Kerry: I Wouldn't Respond to Nuclear Attack

Newsmax ^ | 8/13/04 | Carl Limbacher

[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.

[Kackikat]

It's obvious that Kerry is no Harry Truman!

[AndrewC]

And I am saying that the title was written by a conservative "ally", that it is a lie, and that FreeRepublic has much more of a vested interest is seeing our friends not lie than in seeing the New York Times not lie.

So you feel the title is more of an important issue to Free Republic than the election of a president whose attitude is displayed in the text of the article? The title is the title. It could say Kerry is a Bozo. Is that a lie?

[Taliesan]

No.

[null and void]

I've printed off a dozen copies of that as a gift for drivers with kerry stickers...

[null and void]

Thank you for sharing.

[AndrewC]

And you may be relieved to know that I'm dropping this now.

I'm sorry. I didn't see this before my previous response.

[T. Buzzard Trueblood]

Bump.
America needs to get to know John Kerry, and where he has stood on the issues for the last 35 years.

[My2Cents]

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.

According to the swiftees, when their boats were under fire, Kerry ran, only coming back when it was clear there was no enemy fire. So, if Kerry will defend this nation like he defended it in Vietnam, we can assume that when we're fired upon, Kerry will run.

[Dems_R_Losers]

The article is NOT misleading, it is factual. Kerry was a prominent "anti-anti-communist" in the 1970s and 1980s and a loud critic of Reagan's defense policy even when he was only the Lt. Gov. of Massachusetts. This kind of resolution was in vogue in liberal cities during the 80s, akin to the "nuclear-free zone" declarations by Berkeley, CA and Takoma Park, MD among others. But this EO is much more serious because it was not just a political statement against nuclear weapons, it left an entire state vulnerable with no plan in case of a nuclear attack. Massachusetts is the second closest State to the USSR. It thus would have been a likely top target of Soviet nukes. Kerry's executive order was typical of the deluded left mentality that said we can stop nuclear war by refusing to prepare for it and by unilaterally disarming. He was wrong then and he is wrong today. People with this pacifist mentality cannot change their stripes and they cannot be trusted to win a war on terror!

I hope the Republicans HANG Kerry on this and his other silly statements about nuclear weapons and the USSR in the 1980s.

[Prime Choice]

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.

Well sonuvab****. I always figured Kerry for a weasel who would make the world safe only for our enemies. And there's the frickin' PROOF.

This needs to be played up, big-time.

[ApesForEvolution]

JFnK...nuff said.

[Sacajaweau]

Remember those practice drills in the 50's by the local CIVIL DEFENSE UNITS?

[NJ_gent]

"The article is NOT misleading, it is factual."

That's super - except that I didn't say a word about the article. What I complained about was the misleading title. The title was constructed in such a way as to make it appear as though candidate Kerry said that, as President, he would not respond militarily to a nuclear attack against the United States. The article, whose accuracy I've not questioned, has nothing to do with military responses to nuclear attacks against the United States, but rather with civil defense (specifically civilian evacuation) plans in the state of Massachusits during the Cold War. Whether you like Kerry or not, using a sensationalized, misleading headline is completely and totally dishonest. Like I said, it's exactly what the NY Times does.

"I hope the Republicans HANG Kerry on this and his other silly statements about nuclear weapons and the USSR in the 1980s."

Kerry's record provides plenty of fuel to burn his chances at winning the election, so there's no need to deceive, mislead, or lie in order to win. I'm not going to give Newsmax a free pass on a deceptive headline just because the article contains factual information damaging to the Kerry campaign. Using headlines like this, Newsmax would make itself the NY Times of the right. Personally, I don't like the NY Times, and I don't want them on my side.

[Sacajaweau]

This seems to fit with his most recent idea that we should form neighborhood watch groups...looking for terrorists no less!! (He states that we do it to find criminals...so why not look for terrorists?) The guy is brilliant!! :-O

[Taliesan]

Give it up. The distinction is beyond them.

[Tamzee]

Regarding the headline, it can be very difficult to cram the essence of an entire article into one tiny phrase and still maintain pinpoint accuracy.

I was very glad to see you highlighting this aspect of Kerry's record and publishing information about his leaving Massachusetts citizens vulnerable to unnecessary greater harm in the event of a nuclear attack. I'm grateful that you and your site are out there fighting for the right.

[Ichneumon]

Honestly, the headline is ridiculous considering what is in the article ...

True. A better headline would be, "Kerry refused to prepare for nuclear attack".

[RightWhale]

believe that (evacuation) plans are absolutely futile and that there are no safehavens from nuclear war.''

Maybe evac is totally futile and counterproductive. But that isn't the only idea. Everybody from the 50s knows enough to build a fallout shelter and stock it. In case of nuclear war, find an old guy and do what he says.

[RightWhale]

A better headline

It will do for eighth grade dropouts.

I'm not indicating anyone specifically, but they know who they are.

[Quix]

imho,

your point has some validity and is well made.

HOWEVER,

I somewhat significantly disagree.

HIS RESPONSE AHEAD OF TIME was to do nothing.

He indicated in his attitude and wording that he felt that responding to a nuclear attack WAS POINTLESS, FUTILE. I think that's quite clear enough in the document.

It's clear that he felt that not only was it pointless, futile, ridiculous to plan for nuclear war--it would be the same to respond to one--impossible, in his view--everyone would be obliterated etc.

I think that's quite clear and quite sufficient for the headline.