I haven't seen this discussed anywhere else, but am I the only one who thinks it's significant that John Kerry couldn't remain faithful to his first wife? Some people like to make a big deal about the "sanctity of marriage" with regards to gay marriage, but isn't Mr. Kerry's divorce in 1988 (after six years of separation) relevant to the same issue? What's more, the circumstances aren't particularly flattering for Mr. Kerry.
Most people seem to think Mr. Kerry's carousing in the 1980s isn't important, but for most of the decade he was still married.
During the period the Kerrys were separated, for instance, the senator apparently felt little constrained by his marital vows. Gossip columns at the time linked him to Morgan Fairchild, Cornelia Guest and even President Reagan's liberal daughter, Patti Davis. An upcoming Boston Globe expose will reportedly feature details of the Massachusetts Democrat's 1980s affair with a 25-year-old British reporter.The epidemic of divorce in America (and around the world) absolutely dwarfs any threat posed to the sanctity of marriage by homosexuals.According to a previous account offered by the paper, the fact that Kerry was still technically married till 1988 "reportedly came as a surprise to some of his frequent companions."
If John Kerry couldn't keep the vows he made to his first wife, why does anyone think he'll make a trustworthy president? He hasn't done anything to acknowledge the divorce was wrong -- and I doubt he thinks it -- so there's no possibility that he's changed his mind over the years about the seriousness of keeping his word.
No one talks about it, of course, because the majority of marriages fail and no one wants to denounce a failure committed by so many people. There aren't many people with moral authority on this issue, which goes straight to the heart of the matter, doesn't it? Everyone does it, so there's plenty of incentive for everyone to treat divorce lightly, as if it's of no consequence.
I think it's despicable and disgusting.
Update:
Rev. Sensing points out in the comments that the divorce rate isn't 50%, and he's right, although it's close. Here are some statistics I gathered last year on marriage and divorce that break the divorce rate down into various groupings.
1. Median duration of marriage (1997): 7.2 yearsFurther, SS from Seldom Sober points to stats that show the divorce rate dropping.
2. Likelihood of new marriages ending in divorce in 1997: 43%
3. Adults between 25 and 34 years old never married in 1998: 14 million (35%)
4. Percentage of population (by area of US) who had never married in 1999: Midwest: 28%, Northeast: 28%, South: 26%, West: 29%
5. People (by gender) 15 years of age and over who have never married: Males: 32,253,000 (31.3% of men), Females: 27,763,000 (25.1% of women)
6. Median age at first marriage: Males: 26.8, Females: 25.1
7. Average age of marriage [first marriage and later] in 1997: Males: 28.7, Females: 25.9
8. Percentage of people that married under the age of 20 who eventually get divorced as of 1995: 40%
9. Percentage of people that married over the age of 25 who eventually get divorced as of 1995: 24%
10. Percentage of women whose parents were divorced who get divorced within 10 years as of 1995: 43%
11. Percentage of women whose parents stayed together who get divorced within 10 years as of 1995: 29%
12. In 1996, children of divorce were 50% more likely than their counterparts from intact families to divorce.
13. Fatherless homes account for 63% of youth suicides, 90% of homeless/runaway children, 85% of children with behavior problems, 71% of high school dropouts, 85% of youths in prison, well over 50% of teen mothers.
Since 1990:That link has more info on how divorce rates are determined and how predictions are made. The standard "50% of marriages will end in divorce" meme comes from the Census Bureau and was reaffirmed in 2002.
1991, 0.47%
1992, 0.48%
1993, 0.46%
1994, 0.46%
1995, 0.46%
1995, 0.43%
1997, 0.43%,
1998, 0.42%,
1999, 0.41%,
2000, 0.41%,
2001, 0.40%
My own prediction is that as baby boomers age and die the divorce rate will continue to drop. I predict that we Millennials will be more faithful to each other than our parents were. (Plus, fewer people may get married which could improve the divorce rate, depending on selection factors.)
Michael, the majority of marriages do not fail. The old saw that half (I heard on the radio this week, two-thirds) of marriages end in divorce is just bunk.
According to a Gallup survey a few years ago, each year about 10 percent of existing marriages end, but seven of the 10 end because a spouse died. Only three percent of marriages that end, end because of divorce.
