Questions Sen. Kerry Would Not Like
by The Bandit

 

Dear Senator Kerry,

I have few questions I'd like to hear you answer:

Question: You once voted in the senate to remove a federal judge for perjury, yet you voted against removing Clinton from office under the same charge. Would you have voted to remove Clinton from the bench if he had been a sitting judge?

Do you apply different standards for different people under the law?

Question: Would  you consider a city that practices the tradition of Christmas crossing the line of a federal court principle known as "separation of church and state"?  Is "separation of church and state" a constitutional principle or is it a modern court created principle?

Question: Back in July of 1997 you responded with "I think it is sick,"  when you were asked about a private Democrat fundraising weekend of dining, sailing, and access-peddling, with contributors paying $20,000 each. You went on to say, "Do people get access? Yes, and I think it is wrong."

Did you not open you're Brant Point home to this very gathering you described as sick   and wrong? When you were asked by the Boston Globe to why you were participating in a event you felt was sick  andwrong  you replied because it was "legal." Is you're personal convictions easily discarded as long as it is legal to do so?

Question: New York Times in April of 1994 quoted you calling for an Haiti invasion force "similar to the international one used in the Persian Gulf... Granted, it will take leadership and persuasive power to build the coalition. But the United States succeeded in both regards in Grenada, Panama and Iraq..."

Isn't it a fact both invasions of Grenada and Panama were both 'unilateral preemption,' something as a presidential candidate find convenient to distance yourself from?

Question: You have often ridiculed the 'international coalition' that has assisted the United States in removing Saddam Hussein from power in '03. You have also attacked Bush's father's 'international coalition' that had liberated Kuwait as lacking "a true United Nations collective security effort." You also went on to say this about the 1991 international coalition, "I regret that I do not see a new world order in the United States going to war with shadow battlefield allies who barely carry a burden."

Yet today when you talk about what you would have done differently then George W. Bush in removing Saddam, you often speak of how you would have built a strong 'international coalition' to confront Saddam Hussein with. Do you seriously believe any of the dozens of countries who have participated in two Gulf Wars against Iraq - France; Germany; Saudi Arabia; Britain, to name a few - would take you seriously after you accusing them of not being able to "barely carry a burden?"

How and why should anyone take you seriously when you speak of building strong international coalition's in the fight against terrorism when you so easily denounce and belittle one of the greatest international coalition's in history?

Question: In February of 1998 you told the Boston Globe that your position on Iraq is consistent with your Vietnam War experience. "The lessons I learned are that if you're going to commit young people to fight, make sure you've got an objective and it's achievable, and it meets the needs of your country."

When you voted in favor of sending ground troops to remove Saddam Hussein did not the above noted lessons weigh in with your decision to commit young people?

Question: You often ridicule President Bush for not allowing more time for UN inspectors to have continued with inspections - that Iraq should have been given more time to comply. Yet in December of 1998 you stated: "He [Saddam] has toyed with the United Nations, with the United States, with UNSCOM, and with our allies. And I believe he has been given more opportunity to comply than he deserves."

Isn't it a fact even after the bombing campaign known as "Desert Fox," Saddam continued for years preventing any UN inspections to take place? What changed you're position in the year 2004 to believe that Iraq deserved more time to comply?

If destructive bombings from Operation Desert Fox failed to motivate Saddam Hussein to cooperate with UN inspectors - what makes you think any non-military actions would have succeeded?

Question: You once said that "Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror, and therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that and I disagree with the Governor [Howard Dean]."

Does this mean it is not really the wrong war at the wrong time as you have recently been suggesting while insisting you have never waffled on the issue of Iraq?

Question: You say you personally believe "life begins at conception" yet voted NO on banning a procedure in which physician delivers a live developed fetus before killing it. You told the Washington Post that you had voted for a Democratic amendment that would have increased penalties for attacks on pregnant women - including murder charges if the fetus is killed - without defining an "unborn child."

You say life begins at conception and that it should be considered murder if that unborn life is killed by another if-and-only you do not have to define what a "unborn child" means. Just how do you personally define a "unborn child" senator, and what exactly is your personal convictions (not political) on this issue since your stated positions contradict each other?

Question: In October 1996 you had this to say about the incident in which you shot and killed a enemy soldier in Vietnam: "I went straight out from the boat to the path so I had a line of fire. I never went behind the hootch, and this is the first time in 30 years that anybody has suggested otherwise."

Actually, hasn't your Silver Star citation been suggesting just that, that you went behind a hootch to kill a fleeing VC soldier for the last 30 years? In fact, the newly released Navy after-action report for this event states clearly you went behind a hootch. Why in the world did you want people to think otherwise when the evidence clearly indicates you had?

