.

KERRY: I don't know the answer to that. I trust Colin Powell implicitly. He's a friend of mine, and I think he's a terrific person, and I would not want to believe that...

Note by Republicus: Powell's Vietnam era loyalty to American brass regarding investigations of the My Lai massacre notwithstanding, that was when Powell was the darling of the antiwar movement (for voicing his anger about having his credibility compromised by his backing of the allegations about Iraq's WMD pursuits and capacities) and in an eclectic club that is comprised of such "heroes" as Richard Clarke, Joe Wilson IV, George Galloway, and Cindy Sheehan, as well as being a "friend," and a "terrific person," so Kerry, apparently, had to be careful.

But notice how Wallace pinned Powell to the president and makes it difficult for Kerry to exempt him. Kerry must choose to either remain consistent and damn the whole kit and caboodle or demonstrate an unacceptable double-standard, but--characteristically-- he refuses to commit to either one and instead deftly holds any possibility out there by admitting susceptibility to the psychological defense mechanism of denial in conditioning his "implicit trust."

In other words, "I really don't know what's going on with my terrific friend who I trust implicitly because of all the lies by people I refuse to actually call 'liars.'"

WALLACE: Do you trust George W. Bush?

Note by Republicus: Wallace, growing weary, is heroically trying to corner Kerry and make him just come out and say that the president is a liar, which is the logical conclusion of everything he's saying:

KERRY: I believe that Dick Cheney exaggerated, clearly.

Note by Republicus: lol

KERRY: When they talked about weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed in 45 minutes, there were none. When they talked about aerial devices that could deliver, there were none. When they talked about the linkage to Al Qaida that they've now exaggerated, but they themselves said then there was no smoking gun. They said it.

Note by Republicus: "They" said that there was no linkage to Saddam's complicity in 9/11. Linkage to Jihadist groups like Al Qaeda--some patronizing or even cooperative nexus--was not exaggerated at all; perhaps second-guessed and erred on the side of caution.

KERRY: Now they say there was a linkage.

Note by Republicus: There is a linkage with Saddam and terrorist groups, but Kerry, in a Clintonian way, muddled the subjects and subliminally alludes to the propagated, Left-wing LIE that the administration "linked" Saddam Hussein to 9/11 without explicitly saying so.

Anyway, so they lied? Say it:

KERRY: I think there's been an enormous amount of exaggeration, stretching, deception.

Note by Republicus: Come on, Senator. Just say it.

KERRY: And the question is still unanswered as to what Dick Cheney was doing over at the CIA personally in those weeks leading up to the war.

Note by Republicus: Who does Senator Kerry expect administration officials to be consulting with in a lead up to a war?

Kofi Annan?

Jacques Chirac?

Howard Dean?

John Kerry himself, who missed 76% of the Intelligence Committee meetings?

WALLACE: And when you see what David Kay said, do you believe that the president was part of a willful effort to mislead the American people?

Note by Republicus: Take a hint, Senator. Say it. Did the president "lie?"

KERRY: I would never suggest that about a president of the United States without adequate evidence. I don't know the answer to it.

Note by Republicus: lol He just suggested the possibility immediately after denying that he ever would!

KERRY: But I do know this...

Note by Republicus: Here Mr. Wallace realizes that Kerry won't go there regarding the Commander in Chief, and settles for having him say it--the "L-word"--about the veep:

WALLACE: But you're suggesting it about the vice president?

KERRY: I know the vice president either misspoke or misled the American people, but he did so in a way that gave Congress men and women, who have since said — I mean, very good people, good Americans who voted in good conscious, have stood up and said, "I was misled." This administration has to be accountable for that. And they haven't yet accounted for it.

Note by Republicus: lol Poor Mr. Wallace. Here he just gives up:

WALLACE: All right, Senator. We have to take a break. But when we return, I want to ask you about a lot of other questions, including your decision to put $6.5 million of your own money into your campaign...

Note by Republicus: Yes! It's good to marry the loaded widowed dowager of your rich and belated Republican senate colleague!

John Kerry On Taxing "The Rich":

In the campaign of 2004, John Kerry had repeatedly called for raising taxes on "the wealthy" so that the rich could "pay their fair share" for the "common good."

Senator Kerry and his wife are among the 400 richest Americans. Estimates of the Kerrys’ worth range from a low of $700 million to a high of $3.2 billion.

In 2003, they paid 13.4 percent of their (declared) $5.5 million income in federal taxes.

In contrast, the W. Bush's, whose income was substantially lower, paid over 28% in taxes.