I'll try to dig up the cite.
I've always preferred the greek (really just teleological) notion that all men know what virtue is by virtue of being human — whether they follow it or not — and so all men, even the worst sinners, have the moral authority to approve of virtue and to denounce sin.
It's a pity that we live in a world which considers it better to be consistently wrong than inconsistently right.
Worse, though, is how can one come by the moral authority to denounce divorce? No man can live his entire life married without getting divorced, and then speak out against divorce. In order to have proved his virtue, he will have to wait until after he is dead. Only sinners or those who might turn out to be sinners can possibly speak out against divorce.
Reverend Sensing,
The math may still work out, since you're quoting a yearly figure and Michael was quoting a lifetime-of-marriage figure. To give a super-simple and nearly useless example, if there are never any new marriages, and every year 3% of marriages fail in divorce (and everyone lives forever), then after 23 years half of the people would have been divorced. This gets far more complicated because there are new marriages, of course.
What I think might be a more interesting number is what percentage of the population (over, say, 20) has been divorced at least once?
Loads of info on the subject here: http://www.divorcereform.org/rates.html
I applaud you for bringing this story to the fore though, unfortunately, what you say is right. So many people have done it everyone's hesitant to bring it up as a moral issue. Faithfulness and integrity in a personal relationship bear heavily on a man's public actions. The old adage(s) "Charity(justice, peace, honesty, etc .. . ) begins at home" is true and conveniently forgotten when issues like this come up.
I'm posting an update with some statistics, and Rev. Sensing appears to be right: the divorce rate isn't quite 50%, but it's still pretty high. Further, it appears to be dropping.
I would quibble with the implication that getting divorced means that one isn't trustworthy. Each of my parents had a prior marriage which ended in divorce. They've been happily married to each other for thirty-six years now and I have every expectation they will remain so until death does them part. Neither of them considers their divorce to have been an error.
The statistic I'd be interested in seeing is what percentage of divorces occur early in marriage. Divorces that occur within the first year or two of marriage could just be a sign that the couple realizes they made a mistake. I have less sympathy for divorces when the couple has been married a long time.
(FWIW, my wife and I have been married for 7 years now and are still going strong. My paternal grandparents' marriage lasted over 75 years, until my grandfather died at the age of 99 and a half. I can only hope my marriage lasts so long.)
KH: I think the problem is that, as you say, too many marriages as based on hoping it will last rather than a real understanding that "till death do us part" should be taken literally.
My parents are divorced too. It doesn't make them any worse people than anyone else, but unless there's abuse or infidelity I don't think there's any good cause for divorce. Even in cases of infidelity the couple should make every effort to stay together.
I wouldn't want to say that it's divorce per se that makes a man predominantly untrustworthy. In Kerry's case it is his sleeping around prior to the divorce (essentially adultery) that I think calls his honor into question.
SS: Divorce doesn't make a man untrustworthy, but only men who are not worthy of trust divorce their wives for inconsequential reasons.
Well said.
A minor clarification: when I said I can "only hope" that my marriage lasts as long as my paternal grandfather's, I was really referring to the likelihood that I'll die too soon. I'm currently 33, and have been married for 7 years, so to reach my 75th anniversary I'd have to live to be 101. There's a pretty good chance that won't happen, no matter how strongly committed I am to maintaining my marriage.
I get the sense that many people get married for inconsequential reasons, or simply because they think they're "supposed" to. A marriage is much more likely to last if the couple puts serious thought into understanding their motives before they tie the knot. If their mutual commitment wasn't well founded in the first place, it's unlikely they'll be motivated to work through the inevitable rough patches.
KH: Oh I see, yes :) And I completely agree about people not understanding marriage when they first get into it.
Neither Ronald Reagan nor Bob Dole offered much on the way of their divorces, either. I think your piece on Kerry is rather petty.
JT: I actually didn't remember that they were divorced (I think I knew, at some point). Newt Gingrich too, right?
Anyway, the point is that most of our politicians just aren't very exemplary people. It's sad.
I'm sorry if you think divorce is a petty issue of no importance, but I don't. Divorce cuts right to the heart of a person's integrity, and integrity is important for everyone, especially leaders.
