Posted on 08/30/2004 4:43:31 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
A whirlwind seems to have engulfed the Kerry’s campaign blowing it off course and threatening to submerge this floundering vessel. Senator Kerry as a young naval officer never faced a tempest like the one he has encountered coming upon him with the fury of a Hurricane Charley in waves of criticism lashing at his actions both during and after his brief service as a swift boat commander. Judging by the Democrat’s furious reaction to this unexpected change in weather in poll ratings, this political storm of rebuttal is doing some real damage to the facade that has been the Kerry campaign. The public must also be bewildered and wondering why Kerry’s Vietnam involvement of over 30 years ago should rate such high importance in this year’s campaign. It matters for two reasons. One, because John Kerry says it does and two, because this deep-seated emotional drama has given the voters a glimpse into just what John Kerry’s “One Amerika” might entail.
No other national experience in recent history is more laden with angst and weighs upon the spirit of our country than its convoluted confrontation with communism in South East Asia. How could John Kerry not be aware that the passions connected with these events of so long ago were still smoldering in the hearts of men forced to live through them and that the memories and the pain of those years were still fresh as the day they were seared into their consciences? Was his own personal brush with danger so brief and cursory that he was unaffected emotionally by the trauma of war such that he can now blithely parade his participation oblivious to decade old wounds and simmering resentments? Did he really think those whose lives were forever altered by the war would forgive and forget all about his role in affecting the outcome? Certainly he was aware of his own foibles and the controversies he has aroused. So why would he gamble his whole election effort on advancing his military experience? Was this a deliberate distraction or just plain stupid?
Even the Democrats cannot pretend any longer that the country is not at war. Maybe having an actual decorated war hero in the ranks of the anti-war Democratic party was such a rarity that they just had to take advantage of it and nominate a person who otherwise had led an undistinguished political career, one in fact that completely belies his own credentials as a “warrior.” The Democrat campaign must have felt reasonably assured that no negative attacks concerning Kerry’s Vietnam involvement would follow from the Bush campaign whose focus is on current issues. What they did not expect or perhaps could not imagine was that in the land of the free and the home of the brave, there could be such a vigorous reply from those whose memories are not short and whose love for country surpasses personal comfort or ambition.
Faced with declining support from veterans and new speculation about his veracity and judgment, John Kerry had to decide on a course of action to repair damage and navigate through these heavily mined waters. Several options were available to him. Before him lay the opportunity of lifetime. Because of his worldwide visibility in a U.S. national election, he could have brought closure to troublesome unfinished age-old events, ending the suspense and perhaps bringing some healing to millions of people that have suffered for the last 33 years. He could have followed the advice of veteran and retired Senator Bob Dole, whose body bears the oblivious evidence of violence from an earlier terrible war, by admitting as a confused young man fresh from the battlefield that he had been mistaken and then making an apology to all whose lives were adversely affected by his words and actions.
Tragically for history’s sake and for those afflicted with bitterness, John Kerry refused to forsake this opportunistic controversial position on the Vietnam conflict that has so effectively propelled his anti-war career with left-leaning liberals aboard the adrift Democrat ship. A spokesman for his campaign even reiterated Kerry’s 1971 claim before a Senate hearing that his accounts of widespread atrocities committed by American soldiers in the field as a matter of official policy were not “overstated.”
Why does this remain a fervent issue after 33 years? Because John Kerry remains unrepentant of the harm and disgrace that he personally has brought upon so many who honorably served their country’s interests. His small-mindedness and selfish ambition prevented him from seeing the enormous good that was within his power to do. His confession might have even ended this Vietnam squabble and returned the attention of voters to more crucial subjects. Evidently it is not in his nature to do so. As a result, the election has been sidelined and a tremendous amount of emotion is being expended over ultimately inconsequential matters in view of the jihadist threat against America. The voters are being cheated out of a sensible election involving legitimate and rational discussion of contemporary issues.
What is John Kerry trying to hide anyway? Is he embarrassed by his embellished war record or is he ashamed that he committed the types of atrocities that he accused others of? Whatever it is, it’s not worth holding on to. Americans are able to forgive and move on. He should be able to accept that. John Kerry has disclosed his Catholic affiliation. I hope someday that he will deal with whatever residual guilt is confounding his behavior. This “perfect storm” of criticism over the most controversial and formative period of his life is forcing the true Kerry out in the open seas. With the camouflage stripped away, maybe the voters can actually examine John Kerry’s true character and his attitudes regarding freedom of speech and political discourse in this country.
