Kerry -- WAY WAY OFF THREAD BUT INTERESTING.

[Big John]

I spent 3 months in the 'Delta" which inluded providing CAS to the
Navy operations in the Mekong in 1967. Met and worked with Seal teams
and other Navy operations. This sounds like a true account from what I
saw and heard.

I wonder if he really flies his (wifes) bird or just rides and logs
time?

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````````````````````````````


By a USNA grad ('59) and Rear Admiral (Ret.)

I was in the Delta shortly after he left. I know that area well. I
know the operations he was involved in well. I know the tactics and
the doctrine used. I know the equipment. Although I was attached to
CTF-116 (PBRs) I spent a fair amount of time with CTF-115 (swift
boats), Kerry's command.

Here are my problems and suspicions:

(1) Kerry was in-country less than four months and collected, a Bronze
Star, a Silver Star and three purple hearts. I never heard of anybody
with any outfit I worked with (including SEAL One, the Sea Wolves,
Riverines and the River Patrol Force) collecting that much hardware so
fast, and for such pedestrian actions. The Swifts did a commendable
job. But that duty wasn't the worst you could draw. They operated
only along the coast and in the major rivers (Bassac and Mekong). The
rough stuff in the hot areas was mainly handled by the smaller, faster
PBRs.

(2) Three Purple Hearts but no limp. All injuries so minor that no
time lost from duty. Amazing luck. Or he was putting himself in for
medals every time he bumped his head on the wheel house hatch? Combat
on the boats was almost always at close range. You didn't have minor
wounds. At least not often. Not three times in a row. Then he used
the three purple hearts to request a trip home eight months before the
end of his tour. Fishy.

(3) The details of the event for which he was given the Silver Star
make no sense at all. Supposedly, a B-40 was fired at the boat and
missed. Charlie jumps up with the launcher in his hand, the bow
gunner knocks him down with the twin .50, Kerry beaches the boat,
jumps off, shoots Charlie, and retreives the launcher. If true, he
did everything wrong.
(a) Standard procedure when you took rocket fire was to put your
stern to the action and go balls to the wall. A B-40 has the
ballistic integrity of a frisbie after about 25 yards, so you put 50
yards or so between you and the beach and begin raking it with your
..50's.
(b) Did you ever see anybody get knocked down with a .50 caliber
round and get up? The guy was dead or dying. The rocket launcher was
empty. There was no reason to go after him (except if you knew he was
no danger to you just flopping around in the dust during his last few
seconds on earth, and you wanted some derring do in your after-action
report). And we didn't shoot wounded people. We had rules against
that, too.
(c) Kerry got off the boat. This was a major breach of standing
procedures. Nobody on a boat crew ever got off a boat in a hot area.
EVER! The reason was simple. If you had somebody on the beach your
boat was defenseless. It coudn't run and it couldn' t return fire. It
was stupid and it put his crew in danger. He should have been
relieved and reprimanded. I never heard of any boat crewman ever
leaving a boat during or after a firefight.

Something is fishy.

Here we have a JFK wannabe (the guy Halsey wanted to court martial for
carelessly losing his boat and getting a couple people killed by
running across the bow of a Jap destroyer) who is hardly in Vietnam
long enough to get good tan, collects medals faster than Audie Murphy
in a job where lots of medals weren't common, gets sent home eight
months early, requests separation from active duty a few months after
that so he can run for Congress, finds out war heros don't sell well
in Massachsetts in 1970 so reinvents himself as Jane Fonda, throws his
ribbons in the dirt with the cameras running to jump start his
political career, gets Stillborn Pell to invite him to address
Congress and Bobby Kennedy's speechwriter to do the heavy lifting,
winds up in the Senate himself a few years later, votes against every
major defense bill, says the CIA is irrelevant after the Wall came
down, votes against the Gulf War, a big mistake since that turned out
well, decides not to make the same mistake twice so votes for invading
Iraq, but oops, that didn't turn out so well so he now says he really
didn't mean for Bush to go to war when he voted to allow him to go to
war.

I'm real glad you or I never had this guy covering out flanks in
Vietnam. I sure don't want him as Commander in Chief. I hope that
somebody from CTF-115 shows up with some facts challenging Kerry's
Vietnam record. I know in my gut it's wildy inflated. And fishy.

[Gary Drescher]

This newsgroup appears to be a microcosm of the nation right now. We have a
small band of right-wing fanatics who are panicking about Kerry's lead over
Bush in the polls, so they're desperate to find some distraction from the
issues that concern the electorate. But all they can come up with is
tabloid conspiracy theories that everyone beyond the alien-abduction crowd
dismisses as absurd. So they impose on newsgroups by starting multiple
off-topic threads, hoping that enough repetition will make their theories
sound less nonsensical. All in all, it's very entertaining and reassuring.

[Jay Honeck]

> We have a
> small band of right-wing fanatics who are panicking about Kerry's lead
over
> Bush in the polls,

http://www.gallup.com/content/default.asp?ci=10558

But I agree, this is way off topic. Crikey, the election is 9 months away!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Dan Luke]

Give it a rest, Big John.

[Doug Carter]

On 2004-02-16, Gary Drescher > wrote:
> This newsgroup appears to be a microcosm of the nation right now.

Interesting, perhaps, but no more useful than the left wing fanatics
shrill about Bush's Air Guard service. With the tabloid (formally news)
channels filled with salacious trash we have no time for examination of
the last 20 years of voting records.

Claims that 'character counts' are being used by voyeurs to justify
rolling in the mud and the stink that is the center of their pitiful
lives.

Test this yourself: keep track of the amount of air time (tv,
newspaper, newsnets) dedicated to allegations of infidelity, adultery,
and military service 30 years ago to voting and executive decision
records.

[John Harlow]

Big John,

Try alt.politics - you'll find many a person to debate with there.