Michael,
I considered your approach to the issue of divorce in a presidential campaign to be petty, not the topic of divorce itself.
There's nothing wrong with taking someone's divorce into account in assessing their fitness for office, just as it is legimate to look at someone failing in business (Truman) or attending a segregated church (Carter) or claiming that Eastern Europe was free (Ford) or shooting the bird at the audience (Rockefeller). But I'm npt usually going to assess a person's entire character by one personal failure.
I've witnessed the destruction of divorce too many times to take the matter lightly. However, I don't see the necessity of a person doing a public mea culpa for every significant personal failing before they can earn my vote.
For me, one of the least trustworthy figures was Richard Nixon, married faithfully to one wife.
JT: Yeah, but just imagine how much better government could be if it were led by people with integrity! The fact that all those politicians were so morally pathetic only strengthens my point.
Of course, people will often disagree on who is moral and who isn't. For me, Jimmy Carter was one of the most moral and ethical men to ever inhabit the White House.
JT: That's what I've heard, but I wasn't alive at the time. And he wasn't that great of a president.
Huh, maybe we do need immoral scumbags to run this country.
I think Mr. Bush has shown great restraint in NOT mentioning Kerry's unfaithful ways. You had better believe if the situations were reversed, the President's name would be dragged through the mud, and the accusations would fly, even if there were no basis for them.
Since Kerry is a Catholic and they do not believe in divorce, was his marriage annulled so he could marry a second time, or was he married outside the Catholic Church? I read that he has been counseled by the Church not to take communion as long as his views about abortion differ with his church. Comment please.
Granny: The article indicates that Kerry applied for an annullment, but doesn't say whether or not he got one.
Oh Michael,
We have so much to learn. My recommendation is stratify that which is most dear to you. Do you support a candidate who has gone through an unfortunate divorce?...OR...support a candidate who prefers your brother die for yet another of his lies? One whose always had religion, or one whose newly found christianity is his only defense to his catastrophic sins?
1st of all, quit the "high-and-mighty" routine over divorce, you sound like a preacher, and we all know what they do to the altar boys...
2nd-ly, if your going to dump on Kerry for dating while separated during the 80's, then at least bring up the fact that Bush was a raging coke-head during this timeframe.
So what's worse, letting a marriage drag out when it's really over and life has moved on? or having a straw permanently attached to your nose?
Brock: Perhaps you have much to learn; speak for yourself, not me.
Gordon: 1. Uh...? I sound as if I belong to a group of people, some of whom have molested children? Besides, it's not even "preachers" who generally appear to abuse children, it's Catholic priests.
2. The obvious difference is, of course, that Bush has repudated his past actions, while Kerry has not.
3. Or perhaps, worse than either of those, it's worse to be completely irrational and unable to form a cogent argument?
The very rich have always behaved differently from those of normal means, with a tendency toward various forms of polygamy.
Hollywood/New York Celebrity behavior reflects the influence of homosexuals on that segment of the heterosexual population, providing evidence that there is indeed a slippery slope. Brittany Spears is an argument _against_ gay marriage.
too bad Reagan could not keep his vows in tact either.
If someone's wife criticizes him in public then all bets are off. Also, to me separated is a temporary state and if they are separated for some time, then it falls between not living together and divorced. Things are O V E R after about a year and both can date in my opinion. I think they even call it legal separation instead of "married." Fine by me.
CW
The man got a divorce. who cares? Our current president has killed almost 900 young people in his little white lies. In his other little white lies he has pulled us from treaties to protect the envoirment.
Frankly I don't care if the democrats Next canidate had sex with animals as long as he did what was right for this country.
My children will be paying for the mistakes made in the last three years.
Average income dropped 10 percent for the country.
I hate to be rude but the divorce thing is nonsense.
When we are judged, I hope the court isn't as rude and unforgiving as what I have seen here this evening. If it is many of you have a long slow burn ahead of you.
Just replace "John Kerry" with "Ronald Reagan" (who was one of the "Hollywood Elite" to boot)
President Ronald Reagan was also a "DIVORCED" president, and NO one made a fuss about that. I think that what is important is that his second marriage to Nancy Davis has endured the test of time. The same standard should be applied to John Kerry and to Teresa Heinz Kerry.