Rather making peace with the past and being the “uniter” that he promised, John Kerry has chosen to go on the offensive. In doing so, he has only made matters worse for himself. Early in the campaign Kerry stole President Bush’s expression “Bring it on” when he challenged the Republicans to a debate over Vietnam War records. He repeated it recently. That phrase was intended by George Bush to be a warning to the real enemies of the American people, the Islamic terrorists, that the United States is resolved to destroy them. Kerry’s world is so consumed by his own aspirations for power that he only sees political opponents as adversaries and he doesn’t even recognize or think about who the serious bad guys are. By using “Bring it on” in a political context, Kerry trivializes the president’s words. Furthermore, it was a hollow taunt on his part, because the criticism he has received from the Swift Boat vets and the Republican campaign, (though noticeably absent from the liberal media) was more than he was pleased with.
John Kerry understands that merely defending his record will not rescue his candidacy from drowning in controversy because he knows it’s indefensible. Consequently he has launched a comprehensive assault to either silence or discredit those who have brought conflicting evidence to his claims and moral judgments against his actions. As the first of three ads by the Swift Boat Veterans of Vietnam (SBVV) were about to be aired, the Kerry campaign threatened television stations to not show them saying they would be held “responsible for false and libelous charges.” John Kerry filed a legal complaint with the Federal Election Commission claiming that the ads produced by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), which is a 527 tax-exempt organization, were inaccurate and “illegally” coordinated. The vets insist that this is not necessarily about the 2004 election and that they have no connection with the Bush campaign. John Kerry even asked President Bush to fight his own battle for him and shut down the Swift Boat ads as if that was within the president’s authority to do so.
Filing the complaint was a most audacious move by Kerry considering that more than $60 M has been spent by groups such as MoveOn.org, the Media Fund and America Coming Together with clear Democrat connections in attacks on the Bush administration. And apparently, movie theatres are completely “free fire” zones where anyone can say anything without the benefit of evidence as long as they have enough money. Moreover, musicians and Hollywood celebrities have demonstrated uninhibited support for Kerry while spouting senseless malicious remarks about President Bush’s personal character. John Kerry has plenty of people to “do his dirty work.”
As soon as the book, “Unfit for Command” authored by John O’Neil and Jerome Corsi of the SBVT hit the bookstands, John Kerry wanted to ban it. He pressured Regency Publishing not to distribute it. Liberal writer David Brock of Media Matters for America wrote to Wal-Mart, Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble calling on them to consider the “responsibility of book sellers when it becomes established that prominent non-fiction books are based on false information.” Attorney turned Senator and VP pick John Edwards who has no service record in Vietnam, also accused the SBVT of libel. Some Swift Boats vets have been contacted illegally by Democrat campaign staff to dissuade them from speaking out. Incredibly, according to a report in the New York Daily News, Democrat operatives are compiling incriminating dossiers on various members of the Swift Boat Veterans.
It appears by the cruelest of ironies that those who fought to keep America free are not free to speak themselves. They have certainly earned it. Does anyone in the whole Democrat organization beginning at the top have a problem with this? The party of tolerance seems to have a low tolerance for any opinion other then their own and the truth. The Swift Boat vets have as much right to tell their story as those veterans who support Kerry. A veterans group wrote to Kerry, “There is no double standard for our right to free speech.” Max Cleland, recipient of campaign contributions from “Hanoi” Jane Fonda, was sent on a publicity stunt to Crawford Texas to demand that President Bush condemn the Swift Boat ads. He moralized, “...to attack a fellow veteran who has distinguished himself…is disgraceful.” Again he said, “An attack on valorous service of a fellow American is wrong? Yet isn’t that exactly what they are doing to the Swift Boat vets?
No one should be surprised by the enthusiasm and vigor whereby the Democrat operatives took to the task of trashing these veterans. This has always been what they do best. Just as the overseas military absentee ballots were not counted in the Florida 2000 elections, the Democrats once again expose their covert intrinsic distain or “loathing” for the military. John Kerry has reverted to the same old tried and true tactics that he has been practicing for decades of cover-up and slander. John Kerry is not just ant-war, he is anti-soldier. He launched his career at the expense of the American soldier and he hopes to climax it with slander of veterans
These strong-arm tactics are reminiscent of the abuse by the draft-dodger Clinton administration who used the power of the Federal government to harass and intimidate his political rivals. FBI classified personnel files were pilfered by a White House aid that could have been used to blackmail Republican Party officials. Clinton launched IRS audits of strictly conservative organizations and individuals. Under Project Megiddo, Clinton directed the FBI to investigate any organization that believed the book of Revelation in the Bible. His idea of a paramilitary militia group was three men on a shooting range. When the Oklahoma City bombing occurred, he used the tragedy to blame right wing conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich for inciting radicals like Timothy McVeigh with hate speech. Clinton was only “enforcing the law” when he incinerated 80 some religious eccentrics in Waco who were “guilty” of exercising their 2nd Amendment rights. Clinton also denied the seriousness of the Islamofacist threat and once said his only enemies were fundamentalist Christians.