The Heinz-Kerry's presumably were including themselves when they asserted that the rich should contribute increased amounts to government coffers, and yet their astonishingly low tax payments in relation to their incomes (astonishing in relation to their rhetoric) is enabled by the variety of legal means at their disposal which allows them to keep income off of their tax returns and to keep the tax rate on their reported income low.

Mrs. Theresa "The-Rich-Should-Pay-Their-Fair-Share" Heinz-Kerry keeps a hefty chunk of her cash in municipal bonds.

i.e. TAX SHELTERS.

As for wealthy Americans not paying their "fair share" of taxes, it should be pointed out here that--despite any legal tricks availed to them to shelter assets and funds from the IRS, as the Heinz-Kerry's are well aware of-- the top 50% still pays 96.54% of all income taxes, and the top 1% pay more than a third: 34.27%.

Senator Kerry Supports The Troops:

On December 5, 2005, John Kerry appeared on Face The Nation with Bob Schieffer and said this about security sweeps in Iraq:

KERRY: And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the--of--the historical customs, religious customs...

Note by Republicus: "In a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan," perhaps?

KERRY: Iraqi's should be doing that.

Note by Republicus: Iraqi's should be "terrorizing" their own people?

In a fashion reminiscent of Saddam Hussein, perhaps?

Anyway, what is reminiscent is April 23, 1971, when Kerry, dressed in green fatigues and decorated with a Silver Star, Bronze Star and three Purple Heart ribbons, "reported for duty" and gave testimony to a televised, Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on April 23, 1971.

He famously testified:

How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Vietnam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.They told stories that at times they had personally 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 in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Moreso than any allegations about his performance as a Swiftboat commander during the war, it was his stateside, antiwar activities and the slandering of the brothers he left behind (vicariously through hearsay in the above testimony) that angered and mobilized the Swiftboat Veterans--and a sizable majority of ALL veterans-- to write books and organize anti-Kerry protest rallies and prevent him from becoming the Commander In Chief.

The Swiftboat Veterans were called "Liars"--and much worse-- by the Bush-hating Kerry supporters for daring to diminish the annointed stature of their Ken doll dressed up as G.I. Joe, and stuttered and spat out explanations and rationalizations and likely stories between fits of obscenities claiming that the "War Hero" Kerry was being persecuted and "martyred" for "bearing witness" against American atrocities and helping to end the criminal and genocidal enterprise that was the Vietnam War (whatever).

It does not seem to have occurred to them that, in the process of defending their political messiah and attempting to destroy his critics, they were persecuting veterans who themselves were decorated war heroes-- and who, unlike Kerry, fully served out their tour of duty-- because they themselves were the ones bearing witness against what they considered to be a morally-criminal enterprise that was the John Kerry Campaign.

Part of the defense was to point out that the "Genghis Khan" senate testimony was not John Kerry trash-mouthing the troops, but other troops who he was quoting from the Detroit meeting, as if to admit that if the words did originate from the messenger--as initially understood-- then, yes, that would be a bad thing.

But Kerry--the messenger--was obviously standing behind those words which he presented as evidence in his testimony, so the belabored excuse is a strawman.

Furthermore, after all the protest (no pun intended) about that--that "patriot" Kerry would never villainize his banded brethren while they were performing in the theater of war-- he, once again, says this, just last month, to Mr. Scheiffer:

And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women.

He called U.S. troops on terrorist-sweeps terrorists (well, "terrorizers").

O'Neal and the other Swifties were right. He bad-mouthed the troops then, just as he did last month. It's his character (that which doesn't flip-flop short of a life-changing epiphany).

Also, as to the self-conscious claim by the Bush-Hating antiwar crowd that no one over there knows what is being said here, anyway (in trying to deny that they are undermining the war effort abroad while they undermine it here), the very next day after John Kerry accused the United States military of conducting terrorist (well, "terrorizing") operations on Iraqi homes, Saddam, while complaining at his trial about the lack of fresh clothes and the deprivation of shower and exercise facilities, concluded:

"This is terrorism."

Coincidence, or an exploitation of what Kerry had said a day or two before?

It is very possible that it is the latter.

If it's a coincidence, it's very interesting how what comes out of the mouths of the antiwar/Bush-Hating crowd sounds very much like what comes out of the mouth of Saddam Hussein (if not emanating out of outfits like Al Jazeera).]

Is This John Kerry's Strategy On How To Win The War On Terror, Or Is He Just One Hell Of A Sore Loser?

You Decide:

On December 15, 2005, John Kerry spoke to 100 of his 2004 Campaign Warriors and laid out this hopeful scenario for 2006:

If we win back the House, I think we have a pretty solid case to bring articles of impeachment against this president.

Yes. Allah Akbar.

Unfit for command.

Say buh-bye to '08, Senator Kerry.