Personal attacks like comments about John Kerry's divorce have no place in politics.
I'm glad that Bush has taken the high road and not gotten into John Kerry's personal life. Kerry needs to be a bit more open about it, however, instead of pretending that every thing is wonderful. I think Teresa is still in love with her first husband and is with Kerry for companionship and fame.
It's always interesting when a topic heats up again after more than a month of inactivity.
Blah, Blah, Blah. Get off your high and mighty soapbox and take a look at the current President. I think if you look into his past you will find drug use and alcohol abuse. Not to mention his current bags of lies that have cost hundreds of young American lives.
There are two similar axioms which seem to apply to this situation:
Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones
And...
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
It's not right to denounce anyone for what you perceive as a moral failing. If you believe in God, then you should not deign to sit in judgement. And important to remember that the man who occupies the whitehouse is still a man (human). I do not plan to elect a saint, merely a man capable of leading my country.
I believe in forgiveness. I believe in John Kerry, and I believe in Bye Bye Bush!!
I believe in forgiveness. I believe in John Kerry, and I believe in Bye Bye Bush!!
"http://www.rudolfmusic.com/byebyebush.htm"
Bush was an alcoholic, Laura had a traffic accident. Why did Condi have a slip of the tongue and refer to Bush as "her husb...."Lying and sending young men into an unneccessary war is worse than getting a divorce. Giving contracts to Halliburton (with no bidding by other companies) is worse than getting a divorce. Not wanting to set up the 9/11 commission and then giving in to pressure is a flip flop and worse than getting a divorce. Not wanting to have European countries in Irak and then changing and wanting back up is a flip flop and worse than getting a divorce. And don't give me s... about how many allies we have in Irak, these are by small countries with very small contingents. Covering up Abu Graibh (sp?) is worse than getting a divorce. Posing on an aircraft carrier in a flight suit (with no flying experience) taking a break from military service to help in campaigning (how many ordinary people get a break from military duty) is worse than posing in a mandatory suit AND worse than getting a divorce. Shall I go on??? Or do y'll get the picture???
Let's just remember one thing here... if you have the right, then get out there and VOTE! Too many people have the opinion, "My vote won't count", "One vote doesn't matter". Sadly, they are wrong! Everyone's vote does count and does matter.
Four years ago, I was embarrassed to say that I live in Florida. There were too many irregularities in our election process and sadly, there are more today. We have gone to an electronic, touch-screen machine which has no
paper backup. So, there will be no chads; hanging, dimpled or other variety. Is this right or fair, NO. Did our Governor, Jeb Bush, play a role in this new technology for our state? What do you think?
Instead of spending time, money and energy on Cuba, campaigning for his big brother and other issues, shouldn't polling issues have become first and foremost after such a disgrace?
Ensuring that we have a safe and secure method of making sure that our Constitutional rights are enforced should have been the first order of
business after January 2001. Unfortunately, it was not. Making sure that the elderly have reliable TRANSPORTATION to polling centers, making sure that voters are allowed to ENTER polling centers, making sure that there is a
reliable method of counting the votes cast will be something we should ALL work on together to make sure happens this November.
Thanks for this forum,
Donna
Wow, this thread sure has gotten amusing.
DRL: Since when is it the government's job to arrange transportation for people to polling places? And why in the world is it a bad thing to eliminate chads?
JB: I don't get the picture, no. What are you trying to say? That Kerry's divorce is on par with the war in Irak?
Does anyone know how John Kerry has treated the mother of his children since the failure of that marriage?
A FEW OBSERVATIONS:
It's IraQ not IraK.
HALLIBURTON CONTRACTS
Neither the President or Vice President has the ability (or authority) to "hand" Halliburton contracts. It's laughable how anti-Bush partisans trot out the Halliburton fairy tale with no supporting facts or knowledge of government procurement. All contracts are done through the GSA (General Services Adminstration) that has several layers of accountablity and does not report to the administration. With the advent of the Freedom of Information Act all the details of every government transaction is available to the public. Funny, these morons make accusations based on hearsay or their own opinion or belief, doing no research and providing no FIRST HAND substantiating evidence.
