Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Kerry: I Wouldn't Respond to Nuclear Attack
Newsmax ^ | 8/13/04 | Carl Limbacher

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.


TOPICS: Front Page News
KEYWORDS: issues; kerry; nationalinsecurity; nonukeskerry; nuclearfreeze; nuclearwar; unbelieveable
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-131 next last
To: Lady GOP

It's obvious that Kerry is no Harry Truman!


81 posted on 08/13/2004 8:53:52 AM PDT by Kackikat (,Kerry=the counterfeit, GWBush is the real deal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
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?

82 posted on 08/13/2004 9:01:48 AM PDT by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

No.


83 posted on 08/13/2004 9:04:35 AM PDT by Taliesan (fiction police)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Mo1

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


84 posted on 08/13/2004 9:08:57 AM PDT by null and void (Want to live in a socialist state now? Vote (D). Want to live in a socialist state soon? Vote (R)...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: coconutt2000

Thank you for sharing.


85 posted on 08/13/2004 9:13:05 AM PDT by null and void (Want to live in a socialist state now? Vote (D). Want to live in a socialist state soon? Vote (R)...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan
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.

86 posted on 08/13/2004 9:14:25 AM PDT by AndrewC (I am a Bertrand Russell agnostic, even an atheist.</sarcasm>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
Bump.
America needs to get to know John Kerry, and where he has stood on the issues for the last 35 years.
87 posted on 08/13/2004 9:47:19 AM PDT by T. Buzzard Trueblood ("You bet we might have." John Kerry on whether he would have gone to war in Iraq)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife; All
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.

88 posted on 08/13/2004 9:54:54 AM PDT by My2Cents (http://www.conservativesforbush.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent
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.

89 posted on 08/13/2004 10:13:49 AM PDT by Dems_R_Losers (Proud to be a Reagan Alumna!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
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.

90 posted on 08/13/2004 10:23:15 AM PDT by Prime Choice (The press is no longer free. Its bias exacts a heavy price with every report.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife

JFnK...nuff said.


91 posted on 08/13/2004 10:27:22 AM PDT by ApesForEvolution (DemocRATS are communists and want to destroy America only to replace it with the USSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan

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


92 posted on 08/13/2004 10:34:28 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Dems_R_Losers
"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.
93 posted on 08/13/2004 10:35:42 AM PDT by NJ_gent (Conservatism begins at home. Security begins at the border. Please, someone, secure our borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: All

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


94 posted on 08/13/2004 10:40:01 AM PDT by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: NJ_gent

Give it up. The distinction is beyond them.


95 posted on 08/13/2004 10:40:15 AM PDT by Taliesan (fiction police)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Carl/NewsMax

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.


96 posted on 08/13/2004 10:41:40 AM PDT by Tamzee (Tell me honestly, Honey... do these classified documents make me look fat?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jojodamofo
Honestly, the headline is ridiculous considering what is in the article ...

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

97 posted on 08/13/2004 10:44:02 AM PDT by Ichneumon ("...she might as well have been a space alien." - Bill Clinton, on Hillary, "My Life", p. 182)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: truthandlife
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.

98 posted on 08/13/2004 10:45:56 AM PDT by RightWhale (Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and establish property rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
A better headline

It will do for eighth grade dropouts.

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

99 posted on 08/13/2004 10:49:18 AM PDT by RightWhale (Withdraw from the 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty and establish property rights)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Taliesan; All

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.


100 posted on 08/13/2004 11:12:42 AM PDT by Quix (PRAYER WARRIORS, DO YOUR STUFF! LIVES AND NATIONS DEPEND ON IT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-131 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson