VIETNAM VETERANS FOR ACADEMIC REFORM
The University of Kansas Student Auxiliary
V.V.A.R.: Leading the student revolt on campus against speech codes, political correctness, multiculturalism, gender feminism, dormitory re-education, lying about Vietnam, and other instruments of academic oppression.
Leonard Magruder - Founder/President
Former professor of psychology - Suffolk College, N.Y.
Member: National Association of Scholars
CONTACT: Magruder44@aol.com - Phone: 785-312-9303
MAGRUDER ON INTERNATIONAL RADIO PROPOSES INVASIONS, DESTRUCTION OF MECCA IF TERRORISTS STRIKE AGAIN
EXPOSES MEDIA COVER-UP OF VIETNAM VETERAN CAMPAIGN AGAINST KERRY.
OUTLINES OVERWHELMING BUSH STRENGTH OVER KERRY ON NATIONAL SECURITY.
By Leonard Magruder
March 14, 2004
Leonard Magruder, President of Vietnam Veterans for Academic Reform, the student auxiliary at the University of Kansas, was interviewed last night on the half-hour Geoff Metcalf syndicated national radio talk show, reaching not only the United States but Europe and Australia. Recent guests have included Pat Buchanan, Bernard Goldberg, David Horowitz, Bill O’Reilly, and John Stossel.
Mr. Magruder, whose new web site, www.v-v-a-r.org, has been receiving thousands of hits in recent days, and whose articles are being reproduced on sites such as NewsMax.com and WinterSoldier.com, said that while there was not enough time to get in all he wanted to say, he was able to get in the most important points: the need to add a mututally assured destruction plan to the Bush Doctrine, the media cover-up of Vietnam vets against Kerry, and the superiority of Bush over Kerry on national security. These issues are covered again in this article, which by fax and e-mail will also go out across the nation.
We note with interest the following remarks today by Dolph C. Simons Jr., Publisher of The Lawrence Journal-World:
“It is understandable that Democrats would like to have Americans think the economy and jobs are the most important challanges facing Americans today, but the fact remains, terrorism and the war on terrorism should still be our number one priority. If terrorists win the battle, the economy and jobs will be of far less importance.”
Could the terrorists win the battle? Yes, they could. Two nuclear devices could go off in the wastelands of Nevada. The President is then called and told there are fifteen more such devices in our fifteen largest cities. He will be told to surrender. It is going to take some pretty scary things to stop the terrorists but they must be done, as we discuss below. Meanwhile, Bush is far stronger on national security than Kerry, as we show in the following comparisons.
Kerry and National Security
Kerry, in his ’71 statement before Congress, which included wildly exaggerated descriptions of “atrocities,” also said things that suggest he didn’t seem to understand who the enemy was. He referred to the claim of Communist aggression as “mystical.” He said the war was a “civil war,” meaning between indigenous “freedom fighters” against an oppressive Saigon government being supported by the U.S. He said the U.S. was the “criminal element,” not the Communist North.
This sounds very much like the New Left and S.D.S. (Students for a Democratic Society) pro-Hanoi rhetoric of the 60’s. General George Patton III (U.S. Army, retired), a commander in Vietnam, said Kerry “gave aid and comfort to the enemy,” because his testimony gave encouragement to the enemy to keep fighting. Nor had Kerry changed his views sixteen years later. Speaking at Yale in 1987, he said U.S. policy in Vietnam was “tantamount to genocide” and on Meet the Press said our soldiers were guilty of “all kinds of atrocities” and branded America’s leaders as “war criminals.”
Here is how one Vietnam veteran feels about Kerry:
Chuck Lawrence, Vietnam vet and author, said, “Veterans for Kerry has a nice ring to it. It sounds like it shows solidarity amongst the veteran community. Yet, there is a huge divide growing related to the issue. Voting for a fellow veteran simply because he is a veteran is not good enough. The conduct by Kerry and his friends played a significant part and role in Vietnam veterans being ostracized by our society. Do we really want a president who organized and led anti-war and anti-American protests and demonstrations under the flag of the enemy we were fighting?”
But the media is not allowing any mention of this. The media and the university, having institutionalized the lies of the war protestors, (see Part 2) aren’t about to let the issue of the Vietnam War come up again. One writer said, “Most Americans would likely find Kerry’s past behavior regarding Vietnam important in their decision as to whether he should be president. But right now they have not been given this information. Another said, “The media have brushed off the issue as irrelevant or a pointless ‘re-fighting’ of the Vietnam War.”