[beavis]

In article >, Doug Carter
> wrote:

> Test this yourself: keep track of the amount of air time (tv,
> newspaper, newsnets) dedicated to allegations of infidelity, adultery,
> and military service 30 years ago to voting and executive decision
> records.

That's the beauty of evaluating Bush -- he fails on BOTH sides of that
test. So whether you're looking at the man he was or the man he is,
he's been an irresponsible buffoon then and now. You know you're out
to lunch when, as a republican, the democrats accuse you of spending
too much.

Election day won't come soon enough.

[G.R. Patterson III]

John Harlow wrote:
>
> Try alt.politics - you'll find many a person to debate with there.

And for Bog's sake, don't cross-post it here!

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

[Wdtabor]

In article <j54Yb.196588$U%5.1020652@attbi_s03>, "Jay Honeck"
> writes:

>
>> We have a
>> small band of right-wing fanatics who are panicking about Kerry's lead
>over
>> Bush in the polls,
>
>http://www.gallup.com/content/default.asp?ci=10558
>
>But I agree, this is way off topic. Crikey, the election is 9 months away!
>--

It seems a bit harsh, but it is no worse than the charges being thrown at Bush
over his Air Guard service by mainstream media.

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Ron Parsons]

In article <9O3Yb.333342$na.490595@attbi_s04>,
"Gary Drescher" > wrote:

>This newsgroup appears to be a microcosm of the nation right now. We have a
>small band of right-wing fanatics who are panicking about Kerry's lead over
>Bush in the polls, so they're desperate to find some distraction from the
>issues that concern the electorate.

Were these the same pollsters who had Dean so far out in front?

--
Ron

[C J Campbell]

Really not all that interesting. Yes, JFK is trying to model himself after
JFK, something he has been doing since he was a teenager. He is probably
using the same PR playbook that JFK did. You can find a very unflattering
portrait of Kerry on the Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry web site if you
are interested in that sort of thing.

What would be interesting would be Kerry's (or any candidate's, for the
matter) opinion on issues relevant to general aviation -- security, the
aviation trust fund, airport conservation and protection, access to
wilderness airports, taxation, TFRs, the Washington ADIZ, international
travel restrictions, etc. So far the various candidates have treated
aviation the way they always have, as something that is only of interest to
a tiny minority of people. Why risk having an opinion that might offend a
significant portion of the electorate simply to let pilots know what you
think? (It would also be interesting if Kerry managed to hold an opinion on
anything for longer than five minutes, but that is also off topic.)

[Jay Honeck]

> Were these the same pollsters who had Dean so far out in front?

Good point!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gary Drescher]

"Ron Parsons" > wrote in message
...
> In article <9O3Yb.333342$na.490595@attbi_s04>,
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote:
>
> >This newsgroup appears to be a microcosm of the nation right now. We
have a
> >small band of right-wing fanatics who are panicking about Kerry's lead
over
> >Bush in the polls, so they're desperate to find some distraction from the
> >issues that concern the electorate.
>
> Were these the same pollsters who had Dean so far out in front?

Yes, of course. And those polls accurately reflected voter preferences at
the time. Polls don't purport to show what the preferences will necessarily
be in the future. Everyone understands that distinction, don't they?

--Gary

[C J Campbell]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:9O3Yb.333342$na.490595@attbi_s04...
> This newsgroup appears to be a microcosm of the nation right now. We have
a
> small band of right-wing fanatics who are panicking about Kerry's lead
over
> Bush in the polls,

Probably wrong on all counts. It is just as easy to say that we have a small
band of left wing fanatics who are panicking over the fact that Bush
continues to lead in the polls despite all the media attention given to
Democrats right now, so they are attacking Bush's military record in order
to show that Kerry's record, at least, is no worse.

It all depends on who is doing the polls and how you interpret them. The
entire message from both sides seems to be, "Well, we don't care about
integrity or how anyone stands on the issues. What we care about is who is
the most popular man in the nation. The most important quality in a
President is popularity. Image is more important than substance."

Looks like I will be voting Libertarian again this year.

[Jay Honeck]

> Yes, of course. And those polls accurately reflected voter preferences at
> the time. Polls don't purport to show what the preferences will
necessarily
> be in the future. Everyone understands that distinction, don't they?

You truly believe that those polls were accurate? You've got more faith in
pollsters than I do.

Or, I suppose, one could conclude that the polls WERE accurate, and that
those Democrats who supported Dean so strongly simply showed the loyalty of
a bunch of alley cats?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[G.R. Patterson III]

Gary Drescher wrote:
>
> Yes, of course. And those polls accurately reflected voter preferences at
> the time.

Perhaps. A lot depends on how many people are polled and where. You have to get
the opinions of a good cross-section of the public. IIRC, that basically means
at least 4,000 people in a wide range of disparate places. I've seen results
published in which they interviewed 347 people at Times Square in one day. That
is not going to give you a statistically significant result of anything other
than, perhaps, the popularity of the businesses located there.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

[G.R. Patterson III]

C J Campbell wrote:
>
> What would be interesting would be Kerry's (or any candidate's, for the
> matter) opinion on issues relevant to general aviation -- security, the
> aviation trust fund, airport conservation and protection, access to
> wilderness airports, taxation, TFRs, the Washington ADIZ, international
> travel restrictions, etc.

AOPA polled both candidates on GA issues before the last election. As I recall,
Gore refused to respond and Bush has pushed privatization more than his responses
indicated he would. I would expect that AOPA will send something similar to both
candidates this time too, once it becomes clear who the Democratic candidate is.

George Patterson
A diplomat is a person who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that
you look forward to the trip.

