Kerry Defends His National Security Voting Record

Reuters ^

[chainsaw]

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002

[autoresponder]

..

Whoops

I missed that

What was Kerry's campaign advisor's name?


I smell a mega-book deal here!



More than he/she can ever make as a pol guru if invested right.....



..

[Just mythoughts]

We have a new Standard to be President.

One must release their military records, until JFKerry releases his military records he does not qualify for the position.

[JOE43270]

Kery can take his record and move on. Lt.Col North wrote about him this week at Townhall.com. The middle initial F. in his name evidently stands fo FALSE or Fiction.

[MeekOneGOP]

John Kerry: Lying, Class Warfare, Divide Amerika Arsehole ! ...

[MeekOneGOP]

Yep ! He is the true deserter ...

[auntdot]

Just saw this story, again, on Fox.

The press is, justifiably, covering the Democrat race.

And most of that debate includes Bush bashing.

Keep saying something over and over again, and people are going to start believing it.

If GWB doesn't start shooting back and soon, he may wind up like his daddy, a one term pres.

[ReleaseTheHounds]

"I'm not going to stand by and allow these Republicans who continually go to the low road to challenge my commitment."

Sounds like Otter defending Delta House before the "double secret probation hearing"... but without the charm... Like Otter, he has no facts on his side.

[Samwise]

Kerry's tactic is to talk about his service in Vietnam every time a question comes up talking about his voting record.

Kerry

[MeekOneGOP]

Don't remember, did Ann Coulter mention Kerry by name in her book, "Treason?"

Hmm ?? I'm not sure. I didn't read her book. But ...

Kerry was indisputably brave in Vietnam, and it's kind of cute to see Democrats pretend to admire military service. Physical courage, like chastity, is something liberals usually deride, but are tickled when it accidentally manifests itself in one of their own. One has to stand in awe of Kerry's military service 33 years ago. Of course, that's where it ends, including with Kerry -- inasmuch as, upon his return from war in 1970, he promptly began trashing his fellow Vietnam vets by calling them genocidal murderers.

That, from Ann Coulter's recent article ...

Just a gigolo

[beckysueb]

And if I hear about his hero status one more time from the media, I'm going to barf. Its got where his name is JohnKerryavietnamdecoratedwarhero. And George Bush is Bushanairnationalgaurddeserter.

[dokmad]

"Democratic White House front-runner John Kerry '

That statement in and of itself is John effin Kerry effin joke......

[dokmad]

"Democratic White House front-runner John Kerry '

That statement in and of itself is John effin Kerry effin joke......

[machman]

They should turn his viet nam service into another flip flop issue.

For viet nam war in 1970, agaisnt it ever since.

Against Gulf War in 1991, statements for it later (see Haiti)

For Iraq war in 2002, against it in 2004.

I'm sure many freepers could expand this list greatly.

[kevkrom]

It was Kerry, not Bush, who injected the Vietnam War into the campaign. Every other sentence out of his mouth has been "I was in Vietnam"

Don't forget that he also uses Vietnam vets as stage dressing at his public appearances, too...

[Stirner]

"why did he volunteer for Vietnam?"

My understanding is that Kerry did not volunteer for Vietnam. As he was finishing college, he faced the draft. He asked for a deferment so that he could go to graduate school in Europe. When that was refused, he enlisted in the Navy. Most people in the Navy did not serve in dangerous spots in the Vietnam war, but in support, transport, etc., and in his first assignment Kerry was stationed well offshore on a radar ship or something. Then the Navy had a policy change and began deploying swift boats into the Mekong delta. Kerry was assigned to dangerous duty at that point, but I do not believe that he ever planned to expose himself to such danger and was out of it 4 months later. I think he enlisted in what he thought would be relatively safe duty and guessed wrong, and only enlisted at all because he was already thinking about a political career and knew outright draft dodging would not be a good career move.

[Kozak]

So since my 8 years of service was not during war time ( except of course the Cold War), I don't get an opinion?

[zook]

What a hateful man.