Question: Speaking of George W. Bush, you told Vogue magazine: "I know this guy [Bush]. He was two years behind me at Yale, and I knew him, and he’s still the same guy." (Julia Reed, A Man In Full, Vogue, 3/3/03)

Did you really know, George W. Bush, while at Yale University? What was Mr. Bush like when you knew him at Yale and would he remember you?

Question: Back in June of 1971 you told Dick Cavett:

"The fact of the matter remains that after I received my third wound, I was told that I could return to the United States. I deliberated for about two weeks because there was a very difficult decision in whether or not you leave your friends because you have an opportunity to go, but I finally made the decision to go back and did leave of my own volition because I felt that I could do more against he war back here."

Did you not file for transfer home on March 17, 1969, a mere 4 days after you're third wound? Hardly two weeks of deliberation don't you think?

Question: Earlier in the year the Wall Street Journal asked you about your crusade against any 'Benedict Arnold CEO' or corporation that exports American jobs overseas, in which you responded:

"You know, I called a couple of times to overzealous speechwriters and said 'Look, that's not what I'm saying.' Benedict Arnold does not refer to somebody who in the normal course of business is going to go overseas and take jobs overseas. That happens. I support that. I understand that. I was referring to the people who take advantage of noneconomic transactions purely for tax purposes -- sham transactions -- and give up American citizenship. That's a Benedict Arnold. You give up your American citizenship but you want to continue to do business."

Why is it then, that in speeches you made yourself without the aid of any speechwriters on Jan. 27, Feb. 3, Feb. 10 and Feb. 16, spoke of 'Benedict Arnold CEO's' who take jobs over seas and never once qualifying what you are saying by mentioning that a 'Benedict Arnold CEO' is someone who has given up their American citizenship?

You say you called a couple of "overzealous speechwriters" to say this isn't what I am saying - if this is really true (and I doubt that it is)  - then why do we not see any speeches from you with the clarifications that you claim you made clear to your speechwriters? Did they say, "no way jose, we are not altering any of your   'Benedict Arnold' speeches?" 

Question: As recently as March 17, 2004, you charged that "we were misled about weapons of mass destruction." On "Meet the Press" in late August, Tim Russert played a tape of you addressing the Senate in October 2002, declaring Iraq was more then capable of quickly weaponizing biological weapons that could be delivered against "the United States itself."

You responded, "That is exactly the point I'm making. We were given this information by our intelligence community." Did not the National Intelligence Estimate, which you had access to, have a different skeptical view of the same charges you were leveling in October of 2002?

Did not the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which you sat on, had listened to multiple witnesses who testified to the existence of WMD in Iraq in the summer of 2002? Did not your committee conclude after reviewing witnesses and intelligence that there was "no doubt" Iraq possessed WMD?

One of the witnesses you listened to was, Khidir Hamza, "Saddam's bombmaker," whom had already been discredited and found unreliable prior to testifying before your committee. Many wrote and phoned members of your committee to warn that Khidir Hamza was a fraud. Yet he was allowed to testify anyway.

Who is really misleading who, senator?

Question: You explained to a group of Jewish leaders who had concerns about your offer to dispatch pro-Arab Jimmy Carter or James Baker as Envoys to the Middle East. The names, you said, had been inserted by mistake, even after you had asked that Carter and Baker names be removed. But you went ahead and told Council on Foreign Relations:

''There are a number of uniquely qualified Americans among whom I would consider appointing, including President Carter, former Secretary of State James Baker or, as I suggested almost two years ago, President Clinton.... And I might add, I have had conversations with both President Clinton and President Carter about their willingness to do this.''

The New Republic obtained this statement from your campaign: ''The candidate eventually did speak with Carter -- but only after noticing that a draft of his speech said that he spoke with Carter.''

Come again?

First you mention names you did not want to mention, names you had asked to be removed - and then went ahead and met with President Carter because the draft of your speech said that you had? Do you really think voters are so stupid they will buy any lame explanation you offer for you're deceptive word games?

Question: Recently you have come out urging that oil used to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) be diverted to the consumer market in effort to lower high fuel prices. How do you reckon this will offer relief when this amounts to only 105,000 barrels per day - about one-half of 1 percent of America's total daily oil consumption of 20 million barrels?  

Question: You recently explained to Diane Sawyer how you misspoke when you said "I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it," this way:

"It just was a very inarticulate way of saying something, and I had one of those inarticulate moments late in the evening when I was dead tired in the primaries and I didn't say something very clearly," Kerry told Sawyer.