John Kerry is showing disturbingly similar inclinations. In his acceptance speech at the Democrat convention where he showcased his Vietnam experience, he also referenced the U.S. Constitution several times. He made a plea to President Bush saying, “Let’s build unity in the America family, not angry division. Let’s honor this nation’s diversity; let’s respect one another; let’s never misuse for political purposes the most precious document in American history, the Constitution of the United States….that’s why Republicans and Democrats must make this election a contest of big ideas, not small minded attacks.” The sentiment is admirable, but in light of what has occurred in recent months, these words ring especially hollow. Do the “values” that Kerry references so often include basic freedom of speech? Does Kerry have a different view of the First Amendment than what is commonly understood just as he has a unique interpretation of the Bible?
Elsewhere in the speech, Kerry charged, “And I will appoint an attorney general who actually upholds the Constitution of the United States.” This was obviously an attack on the Patriot Act passed by Congress that has been impugned as a threat to civil liberties. John Kerry’s attitude and actions against the Swift Boat veterans reveal a complete disregard for their First Amendment rights. Concerning the 2nd Amendment, the National Rifle Association has given Kerry an “F” rating. Are we witnessing the ultimate expression of elitism, aided and abetted by the liberal media, academia and the entertainment industry, where freedoms are selectively granted by a reigning establishment that exempts itself from the rules of law and ethics? Can conservatives expect equal protection under the law under a Kerry administration? What would a President Kerry do with all the power of the justice department and the executive branch behind him when dealing with dissent or opposition? Would he truly “defend the Constitution” if sworn in, if he does not respect it now?
I'm gonna vote for 'just plain stupid.' Unlike the fawning press, I actually don't believe he has the capacity for the 'nuance' of distraction.
I don't believe it's guilt that is his motivator, but sheer ambition and lack of moral character. That's his similarity to Clinton - the chameleon quality. He takes on whatever 'color' he needs to according to the environment in which he finds himself.
It appears by the cruelest of ironies that those who fought to keep America free are not free to speak themselves. They have certainly earned it. Does anyone in the whole Democrat organization beginning at the top have a problem with this? The party of tolerance seems to have a low tolerance for any opinion other then their own and the truth.
A standing ovation for the spot-on Mr. Busch! :)
Wow. Just wow.
I believe the Kerry campaign reaction to adversity is what has spooked undecideds.
Threatening a publisher for publishing a book because something in it may not be absolutely correct?
Threatening to sue radio and TV media for playing an opposing viewpoint?
If Kerry is not destroying himself, why does he keep begging Bush to interrupt?
"Incredibly" is the wrong adverb. What would be incredible is if they didn't compile these dossiers. After all, we're talking about democrats here.
New York Times Bestsellers List
Complete Hardcover Fiction List
Bump!
Bump!
Great BOOKMARK backhoe!
Bump!
While Bush is waging a honorable and important WOT, the dims and Kerry seem incapable of anything other than waging a war on Bush. The dims just don't get how untrustworthy they come across.
Fortunately for America he is not the president.
Fortunately for America the crisis is not dangerous.
He is displaying the Clinton/Democrat crisis management style of....
"please just make it go away"
BTT
You post good stuff. GREAT analysis by Mr. Busch.
Excellent thanks for posting.
This is not an either/or question. Kerry is trying to cover up both of these.
"Under Project Megiddo, Clinton directed the FBI to investigate any organization that believed the book of Revelation in the Bible."
I had never heard this so did a google search on Project Megiddo and read the FBI's report. It is not at all clear how much investigating of groups was actually done, but the paranoi of the FBI concerning apocalyptic groups around the time of y2k is really funny to read now.
My thought-- we actually PAY people to study this sort of nonsense? The report states that it is important for the FBI to understand the thinking of such groups. My response to that is no, it's not, what's important is to catch and prosecute people who commit crimes. That's it, that's all.
Bump!
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.