Posted on 01/30/2004 8:59:15 AM PST by jmstein7
The Character Issue: It Didn’t Hurt Clinton, But It Will Hurt Kerry
By Jonathan M. Stein
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."
However, Kerry’s response to the second letter read:
"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."
The article was aptly titled "Same Senator, Same Constituent.”
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.
John Kerry cannot be trusted, and he must never sit in the Oval Office.
Under military law, what was the duty of an officer -- Kerry, for example -- if he possessed such information?
It is the affirmative duty, under both the UCMJ and under the basic strictures of human decency, of any service member--commissioned, warrant, or noncommissioned officer AND non-rate enlisted person alike--to report any such action to higher authority if he witnesses any such action, or has reasonable cause to believe that such an action was committed.
If Kerry had real reason to believe this, then he is guilty of several serious felonies under the UCMJ, and can conceivably be recalled to active duty to stand court-martial.
"Following his investigation of the My Lai massacre for the Army, Lieutenant General William R. Peers and his investigative team made highly unusual and largely unprecedented recommendations. The Peers Commission proposed that charges also be preferred against a number of American staff officers, including the division chief of staff, the brigade operations officer, the task force operations and intelligence officers, and the division chaplain...
"One of the conclusions Peers drew following his My Lai investigation was that there was widespread failure to report suspected war crimes and civilian casualties, despite numerous directives and standing operating procedures (SOPs) requiring such reports. Even more damning was the conclusion that individuals within the task force headquarters took affirmative steps to conceal the massacre, including falsifying logs by changing the locations where civilians were reportedly killed. A staff officer involved in concealing a war crime may be prosecuted as an accessory after the fact in violation of Article 78, for misprison of a serious offense in violation of Article 134, or for dereliction of duty in violation of Article 92."
From "Staff Officer Responsibility for War Crimes,", LTC Michael J. Davidson, USA, published in the Mar/April 2001 issue of Military Review, the professional journal of the US Army Command & General Staff College. The full article is available at this link to the Military Review Website.
Do we really want to elect a President who could be readily indicted and convicted of war crimes by the very same International Criminal Court he would order the State Department to operate under?
The more I think about it, the more I'd rather run against Kerry's documented record, than the chance that Howard the Coward will go ballistic in a debate with GWB. Let the Rat voters drink the Kool-Aid of a Kerry candidacy, thinking that a vote for him in a primary erases the guilt they feel towards the way they treated Vietnam veterans and their families thirty years ago. It'll blow up in their faces.
If his own wife can't trust him without a legal restriction, why should we?
The Boston Globe did a series of articles on John Kerry, including his service before, during and after the Vietnam War
I won't say anything about his service during the war, though there are many question that are unanswered because Kerry himself will not release the documents of his service
But I will say he was and continues to be a complete disgrace to this country after the war.
The story you mention is related to Bob Kerrey
This thread is about John F. Kerry
Bad things happened from and to both sides during the Vietnam war. Atrocious things. But for Kerry to claim his service as heroic is barf material especially after reading his own self proclaimed atrocities he performed.
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.