Isn't it a fact it was noon time and not "late in the evening" when you made this comment at Marshall University?

Question: You told the Boston Globe on 2/23/98, that your support for using ground troops to remove, Saddam Hussein, put you "way ahead of the commander-in-chief [Clinton], and I'm probably way ahead of my colleagues, and certainly of much of the country. But I believe this."

Do you still feel this way?

Question: You have said that it is not "appropriate in the United States for a legislature to legislate personal religious beliefs for the rest of the country." Does this mean it is acceptable for a legislature to legislate pro-choice laws, but not pro-life because that might cross the line in legislating "personal religious beliefs?"

How do you propose separating 'personal beliefs' from 'personal religious beliefs' with America's lawmakers? What happens if a pro-life legislator happens to be an atheists (I know two pro-life atheists)? 

Question: In 1985, responding to questions about your participation in a April 24, 1971 vietnam war protest involving medal tossing, you told the Washington Post, "They're my medals. I'll do what I want with them. And there shouldn't be any expectations about them. It shouldn't be a measurement of anything. People say, 'You didn't throw your medals away.' Who said I had to? And why should I? It's my business. I did not want to throw my medals away."

Couple of quick questions for you here:

1.) On October 6, 1996 the Boston Globe asked you why you didn't bring your own medals to throw since it was planned weeks in advance, for which you responded that you didn't have time to go home [to New York] and get them. Why if you were not interested in tossing your medals, then insinuate that you would have if you would have had the time to go home and return with them?

2.) If you did not want to toss your medals on April 24, 1971, why did you bother showing up to participate in a medal tossing event, only to leave a false impression afterwards that you had indeed tossed your medals over a fence?

3.) Wouldn't it have diminished the "expectations" of the other medal throwers - perhaps even the general public - to have learned you had no desire to throw your own medals over the fence that day?

Question: In a 9/6/02 New York Times Op-Ed, you wrote, "If Saddam Hussein is unwilling to bend to the international community's already existing order, then he will have invited enforcement, even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act."

What happened with the strong, genuine 'international coalition' that you have demanded from both President George W. Bush and his father before it would have been acceptable to you to remove Saddam from power?

Question: Why do you have a unheard of three different medal citations for you're Silver Star medal?

Question: You once responded to, Wallace Carter, a constituent opposed to the Gulf War on January 22, 1991 by writing, "Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war."

Then a week later, you responded again to, Wallace Carter, by writing, "Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."

What was your REAL position on the war and how can anyone believe your response?

Question: You made a televised comment last year during a Democratic debate suggesting that French and Russian officials at the United Nations were poised to compromise with the Bush administration on the eve of the Iraq war. The following day you followed up by saying, "I have it on the highest authority" that the French and Russians were prepared to make an offer at the UN, but were rebuffed by American officials intent on going to war, and "I'm going to talk about it more publicly at a later time."

Do you still plan to publicly talk about this and reveal what evidence this so-called 'highest authority' may have given you?

Question: Since becoming a candidate, you have come out and strongly attacked the Patriot Act. At the time of the passage you said "With the passage of this legislation, terrorist organizations will not be able... to do the kinds of things they did on Sept. 11." Then went on to add that you were "pleased at the compromise we have reached on the anti-terrorism legislation"

You recently suggested that "it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time."

Has any U.S. citizens lost their liberties due to the Patriot Act? If the Patriot Act is such a terrible piece of law, why in the world did you even support it in the first place? Surely you had read it before casting your 'yes' vote in favor of it?

(Please, don't try and pass the buck to the Bush Administration as the reason for your turnaround: I am addressing you - and you alone here - along with your own actions during the process of enacting this piece of legislation.)

Question: In your own opinion, what important distinctions should be made between a civil union and a civil marriage?

Question: You have spoken about wanting to repeal some of the Bush Administrations tax cuts to pay for some or all of the $87 billion Iraq/Afghanistan Reconstruction package that was requested to fund both the Iraq and Afghanistan military operations in '03. In fact, there was an amendment pending prior to congress voting to approve the $87 billion that would had done just that.

On 'Face the Nation' you were asked, "If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?" For which you replied, "I don't think any United States senator is going abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible. ...I don't think anyone in Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves."

The amendment to roll back some of Bush's tax cuts to pay for Iraq and Afghanistan failed. Yet you went on to vote against the $87 billion anyway. Under your own admission of the consequences of any senator (including yourself) in voting against the $87 billion funding request: Did you not 'abandon our troops?'

Did not your actions - as you personally characterized the result of any senator or congressman voting against the $87 billion funding request - rise to the level of irresponsible?

Question: On December 2, 1968 you claim you were wounded by enemy combat activity for which you received a tiny piece of shrapnel. You visited a medical tent at Cam Ranh Bay on Dec. 3, 1968 and was seen by a Dr. Louis Letson, who described your wound as a "splinter." You told Dr. Letson that you and your crew "had been engaged in a firefight, receiving small arms fire from on shore."

Soon afterwards, you visited your commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Grant Hibbard, in his office holding a piece of shrapnel. Hibbard has told the Globe, "People in the office were saying, 'I don't think we got any fire,' and there is a guy holding a little piece of shrapnel in his palm." You recently told, Douglas Brinkley, for his book Tour of Duty, that the Dec. 2, 1968 'splinter' wound you received was the result of "a half-assed action that hardly qualified as combat."

As you are well aware of, military requirements for issuance of a Purple Heart require that an injury must be received during "action against an enemy of the United States." Isn't it a fact your 'splinter' wound was directly the result of of your own actions the night of Dec. 2, 1968 when there had been a M-79 fired at the shore? Isn't it a fact there was no enemy engagement the night of Dec. 2, 1968, which explains why The Naval Historical Center has no "casualty card" on file for your Purple Heart?

Do you not feel any dishonor to claim an award that you did not deserve to receive - lied about the circumstances in order to be awarded the medal - an award that required most others to receive stitches; massive blood loss or loss of life in order to qualify for the medal?

Question: You filed a personal casualty report for yourself stating you had received shrapnel from a enemy mine explosion on March 13, 1969. Yet, the man who was with you when you received your minor wound, Jim Rassmann, told the Washington Post that you had injured yourself destroying rice earlier in the day. Why did you mislead the US Navy and the public in believing you were injured from a mine?

Question: During a conference call on April 22, you told reporters that you did not own a SUV. Responding to whether your wife might own a SUV, you said that your wife owns a Chevrolet SUV - "The family has it. I don't have it."

During an New Hampshire rally, you were asked what you have done to reduce the dependency on oil, which you responded, "I sold my gas guzzler and got a van and downgraded, that's what I did personally, in my own life. Also got an economical car in Washington and so forth so that I was trying to live up to that standard."

A month later in Michigan, you listed the auto's you own as follows: "I own a Dodge 600 that I've had for about 20 years; I own a Chrysler 300M; we have a Chrysler van, a minivan; a Chrysler PT Cruiser; a Suburban Chevy-big Suburban - and she has a Land Rover Defender."

If you cannot be honest about you drive, how can anyone ever believe you being honest on other revelations you make?

Question: The Congressional Record for 1/22/85 quotes you as follows: "The right to choose is the law of the United States. No person has the right to infringe on that freedom. Those of us who are in government have a special responsibility to see to it that the United States continues to protect this right, as it must protect all rights secured by the constitution."

Does the constitution not declare that the most fundamental natural right that exists for all people is the natural right to life? Additionally, does the constitution not declare that no one can be denied either their right to life or liberty without due process of the law?

Just how does your "right to choose" constitutionally trumps the fundamental sacred right to life and liberty embedded in the very fabric of the constitution itself?

Question: You were quoted by the New York Times as reacting to Massachusetts' highest court's decision legalizing same-sex marriages by saying, "I personally believe the court is dead wrong." But when you were asked twenty days later why you believed the decision was not correct, you replied, "I didn't say it wasn't."

Did you not indicate on February 5, that you personally believed the court was "dead wrong" in legalizing same-sex marriages?

Question: Will you sign a Standard Form 180? If not, why?

Question: On voting to invade Iraq to disarm Saddam Hussein, you have said, "I voted not specifically to go to war....I voted for a process.....The process that we got out of the president by standing up to him was that he was going to go to the U.N. and build an international coalition, a true international coalition. Going to war was a last resort." You also are on record on insisting that President Bush should had followed through with more diplomacy before going to war.

During a Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate on May 4, 2003, you said, "George, I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."

Just what additional opportunities would have additional diplomacy have provided that it had not provided in the previous ten years?

Question: March 2003 Headline: "Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts said he will cease his complaints once the shooting starts. `It's what you owe the troops,' said a statement from Kerry, a Navy veteran of the Vietnam War. `I remember being one of those guys and reading news reports from home. If America is at war, I won't speak a word without measuring how it'll sound to the guys doing the fighting when they're listening to their radios in the desert.'" (The Boston Globe, 3/11/03)

But when troops were within 25 miles of Baghdad, you said in a speech at the Peterborough Town Library, "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." (The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)

Why did you go back on your word and attack President Bush after the shooting had started? Why did you claim we needed a 'regime change' just before troops entered Baghdad, while later on May 4, you told a national audience that you supported the decision to disarm Saddam Hussein?

Do you ever actually listen to yourself and take your own positions seriously?

Question: You have a habit of telling voters you supported bill's that you had in fact voted against in the senate. Isn't the very act of voting against a bill a sign that you don't support the bill, regardless of you're reasons or explanations? Should politicians be able to tell voters after voting 'no' on a bill that they really did support the bill?

If politicians can do that, do we then even need to bother with maintaining voting records for every congressmen since they will have little value because yes/no votes can be publicly withdrawn and revised afterwards?

Question: In the June 6, 1971 issue of the Washington Star, you are quoted as follows:

"We established an American presence in most cases by showing the flag and firing at sampans and villages along the banks. Those were our instructions, but they seemed so out of line that we finally began to go ashore, against our orders, and investigate the villages that were supposed to be our targets. We discovered we were butchering a lot of innocent people, and morale became so low among the officers on those 'swift boats' that we were called back to Saigon for special instructions from Gen. Abrams. He told us we were doing the right thing. He said our efforts would help win the war in the long run. That's when I realized I could never remain silent about the realities of the war in Vietnam."

Was not the purpose of the meeting with Adm. Zumwalt and Gen. Abrams to introduce to all officers a new tactical operation for removing Vietcong from the Ca Mau Peninsula - the operation that became known as SeaLords - and had nothing to do with low moral from butchering?

Furthermore, you were on the Dick Cavett Show when you said this:

"The fact of the matter is that the members of Coastal Division 11 and Coastal Division 13 when I was in Vietnam were fighting the policy very, very hard, to the point that many of the members were refusing to carry out orders on some of their missions; to the point where the crews started to in fact mutiny, say, "I would not go back on the rivers again;" the point where my commanding officer was relieved of duty because he pressed our objections to what we were doing with the captain in command of the entire operation."

Isn't it a fact you never had a commanding officer above you relieved of duty for any disciplinary reasons?

Question: Were you asked to leave Vietnam by fellow officers or did you initiate leaving on your own?

Question: Back in 1991, soon after Iraq had invaded and taken over the country of Kuwait, you indicated going to war to liberate Kuwait was wrong because doing so would abandon "the theory of deterrence."

How would 'deterrence' have removed Iraqi forces from Kuwait?

Question: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, stated on October 10, 2002:

"Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt...

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons....

"It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security."

Did you not agree with Sen. Clinton that the facts she spelled out were not in doubt? Is this not the same evidence President Bush was looking at, the same evidence that goes back before President Bush was even president?

Would you agree that this bandwagon you and your fellow democrats are riding that says 'Bush mislead' or 'Bush lied' has more then a few broken wheels? Why is it only Bush can be held over WMD intelligence but not select Democrats, including yourself?

Question: Which is most important to you; personal convictions or political ambition?

Question: On July 27, 2004 you had invited the Rev. David Alston to testify about your leadership in combat before the Democratic National Convention and the world. Here is a little of what the Rev. Alston had to say:

"I know him from a small boat in Vietnam, where we fought and bled together, serving our country. There were six of us aboard PCF-94, a 50-foot, twin-engine craft known as a "Swift Boat." We all came from different walks of life, but all of us-including our skipper, John Kerry-volunteered for combat duty. And combat is what we got."

Isn't it a fact what the Rev. Alston described in his convention speech never happened? When he was on the PCF-94 you were skippering another swift boat in another coastal division. Isn't it also a fact he never could have served under you on the PCF-94 in combat because his combat days ended on Jan. 29, 1969 while you were still serving on another boat? Perhaps this is why you initially attempted place yourself on the PCF-94 in late January of 1969 in place of the real skipper of that boat so that any claims the Rev. Alston may make on your behalf could be more easily collaborated?

What compelled you to launch such a grand scheme to mislead so many? The Rev. Alston is certainty not the only veteran to level phony combat claims on your behalf, is he? For example, you have Del Sandusky told a national audience on CNN NewsNight that he witnessed you "shot and bleeding, laid down and pulled up Rassmann by his belt." All you're other so-called "band of brothers" have given false public statements about what they had witnessed of you in combat.

Why senator, why?

Question: Recently, Alan Colmes asked you in an interview, "How do you define in such a nugget a John Kerry presidency? " You replied, "I'm going to bring truth and responsibility back to the White House, and I'm going to bring influence and respect in the world back to America."

How can anyone believe that, senator, when there is such little truth can be found in anything you say?