The real John Kerry
Throughout the campaign season, John Kerry has been distinguished by what he didn’t say. Everyone in the nation has heard that John Kerry served in Vietnam aboard a Swift Boat. But no one knows specifics of what Kerry would do in THIS war – beyond his assertion now that he would not have deployed troops, and that he would pull out U.S. forces in four years. Nor does anyone have a detailed idea of how Kerry would approach healthcare, beyond that he shares the left’s goal of gov’t run or mandated insurance. However, Kerry’s recent words on the topic are far from promising; he currently advocates a government mandate of “universal coverage” for all Americans – which we will have to pay for out of pocket, want it or not. On prescription drugs, Kerry-Edwards derides the Bush plan as not being expensive enough.
On gun control, Kerry is clearly in the prohibitionists’ camp, wanting to waste precious government resources, not fighting terrorism, but going after law-abiding Americans who choose unpopular pastimes. And on taxes he clearly views cutting government revenue as a mistake. One thing that is clear is that under a Kerry administration taxes would be increased. Kerry calls this fiscally responsible government. Observers less to the left would call it what it is – highway robbery.
So far, Kerry’s campaign has been full of mixed signals. The two themes he has consistently hyped are his opposition to the war in Iraq, and his opposition to cutting taxes. Even here though, Kerry’s politics are mixed; he voted for the war in Iraq, but now says it has made America less safe and refused to vote for funding of it. He admits Saddam Hussein’s regime was hostile – but denies it had terror connections, even though the September 11 commission Kerry is fond of quoting stated clearly that Saddam’s agents met with Al Qaeda operatives on numerous occasions, and it is a known fact that Iraq’s regime was funding suicide bombings in the middle east. Kerry has stated that refusing to fund the war after committing troops would be “irresponsible” – yet that is exactly what he later did.
Yet, even with this “flip-flop” record, as Kerry’s critics call it, one thing comes through; Kerry’s distain for a meaningful military response to anti-American terrorism.
Kerry began his political career as an “anti-war” activist who opposed Vietnam, not on grounds that it risked American lives, but because he felt American soldiers were “war criminals”. He actually fabricated accusations of “war crimes” ,he said he witnessed, some of which allegedly took place in countries where he never even was, such as Cambodia. That is an interesting story. Kerry claimed for years he was “in Cambodia” in winter of 1968. He persisted in this claim from the 1970s up until a few months ago, when he suddenly remembered he wasn’t actually “in” Cambodia, he was nearby, somewhere. Kerry is campaigning on his four months in Vietnam, claiming it means he will be responsible for a “stronger America” if elected. Yet, Kerry reacted to the war be denouncing his fellow soldiers when he returned home – and throwing “his” medals over a wall in protest. Yet, to this day, Kerry’s medals are on display at his office. The public is treated to two John Kerry’s, one who is a veteran and self-described “hero”, and the Kerry who claims he is “an internationalist” who opposes U.S. military action without world approval; The John Kerry who threw the medals over the wall, and the John Kerry who flaunts those medals whilst never having repudiated his post-service conduct, which violated everything those medals are supposed to stand for.
The John Kerry who does not want America defending itself militarily seems diametrically opposed to the John Kerry “war hero” image and the “strong America” slogan he employs – when he is not using Edwards’ phrase of class-warfare that seems to fit his split record in politics: “Two America’s”.
Yet, despite a split voting record on some issues [like the war in Iraq], Kerry’s overall worldview is clear. He remains an “internationalist” who regards the American military with distain, something borne out by his consistently anti-defense voting record in the Senate. Kerry thinks taking down a hostile regime with terror ties made America “less safe”. He worries about world opinion, while most Americans are worried about terrorists.
Clearly, the “real” John Kerry is not a good choice for the thinking American citizen. He may, however, be the best choice from the standpoint of the terrorists. Foreign nations hostile to America [from France to the middle east] have been praising Kerry. Kerry himself even added to their sentiments by manufacturing further praise early in his campaign when he said that foreign leaders he met with had told him “you got to beat this guy [meaning Bush]”.
The war hero image is just that -- an image. Even if there were not questions surrounding Kerry's purple heart medals, and even if he had not received his first one for a wound that was little more than a scratch, he is not a hero. To do somethign heroic one must not only undertake a harrowing or difficult task, but one must do so with knowledge of why his choice is important. Kerry's post-service conduct [not really "post-war" because the war was still going on at the time]and his anti-American rhetoric indicates that, even if he acted heroicly in combat -- which is questionable -- he never understood the significance and importance of those acts. He is no hero. Nor is he a good candidate for President.
The fact that Kerry would think the opinions of the French should have any bearing on who is elected in America should be cause for pause. Kerry’s own anti-Americanism…. well, that alone should speak volumes.
_______________________________
back...
