Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kerry's forgotten Communist-coddling
The American Thinker ^ | 29 October 2004 | Tom Joseph

Posted on 10/29/2004 6:58:32 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln

John F. Kerry has a long history of opposing the use of American military force to defend our vital interests. But the presidential campaign has so far virtually ignored his shameful behavior in the 1980s, when President Reagan was defeating Communism not only in Europe, but also much closer to home.

President Reagan took office in January, 1981. The release of the American hostages by Iran resolved only one of the many problems he inherited from the Carter Administration. Soviet troops had invaded Afghanistan. Marxist rebels had seized the nation of Angola in Africa. In Central America, Marxist guerrillas were attacking the El Salvador government and the Sandanistas had taken control of Nicaragua.

In order to counter Soviet expansionist policy, President Reagan increased defense spending and began supporting freedom movements that were fighting against Communism. Liberal extremists in the Democratic Party and most of the media elite hated Reagan's new policies. This was especially true about his support of the Contras fighting against the Sandanista government in Nicaragua.

The combative relationship between the President and the Democrat-controlled Congress exploded in October, 1983 when Reagan ordered the invasion of the small island nation of Grenada in the Caribbean. Other Caribbean nations had asked the United States to intervene when Marxists in Grenada's military killed their Prime Minister and toppled the constitutional government. President Reagan did not act until Grenada's new leaders confined American medical students on their campus. It was then that he went on television to tell the American people he had ordered military action to prevent the possibility of a hostage situation similar to what had happened in Iran.

The news media and liberal extremists in Congress openly accused Reagan of lying about the invasion. They cited his long opposition to events in Grenada and ridiculed his belief that the Soviets were actively seeking to develop more client states in our hemisphere. Both Congress and the media said they would investigate. Months passed and there was little if any information about these promised investigations. Like many Americans, I assumed Reagan had told the truth and that the issue was no longer important. I was wrong. There was a reason why the media and Congress dropped this issue.

To this day, most Americans do not know about the documents discovered in Grenada. The CIA, the Defense Department and the State Department made copies of Grenada's government documents and sent 35,000 pounds of them to Washington. The documents were examined and then given to the National Archives in Washington, where they were made available to the news media, scholars and the public.

Guess what? Ronald Reagan was right about more than his decision to invade Grenada. The Soviets were pursuing a plan for expansion through the creation and support of Communist client states in Central America. The documents revealed the connections between the governments of Cuba, Grenada and Nicaragua, together with support of the Marxist guerrillas in El Salvador.

No doubt, some people reading this article are thinking that this is ancient history and doesn't matter any more. They are wrong because there is a scandal here and many of the people involved are still members of Congress and members of the media elite.

It starts with members of Congress paying a visit to the Sandanista leader of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega. They returned with a piece of paper signed by Ortega and once again, proclaimed that he was not a Communist, but a socialist. Several days later, Mr. Ortega made fools of these dupes by flying to Moscow to collect even more Soviet support. You would think that the members of Congress with the signed piece of paper would have been very angry. But not really.

The Democrat-controlled Congress went on to pass the third in a series of amendments called the Boland Amendments. All three of these amendments were worded to prevent the President from supporting the Contras in their fight against Ortega's communist government. Think about this: Congress knew about the Grenada documents. They knew Ortega had gone to Moscow for more Soviet support. And they still wanted to protect a Communist dictatorship from their own President.

In 1990, there were elections in Nicaragua. At the time, the Soviet Empire was crumbling, President Bush had removed General Noriega from Panama, and the Contras had continued to pressure the Nicaraguan government. The Sandanistas agreed to the elections because thought they would win. Our American media conducted polls and said they would win. President Carter, who had had not tried to stop the Sandanistas from taking power, was part of the commission observing the elections.

All the people who had opposed Reagan's policies towards Nicaragua were poised to claim victory. A Sandanista win would prove President Carter was right when he didn't oppose them. It would prove Congress was right when they passed the Boland Amendments. Our media also wanted to be right about refusing to believe President Reagan. But then something unexpected happened when the people of Nicaragua actually got their chance to vote. They threw the Sandanistas out of power because they wanted freedom instead of a Communist dictatorship.

If you think that liberal members of Congress and the media finally admitted they were wrong and Reagan was right, you are dreaming. They did admit that democracy had triumphed. But, in a slant only our media could pull off, they gave credit to President Carter for overseeing a free and fair election.

Why is this important today? Well, there are a few details I haven't mentioned yet. A lot of attention has been given to John Kerry's 1971 Congressional testimony accusing our military of wartime atrocities in Vietnam. There is something else he said. "We can not fight Communism all over the world and I think we should have learned that lesson by now."