Another said, “The conventional wisdom floating downstream from Washington is that Kerry’s anti-war radicalism following his return from Vietnam shouldn’t - and won’t be an issue in November.”
But here is what the media is hiding from the American people: there is a huge, mostly underground, controvery going on in which Vietnam vets are voting overwhelmingly that they don’t want Kerry as Commander-in-Chief, and they are the ones who would be expected to know most about war. Wintersoldier.com is running 96% against, Wall Street Journal letters are running 66%, a San Diego editor reports 100 to 1 against, a major Texas veteran leader reports 99% against in his area, another, 1000 to 4 in his area. A major talk show host reports, “The vast majority of those calling in are against.”
This election may well hinge on whether the media helps to raise these questions or are they again, like they did in the case of the Tet Offensive, going to rob the American people of the ability to make critical judgments about their most vital security interests in a time of war?
Kerry was one of the strongest critics of the policy of Ronald Reagan of military resistance to Communist inroads in this hemisphere. He lent his name to aid Communist guerrillas in El Salvador and was a vigorous opponent of the anti-Communist Contras in Nicaragua.
In a foreign policy address last December, Kerry pledged that if elected he will abandon the President’s war on terror, begin a dialogue with the terrorist regimes, and take the first 100 days to travel the world to apologize for the Bush administration.
In the South Carolina debate, Kerry said that the threat of terrorism has been “exaggerated.” An e-mail sent overseas by Kerry ended up on the front page of the anti-American Iranian newspaper, Tehran Times. This totalitarian regime was ecstatic over what they interpreted as support. The president of the student pro-democracy movement in Iran said, “Kerry’s statement smacks of lunacy.” He immediately wrote Kerry, “You have given them credibility, comfort and embraced this odious theocracy. You have encouraged a tyrannical regime to declare open season on the freedom fighters in Iran.”
If Kerry is elected president, the new first lady will have a track record of support for the causes of many radical, anti-American groups. One of her favorite charities is the Tides Foundation, which supports a number of far-left groups such as The War Resisters League, Ramsey Clark’s International Action Center, ANSWER, United for Peace and Justice, and also the Council for American Islamic Relations, which has links to the terrorist group Hamas. On his website Kerry says he wants the U.S. to work with the United Nations to secure a lasting peace so that “the conditions that gave rise to the terrorist threat can never recur.” This statement reveals Kerry’s ignorance regarding terrorism. The “conditions” are the “Sword Verses” in the Koran calling for violence. “Never recur” is not possible. Jihad is forever, unless the terrorists succeed in converting the whole world to Islam.
Kerry’s voting record on defense is appalling. He voted against the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, the Apache helicopter, the Patriot missile, the F-15, the F-14, the Harrier jet, and the Aegis air defense cruiser. The Boston Globe reported he advocated cuts in other systems, including the Bradley vehicle, the Abrams tank, and Tomahawk missile programs, all critical to U.S. military success.
Conclusion:
Someone wrote recently: “While Kerry’s many votes against weapons systems are a definite vulnerability, this may be offset by the fact that his personal record of bravery as a decorated hero of Vietnam gives him credibility on the national security issue.”
We honor Kerry’s service in Vietnam. But bravery shown in war, shown also by tens of thousands of others in Vietnam, is no guarantee of “credibility on national security issues.” No president has to go out with an M-16 and shoot enemies personally. What counts in this area of national security is the method one uses to handle conflict, and Kerry has a long history of favoring negotiation, dialogue, compromise, and even appeasement, the typical tools of a liberal, 20th century diplomat in dealing with reasonably civilized nations, but useless in light of 9/11 and an enemy that has repeatedly said:
“We will offer no chance for America to come to an agreement with the righteous warriors, no possibility for compromise, no hope for a treaty, no attempt for solution. The war will be waged until the United States remains a memory.”
Bush and National Security
Immediately after 9/11 George Bush had figured out the full implications of what had happened, and announced the Bush Doctrine, which contains three major components: pre-emptive strike, unilateral action, the statement that any nation that harbors terrorists is a terrorist nation.