[Gary Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:4i6Yb.197204$U%5.1028608@attbi_s03...
> > Yes, of course. And those polls accurately reflected voter preferences
at
> > the time. Polls don't purport to show what the preferences will
> necessarily
> > be in the future. Everyone understands that distinction, don't they?
>
> You truly believe that those polls were accurate? You've got more faith
in
> pollsters than I do.
>
> Or, I suppose, one could conclude that the polls WERE accurate, and that
> those Democrats who supported Dean so strongly simply showed the loyalty
of
> a bunch of alley cats?

Huh? How do you infer the strength of any individual's support from the
poll results? A bunch of people are asked to express whatever (perhaps very
small) preference they may have at the moment, well before the actual vote.
Is there some reason that such a preference should establish a debt of
"loyalty" that overrides future deliberations or developments?

--Gary

> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>
>

[Jay Honeck]

> Is there some reason that such a preference should establish a debt of
> "loyalty" that overrides future deliberations or developments?

How far in the "future" should we assume someone's loyalty? A month? A
week? The polls showed Dean was favored by the majority of Democrats in
Iowa -- right up till the last day.

And they were totally wrong.

Now that may have something to do with the caucus structure, which (IMHO) is
completely bogus, but I think it also says something about polls. And,
perhaps, Democrats.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Gary Drescher]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:R37Yb.197505$U%5.1032695@attbi_s03...
> > Is there some reason that such a preference should establish a debt of
> > "loyalty" that overrides future deliberations or developments?
>
> How far in the "future" should we assume someone's loyalty? A month? A
> week?

Until the flight strip is discarded. :-) (Sorry, that's a reference to
another thread here--one that's actually on-topic.:))

--Gary

[Gig Giacona]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:4i6Yb.197204$U%5.1028608@attbi_s03...
> > Yes, of course. And those polls accurately reflected voter preferences
at
> > the time. Polls don't purport to show what the preferences will
> necessarily
> > be in the future. Everyone understands that distinction, don't they?
>
> You truly believe that those polls were accurate? You've got more faith
in
> pollsters than I do.
>
> Or, I suppose, one could conclude that the polls WERE accurate, and that
> those Democrats who supported Dean so strongly simply showed the loyalty
of
> a bunch of alley cats?
> --

Come on Jay..... Dean melted down right there in your state. That speech
that ended in the scream killed him. I had no doubt that he would have such
a melt down sooner or later. I was hoping it would happen after he had won
the Dems nomination. Maybe October or so.

Gig G

[Jay Honeck]

> Come on Jay..... Dean melted down right there in your state. That speech
> that ended in the scream killed him.

You think so? I don't know -- Clinton gave a similar speech after losing
Iowa or New Hampshire (I forget which), and it was seen as "galvanizing" and
"good spin"...
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Big John]

My apologies to all who feel put upon.

There have been numerous 'off thread' postings on
rec.aviation.piloting concerning Kerry and I felt this might level
the playing field a little?

I received this article from military channels I still retain so it
can be considered the other side of the coin.

Big John



On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 23:30:28 -0600, Big John >
wrote:

>
>I spent 3 months in the 'Delta" which inluded providing CAS to the
>Navy operations in the Mekong in 1967. Met and worked with Seal teams
>and other Navy operations. This sounds like a true account from what I
>saw and heard.
>
>I wonder if he really flies his (wifes) bird or just rides and logs
>time?
>
>Big John
>`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````````````````````````````````````````
>
>
>By a USNA grad ('59) and Rear Admiral (Ret.)
>
>I was in the Delta shortly after he left. I know that area well. I
>know the operations he was involved in well. I know the tactics and
>the doctrine used. I know the equipment. Although I was attached to
>CTF-116 (PBRs) I spent a fair amount of time with CTF-115 (swift
>boats), Kerry's command.
>
>Here are my problems and suspicions:
>
>(1) Kerry was in-country less than four months and collected, a Bronze
>Star, a Silver Star and three purple hearts. I never heard of anybody
>with any outfit I worked with (including SEAL One, the Sea Wolves,
>Riverines and the River Patrol Force) collecting that much hardware so
>fast, and for such pedestrian actions. The Swifts did a commendable
>job. But that duty wasn't the worst you could draw. They operated
>only along the coast and in the major rivers (Bassac and Mekong). The
>rough stuff in the hot areas was mainly handled by the smaller, faster
>PBRs.
>
>(2) Three Purple Hearts but no limp. All injuries so minor that no
>time lost from duty. Amazing luck. Or he was putting himself in for
>medals every time he bumped his head on the wheel house hatch? Combat
>on the boats was almost always at close range. You didn't have minor
>wounds. At least not often. Not three times in a row. Then he used
>the three purple hearts to request a trip home eight months before the
>end of his tour. Fishy.
>
>(3) The details of the event for which he was given the Silver Star
>make no sense at all. Supposedly, a B-40 was fired at the boat and
>missed. Charlie jumps up with the launcher in his hand, the bow
>gunner knocks him down with the twin .50, Kerry beaches the boat,
>jumps off, shoots Charlie, and retreives the launcher. If true, he
>did everything wrong.
> (a) Standard procedure when you took rocket fire was to put your
>stern to the action and go balls to the wall. A B-40 has the
>ballistic integrity of a frisbie after about 25 yards, so you put 50
>yards or so between you and the beach and begin raking it with your
>.50's.
> (b) Did you ever see anybody get knocked down with a .50 caliber
>round and get up? The guy was dead or dying. The rocket launcher was
>empty. There was no reason to go after him (except if you knew he was
>no danger to you just flopping around in the dust during his last few
>seconds on earth, and you wanted some derring do in your after-action
>report). And we didn't shoot wounded people. We had rules against
>that, too.
> (c) Kerry got off the boat. This was a major breach of standing
>procedures. Nobody on a boat crew ever got off a boat in a hot area.
>EVER! The reason was simple. If you had somebody on the beach your
>boat was defenseless. It coudn't run and it couldn' t return fire. It
>was stupid and it put his crew in danger. He should have been
>relieved and reprimanded. I never heard of any boat crewman ever
>leaving a boat during or after a firefight.
>
>Something is fishy.
>
>Here we have a JFK wannabe (the guy Halsey wanted to court martial for
>carelessly losing his boat and getting a couple people killed by
>running across the bow of a Jap destroyer) who is hardly in Vietnam
>long enough to get good tan, collects medals faster than Audie Murphy
>in a job where lots of medals weren't common, gets sent home eight
>months early, requests separation from active duty a few months after
>that so he can run for Congress, finds out war heros don't sell well
>in Massachsetts in 1970 so reinvents himself as Jane Fonda, throws his
>ribbons in the dirt with the cameras running to jump start his
>political career, gets Stillborn Pell to invite him to address
>Congress and Bobby Kennedy's speechwriter to do the heavy lifting,
>winds up in the Senate himself a few years later, votes against every
>major defense bill, says the CIA is irrelevant after the Wall came
>down, votes against the Gulf War, a big mistake since that turned out
>well, decides not to make the same mistake twice so votes for invading
>Iraq, but oops, that didn't turn out so well so he now says he really
>didn't mean for Bush to go to war when he voted to allow him to go to
>war.
>
>I'm real glad you or I never had this guy covering out flanks in
>Vietnam. I sure don't want him as Commander in Chief. I hope that
>somebody from CTF-115 shows up with some facts challenging Kerry's
>Vietnam record. I know in my gut it's wildy inflated. And fishy.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
news:j54Yb.196588$U%5.1020652@attbi_s03...
> > We have a
> > small band of right-wing fanatics who are panicking about Kerry's lead
> over
> > Bush in the polls,
>
> http://www.gallup.com/content/default.asp?ci=10558
>
> But I agree, this is way off topic. Crikey, the election is 9 months
away!

