Posted on 08/13/2004 7:04:03 AM PDT by truthandlife
John Kerry told Democrats gathered in Boston two weeks ago that he defended his country as a young soldier in Vietnam and he would defend it again as president.
But as Michael Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor, Kerry authored an executive order that said the state of Massachussetts would refuse to take part in any civil defense efforts in response to a nuclear attack on America.
The presidential candidate was an ardent proponent of the nuclear freeze at the time, and viewed Cold War civil defense preparations as an attempt to delude the American people into thinking a nuclear exchange was survivable.
Lt. Gov. Kerry's executive order on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts read in part:
"Whereas the existing and potential strength of nuclear weapons is such that nuclear war can neither be won nor survived, it can only be prevented; and Whereas the only effective defense against the horrors of nuclear weapons lies in their elimination and in the prevention of nuclear war or attacks, [the Commonwealth of Massachusetts] shall seek to ensure the safety of its citizens by pursuit of policies reflecting a serious commitment to prevention of nuclear war."
"Such policies," the Kerry directive continued, "shall include education of citizens concerning the real nature of nuclear war and efforts to influence national policy towards negotiation of an end to the nuclear-arms race."
The Kerry order stated emphatically, however: "No funds shall be expended by the Commonwealth for crisis relocation planning for nuclear war."
Monica Conyngham, Lt. Gov. Kerry's spokeswoman at the time, defended the controversial document, telling reporters, ''We believe that (evacuation) plans are absolutely futile and that there are no safehavens from nuclear war.''
Gov. Dukakis signed Kerry's "no nuclear defense" executive order into law on June 28, 1984.
When your neighbor's kid tells a fib, you make a note of it and go on. When your own kid fibs, you stop the day and make an issue of it.
Kerry in Massachusetts: No Defense Possible Against Nuclear Attack
"No Response" is quite a different subject entirely, and is the substance of the whopper.
And you may be relieved to know that I'm dropping this now.
I sent this to my email list with a fierce commentary and highlighting. Maybe I'll post below . . .
---------------------------
Dear Ones,
In this era wherein Al Qaeda likely has 20-48 nuckear weapons already prepositioned in the USA . . . with China likely having them in Panama and possibly Nicuragua and/or even Mexico . . . Who knows what's in Cuba now . . .
The following DOCUMENTED SKERRY policy statements on nuclear war are more than a little sobering. He insists he would NOT RESPOND to a nuclear attack. It's even worse lunacy that he'd declare so ahead of time! Kinda fits that he's such a bedmate of French appeasement monkeys! --LUB,
----------------------------
Kerry: I Wouldn't Respond to Nuclear Attack Newsmax ^ | 8/13/04 | Carl Limbacher
Posted on 08/13/2004 8:04:03 AM MDT by truthandlife
John Kerry told Democrats gathered in Boston two weeks ago that he defended his country as a young soldier in Vietnam and he would defend it again as president.
[Rahhhhht. Defending it for ~4 months in country, a year well off shore and then aiding and abetting the enemy for much longer afterwards is REALLLLLL comforting SKERRY!]
But as Michael Dukakis' Lieutenant Governor, Kerry authored an executive order that said the state of Massachussetts would refuse to take part in any civil defense efforts in response to a nuclear attack on America.
The presidential candidate was an ardent proponent of the nuclear freeze at the time, and viewed Cold War civil defense preparations as an attempt to delude the American people into thinking a nuclear exchange was survivable.
[Note: The Soviets have construed, with sound reason, that most nuclear wars are likely to be survivable by at least sufficient proportions of the population to carry on. This is THEIR CURRENT thinking and planning as is it CERTAINLY the thinking and planning of the Chinese--who have considerably more people to survive with.]
Lt. Gov. Kerry's executive order on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts read in part:
"Whereas the existing and potential strength of nuclear weapons is such that nuclear war can neither be won nor survived [far too many factors to make such an all inclusive statement], it can only be prevented; and Whereas the only effective defense against the horrors of nuclear weapons lies in their elimination and in the prevention of nuclear war or attacks, [the Commonwealth of Massachusetts] shall seek to ensure the safety of its citizens by pursuit of policies reflecting a serious commitment to prevention of nuclear war."
"Such policies," the Kerry directive continued, "shall include education of citizens concerning the real nature of nuclear war and efforts to influence national policy towards negotiation of an end to the nuclear-arms race."
The Kerry order stated emphatically, however: "No funds shall be expended by the Commonwealth for crisis relocation planning for nuclear war."
Monica Conyngham, Lt. Gov. Kerry's spokeswoman at the time, defended the controversial document, telling reporters, ''We believe that (evacuation) plans are absolutely futile and that there are no safehavens from nuclear war.''
Gov. Dukakis signed Kerry's "no nuclear defense" executive order into law on June 28, 1984.
-------------------------
This is also in keeping with SKERRY'S declared intentions of surrendering authority over our military to the UN [He'd likely argue in certain contexts but I think his track record and philosophical bent is to do so wholesale ASAP] as well as his clear intentions to energetically support the world government.
Perhaps we'd need to duct tape a certain someone to the first nuke sent
a la
Dr Strangelove?
Now his plans focus on the hypothetical aftermath (fire crews, etc), not the pre-emption or prevention of attack.
As with his recent Iraq war votes, Kerry is 180 degrees out of phase with where he rationally and politically ought to be.
A state gov't is responsible for civil defense, not geopolitical strategy. A President should be primarily responsible for deterrence and prevention and military strategy, and not for the logistics of evacuation and cleanup.
NewsMax sinks to another low. We can defeat Kerry on the facts without resorting to deceiptful stories and juvenile yellow journalism.
RIGHT ON!
I suppose he'd love to trot out something like the following, perhaps in French, first . . .
"I, SKERRY, PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE WORLD GOVERNMENT and all the mindless mass tyranny it's building toward.
--One world;
--One lowest common denominator of existence;
--One empty religion and one mindless 'all is one' philosophy morphing into a worse satan worshipping cult;
--One long string of death camps;
--One inferior country after another seeded with all the death we can send their way;
--One mindless environmentalism;
. . .
and all the other mindlessness, evil an idiocy for which it stands . . .
--under satan, indivisable with no justice and much fewer all.
crap his pants and cry?
Perhaps.
Not sure he has enough character to cry.
He might just as likely whimper endlessly in a dark corner under a desk somewhere.
I think the drift of the article and SKERRY'S mindset represented therein is very in keeping--very in logical keeping with the title.
It's certainly in keeping with his mindless appeasement/philosophical garbage demonstrated over his adult life and in his voting record.
SUPER SOBERING.
The same thug in a bar in Dodge City in the 19th century is far less menacing, since all the patrons are armed.
Along with a rope, a tree, and a frisky horse.
Say what?
I suppose he would not respond after he responded? Or what? I'm having trouble with kerry-speak.
From reading the article I don't understand how they get that statement.
The true statement is that there would be no "civil defense" response.
The statement seems to lead you to believe that Kerry wouldn't fire back in response to a nuclear attack.
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.