BUSH DRUG USE
Similar partisan anti-Bush conjecture. Show us the FIRST HAND facts smart ass. You have none and if any existed Moveon.org and Michael Moore would be plastering it all over the media. Shut up stupid, your partisan B.S. only makes you look like a moron.
KERRY'S DIVORCE / PHLANDERING
Like his liberal Senate voting record, this is a topic he would like to distance himself from.
KERRY'S VIETNAM RECORD
Kerry lands in Vietnam December 1968, movie camera in hand. He got assigned to a SWIFT boat thinking it was a safe assignment, unlucky for him two weeks after he's onboard the mission gets changed and the SWIFT's are assigned to more hazardous duty. Kerry puts himself in for three purple hearts for injuries that were all treated on an outpatient basis and caused no time off duty. Contrast that to Max Cleland with two missing legs and no purple heart! A little ironic. Kerry's big heroic moment was when he beached his boat (rendering the twin 50's unusable for supression fire - guess he though it was a tank), jumped off the craft (against Navy policy for a boat commander to leave the ship in combat) and chased down an enemy soldier already shot in the legs who, didn't fire on his boat and was just trying to get away with his life - big hero Kerry proceeds to shoot the wounded soldier in the back with his M-16. Real bravery. His C.O. George Elliot stated in the record he was torn between a cort martial and a citation. Then in March Kerry using his three (a magic number as questionable purple hearts requests transfer out of Vietnam (he asked for a cushy job back in Mass.) having only served 4 MONTHS OF HIS 1 YEAR ASSIGNMENT. As soon as he gets back to the states he applies for a discharge to run for congress, getting out of the Navy 6 months early (who pulled those strings?). Kerry immediately starts protesting the war (confessing to his participation in war crimes which he was never tried for) and taking an anti-war stance that provided lots of publicity for his congressional run in a ultra liberal anti war state. I and many others believe the entire event was a contrived series of events to get Kerry into office with a backround as a liberal war hero - a label he continues to use to this day. I will give him this, he did serve unlike Clinton who hid out in Europe.
FLORIDA ELECTIONS
The Govenor has no jurisdiction over elections. Electon rule is established by the Legislature (which is Democratically controlled in Fla.) and executed by the Secretary of State (which is currently Glenda Hood former mayor of Orlando) under federal oversight. The record is available to anyone willing to do the research - which is never the partisans who concoct "conspiracy" theories.
BUSH FLIP FLOP ON INVOLVING OTHER COUNTRIES
Anti Bush partisans seem to have amnesia when it comes to the fact that Bush went to the U.N. twice asking for their participation which was rejected by S.C. members France and Germany who both (especially France) had been making illegal deals with Saddam and had billions in sweet oil deals (especially Fina-France) they didn't want to lose. The French and Russians also didn't want to let it be known they had been violating the U.N. sanctions by selling arms to Iraq. Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfield and Rice all conducted an extensive campaign to enlist support from the start - this didn't change as Johanna charges. Over 30 countries joined us in the effort and the entire U.N. agreed Iraq was guilty of violating sanctions.
IRAQ QUAGMIRE - NO WAR PLAN
Since war is chaos and subject to great change any knowledgable strategic planner will tell you the best war plan is one that is flexable and many of the best laid plans had to be scrapped. Partisans and anti-war types would like us to believe we are hurting in Iraq. Nothing is farther from the truth, we certainly have a level of insurgency (as does Israel) but our military has the ability to crush Iraq, Iran, Syria and others who would attack us like ants. We have lost 1000 soldiers in the Iraq conflict since March 2003 - IN THAT SAME TIME 1,700 PEOPLE WERE MURDERED IN TEXAS ALONE. IRAQ, based on our military power is a cakewalk, we lost that many soldiers on a bad day in Vietnam or Korea. One thing is certain - we cannot control everyone in Iraq or even in the U.S. (last time I checked we still had a lot of crime and prisons). Are we safer today? Absolutely! Are we immune - NO! That is an unachievable goal.