The doctrine of pre-emptive strike says we will monitor any nation that shows an unusual interest in any nuclear or other weapon of mass destruction, and if it reaches the point in development where we think it poses a threat to the U.S., we will strike first. There is an inevitable element of probability involved because it all rests on intelligence gathering and that can be of various degrees of accuracy. In the case some years ago of the Bojinka plot, very good intelligence enabled authorities to stop a plot just in time by al-Queda to destroy 11 planes simultaneously in flight over the Pacific. In the case of Iraq, the probability of the intelligence being predictive was apparently low. But this is the inevitable risk in any pre-emptive approach.
The unilateral part simply says, we may or may not have allies, but in the final analysis we reserve the right to strike alone. In some cases there may be no time to consult allies. These two components flow with impeccable logic from the nature of the terrrorist threat. If someone is going to sneak up on you with a nuclear device, you must strike first, and if necessary, alone. There is no alternative. From the Kerry website,”On December 3 Kerry laid out a roadmap to reverse the damage to U.S. security and leadership caused by President Bush’s flawed policies of unilateralism and pre-emptive war.” Kerry must stop trying to lead the public into thinking he has a better alternative to the Bush Doctrine; it is not logically possible.
Now, a great job is being done by our various agencies tracking down and eliminating threats by terrrorists. But America’s war on terrorism has one vulnerability. While we are catching some, others are free to do damage.
The element that must be added to the Bush Doctrine is one based on the conditional idea, “If you do that, we will do this.” It is a variation on the old policy we had in the Cold War with Russia, mutually assured destruction, or MAD. That is, “If you attack Washington, our armies in Iraq, under that part of the Bush doctrine that says a nation that harbors terrorists is a terrorist nation, will invade Syria, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or all three. All the armies of the civilized or non-Muslim world should be a part of this, a great show of international force to show the terrorists they cannot succeed.Terrorists strike in the name of expanding the territory of Islam for the glory of Allah, converting, enslaving, or executing infidels. If they know that we will strike back and take half of Islamic territory each time, then they have no mission, no service to Allah.
But there is one other part to this plan, one that will make us uncomfortable, even fearful, but is absolutely necessary if we wish to stop the terrorists. At the same moment of ordering invasions, we will give the residents of Mecca 24 hours to evacuate the city as we will be destroying it with a nuclear bomb. This idea comes from a new and widely advertised book, America’s Answer, by J.Patrick Griffin Jr. He calls this striking at the psychological “generative core” of the terrorist movement, doing what they never imagined in their worst moment that we would do, hampered, as they see us, by our Western values. Yet it was something like this, at Hiroshima, that ended the war with Japan by destroying the myth that Hirohito was a god and would bring Japan inevitable victory. Nobody, not even bin-Laden, thought the Twin Towers would fall. Everyone assumed the buildings would be badly damaged, but not fall. When they did, this was taken by bin-Laden as unquestionable proof that Allah was going to deliver America into his hands. Striking at Mecca will end that delusion. We are a superpower - THE superpower. We must use that power to end this threat to the world now, or live with it for decades to come during which time there will be successes by the terrorists. They will get through on occasions and destroy our cities one by one. After their first success, the loss of our first city to a nuclear device, the outcry for retaliation will be so terrible, why not put this threat in place now, in hopes of averting even that one?
We were thrilled by the 11 million Spaniards who rose up in outcry against the bombings in Madrid, shouting “assassins.” The whole civilized world should be doing this, crying out their revulsion against these Islamic thugs, these mass murderers of women and children. The media should be showing films on the horrors of Islam and its Sharia law every night. Universities should stop teaching sugary nonsense about Islam and start telling students the truth.
Maybe it is time to remind ourselves of what bin -Laden said in his “Declaration of War” on Febrruary 23, 1998:
“We, with God’s help, call on every Muslim who believes in God and wishes to be rewarded to comply with God’s order to kill the Americans and plunder their money...divide their nation, tear them to shreds, destroy their economy, burn their companies, ruin their welfare, sink their ships, and kill them on land, sea, and air...May Allah torture them by your hands. In compliance with God’s order we issue the following to all Muslims. The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies - civilians - and military - is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible.”
What does Al Qaeda want to do? They want to kill you.
Kerry, in his speech to the Council on Foreign Policy pledged that if elected he will abandon the President’s war on terrorism and begin a dialogue with the terrorists.
A vote for Kerry is a vote for national suicide.
This article may be reproduced in any form.
Founder/President, V.V.A.R.
Phone: 785-312-9303
Website design and management courtesy of Annette R. Hall. Hosted by www.i-served.com.