The Character Issue Will Hurt Kerry

Bill Clinton and John Kerry have something in common: they are both liars. Bill Clinton’s lies were extrinsic to his ability to perform in office – i.e. he lied about receiving oral sex from an intern. John Kerry’s lies, distortions, and betrayals, on the other hand, go directly to his fitness, or lack thereof, to sit in the Oval Office. For that reason, American’s will not give Kerry the same “pass” that they gave Clinton on the character issue.

Public opinion polls indicate that President Bush’s strongest suit is his good character. In a recent Los Angeles Times survey, respondents stated that, regardless of his policies, they support the president because he “stands up for what he believes in,” they “know where he is coming from,” and, essentially, they “just like him.” Therefore, it follows a priori that a democrat who hopes to challenge Bush cannot merely run on policy differences – an effective candidate must be of equal or greater character. John Kerry is not that candidate.

The war on terror will unquestionably be a major theme in the 2004 Presidential Campaign. As in the days of the Cold War, the American public wants a leader who can ensure their continuing safety and protect their way of life from external malefactors. This is a critical area where John Kerry suffers from a severe credibility gap fostered by a long history of inconsistencies. Back in 1991, The New Republic caught John Kerry trying to play both sides of the Gulf War issue. Two letters were sent to Kerry’s office – one in opposition to the war, and one in favor of the war. Kerry’s response to the first letter read:

"Thank you for contacting me to express your opposition ... to the early use of military force by the US against Iraq. I share your concerns. On January 11, I voted in favor of a resolution that would have insisted that economic sanctions be given more time to work and against a resolution giving the president the immediate authority to go to war."

"Thank you very much for contacting me to express your support for the actions of President Bush in response to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. From the outset of the invasion, I have strongly and unequivocally supported President Bush's response to the crisis and the policy goals he has established with our military deployment in the Persian Gulf."

Clearly, Kerry hopes to counterbalance his perceived dithering on critical defense issues with his service in Vietnam. To mute criticisms of his ability to lead the nation in the war on terror, Kerry constantly, and ostentatiously, touts himself as a Vietnam “War Hero.” His claims are nothing short of outrageous. At best, Kerry is a mere deserter; at worst, John Kerry is a war criminal.

John Kerry, commanding Swift Boat 44 in Vietnam, recklessly slaughtered innocent women, children, and the elderly in cold blood. These facts are undisputed – facts that John Kerry himself said he’ll “never forget.” In 1971, John Kerry went before Congress and betrayed his fellow servicemen. Kerry testified that American soldiers in Vietnam committed atrocities similar to the atrocities that he admits to having committed – and he called his comrades war criminals. Thus, by Kerry’s own definition, John Kerry himself is not a war hero – he is a war criminal.

Kerry did not complete his tour of duty in Vietnam. Instead, in an appeal to Commodore Charles F. Horne, Kerry abused a loophole in the rules to secure an early discharge – Kerry suffered three minor, superficial wounds. American’s will not trust Kerry to stay the course in Iraq when they learn that he himself opted to cut and run.

Finally, as Senator in 1993, John Kerry betrayed and defamed the families of fellow servicemen who were MIA. Despite strong evidence to the contrary, which Kerry was able to suppress as Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA, the Committee’s final report concluded that “there is no proof that U.S. POWs survived.” Kerry then turned viciously on the MIA/POW families and activists, slandering them as “professional malcontents, conspiracy mongers, con artists, and dime-store Rambos.” As a result, relations with Vietnam were normalized, and Colliers International, a firm in Senator Kerry’s Massachusetts, secured a contract with Vietnam worth billions.

More Sources:

Boston Globe

Heroism, and growing concern about war

By Michael Kranish, Globe Staff, 6/16/2003

"The Christmas Eve truce of 1968 was three minutes old when mortar fire exploded around John Forbes Kerry and his five-man crew on a 50-foot aluminum boat near Cambodia. ''Where is the enemy?'' a crewmate shouted.