And this is usual during the primaries when one candidate is getting all the
coverage and his ideas are not getting scrutiny during 20 second "news
briefs".

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Gig Giacona" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Come on Jay..... Dean melted down right there in your state. That speech
> that ended in the scream killed him. I had no doubt that he would have
such
> a melt down sooner or later. I was hoping it would happen after he had won
> the Dems nomination. Maybe October or so.

He was dead (had lost) BEFORE the scream; the scream (his real "self")
merely sealed his fate.

[Gary Drescher]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> My apologies to all who feel put upon.
>
> There have been numerous 'off thread' postings on
> rec.aviation.piloting concerning Kerry and I felt this might level
> the playing field a little?

Your scorekeeping is faulty, John. Virtually all the off-topic pro-Kerry
comments here were made to level the field in response to off-topic
anti-Kerry comments.

As for balance, though, allow me to briefly counter the sex-scandal hoax
that you and others have been foisting on this group. From today's NYT:

---
Also today, the woman at the center of a charge, posted last week on the Web
site of the Internet gossip columnist Matt Drudge, that Mr. Kerry had had an
extramarital affair with her, came forward to deny the rumors. Mr. Kerry had
also denied the charge last week.
In a statement released by the woman, Alexandra Polier, and circulated by
The Associated Press, she called the charge "lies."

"Because these stories were false, I assumed the media would ignore them,"
she said. "It seems that efforts to peddle these lies continue, so I feel
compelled to address them. I have never had a relationship with Senator
Kerry, and the rumors in the press are completely false. Whoever is
spreading these rumors and allegations does not know me, but should know the
pain they have caused me and my family." She said she was in Kenya today
with her fiancé visiting his family.

---

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:EmaYb.45782$_44.43486@attbi_s52...
> "Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
> > My apologies to all who feel put upon.
> >
> > There have been numerous 'off thread' postings on
> > rec.aviation.piloting concerning Kerry and I felt this might level
> > the playing field a little?
>
> Your scorekeeping is faulty, John. Virtually all the off-topic pro-Kerry
> comments here were made to level the field in response to off-topic
> anti-Kerry comments.

The Bush bashing began in a thread celebrating John Kerry being a small GA
pilot. That thread was on topic briefly.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> My apologies to all who feel put upon.
>
> There have been numerous 'off thread' postings on
> rec.aviation.piloting concerning Kerry and I felt this might level
> the playing field a little?
>
> I received this article from military channels I still retain so it
> can be considered the other side of the coin.

John, some people feel put upon by having their fantasies imploded.

[Cub Driver]

> So they impose on newsgroups by starting multiple
>off-topic threads, hoping that enough repetition will make their theories
>sound less nonsensical. All in all, it's very entertaining and reassuring.

Sounds a lot like the Bush Air Guard threads.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Big John]

Gary

Did you get this from Drudge? Seems to be word for word what I read
there today?

If you saw it on Drudge then he must be posting both sides of this cat
fight and not just the 'right' as has been alleged.

Big John

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:12:04 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
> wrote:

>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> My apologies to all who feel put upon.
>>
>> There have been numerous 'off thread' postings on
>> rec.aviation.piloting concerning Kerry and I felt this might level
>> the playing field a little?
>
>Your scorekeeping is faulty, John. Virtually all the off-topic pro-Kerry
>comments here were made to level the field in response to off-topic
>anti-Kerry comments.
>
>As for balance, though, allow me to briefly counter the sex-scandal hoax
>that you and others have been foisting on this group. From today's NYT:
>
>---
>Also today, the woman at the center of a charge, posted last week on the Web
>site of the Internet gossip columnist Matt Drudge, that Mr. Kerry had had an
>extramarital affair with her, came forward to deny the rumors. Mr. Kerry had
>also denied the charge last week.
>In a statement released by the woman, Alexandra Polier, and circulated by
>The Associated Press, she called the charge "lies."
>
>"Because these stories were false, I assumed the media would ignore them,"
>she said. "It seems that efforts to peddle these lies continue, so I feel
>compelled to address them. I have never had a relationship with Senator
>Kerry, and the rumors in the press are completely false. Whoever is
>spreading these rumors and allegations does not know me, but should know the
>pain they have caused me and my family." She said she was in Kenya today
>with her fiancé visiting his family.
>
>---
>

[Gary Drescher]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Gary
>
> Did you get this from Drudge? Seems to be word for word what I read
> there today?