BUSH LIES
No one can point to a specific on this and the claims are based on spinning what was said. You can research the specifics of every speech (I have) they are available on the web. Funny how Bush bashers twist his words to make their case. Why waste the time when it is all conjecture. The only recent lying by a president was by Clinton and that was under oath, on the record and on video - which was purjury (curious, those who scream lies seem to be the same people who defend Clinton - IRONIC)
Anti-Bush partisans feel they can just come up with any marginal accusation and if they repeat it enough and get a big enough head of steam it will morph into reality. The only thing stopping them is the real facts and the truth. They complain about "negative campaigning" then turn around and support Michael Moore, Molly Ivans, Al Franken, Moveon.org etc., etc.
OOOH THE HYPOCRACY!
ONE LAST THING - FOR YOU BOZO'S WHO ARE CALLING BUSH A LIAR ON IRAQ - LISTEN TO YOUR HERO'S:
"Look, we have exhausted virtually all our diplomatic effort to get the Iraqis to comply with their own agreements and with international law. Given that, what other option is there but to force them to do so? That's what they're saying. This is the key question. And the answer is we don't have another option. We have got to force them to comply militarily." Sen. Tom Daschle, Feb. 11, 1998
"I'm going to the White House this afternoon and I have a pretty good understanding, a pretty good idea what I'm going to hear. And I'm saddened, saddened that this President failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war, saddened that we have to give up one life because this President couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country. But we will work, and we will do all that we can to get through this crisis like we've gotten through so many." Sen. Tom Daschle, Mar. 6, 2003
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.
"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.
"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002.
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do." Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.
"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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002.
"[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002
"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002
"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002
"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002
"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998
"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998
"Saddam’s existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq’s enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002
"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration’s policy towards Iraq, I don’t think there can be any question about Saddam’s conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002
"Men often oppose a thing merely because they have no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike."-Alexander Hamilton
Will a judge release Kerry's divorce records like a judge did in California for Ryan who WAS running for the Senate from Illinois and, then, consequently dropped out of the race?
Is Kerry's divorce fair game or will the Dummycrsats sweep this under the rug too?
The sweeping (and vacuuming has begun) how about a release of the Kerry military medical records, he refuses to cut loose. I guess he's afraid people will learn he didn't miss a day of duty from his "wounds" and that purple hearts were given out for minor injuries that most people wouldn't think qualified. Many believe a purple heart recipient was badly injured and made a sacrifice for their country - that isn't true. They give them out for a hang nail if you claim it happened in battle. I wonder how many people who are all tied up in knots over Bush's guard record, know "war hero" Kerry spent barely 4 months (1/3 of a tour) in 'nam, then cry babied himself into a cushy state side job, then got out 6 months before his service ended. Plenty of those who did 1-2 FULL combat tours (1-2 years)see his so called "heroism" and "service" as less than stellar. We also see his subsequent protests and lies about atrocities (to gain publicity) as un-American.
Just wondering if Catholic Sen. Kerry got an annullment from his first wife. If not, he wouldn't be allowed to receive Communion. I'm told there is no record of an annullment?????
One can almost look at John Kerry and see Kennedys, even to the annulment matter. Why is it that men like Teddy and John Forbes think it's acceptable to petition for an annulment, rather than a divorce, when they have living, healthy children? The rest of us don't have that option. What hypocrites. Men of their ilk have absolutely no idea of honor and will do ANYTHING to clear the path for their next escapade. Lord. If we wanted a Kennedy for President, we'd have drafted one. Oops. Drafted. Not a good word to use with Kennedy or Kerry.
ROG - I don't know who you are - but thank you so much for setting these people straight. I am so disgusted with people jumping on a band wagon because of something they hear. It's so easy to say "Bush lied" - but how about you try backing up that statement with what exactly he lied about? Please people...for the sake of our country - do a little more research before you jump on the "Anyone but Bush" band wagon.
I really don't care who's been married to who, or how many times they've been married. I just wonder why John Kerry's daughters are mentioned all the time as being aa part of the Kerrys blended family and thier mother has never been mentioned in any way, shape or form. Wasn't she a part of his past and a part of the growth of the two daughters?
