John
Kerry 2004 = John Kerry 1971
April 2, 2004
Since Democrats will
only tell us how much they loathe President Bush and what he's
doing wrong in the War on Terror, never offering their solutions
for us to critique, let me tell you a few things I fear about
a Kerry presidency.
Frankly,
the prospect of John Kerry becoming commander in chief at this
critical point in our history horrifies me, mainly because I believe
the John Kerry of 1971 is the John Kerry of today.
Just imagine
someone with the mindset of Jane Fonda circa 1971 leading our
war on terror. Forget the allegedly doctored photographs showing
Kerry and Fonda together. We don't need to know that these two
may have met to discuss the evils of American "aggression"
against the North Vietnamese.
We know from
Kerry's own words that he possessed the same contempt for America's
cause and our armed services around that time. And don't tell
me that his distinguished military record immunizes him from accountability
for his later despicable behavior.
It would be different
if Kerry had ever grown out of his youthful nihilism. I would
say "idealism," but there's nothing idealistic about
accusing your fellow serviceman in Vietnam of unspeakable atrocities
against innocent civilians.
Kerry's congressional
testimony in 1971 seemed to suggest that he had firsthand knowledge
of such horrible acts and may have even participated in them.
Of course, we are supposed to laud him for his "courage"
in coming forward and shining the light of truth and thereby exempt
him from any role he may have played in it.
But how outrageous
is that! If he was privy to such crimes and didn't report them,
he should be held accountable. There is nothing noble about him
reporting those alleged crimes and not naming names or assuming
responsibility.
Such anonymous,
generalized charges merely served the purposes of the enemy, just
like Jane Fonda's cavorting with North Vietnamese troops. We now
know that these types of activities gave comfort to the enemy
and were used to demoralize our troops and prisoners of war.
No, you say,
John Kerry neither participated nor had firsthand knowledge of
any barbarous acts; he was merely reporting what he'd been told.
Well, who told him? Ho Chi Minh? Either he had reliable information
or he was spewing thirdhand hearsay likely spawned by nefarious
communist propagandists.
The type
of testimony he so proudly gave at those hearings wouldn't be
admissible in the most primitive tribunals with the most relaxed
rules of evidence, unless Kerry owned up to his own specific participation
or divulged his sources. He didn't do either because outlining
his participation would have been incriminating, and he had no
sources to divulge.
You see,
I simply don't believe John Kerry's defamation, and I don't believe
that he believed it either. Sure, there were doubtlessly some
atrocities committed by our side (we know of a few); we're not
perfect. But I don't believe that the rank and file American soldier
in Vietnam was a veritable agent of Satan. By and large these
were great guys who served their country admirably and would never
have considered participating in the kinds of acts Kerry described.
We are entitled
to know whether Kerry still stands by his testimony. If so, did
he participate or witness these events? If so, why didn't he name
names? If not, why did he rush to believe the worst about his
own colleagues still in the jungles of Vietnam?
Does he still
believe that America was engaged in an immoral cause in trying
to contain communism? Does he still believe that there would be
no bloodbath at the hands of the communists if we were to withdraw
from Southeast Asia?
And if Kerry
refuses to repent -- and it's obvious he does, since he wears
his protesting days as a badge of honor -- what does that tell
us about his present attitude about America's enemies?
I think he
still harbors an attitude that America is an ugly bully on the
world stage, that we have no business acting to protect our security
without playing "Mother, may I?" with France, Germany
and the United Nations, and that there is little connection between
international terrorists and sponsoring states. Sure, just like
there was no coordination between communists worldwide during
Kerry's antiwar heyday in the seventies.
Yes, I'm
thoroughly convinced that the John Kerry of today is the John
Kerry of 1971, who has no more business steering this ship of
state than Jane Fonda. In these sobering times with our security,
national sovereignty and freedom at stake, I shudder at the possibility
that John Kerry could become our wartime president.
|