No, as I said, it's from the NYT (New York Times). And as the excerpt
notes, Ms. Polier's statement was circulated by the AP (Associated Press),
so it's appeared almost everywhere.

> If you saw it on Drudge then he must be posting both sides of this cat
> fight and not just the 'right' as has been alleged.

No, that's not what's alleged of Drudge. What's alleged--and amply
demonstrated--is that he spreads right-wing gossip and rumors before ongoing
responsible investigations have found any credible substantiation.
Occasionally, the rumors turn out to be true, and Drudge's irresponsibility
then gives him a brief "scoop" over journalists who wait a few days longer
for the facts to be available. More often, as in this instance, the rumors
are bogus. But of course Drudge joins everyone else in airing the facts
when they do become available. What would he gain from omitting information
that his readers have already learned anyway?

The mainstream press is just as eager as Drudge to milk a salacious scandal.
The difference is that they at least wait until they've found some evidence.

--Gary

> Big John
>
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 21:12:04 GMT, "Gary Drescher"
> > wrote:
>
> >"Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> My apologies to all who feel put upon.
> >>
> >> There have been numerous 'off thread' postings on
> >> rec.aviation.piloting concerning Kerry and I felt this might level
> >> the playing field a little?
> >
> >Your scorekeeping is faulty, John. Virtually all the off-topic pro-Kerry
> >comments here were made to level the field in response to off-topic
> >anti-Kerry comments.
> >
> >As for balance, though, allow me to briefly counter the sex-scandal hoax
> >that you and others have been foisting on this group. From today's NYT:
> >
> >---
> >Also today, the woman at the center of a charge, posted last week on the
Web
> >site of the Internet gossip columnist Matt Drudge, that Mr. Kerry had had
an
> >extramarital affair with her, came forward to deny the rumors. Mr. Kerry
had
> >also denied the charge last week.
> >In a statement released by the woman, Alexandra Polier, and circulated by
> >The Associated Press, she called the charge "lies."
> >
> >"Because these stories were false, I assumed the media would ignore
them,"
> >she said. "It seems that efforts to peddle these lies continue, so I feel
> >compelled to address them. I have never had a relationship with Senator
> >Kerry, and the rumors in the press are completely false. Whoever is
> >spreading these rumors and allegations does not know me, but should know
the
> >pain they have caused me and my family." She said she was in Kenya today
> >with her fiancé visiting his family.
> >
> >---
> >
>

[John Gaquin]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>
> ...... From today's NYT:
>
> In a statement .... Alexandra Polier.... called the charge "lies."
>
> "Because these stories were false, I assumed the media would ignore them,"


Now, at the risk of sounding just a little cynical, do you seriously think
that anyone who has worked for a large media outlet would really believe
that? :-)

[John Gaquin]

"Big John" > wrote



What I find fascinating is to look at the quotes attributed to Ms Polier's
father as time has passed:
********************
Mr. Polier 2/14
"I think he's a sleazeball. I did kind of wonder if my daughter didn't get
that kind of feeling herself. He's not the sort of guy I would choose to be
with my daughter."

Mr. Polier 2/16
"We have spoken to our daughter and the allegations that have been made
regarding her are completely false and unsubstantiated...We appreciate the
way Senator Kerry has handled the situation, and intend on voting for him
for president of the United States."
***************************


What happened between Saturday and Monday??

[Gary Drescher]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Big John" > wrote
> What I find fascinating is to look at the quotes attributed to Ms Polier's
> father as time has passed:
> ********************
> Mr. Polier 2/14
> "I think he's a sleazeball. I did kind of wonder if my daughter didn't get
> that kind of feeling herself. He's not the sort of guy I would choose to
be
> with my daughter."
>
> Mr. Polier 2/16
> "We have spoken to our daughter and the allegations that have been made
> regarding her are completely false and unsubstantiated...We appreciate the
> way Senator Kerry has handled the situation, and intend on voting for him
> for president of the United States."
> ***************************
>
>
> What happened between Saturday and Monday??

What happened was a gross public distortion of the parents' remarks, to the
detriment of their daughter and to Kerry, which the parents presumably
regretted. But there's no inconsistency between the two statements. Lots
of voters consider all mainstream politicians to be sleazeballs, but will
still vote for the best of the lot.

The parents in fact denied any affair from the outset. They did say that
Kerry invited Ms. Polier *to join his campaign*, and the sleazier tabloids
quoted snippets out of context to make it sound like the parents had
knowledge of some sexual proposition. The trickery was obvious upon careful
reading, but the tabloids are (to put it charitably) not aimed at careful
readers.

--Gary

[Big John]

John

Do you think someone 'got' to him????

Remember, Mary Jo's family settled for a few hundred thousands and
........................??

Big John


On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:34:32 -0500, "John Gaquin"
> wrote:

>
>"Big John" > wrote
>
>
>
>What I find fascinating is to look at the quotes attributed to Ms Polier's
>father as time has passed:
>********************
>Mr. Polier 2/14
>"I think he's a sleazeball. I did kind of wonder if my daughter didn't get
>that kind of feeling herself. He's not the sort of guy I would choose to be
>with my daughter."
>
>Mr. Polier 2/16
>"We have spoken to our daughter and the allegations that have been made
>regarding her are completely false and unsubstantiated...We appreciate the
>way Senator Kerry has handled the situation, and intend on voting for him
>for president of the United States."
>***************************
>
>
>What happened between Saturday and Monday??
>

[John Gaquin]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
>
> .....The trickery was obvious upon careful
> reading,

Careful..... your pomposity is showing!