If a man can't keep his marriage together, how can he keep an entire country together? I can't believe it hasn't been talked about more. I had to look up what happened with his first marriage because I assumed he was a widower. Then once I realized it was a divorce, I assumed it was something he had no control over, but it was his doing! It's not like he has the excuse of being young and making a stupid mistake either. He was a grown man. I don't care how common it is, it's not something that should be taken lightly when the person involved will be the leader of the free world. I am posting this after the second debate after hearing him talk about being a Catholic so he obviously can't be faithful to his religious beliefs either. It all does matter and I was undecided until now. I'm going to take the lesser of the two evils.
Michael Williams has no interest in the truth. Read the following:
Family History: The First Mrs. John Kerry
She was John Kerry's first love, but politics did not agree with her. So she fled the limelight. It's catching up to her.
by Susannah Meadows | May 03 '04
Julia Thorne has been trying to escape politics ever since rocks crashed through her window, barely missing her baby's crib, after her husband John Kerry ran for Congress in 1972. They'd met years before, while Kerry was still at Yale, after he'd already heard all about her from his buddy David Thorne, Julia's twin. She was wearing a bikini, riding around on the back of a car, when John Kerry saw the dashing 19-year-old for the first time, according to historian Doug Brinkley. They'd been married a few years when Kerry ran for office, and Thorne threw herself into getting him elected. "She was a real live wire, a very funny person, outrageous sometimes. She was a very positive force in the campaign," says Dan Payne, a former Kerry aide. But Kerry took a lot of heat for being antiwar, and lost. The nastiness of the race soured Thorne. As she would write in "A Change of Heart," her 1996 book about divorce, politics robbed her of the right to privacy and an autonomous life. "I was alone and overwhelmed, abandoned with a new baby in a town that held political disdain for us."
When Thorne finally separated from Kerry in 1982, she was determined to find the privacy she'd craved for 12 years as a political wife, asking friends never to talk to the press about her. Thorne, who'd suffered from depression, worked through it and eventually fled Boston for Wyoming and then Montana, remarried and kept her past with the senator from Massachusetts to herself. "She kept saying, 'Don't tell them what town I live in. Just say Montana or in the West'," says Brinkley.
But it hasn't been easy closing the door. An article in The New Yorker in 2002 portrayed her as being too depressed to take care of her own children. (The magazine subsequently published a letter from Kerry stating that Thorne was a wonderful mother.) Enraged by what she'd read, Thorne agreed to talk to Brinkley for his biography of Kerry, "Tour of Duty." "Her view was, 'I'm not going to be whitewashed out of history'," says Brinkley. So Thorne hauled out her old cardboard boxes and shared photos of the young couple posing in front of the big neon signs of old '60s California motels, and love letters from Kerry calling her "Darling" and "Bambi" and telling her she was all that mattered. (Kerry told Brinkley that a big reason he'd volunteered for Swift Boat duty in Vietnam--which is often cited as an example of his heroism--was so he could spend the summer with Thorne before training started. When asked if she'd ever heard that story before, their daughter Vanessa Kerry grew quiet and said, "No, but it wouldn't surprise me.")
Now that the first love of Thorne's life is the presumptive Democratic nominee, her dreams of escaping politics may be dashed for good. Her daughters, with whom she speaks every few days, call her from the campaign trail. Thorne laughs at their stories from the road, and she has told friends that she's proud her daughters are campaigning for their father. But Vanessa says her mother's reaction has been more mixed. "The risk of us becoming more public is concerning for her. It's been a funny balancing act, trying to not make [her] an enigma but also to let her have her own life."
Thorne remains a Kerry supporter, and sometimes called him after primary wins with her congratulations. Today she and her current husband, an architect, are active in local environmental issues and arts education, and she's working on a memoir about growing up in Italy. The local paper has discovered her, and slowly, townsfolk are waking up to the fact that they have the former wife of a presidential candidate in their midst. She's told friends that she's hopeful that Kerry will win. Just leave her out of it.
Does anybody know what percent of married couples reach their 75th anniversary?
Thank You,
Craig Smith
CraigSmith13@aol.com
A democrat, I am voting for Bush.
If Kerry has to resort to naming Lesbians. He is unfit to command. That is the straw that broke the camel's back. He and wife are experts in name calling. I gave Kerry a lot of leeway. I am willing to bet his popularity will drop to an all time low.