[R W Reactionairy]

"Then the Navy had a policy change and began deploying swift boats into the Mekong delta. Kerry was assigned to dangerous duty at that point, but I do not believe that he ever planned to expose himself to such danger and was out of it 4 months later."

This is one question that I have had for a long time. Was Kerry's service on a swift boat a cosmic coincidence or was his service some sort of an an attempt on his part to replicate the war record of the other JFK on PT boats in World War Two??

My understanding of why he was "out of it 4 months later" [more like three] is that he had received three minor wounds which got him a legitimate out that would not negatively impact any future political career.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Half the casulaties we've had in Iraq are due to journalism's "lessons of Vietnam" and if a Kerry nomination eventuates it will bring the subject to the fore and there really will be no choice but to confront what John Kerry did with his medals.

And if America must confront it, it is perhaps optimal that the man who confronts it is not a General Patton or an Audie Murphy but someone who did not charge heedlessly into battle in Vietnam. That is after all true of most baby boomers as well, and if George must make the argument he will do so with due humility in that context.

The argument cannot be, "I went to Vietnam and won a battle singlehandedly--and you should have, too!" The argument must be,

Americans were presented with Hobson's choice in Vietnam. The leadership we had in Washington in those years was not able to restrain itself from lunging into Vietnam, and was not able to execute a winning strategy either. That put the men in our nation's service--and those subject to the draft--in a terrible bind.

I went into the Texas Air National Guard as a pilot. Although that trained me to be able to be able to make a contribution in any serious mobilization, and although it exposed me to some risk of serious personal consequences of an operational accident, it also was not a ticket directly to Vietnam. Both before and after I entered the Guard, others served honorably and admirably in Vietnam--and in Washington there is a memorial to the fact that too often their service was ultimately sacrificial.

Others who were subject to the draft law which America discontinued a little later declined to serve and even left the country to avoid that demand. And it fell to President Carter to lance the boil of that terrible unfairness by pardoning all who declined to serve. Yet in redressing that grievance there remained a corresponding unfairness to those who suffered distress and injury in a service which they would not voluntarily have chosen, and especially to those who showed valor in the face of the enemy and were never truly given recognition by society for that service.

So this contest is between two men who were subject to the draft some thirty years ago. One of them served honorably in the National Guard, and has always honored those who served honorably in any capacity because he ruefully views society's need for such service as a necessity. Even while recognizing the fabulous cost in blood and treasure that America has paid in my lifetime and before.

The other man served with some distinction in face of the enemy. But it is not that distinction which has defined his public life. Senator Kerry returned from combat determined that no one else should win recognition in American society for such service--and in all the years since he has never advocated any improvement to military readiness and has never advocated the preferrment of anyone who would advocate military service.

I freely admit that I was not a man of the same serious purpose thirty years ago that I became twenty years ago, and ten years ago when I entered public life--and certainly that I became when the world changed on September 11, now two years past. But I have treated any office I have held--from National Guard officer to president--with respect. I hope that the officers and men of the present active-duty and reserves understand that I hold them in high honor. The last thing that would occur to me, the very last thing that would ever have occured to me, would be to hold any veteran's pride in his or her service to the country as a disqualification for public office. But, hard as it should be to imagine, that is in fact the record of Senator John Kerry.

The Democratic Party now places Senator Kerry's nomination before the country, and the nation will choose as it always has done. But as always is the case, the choice of a president entails judgements about society. Whatever you may think of me, you cannot vote for me without promoting the view that diligence in military affairs is an important part of the mandate of the Federal government. Whatever you think of Senator Kerry, you cannot vote for him without denigrating the idea of provision for the common defense and those who have proudly served it.

The Democratic Secretary of Defense in the Clinton Administration resigned in judgement of his own (Black Hawk Down) incompetence and was replaced by a Republican. The Reagan Administration's success in the Cold War entailed an aggressive reversal of course from the Carter Administration. And under SecDef McNamara, Vietnam went from a sideshow to a major American commitment which was FUBAR. In no small part due to the leadership of John Kerry there has not been a competent Democratic Secretary of Defense in fifty years.