Replies

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.

"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.