To the person who wondered what percent of marriages last 75 years, are you aware that the average age of marriage for men is about 26 years? How many men live to be 101? Even if you married at 18 you would still have to live to be 93--both of you! It's true that married people live longer, but that is a ridiculous expectation. It would be a lot more meaningful to ask how many marriages last until one of the spouses dies.
Wake up....think....now do it again. Divorce is not a brand of dishonor, or a failure, or a smear or even a mistake. It is two people who make a smart decision to part ways once it is clear they don't like/love/care/whatever about each other any longer. Nobody knows what goes on between two friends, two married people, a child & a parent, etc. Don't base any judgements concerning a serious contemplation of who you want to be the next president on information you have no access to, nor should you. Further, the term "separation" means you live your life alone, date, and either return to your original marriage or remarry or remain single. It's just that simple.
As for drugs and alcohol, I'm more concerned about the fact that as a result of banning them from his life, the current president now takes his orders from God. That concerns me. Especially when over 1,100 are dead as a result. Thank you for your attention. Jill
Let's all read "Tour of Duty" and wake up to see that Kerry is a real "scum bag". He's got the morals of a blind mole and cares for nothing but the spotlight for himself. He's no different from Bill Clinton when it comes to being faithful to his wife, who would want his ugly excuse for a woman anyway! She can just "Shove It"....lol. What a great way to win over our country. Let's see, a potential First Lady telling someone to "Shove It". Nice! I'm sure other countries really like that one! Can you imagine Laura Bush ever saying something like that. Sure we all think it, but to say it when your husband is running for President. How embarrassing to our country. Who the hell would want her to represent us? I sure as hell don't! What disrespect she has all because of her dead husbands money and the power she feels with it. She thinks she can just say and do anything she wants because she's rich! Give me break! Guess who wears the pants in that family....wait a minute this sounds so familiar, oh yes, Bill and Hillary.....Pleazzzzzz! NOT AGAIN!!!!
So the Great White Hunter John Kerry killed a goose for a photo-op. As anyone who knows anything about geese will tell you: UNLIKE JOHN KERRY, GEESE MATE FOR LIFE.
The divorce rate in America won't get any better as long as we have xrated movies on cable networks and sex over the internet. Prayer is what America needs and lots of it. Thank You.
how does the Catholic church still recognize Kerry as a Catholic? doesn't his remarriage excommunicate him?
I don't think so, not if he had it annuled.
~**Bush Cheney 04**~
Give me a break! Talking about more than one marriage. We want someone to lead our country, not marry it. The president we have now has got us in a mess! We need someone to straighten out the mess we're in..take care of our own country and quit pissing off other countries. Which G W Bush sure seems to be doing a heck of a job at.
If the mand Kerry can't even maintain a marriage how in the hell can you people expect him to maintain our country? Come on people marriage is a sacred and hard demanding job just as the white house is a sacred and demanding job!
BUSH WINS...and by a very sweet margin.
The republicans have just spanked the Democrats in this election, rightfully so, thanks to the outrageous positions these liberal bonehead take.
I can now say with confidence that I am proud to be an AMERICAN. This great country looked into these two men and their parties antics and saw it for what it is.
No more liberal press and their refusal to acknowledge the greatness of this President and their repeated lies about him.
Nore more John Kerry (the traitor) and his lack of factual statements and lack of talking about his own record since Vietnam. The most lackluster Democrat preformance in the 4 terms as a Senator. He did almost nothing except (Vote the Party) when he managed to show up for a vote.
I can sleeping knowing that family values will be important over the next 4 years, that we will continue to KILL the muslim extremist who wish us dead, that we will not bow to the UN which is nothing without the US military in the first place, that we will retain our civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution with the rich Democrats trying to keep the freedoms of this country only to their wealthy elite, that Soros and Moore are sucking on their soiled shorts right now, and that BUSH is in for FOUR MORE YEARS.
Did I mention that I am happy the BUSH WON?
Well, this thread is old, but after stumbling onto it after a question from someone, and doing a Google search on if Kerry ever had his first marriage annulled, that question still needs answered. Divorce is secular - yes his divorce was finalised, but was his annullment? Annullment is thru the Catholic Church, and the question remains. Is his second marriage to Theresa Heinz valid in the eyes of God? These questions will come back if Kerry plans on running again in '08.
be blessed