In 1985, Senator Kerry was one of the members of Congress who returned from Nicaragua with that worthless signed piece of paper. He then supported the third Boland Amendment. Apparently, not only did John Kerry not want to fight Communism "all over the world," he didn't even want to fight communism in our own backyard.

Senator Kerry voted against the first Gulf War in 1990. President Bush had a UN Resolution and a large coalition that not only included the reluctant French, but several Arab nations. This makes it very difficult to vote for a Kerry who talks about having to pass some kind of global test. If the first Gulf War didn't pass his test, then what would?

President Clinton decided to intervene militarily in Bosnia in 1994, to stop the genocide. There was no UN Resolution and no large coalition of nations. What did John Kerry say?

"If you mean dying in the course of the United Nation's effort, yes, it is worth that. If you mean dying American troops unilaterally going in with some false presumption that we can affect the outcome, the answer is unequivocally no."

It is absurd to trust our national security and world security to an organization that is corrupt and controlled by petty, often venal interests. The UN was given the responsibility for not only destroying Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, but also for putting an end to his ability to manufacture them. The UN was responsible for making sure the benefits from the Oil for Food Program went to the Iraqi people. The UN miserably failed at both.

While Kerry did vote to give the President George W. Bush the authority to go to war against Iraq, it is important to realize that failure to support the President would have been political suicide for a presidential candidate. And when Senator Kerry voted against the $87 billion to support our troops, it is just as important to wonder if he was more worried about John Dean's anti-war rhetoric than the safety of our troops.

Today, candidate Kerry says that he'll be strong on national defense, that he'll win the war in Iraq, and that he'll win the war against terrorism. The time to be strong on national defense did not start on 9-11. I worry that a President Kerry could declare the war in Iraq unwinable, withdraw unilaterally, and leave behind a terrorist controlled nation with a wealth of oil next door to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.

A man who said we couldn't fight Communism all over the world is not likely to seek victory against international terrorism. After 9-11, it's almost certain that if terrorists are not forced to run from us, they surely will come after us.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: communists; election2000; kerry; kerryrecord; sandanistas
1 posted on 10/29/2004 6:58:32 PM PDT by Lando Lincoln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
To understand John Kerry is to understand his dad. Richard Kerry wrote in his book, The Star-Spangled Mirror, published in 1990:
"Americans are inclined to see the world and foreign affairs in black and white. They celebrate their own form of government and denigrate all others, making them guilty of what he calls 'ethnocentric accommodation' -- everyone ought to be like us. As a result, America has committed the 'fatal error' of 'propagating democracy' and fallen prey to 'the siren's song of promoting human rights,' falsely assuming that our values and institutions are a good fit in the Third World. And, just as Americans exaggerate their own goodness, they exaggerate their enemies' badness. The Soviet Union wasn't nearly as imperialistic as American politicians warned. Seeing the Soviet Union as the aggressor in every instance, and the U.S. as only reacting defensively, relieves an American observer from the need to see any parallel between our use of military power in distant parts of the world, and the Soviet use of military power outside the Soviet Union. . . . Third world Marxist movements were autonomous national movements -- outside Moscow's orbit."

More quotes and facts on the John F. Kerry Timeline. Email it to your friends.

They connected the dots in 1998 but Senator Kerry and MSM can't seem to connect the dots in 2004.

Here is an easy to read chart of what the media was saying pre-911 (and after): Connect the Dots...Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden

2 posted on 10/29/2004 7:05:00 PM PDT by christie (John F. Kerry Timeline -
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln

"They threw the Sandanistas out of power because they wanted freedom instead of a Communist dictatorship."

I hope those who think Kerry is not one of the card-carrying communists will read that statement twice, as this is his objective: total control, and absolute power.

3 posted on 10/29/2004 7:06:34 PM PDT by combat_boots (Dug in and not budging an inch. PJihadists of the World United)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
"...not only did John Kerry not want to fight Communism "all over the world," he didn't even want to fight communism in our own backyard."

Hell, he doesn't even want to show up for work!

4 posted on 10/29/2004 7:10:38 PM PDT by Ed_in_NJ (I'm in old skivvies and New Jersey, and I approved this message.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

Forgotten "communist coddler" my a$$...we remember!

5 posted on 10/29/2004 7:10:45 PM PDT by weenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln

Is is significant that bin Laden explicitly alluded to the Reagan era in his speech today. This means that the anti Western cabal specifically view their efforts to undermine us as a counterthrust against what Reagan did. They want us to lose ground. To them, a Kerry victory would symbolically be our loss of footing leading to a long fall downward.