In the distance, an elderly man was tending his water buffalo -- and serving as human cover for a dozen Viet Cong manning a machine-gun nest.

"Open fire; let's take 'em," Kerry ordered, according to his second-in-command, James Wasser of Illinois. Wasser blasted away with his M-60, hitting the old man, who slumped into the water, presumably dead."

"But the battles and moral dilemmas were in shades of gray, and Kerry to this day wrestles with the scenes of death he commanded.

In an intense three months of combat following that Christmas Eve battle, Kerry often would go beyond his Navy orders and beach his boat, in one case chasing and killing a teenage Viet Cong enemy who wore only a loin cloth and carried a rocket launcher. Kerry's aggressiveness in combat caused a commanding officer to wonder whether he should be given a medal or court-martialed."

"Along with Kerry's unquestionable and repeated bravery, he also took an action that has received far less notice: He requested and was granted a transfer out of Vietnam six months before his combat tour was slated to end on the grounds that he had earned three Purple Hearts. None of his wounds was disabling; he said one cost him two days of service and the other two did not lead to any absence."

"Kerry said. "But, look, the Viet Cong used women and children." He said there might have been a satchel containing explosives. "Who knows if they had -- under the rice -- a satchel, and if we had come along beside them they had thrown the satchel in the boat. ... So it was a terrible thing, but I've never thought we were somehow at fault or guilty."

"Roy Hoffmann, who commanded the coastal division in which Kerry served, worried about Kerry, at least at the beginning. He said Kerry and some other skippers initially "had difficulty carrying out direct orders. You know, they were playing the cowboy a little bit. John Kerry was one of them. You don't go out on your own when you are given certain type of patrols, and we were having difficulty with that.""

"The rules, he said, allowed a thrice-wounded soldier to return to the United States immediately. So Kerry went to talk to Commodore Charles F. Horne, an administrative official and commander of the coastal squadron in which Kerry served. Horne filled out a document on March 17, 1969, that said Kerry "has been thrice wounded in action while on duty incountry Vietnam. Reassignment is requested ... as a personal aide in Boston, New York, or Wash., D.C. area."

The document notes that Kerry was "presently on full-duty status and available for reassignment."

Horne, in a telephone interview, said the transfer request was allowed under then-existing naval instructions and was "above board and proper." Transfer was not automatic and was subject to approval by the Bureau of Naval Personnel, he said."

"Moreover, the instruction makes clear that Kerry could have asked that any reassignment be waived."

"The bottom line is that Kerry could have remained but he chose to seek an early transfer. He met with Horne, who agreed to forward the request, which Horne said probably ensured final approval."

I did read the article. A lie is a lie, and a person who lies cannot be trusted.

You say "Bill Clinton’s lies were extrinsic to his ability to perform in office – i.e. he lied about receiving oral sex from an intern."

I strongly disagree. One of the qualifications for the highest office in the land is character and honesty. Clinton lied about sex because he was afraid his true character would be revealed if he didn't. Even he believed that people wouldn't trust him anymore if he told the truth.

By your philosophy, a President can lie about anything as long as it doesn't have to do with his "professional" work. A liar is a liar. And you can't draw a line between "professional" and "personal" lies. Good character won't allow either, and a good President wouldn't do either.

"Mac Owens of NRO (teaches at Naval War College) said in a recent column that Kerry served honorably. Until new information surfaces, I'll go with that. Making up bogus charges is what the left does-- there's plenty of reasons not to like Kerry without making them up."

You missed the point on that one. The point is, Kerry didn't do anything differently from anything else other Americans in Vietnam did... what he DID do is turn around and call THEM war criminals for doing it. So, if he calls his fellow serviceman war criminals, then, by his own definition, he must be one too.

The point was that he is a hypocrite. I'm not condemning his actions... I'm condemning his condemnation. If you haven't noticed, Kerry is a guy who likes to have it both ways.

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.