Posted on 01/25/2004 4:25:01 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
Fathoming Kerry
Veteran and analyst.
The voters in Massachusetts honor, and should, the heroism of John Kerry in Vietnam. The voters four years ago honored, correctly, the heroism of John McCain in Vietnam, though they went on to nominate another candidate. What some voters will want to dwell upon is not Kerry, acknowledged hero of Vietnam, but Kerry, analyst of the Vietnam chapter in U.S. history.
When he returned from Vietnam and formed his committee to oppose the war, he went further than to renounce a military and geostrategic operation. In his famous testimony to the congressional committee, he used the kind of language about the architects of that war that he uses now about President Bush. He told Congress, in 1971, that he felt the call to one more mission, which was to "destroy the last vestige of this barbaric war, to pacify our hearts, to conquer the hate and fear that have driven this country these last ten years and more, so that when, thirty years from now, our brothers go down the street without a leg, without an arm, or a face, and small boys ask why, we will be able to say, 'Vietnam!' — the place where America finally turned and where soldiers like us helped it in the turning."
The voters are entitled to ask, "In what way did America 'turn'?" And to ask further, "If the U.S. role in Vietnam was barbaric, our motivations hate and fear, why, thirty-one years later, did John Kerry vote for war in Iraq?" There are American soldiers there who have lost a leg, an arm, a face. Howard Dean is absolutely plainspoken on the question of U.S. guilt. He declares that we had no justifiable reason to go to war in Iraq, and yet Kerry voted to authorize President Bush to go to war. What will he say to veterans of the Iraq war? What he said to veterans of the Vietnam war was, "We cannot consider ourselves America's 'best men' when we are ashamed of and hated for what we were called on to do in Southeast Asia."
President Bush, in his State of the Union Address, did not say that our concern for freedom was the single reason we went to Iraq, but he did say that the deposition of Saddam Hussein was a huge humanitarian blessing. Speaking of Vietnam, Lieutenant Kerry testified, "To attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom is . . . the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart."
The differences between Iraq and Vietnam are considerable, but what they have in common is insufficiently remarked. Our goal in Vietnam was to continue to press the doctrine of Containment — the George Kennan postwar strategy of forbidding further conquests to the enemy, to which end we had fought in Korea. We didn't hesitate to emphasize the difference to human beings between life under Communism, and life elsewhere. In Iraq, we entered the war to press for a strategic goal, the disarmament of Saddam Hussein lest he export his tyranny. And we have not hesitated to emphasize the difference to human beings between life under Saddam, and life elsewhere. What threatens in Iraq is an immobilization brought on by terrorist insurgents, and the possibility even of civil war if the insurgency is not contained.
Is Candidate Kerry declaring that the veteran of the Iraq war is the representative of U.S. dishonor and hypocrisy? When will he say that the Iraq war "turned" America, as he pronounced the Vietnam war to have turned America?
General Clark put his foot in it by drawing attention to his experience as a general, contrasted with John Kerry's as a mere lieutenant. But the two candidates are roughly the same age, both distinguished in their service in Vietnam. What the voters should insist on hearing is their respective views on our commitment in Iraq. Already, Candidate Kerry has voted in the direction of retreat, when he refused to approve the supplementary appropriations requested by Bush. If, when summer comes, the Iraqi engagement is still equivocal, will he treat it as he did Vietnam, as the embodiment of U.S. hate and fear and hypocrisy? Isn't the voter entitled to wonder about the reliability of a President Kerry who deemed past U.S. commitments transitory, en route to becoming dishonorable?
A problem with presidential candidacies is their pursuit of trendy popularity. Kerry tasted deep of this when he paraded before Congress in 1971, condemning the judgment and integrity of three U.S. presidents who had argued the importance of resisting the Communists in Vietnam. And now Kerry has his eyes on a sitting president who with the backing of 77 senators, including John Kerry, set out to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. Does anyone doubt that if the Iraqi insurgency had been quelled six months ago, Candidate Kerry would have applauded the leadership of the president he is so consumed to replace?
Maybe there should be an H by his name instead of a D.. H is for Hypocrit. (Sen. Kerry, H-MA)
Democrat-hypocrite =same-same
I doubt it.
Kerry has only junvenile vituperation, slander and lies to offer as his characterization of President Bush and his policies, whether foreign or domestic, however successful they may be.
He's the same trash-talkin' punk he was 30 years ago.
I'm gonna enjoy watching Dubya mop the floor with Kerry's hang-dog face.
There were two significant problems with that war: It was not a declared war by Congress and did not have broad national support; and, the war effort was managed by liberals (most of them Democrats) who failed because liberals do not understand war or how to wage war.
Iraq? Again, in my view, Iraq was a strong effective ally of the Mohammadan enemy; Iraq, and Saddam, was also the most obvious target, the easiest to strike, with the most benefit flowing from success. So George II's war action was based in our view, on a defensible foreign policy position. Only the liberals advocate the liberal solution from the 1930's of letting Hitler proceed to accumulate power until he becomes a real problem before acting. Wrong answer.
Now whether or not we approve of the method of attacking Saddam and management of forces engaged in the effort is another question. And I dissent from the nation building post war activity, I would have divided Iraq up where it would have done us the most good.
I do not subscribe to Buckley's proposition that Kerry's Vietnam activities are to be honored either. Kerry admits to having participated in commission of a major war crime. I do not advocate that we hold soldiers responsible for this kind of activity but I see his bad judgements under pressure in that situation as disqualifying him to act as President of the United States.
Kerry April 23 to congress excerpt opening remarks.
I would like to talk on behalf of all those veterans and say that several months ago in Detroit we had an investigation at which over 150 honorably discharged, and many very highly decorated, veterans testified to war crimes committed in Southeast Asia. These were not isolated incidents but crimes committed on a day-to-day basis with the full awareness of officers at all levels of command. It is impossible to describe to you exactly what did happen in Detroit - the emotions in the room and the feelings of the men who were reliving their experiences in Vietnam. They relived the absolute horror of what this country, in a sense, made them do.
They told stories that at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Ghengis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country."
Read Kausfiles. He thinks the same way about Kerry and has links and excerpts from other writers who also think Kerry always tries to have it both ways.
I believe people are entitled to their opion of being against a particulars war.
But what Kerry does is smear and demoralize the soldiers and our country.
I only gave you the opening remarks . And remember this statement is thought out, edited and given. It's not like a man in the street interview where a person might just mouth off and later regret it.
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.