6 posted on 10/29/2004 7:22:53 PM PDT by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Right makes right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln
History is repeating itself. Just look at Venezuela. Chavez is nothing more than a cheap imitation of Castro, with one exception, he has vast oil resources to fund his activities. Chavez stole the referendum election right under Carter's nose. Immediately after the election he nationalized the media and the oil fields, then proceeded to imprison his opposition. He is now fomenting a Marxist revolution in neighboring Bolivia. What do you think Kerry will do about the situation if elected?
7 posted on 10/29/2004 7:34:02 PM PDT by Arnold Zephel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln

About a year ago, while passing through the San Francisco Airport, my attention was caught by the voice of a native Grenadian. He was talking to another guy from England about other places of the world he'd been. It caught my attention, because on October 25th, 1983 I was arguably the first pilot to land on this tiny remote Island. An Island that was full of Cuban soldiers and a runway, under construction, that could support a long range nuclear bomber. I waited to join the conversation, not having heard this accent for nearly 2 decades...I was curious. After a bit of small talk, and not revealing at first my past (I wanted to know, good or bad, the truth), I asked, "Was the invasion of Grenada worth it?" To this, the kind gentleman from Grenada began to tell me that without the brave intervention of US Soldiers and immediate action of President Ragan, his country would never have survived the communist threat. I remember when the medical students were rescued, the appreciation they felt, and I remember as a member of the US Army's Only Special Operation Aviation Task Force, at the time a major weapon against terrorism, just how it felt to save lives from the hands of such brutality. 1983 was not long removed from the public’s perception of the late 60s and early 70s. Anti-War sentiment was still very high, and lingering suspicions, developed by the likes of John Kerry, that we were baby killers, rapists, setting innocent villages on fire were still in the forefronts of the public mind. I was heartened to hear these kind words 2 decades later. Communism was a real threat abroad, but it was equally a threat at home. I'm convinced that Vietnam was won by our troops on 4N soil. But it was at home, by the likes of cowards and traitors like John Kerry who lied and betrayed us on domestic soil that the war was lost. Our soldiers from Vietnam are real American Hero's robbed of honor from those without honor. Let us never forget nor underestimate the threat at home in a time of war. The enemy has learned that traitors, like John Kerry, in high places, are as effective, if not more, than a nuclear weapon. Lies can devastate and level a nation. The business suits the hippies of the 60s have donned in the board rooms of the NYTs, CBS, and DNC are the new camouflage worn by these traitors and haters of the American way. Fight with your vote and your voice, at every turn, when confronted with the insidious work of these pacifists that have allow more people to die through inaction over the past century than died from war since the beginning of recorded history. Its time to clean house with our vote and send a signal to these traitors that they can no longer hide. Let's not only remember, Lets act...

8 posted on 10/29/2004 7:48:28 PM PDT by AMHN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: christie
Great links

February 13, 1970 Kerry told the Harvard Crimson,

“I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations . . . to almost eliminate CIA activity. The CIA is fighting its own war in Laos and nobody seems to care." He also favors a negative income tax and keeping unemployment at a very low level, "even if it means selective economic controls

So what is negative income tax?

9 posted on 10/29/2004 8:05:40 PM PDT by i.l.e. (get a progressive press = our future security is in our hands)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: i.l.e.

Negative Income Tax?


You work hard for it, get taxed, and it goes directly to someone that doesn't work hard for it and receives "Negative Income Tax".

10 posted on 10/29/2004 8:16:25 PM PDT by AMHN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lando Lincoln

Because of Kerry's collusion with Communists in the early 1970's when he protested the Vietnam War and meeting with agents of the NVA in Paris, to me, that is the ultimate lynch pin that slams the door shut. His prior service, his handing out welfare, his debating ability, and other such deeds he's done since them mean nothing. When Kerry met with the Communists, that is the American version of committing an ultimate sin. If he repented, apologized, and said his mea culpa and meant it, well, that is on the road to redemption but since he hasn't well..... Still though you have a lot of rubes that would vote for because they are hippies, want handouts, hate Bush, and so on.

11 posted on 10/29/2004 8:23:21 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (We have enough youth, how about a Fountain of Smart?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: i.l.e.

McGovern's idea. If you have no reported income you get a $1,000 check from Uncle Sam.

12 posted on 10/29/2004 10:05:31 PM PDT by Kenny500c
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: wisconsinconservative

save for later

13 posted on 10/29/2004 10:20:46 PM PDT by wisconsinconservative ("The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson