JFK (Kerry) and his VVAW Involvement

[Walter]

John Kerry was a member of Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Vietmam Veterans Against the War was founded in 1967 and, at the height of its effectiveness in the late 1960s, claimed over 40,000 members. VVAW participated in and organized antiwar demonstrations, public education efforts, militant actions, and public hearings.

VVAW still exists today. The VVAW today is quite different from the VVAW of the 1960s, but still maintains an active presence as a veterans' peace organization.

As the number of American soldiers in Vietnam decreased in the early 1970s, membership in the VVAW (along with antiwar activism in general) waned. In the mid-1970s the shrinking VVAW was riven by a struggle between radical and liberal members.

After a contested election in 1978 and a lawsuit between feuding parties, the energies of both sides were diminished. The liberal wing won the right to use the VVAW name, and the much smaller radical Marxist wing was granted the appellation VVAW-AI (Anti-Imperialist).

According to the VVAW's website VVAW-AI is front to the "ultra-left sect called the Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) and is designed to pimp off of VVAW's history of struggle. "

(click here) Vietnam Veterans Against The War

The Revolutionary Communist Party (RCP) is a violent Maoist orginization who seeks to overthrow the United States government thru armed confrontation and terrorism. See their Draft Program here.

Considering a great deal of the original members of the VVAW were also members of the RCP prior to the orginizational split, it would only be logical to ask if John Kerry has ever been a member of, or has had any affiliation with the RCP.

With the intense scrutiny over President Bush's Air National Guard record created by Kerry's "AWOL" comments, I'm confident that the press will give equal time investigating the possible connection to violent communist orginizations and John Kerry.

I will not be holding my breath.

[Nubian]

Do you really think that Kerry is a commie? Generalizations are convenient escapes for the week minded. Yes, all of them :-)

I think that everyone who has seen the ugly side of war hates it. I personally think Kerry, like many patriots at that time, was trying to find a stong voice to the conflicting convictions he had at the time; loving his country and objecting to the war.

Perhaps he could have found a better way to voice his concerns. who knows.

I think what is important is what his convictions are right now and what he tends to do about them. There are sceletons in every closet. Some are exusable some are not. I think that this one is understandable given the circumstances.

N

[Walter]

John Kerry Has A Lot To Answer For. Is This The Guy You Want As Your President?

The Tehran Times recently published a John Kerry campaign letter: Kerry Says He Will Repair Damage If He Wins Election. Quoting the letter:

It is in the urgent interests of the people of the United States to restore our country's credibility in the eyes of the world. America needs the kind of leadership that will repair alliances with countries on every continent that have been so damaged in the past few years, as well as build new friendships and overcome tensions with others.

We are convinced that John Kerry is the candidate best qualified to meet this challenge. Senator Kerry has the diplomatic skill and temperament as well as a lifetime of accomplishments in field of international affairs. He believes that collaboration with other countries is crucial to efforts to win the war on terror and make America safer.

The Tehran Times did not include the list of the letter's signers, which can be seen at the Kerry Web site: Letter for Democrats Abroad. While there may some doubt as to who sent what to whom and why, what is clear is that the theocratic Iranian regime approved of the letter and its publication. And considering Kerry's approach to foreign policy, there's also no doubt that the mullahs would prefer Kerry over George "Axis of Evil" Bush.

In a 1970 interview, Kerry referred to himself as an "internationalist" and said, "I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations."

Kerry has since softened his language a bit, but his position today appears to be essentially the same. In his December 2003 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, Kerry claimed that he "will not cede our security to any nation or institution." Yet throughout the speech he repeatedly invokes the United Nations and advocates "collective action," "international sanction," a "new era of alliances," and rejoining the "community of nations." In contrast, he criticizes President Bush for being "unilateral," "imperial" and "intoxicated" with American power.

Ultimately he declares: "I will treat the United Nations as a full partner -- not only in the war on terror, but in combating other common enemies like AIDS and global poverty."

A "full partner"? So much for not ceding our security to any nation or institution.

In regard to Iran, a country even our appeasing State Department ranks as the world's worst sponsor of terrorism, Kerry said:

[T]he Bush Administration stubbornly refuses to conduct a realistic, non-confrontational policy with Iran even where that may be possible. As President, I will be prepared early-on to explore areas of mutual interest with Iran, just as I was prepared to normalize relations with Vietnam a decade ago.

Lest we forget what kind of regime Kerry proposes being "non-confrontational" with, WorldNetDaily reports: Iran hosting global terrorist conference.

Just as the U.S. State Department approves wider contact with Iran and as members of Congress begin planning the first official trips in 25 years, Tehran is sponsoring a 10-day conference of major terrorist organization beginning [this] week.

The purpose of the conference is to discuss anti-U.S. strategy. Among the groups headed to Iran to participate are: Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and al-Qaida allies Ansar Al Islam.

Yesterday marked the 25th anniversary of Iran's Khomeinist revolution. A short history of its reign of terror is contained in Amir Taheri's op-ed, Tehran Tyranny's 25th. (Via 'Free Iran' News)

Khomeinism, a form of fascism, was, and remains, a consistent political doctrine. [...] [Today's ruling] Khomeinists sincerely believe that a woman is half as valuable as a man and that she should cover her hair because it emanates rays that drive men wild with lust. They genuinely believe that men who shave their beards will go to hell. They regard the West as a civilization in decline, and its values, including human rights and democracy, as decadent.

Their strategic goal is to destroy Western-dominated civilization and replace it with a better, Islamic, one. They dream of wiping Israel off the map and, one day, hoisting their flag of faith atop the White House.

For the Iranian theocracy and the terrorists it supports, the choice for the next American president is no contest: John "Non-Confrontational" Kerry.

Allah pointed us to this detailed analysis of Iranian machinations: Between the Potomac and the Euphrates, by Jonathan Ariel of Ma’ariv International.