Kerry's Deepest Loyalty: Can an Opponent of American Military Honestly Run for Commander-in-Chief?

RobertTracinski.com ^ | August 31, 2004 | Jack Wakeland

[Robert Tracinski]

To the New Left and their spokesman, John Kerry, opposition to Communism--an unwillingness to yield to the predominant forces of history--was the source of America's moral corruption and a source off deep denial...This is the world view behind John Kerry's words to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: "We are asking America to turn from false glory, hollow victory, fabricated foreign threats, fear which threatens us as a nation, shallow pride which feeds off fear."

John Kerry was the public face of a movement that converted broad based, _rational_ public support for ending what had become the purposeless loss of American life--into a campaign to undermine the defense of liberty against Communism throughout the world.

Today, the young Navy lieutenant who condemned war to a committee of senators is a becoming an old man. He wants to be President of the United States. He wants to be commander-in-chief of our nation's armed forces in a time of war. Rather than face up to his anti-American past, John Kerry is militantly evading it--attempting to pre-empt attacks on his anti-war past by running as a Vietnam war hero and announcing that he is the only presidential candidate who has served in combat and thus, by implication, the only candidate who understands war.

[EagleUSA]

Kerry is the antithesis of a Commander-In-Chief. Admired and loved by every enemy of the United States.

[Robert357]

Let's put this in perspective. Democrats still think that Bill Clinton was a great president, although most will admit he had some personal flaws. That is until you ask them about Pardongate, and then they just dismiss that as a fluke, rather than an insight into Clinton's lust of power and money and willingness to do ANYTHING to get what he wanted.

Bill Clinton, while not as vocal an anti-war activist as Kerry, still was against the war, mainly because of his fear of getting in harms way and the inconvience of military service.

The Dem's figured that at least Kerry served and was given medals, so he has to be perceived better than Clinton by vet's and middle America. The Dems still don't get it! They don't understand what American is about and that is why they don't control the US Senate, the US House, or the Oval Office. They still think that a "Clinton-like position waffler that decides where he stands this week on the basis of focus groups and polls" with military service during a war and medals is "good enough" and so they nominated Kerry.