[again]

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> John
>
> Do you think someone 'got' to him????

Maybe it was Gary Condit?

>
> Remember, Mary Jo's family settled for a few hundred thousands and
> .......................??
>
> Big John
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:34:32 -0500, "John Gaquin"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Big John" > wrote
> >
> >
> >
> >What I find fascinating is to look at the quotes attributed to Ms
Polier's
> >father as time has passed:
> >********************
> >Mr. Polier 2/14
> >"I think he's a sleazeball. I did kind of wonder if my daughter didn't
get
> >that kind of feeling herself. He's not the sort of guy I would choose to
be
> >with my daughter."
> >
> >Mr. Polier 2/16
> >"We have spoken to our daughter and the allegations that have been made
> >regarding her are completely false and unsubstantiated...We appreciate
the
> >way Senator Kerry has handled the situation, and intend on voting for him
> >for president of the United States."
> >***************************
> >
> >
> >What happened between Saturday and Monday??
> >
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Big John" > wrote in message
> ...
> > John
> >
> > Do you think someone 'got' to him????
>
> Maybe it was Gary Condit?

Or some of Condit's Hells Angel friends.

> > Remember, Mary Jo's family settled for a few hundred thousands and
> > .......................??
> >
> > Big John
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 09:34:32 -0500, "John Gaquin"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Big John" > wrote
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >What I find fascinating is to look at the quotes attributed to Ms
> Polier's
> > >father as time has passed:
> > >********************
> > >Mr. Polier 2/14
> > >"I think he's a sleazeball. I did kind of wonder if my daughter didn't
> get
> > >that kind of feeling herself. He's not the sort of guy I would choose
to
> be
> > >with my daughter."
> > >
> > >Mr. Polier 2/16
> > >"We have spoken to our daughter and the allegations that have been made
> > >regarding her are completely false and unsubstantiated...We appreciate
> the
> > >way Senator Kerry has handled the situation, and intend on voting for
him
> > >for president of the United States."
> > >***************************
> > >
> > >
> > >What happened between Saturday and Monday??
> > >
> >
>
>

[Big John]

More on Kerry flying background.

Drill down and you will see where I have marked the para about his
flying activities and should put to rest his flying background which
has been questioned in this News Group. Doesn't mean he will support
GA but he has experience flying GA.

The rest of the article is also interesting reading, obliviously with
an anti Kerry thrust.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````.

Cash-and-Kerry, Part Two
By Lowell Ponte
FrontPageMagazine.com | January 28, 2004

PONTEFICATIONS

“AN AMERICA THAT BELONGS NOT TO THE PRIVILEGED,
not to the few, but to all Americans.” That was what the winner of the
New Hampshire Primary promised Tuesday night in his victory speech.

But, paradoxically, if Senator John Kerry becomes the Democratic
nominee and is elected this November, the White House for the next
four or eight years will belong to a man born to enormous wealth and
privilege.

Kerry as a boy was raised and educated mostly in Europe. He fluently
speaks, and thinks in, French. He preferred to marry wealthy women of
foreign orientation. He believes that the United Nations and its
permanent Security Council members such as France should have veto
power over what actions the United States may take to defend its
national security.



A Kerry presidency could therefore be tantamount to putting a
quasi-European aristocrat in control of the United States and
relinquishing to the United Nations a large measure of American
sovereignty.



In Kerry-merica, patrician privilege would rule, and ordinary
Americans and our Constitution would have less and less sovereign
power.



Is he the “Real Deal,” as Kerry calls himself, or would a John Kerry
presidency be a Dirty Deal, a Steal Deal for most Americans?



To glimpse this alternative future, we need to look deeper into John
Kerry’s double-dealing past.



Both Bill Clinton and John Kerry modeled their personal ambitions on
John F. Kennedy. Clinton imitated the womanizing, playboy JFK. Kerry
imitated the young JFK, born to privilege, who volunteered to seek
military glory in a PT boat.


************************************************** ****************************************
Kerry grew up in a world of luxury boats and had gone yachting with
John F. Kennedy. But his father had been a test pilot as well as a
sailor. He cut his young son’s teeth on flying, and Kerry loved to
pilot small airplanes. Despite this, when Vietnam beckoned, Kerry
signed up not for the Air Force but for the Navy to command small
“swift boats” that resembled PT-109 in the Mekong Delta.
************************************************** ******************************************


It was dangerous duty, bringing Kerry three wounds and three Purple
Hearts. For risking his life to rescue a Green Beret who had been
swept overboard amid enemy fire, Kerry was awarded the Bronze Star for
Valor (“for personal bravery”). Days before the 2004 Iowa Caucuses,
that now-Republican Special Forces soldier Jim Rassman traveled from
Oregon to Iowa to thank Kerry for saving his life.



For single-handedly going ashore after and killing an enemy soldier
who was armed with a loaded B-40 rocket launcher, Kerry was awarded
the Silver Star (“for gallantry”). Boston Globe reporter David Warsh
adduced evidence suggesting that this Viet Cong was alone, already
wounded, and might have been shot in the back by Kerry. Soldiers
serving under Lt. (Junior Grade) Kerry said Warsh was incorrect.



“I committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of others,”
said Kerry as an anti-war activist guest on NBC’s Meet the Press
(quoted in Brinkley’s book, page 362) after he returned stateside, “in
that I shot in free fire zones, fired .50-caliber machine [gun]
bullets, used harass-and-interdiction fire, joined in
search-and-destroy missions, and burned villages. All of these acts
are contrary to the laws of the Geneva Convention, and all were
ordered as written, established policies from the top down, and the
men who ordered this are war criminals.”



But Kerry was an officer in Vietnam who gave such orders to his men.
Kerry has therefore confessed to being a war criminal himself. Was he
saying that he was “merely following orders” from above, like a good
German? Or does he accept his share of legal and moral responsibility
for the illegal orders he said he gave? Either way, this is proof
that John Kerry is, by his own yardstick, unfit ever to be President
of the United States.



In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April
23, 1971, Kerry claimed under oath that American 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.”



He dramatically told reporters that such atrocities were the norm, not
rare exceptions, for U.S. soldier behavior. This Kerry false blood
libel against honorable soldiers gave protestors a kind of license to
protestors to attack, belittle and ridicule soldiers returning to
America.



But when Kerry became a Senator, using fame as his ladder to this
political office, he would do something far worse to our soldiers,
especially those held as prisoners of war.



For the record, some in the media recently echoed a website story
claiming that Kerry had killed 21 unarmed Vietnamese civilians during
the war. The author apparently confused Senator John Kerry with
now-retired war hero and Senator Bob Kerrey (D-Nebraska).



Kerrey, to quote the liberal magazine The American Prospect (TAP),
“had evidently ordered the wanton slaughter of 21 Vietnamese
civilians, including babies, at point-blank range,” then filed a
report claiming that all were Viet Cong. “That report,” wrote TAP
reporter Robert Dreyfuss, “was enough to win Kerrey a Bronze Star,
which he did not refuse.”



By contrast, John Kerry has told audiences that he “once refused a
direct order from a far-away commander to open fire on a group of
Vietnamese civilians standing alongside a riverbank in the Mekong,”
wrote unabashed Kerry supporter Joe Shea in the January 21, 2004,
issue of The American Reporter.



“When [Kerry] got back to base, facing the threat of a court martial,”
writes Shea, “he defended himself with a tattered copy of the Rules of
Engagement he kept handy in his hip pocket. He knew the rules, and he
won the day."



Put aside the fact that these Rules of Engagement were always
changing, and that many believe these often-bizarre and arbitrary
bureaucratic restrictions on where, when and how our troops could
fight were the reason America lost in Vietnam.



If we take Kerry’s story as true, we then face questions Shea
neglected to raise. Did not these rules that Kerry knew by heart also
require a soldier to report war crimes, or attempted war crimes, by
others? Did Kerry report this officer’s illegal order to kill
civilians to superiors? Or did Kerry remain silent, thereby becoming
this officer’s ally and enabler, if not accomplice?



If this story is true, then I hereby ask Senator Kerry to name the
officer who issued this illegal order and the officers before whom he
defended with that tattered rule book his refusal to obey it. Surely
a memory so indelible as to play a role in young Kerry’s anti-war
speeches can also recall the name of this officer who ordered him to
slaughter innocent civilians. (If 60-year-old Kerry’s memory is now
failing, of course, this is evidence that he may have lost the mental
acuity to be President.)



The same questions could be asked about all the other routine
atrocities young Kerry alleged before a Senate committee. If he had
firsthand knowledge from witnessing who did these illegal things, why
did Kerry fail to turn in the criminals in accord with the Rules of
Engagement? If he shielded those whose war crimes he witnessed, Kerry
is an accomplice after the fact to these atrocities.



On the other hand, if his knowledge was only secondhand gossip, rumor
or intoxicated tales told by bored soldiers around jungle campfires –
what the law calls hearsay evidence – then Kerry was reckless,
irresponsible and almost treasonous to make such outrageous claims
under oath before the Senate, the press and the American people.



A paradox worth remembering is that Kerry modeled himself on President
John F. Kennedy, the Commander-in-Chief who committed the first 17,000
armed troops into Vietnam. (Republican President Dwight Eisenhower
sent only unarmed advisors.) So when Kerry criticizes what happened
in Vietnam, and when on victory night in Iowa he embraced Ted Kennedy,
Kerry has been wrapped up in the legacy of the very Democratic
President who created the morass in Vietnam. Psychoanalysts have words
for such mental aberrations.



Like most Leftist Democrats, Cleopatra Kerry has a Queen of Denial
fixation with blaming Vietnam not on Democratic Presidents JFK or LBJ
but on Republican Richard Nixon, who did not become President until
1969 when JFK’s war had been entrenched for seven years.



Coming home, decorated Vietnam veteran John Kerry quickly pushed
himself into the spotlight of two anti-war activities funded by Jane
Fonda – Vietnam Veterans Against the War and the so-called Winter
Soldier Investigations.



If TV cameras were present, Kerry could be found staging events with
other veterans – such as throwing medals away in protest on the steps
of the Capitol. “This Administration forced us to return our medals,”
Kerry told reporters at this event. (It later turned out that Kerry
was throwing other peoples’ medals while keeping his own, an act of
deceit and phoniness typical of Kerry.)



Cartoonist Gary Trudeau caught Kerry’s inner essence perfectly in two
Doonesbury cartoons. “If you care about this country at all, you
better go listen to that John Kerry fellow,” a stranger lectures Mike
Doonesbury and B.D. in the October 21, 1971, strip. “He speaks with
rare eloquence and astonishing conviction. If you see no one else this
year, you must see John Kerry!”



The stranger departs, and B.D. asks “Who was that?” Mike responds:
“John Kerry.”



In the next day’s Doonesbury, we see Kerry giving a crowd-rousing
anti-war speech, at the end of which bubbles above his head reveal his
inner thoughts: “You’re really clicking tonight, you gorgeous
preppie.”



Back then Kerry apparently believed that being anti-war was his ticket
to fame, wealth and power. He expected to enter the holy city of
Washington, D.C., riding a Democratic donkey while the adoring masses
threw down palm branches before him.



(Kerry was dropped from Al Gore’s 2000 short list for Vice President
mostly because Kerry had voted against the successful Gulf War in
1991, a war Gore cut a political deal to support. But in 2004 Kerry
has been criticized by Democrats for voting, as Senators Hillary
Clinton and John Edwards did, to give President George W. Bush the
authority to go to war in Iraq.)



In 2004, ironically, an older Kerry with a fake patina of maturity is
trying to seize the White House by depicting himself as a war hero on
horseback who says we need more troops for Iraq and comes wearing the
Bronze and Silver Stars he once pretended to throw away.



This is worse than schizophrenia. The reality is that Kerry apparently
did fight bravely in Vietnam, but he then betrayed his fellow soldiers
in several ways. By supplying anti-war-propaganda ammunition to the
enemy, Kerry encouraged the North Vietnamese to keep fighting and
helped prolong the war.



Only God knows how many more Americans and Vietnamese died because of
Kerry’s ego-trip activism. Every time you visit that black memorial
with nearly 70,000 names in Washington, D.C., remember that some of
them died because John Kerry gave aid and comfort to the enemy in
order to advance his own celebrity, wealth and power.



Whenever Kerry now prates that the first duty of a Commander-in-Chief
is to protect the lives of our soldiers, this hypocrite should be spit
on by everyone present in remembrance of all the American soldiers
Kerry helped our enemies to kill.



Kerry apparently fancies himself a bridge between America and Vietnam,
between those who fought the war and those who fought against it, and
between the opposed worlds of Communism and Capitalism.



During the Clinton era, Kerry received an $8,000 campaign contribution
from notorious Democratic brown bag man Johnny Chung at a 1996 fund
raiser. That same year the Senator took $10,000, in exchange for which
Kerry arranged a high level meeting between Communist Chinese
intelligence operative Lieutenant Colonel Liu Chaoying, Johnny Chung
and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.



From Red China’s point of view, this SEC meeting apparently had
multiple purposes – including money to be made from creating Chinese
“front” companies on American stock exchanges, and the potential use
of such companies to transfer militarily-useful technologies and
hardware to Beijing.



Seen as a friend and ally by the Communist regime in Vietnam, Senator
Kerry knew that a huge lucrative prize might be within his grasp. As
they are today over Iran, giant multinational corporations have been
eager to sell goods and purchase resources in Vietnam. The Marxist
Vietnamese dictatorship has been eager to re-enter the world
marketplace, especially with its chief ally the Soviet Union gone. A
politician who restored links between Vietnam and America could gain
huge amounts of money in campaign contributions and other benefits.



What stood in the way of such a profitable thaw in U.S.-Vietnam
relations, Kerry knew, were the lack of human rights in Vietnam and
its apparent continued holding of many American prisoners of war
(POWs) and soldiers missing in action (MIAs) from the war.



To make these stumbling blocks disappear, Kerry in 1991 conjured a new
Senate Select Committee for POW/MIA Affairs with himself as chairman
and his legislative assistant Ms. Francis Zwenig as the committee’s
Chief of Staff. She would act as liaison to interested corporations
through their umbrella organization, the U.S./Vietnam Trade Council
(that she would later leave the committee to run).



“Zwenig, according to documents, coached the North Vietnamese to
concoct plausible stories on the fate of POW/MIAs in order to show
that Hanoi was cooperating to resolve the POW/MIA issue, a hurdle in
the diplomatic dance to lift the trade embargo and renew relations
with Vietnam,” writes Anthony Nguyen at the anti-communist website
VietPage.com.



“Senator Kerry,” Nguyen continues, “was caught on camera making a
promise to the North Vietnamese communists that he would ensure that
they weren’t embarrassed by their concocted stories.”



Senator Kerry also prevented a vote on the Vietnam Human Rights Act
(HR2833), which would have made lifting trade restrictions contingent
on Communist Vietnam restoring basic human rights. By stopping this
measure from becoming law, Kerry protected Marxist Vietnam from
pressure to free its slave society.



Through much manipulation and arm-twisting, Kerry persuaded his
now-defunct committee to vote unanimously that no POWs existed in
Vietnam. And with the disappearance of this and the proposed human
rights legislation, Kerry gave Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party
the pretext they needed to begin re-opening trade that could help keep
the Marxist Vietnamese dictatorship afloat. Those given first place in
line for such trade opportunities, of course, were the biggest
contributors to Democrats such as Senator Kerry and Bill Clinton.



The year after his committee’s vote to give Communist Vietnam a clean
bill of health, the strangest thing happened. In December 1992 Vietnam
signed its first huge commercial deal worth at least $905 million to
develop a deep-sea commercial port at Vung Tau to accommodate all the
trade that was to come. It signed the deal with a company called
Colliers International. At the time, the Chief Executive Officer of
this company was C. Stewart Forbes. Name sound familiar? It should. He
is Senator John F. Kerry’s cousin. What a coincidence!



Less widely noticed, when the Democratic Party decided to give Kerry a
leg up towards its presidential nomination by holding its 2004
National Convention in Boston, certain big corporations rushed to pony
up money for the Democratic event. One of the first of these rushing
to fill Democratic coffers was Spaulding & Slye Colliers, the current
corporate partnership involving Colliers International, which anted up
$100,000.



The Boston press sniffed at how this and other companies with business
pending before the Democrat-dominated city might be trying to curry
favor or satisfy politician demands for money.



But perhaps a more global agenda is at work behind the scenes. Money
is fungible, and part of the Vietnam millions channeled to Colliers
International can easily be inferred to be co-mingled in this $100,000
donation to the Democratic National Convention.



This July as you watch the red, white and blue balloons fall from that
Boston convention ceiling to celebrate the newly-selected Democratic
presidential nominee John F. Kerry, think of the red ones as being
purchased and used to seduce you by Communist Vietnam.



And if Kerry surprises the world by naming as his running mate Arizona
Republican John McCain, former POW and Kerry’s close friend and ally
in re-opening trade with Vietnam, remember on election day the
prisoners of war still in Vietnam who will never come home to their
families because they were betrayed by the politics of cash and Kerry.